Hi John: At 12:12 PM 1/7/2008, you wrote:
>Hal, > > 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 >like: > >"...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. I agree that there can be a multiplicity of simultaneous splits. This was a mistake I realized later. >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'? What I indicated was all paths to completion. I suspect that there may be sequences within the Everything that would not be on such paths. Yes I did mean an unlimited number of Nothings in the Everything. For the Everything to contain just one copy of the information in it would be a selection. Rather it needs to contain an unlimited number of copies. >Have a good 2008 Thanks, you too. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
