Hi John:

One example of what I am saying would be the way we drill holes in the earth and pump out oil and oxidize it and the resulting energy flux soon dissipates, can do little more useful work, and radiates into space. If the oil was left in place it could be many millions of years before it oxidized.

If a thermodynamic system always finds the fastest path to maximum entropy then in our universe entities such as we would be inevitable.

My current approach to "existence" results in a fully quantized mulitverse in which some objects [divisions of my list] are states of individual universes. The level of a logically unavoidable [no selection] object interaction parameter is unevenly distributed over all the objects in the multiverse. This distribution is in a state of random flux due to logical incompleteness and inconsistency of the multiverse. I have called this parameter "physical reality". A high degree [maximum] of this physical reality parameter therefore "moves" from object to object. The levels of this physical reality can not logically [no selection] be just binary [maximum:none] but must logically [no selection] have all possible other quantifications. The random flux can produce infinitely long sequences of objects with maximally high degrees of this parameter that could be interpreted as being successive "now" states of well behaved evolving universes.

A non binary quantification for this parameter level [as mentioned above] for such a sequence could "bridge" successive states and perhaps be the origin of what we call consciousness.

Now that model may be "physical" in a sense but there does not seem to be a need for a material substrate. The parameter is just a property of objects that can change while all their other properties remain fixed. I also think that Bruno's comp model might fit inside such a multiverse since some of the object sequences could be associated with the trace of a UD.

Hal Ruhl

At 06:59 PM 12/31/2006, you wrote:
so yhou look at it... (at what?) - anyway from the standpoint of the 'physical' model.
Can you come closer totell what you are 'looking at'?
Happy 2007!
John M

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to