`I hope no one minds but it seemed to me that my last few posts re my model`

`were very interesting [at least to me] and so should be joined together for`

`a degree of completeness and so that any comments can use just one post for`

`reference.`

Model

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. Evolving`

`Somethings are unlikely to reach completeness short of encompassing the`

`entire All. 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.`

An analysis of the model:

`My model's foundation is not mathematics but the list of potential`

`properties of things. The only mathematical like concepts I then use are`

`power set, incompleteness, and inconsistency and these are derived from`

`simply parsing the list. If my list is infinite and countable and its line`

`items representable by finite bit strings then my starting point is just`

`the natural numbers [including zero] along with an assignment of meaning to`

`each.`

`As I understand it the cardinality of the set of subsets of the natural`

`numbers [i.e. the All and its kernels as power set] is the same as the`

`cardinality of the reals i.e. c. One can therefore form a one to one`

`correspondence between the kernels and the reals. In this pairing the real`

`member of the pair can be thought of as representing the kernel half of the`

`pair. Therefore the All is just the set of reals with an assigned meaning`

`for each.`

Self awareness and consciousness:

`If the All is just the set of reals with an assigned meaning for each then`

`undoubtedly some of these meanings would be kernels that contain sub`

`kernels describing Self Aware Structures [SAS]. Given the random nature of`

`the dynamic I derive in my model for the evolution of Somethings, the`

`Instantation of Reality given to kernels as they are encompassed by the`

`Somethings will have dwells of all durations. Some dwells for some kernels`

`representing states of universes will have a duration that provides an`

`apparent connection between states or "flow of awareness" [a "flow of`

`consciousness"] for its SAS.`

Hal Ruhl