Sorry I did not respond earlier.
Lately I do not have time to read the list posts and respond during the week.
At 04:02 PM 1/29/2007, you wrote:
>Hal, a decade ago I 'read' your text easier than now: you firmed up
>your vocabulary - gradually out of my understanding. Sorry.
>You seem to accept 'observer moments' and their interaction - even
>postulate one variable needed.
Observer moments and states of universes I take as being identical.
To say that they do not interact is a selection. Selections create
information and I prefer the point of view that the top level system
should have zero net information. The All [has many other names
suppose] has zero net information because it contains all
information. I separate out of the information zero "All" for
examination a list of all properties that an object can have. That
is I select a boundary in the All from among its infinite number of
boundaries. My list being a list can be countably infinite and the
set of all its sub sets would then be uncountably infinite. There
are then an uncountably infinite number of objects which can be taken
to be states of universes.
>How long is an OM? a million years (cosmology) or a msec?
States of universes have permanent uniform existence. The question
is how "long" can they have a non zero hyper existence. The answer
is all values [to avoid more selection].
>Even if it is a portion of the latter, it makes the existence quite
>discontinuous - with all the difficulties in it. If it is
>continuous, then how can we talk about 'moments'? Should we assign
>an equal rate change to all existence (meaning: ONE selection for
>the OM length)? If it can be ANY, varying from the infinitely short
>to the other extreme, it would 'wash away' any sense of the meaning
>of an Observer MOMENT concept.
My flow of hyper existence with its possible non binary pulse shapes
could make consciousness "continuous" for some sequences of
states. SAS might find a universe state sequence in which the pulse
rises from zero to 1 and then back to zero in a many step stair case
fashion user friendly.
>I think the OM is the figment of us, human observers, who want to
>use an 'understandable' model. [Like: numbers (in the human logic sense).]
>Then, in view of the resulting 'unfathomable', we 'complicate' these
>models - originally created FOR comprehension - into
>incomprehensibility. [The way as e.g. to bridge Bohm's Explicate to
>the Implicate (by Nic de Cusa's 2nd principle, left out by Bohm:
>the "Complicate" - what I like to assign as math).]
>That 'one' variable property you mention as needed for state-
>interaction is IMO not necessarily o n e within our (present) comprehension.
I identify my list's sub sets as states of universes. The
interaction variable I call hyper existence could be compared with a
UD trace. When the trace lands on a state it gets a non zero hyper
existence. You could have UDs that assign a 0.1 hyper existence, UDs
that assign a 0.2 value, UDs that assign a 0.8 value, UDs that
assign a 1.0 value etc. etc. Now all my model would ask for next is
for a sting of universe states that look like ours is in lasting
[infinite] compatible set of UD trace intersections. Since all UDs
are infinitely nested, an infinite set of such trace intersection
sets would be obtained. My model has a dynamic originated in the
incompleteness of some of the list sub sets and this dynamic has a
random content due to the internal and external inconsistency of some
of the list's sub sets.
As far as I can tell from this, my model may include Bruno's model as a subset.
----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Hal Ruhl
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 11:02 PM
Subject: RE: ASSA and Many-Worlds
One thing that I do not agree with is what seems to me to be a common
holding regarding observer moments [by this I mean discrete states of
universes [which are a sub set of possible "objects"]] is that they
are each so far assumed to have a set of properties that are to some
extent the same as other observer moments and to some extent
different from all other observer moments [to distinguish individual
moments] but nevertheless the properties of an individual observer
moment are fixed for that observer moment.
This to me is not logical since it is a selection and why that
selection? Why not have some blend of variable properties and fixed
properties as a possibility? This seems more in accord with a zero
Further, if it is also held that observer moments can not interact -
that is also a selection.
I have proposed in other posts that there should be at least one
variable property through which universe states can interact. The
idea is that all possible universe states have a uniform existence
property, but also can have an addition property that is a variable
that one could call hyper existence through which they can
interact. They interact by mutually altering each others hyper
existence property. This variable property should not have just a
binary set of values as a possibility but should also have many
discrete levels as a possibility - again to avoid selection. In
other words a universe state could experience a non square pulse of
hyper existence which could span many of the "this particular state"
to other state interactions. This would be like a "wave" of hyper
existence propagating through some succession of universe
states. Non binary, non square pulses of propagating hyper existence
could be a basis for what is called "consciousness" - a "flow" of
Given a random component to the underlying dynamic [which I have also
discussed ] some such wave propagations with non binary, non square
pulses of hyper existence would be through infinite strings of
successive states that would all be "life" - and even beyond that -
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at