Hi Russell:
At 07:20 PM 8/29/2005, you wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 10:18:22AM -0400, Hal Ruhl wrote:
>
> I have argued that the Nothing is incomplete [its "mate" - I call it the
> All - may be inconsistent due to its completeness] and the collection -
> Nothing + All + the definition - I call the Everything]. If the Nothing
> is incomplete and the All is not is this a violation of mathematical
> duality?
>
> Hal Ruhl
>
Perhaps "completeness" <-> "consistency" under the duality
operation. So a demonstration of nothing being incomplete is
equivalent to a demonstration that the all is inconsistent.
So my definition idea then could hold the two together in a one step up
system which is just data devoid of meaning = no information?
Observer?:
But the system internally seems poised in a state of unstable equilibrium
since the Nothing must eventually address the question of its own
continuation - which is the origin of its incompleteness.
Thereby the equilibrium decays producing a randomly evolving Something [a
bounded but growing entity incorporating descriptions at random] in the All
[The All's inconsistency producing the randomness]. But at the level of
the Nothing and the All the system must reset itself so a new Nothing
emerges. The cycle repeats - another Something is initiated, etc. etc.
The incorporation process imparts an instantation of reality to the
description. The instantation of reality can randomly persist producing a
flow of awareness between descriptions.
A random process can produce long flows of awareness that look like ours.
The above seems like an adequate model of our universe but I do not see it
as observer driven at the level of the descriptions being incorporated [our
level].
I suppose that one could call the definition and the Somethings
descriptions that scan descriptions [making them observers?] but is either
conscious?
Hal Ruhl
