Hal, me again (John):
Do you seriously mean "How many Nothings"?
On Jan 7, 2008 12:12 PM, John Mikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I read your post with appreciation (did not follow EVERY word in it
> though) - it reminded me of my "Naive Ode (no rhymes) of Ontology"
> dating back into my "pre-Everythinglist" times, that started something
> "...In the Beginning there was Nothingness ( - today I would add:
> observer of itself). When it realized that it IS nothingness, that was
> providing this information - making it into a Somethingness. The rest
> is history. (Chris Lofting would say: it went alongside
> Differentiation and Integration).
> A minor remark: I would not denigrate Mama Nature by using the word
> 'bifurcation' - indicating that "only 2" chances in the impredicative
> unlimited totality.
> As a second (even more minor) remark: "All possible states" sounds to
> me as being restricted to the level "WE" find possible. Since
> cave-times (I don't go further) we have encountered many things that
> looked like impossible. I wonder if Bruno's unlimited Loebian Machine
> considers anything 'iompossible'?
> Have a good 2008
> John M
> On Jan 6, 2008 3:54 PM, Hal Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Russell:
> > I have at last found a opportunity to start looking at your
> > book. Thanks for the cite.
> > My view has been that the Nothing is incomplete because it contains
> > no ability to answer meaningful questions about itself and there is
> > one it must answer and that is its duration. This question is always
> > asked and must be answered. To answer it the Nothing must acquire
> > information and become a Something.
> > Most initial Something landing pads - so to speak - will also be
> > incomplete and continue the quest for completeness. Such a quest
> > must exhibit a monotonic increase in information in that Something.
> > Therefore the initial observation of an incomplete and unstable
> > Nothing has within it the imposition of an ordered sequence of
> > compatible states for a Something each containing more information
> > than the last - that is the imposition of time.
> > Each step of the quest has an equal but opposite twin and so to
> > minimize selection a Something bifurcates at each one.
> > The Everything contains enough Nothings [meaningful question: How
> > many more Nothings beyond 1 are in the Everything? Minimum selection
> > response: unlimited.] so that all paths to completeness are followed
> > over and over forever.
> > Hal Ruhl
> > > >
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at