At 12:12 PM 1/7/2008, you 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
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.
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