# Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

I have attached a revision to my model re recent discussions and would appreciate comments.
```
Definitions:```
```
```
The list of all possibilities: The list of all the possible properties and aspects of things. This list can not be empty since there is unlikely to be less than nothing and a nothing has at least one property - emptiness. The list is most likely at least countably infinite.
```
```
Information: Information is the potential to establish a boundary on the list of all possibilities.
```
Kernel of information: The information relevant to a specific boundary.

The All: The complete ensemble of kernels.

The Nothing: That which is empty of all kernels.

```
The Everything: The boundary which establishes the All and separates it from the Nothing and thus it also establishes the Nothing. It could be said to contain both.
```
A Something: A division [by a boundary] of the All into two subparts.

```
True Noise: The inconsistency of the evolution of a Something reflected in the course of physical reality given to universes within it.
```
Model

```
Proposal: The Existence of our and other universes and their dynamics are the result of unavoidable definition and logical incompleteness.
```
Justification:

```
1) Notice that "Defining" is the same as establishing a boundary - on the list of all possibilities [1def] - between what a thing is and what it is not. This defines a second thing: the "is not". A thing can not be defined in isolation.
```
2) Given the definitions of the All, the Nothing, and the Everything:

```
3) These definitions are interdependent because you can not have one without the whole set.
```
```
4) These definitions are unavoidable because at least one of the [All, Nothing] pair must exist. Since they form an [is, is not] pair they bootstrap each other into existence via a single combined definition - the Everything.
```
```
5) The Nothing has a logical problem: since it is empty of kernels it can not answer any meaningful question about itself including the unavoidable one of its own stability [persistence].
```
```
6) To answer this unavoidable question the Nothing must at some point "penetrate" the boundary between itself and the All [the only place information resides] in an attempt to complete itself. This could be viewed as a spontaneous symmetry breaking.
```
```
7) However, the boundary is permanent as required by the definitional [is, is not] pairing and a Nothing must be restored.
```
```
8) Thus the "penetration" process repeats in an always was and always will be manner.
```
```
9) The boundary "penetration" described above produces a shock wave [a boundary] that moves into the All as the old Nothing becomes a Something and tries to complete itself [perhaps like a Big Bang event]. This divides the All into two evolving Somethings - i.e. evolving multiverses. Notice that half the multiverses are "contracting" - i.e. losing kernels [but the cardinality of the number of kernels would be at least the cardinality of the list of all possibilities].
```
```
10) Notice that the All also has a logical problem. Looking at the same meaningful question of its own stability it contains all possible answers because just one answer would constitute an exclusion of specific kernels which is contradictory to the definition of the All as the complete kernel ensemble. Thus the All is internally inconsistent.
```
```
11) Therefore the motion of a shock wave boundary in the All must echo this inconsistency. That is each step in the motion as it encompasses kernel after kernel [the evolution of a Something] can not be completely dependent on any past motion of that boundary.
```
```
12) Some kernels are states of universes and when the boundary of an evolving Something passes about a kernel, the kernel can have a moment of physical reality. [This moment can extend so that successor states can have a degree of overlapping physical reality resulting in a "flow of consciousness" for some sequences for universes that contain Self Aware Structures.]
```
```
13) From within any Something the future pattern of reality moments due to (11) would be non deterministic i.e. suffer True Noise.
```
```
14) The All of course contains a kernel re the founding definition and thus there is an infinitely nested potential to have All/Nothing pairs. This completes the system in that the origin of the dynamic basically destroys [Nothing, All] pairs but there is an infinite potential to form new Nothings.
```
Hal Ruhl

```