# An All/Nothing multiverse model [united]

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

```