Hi John:

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
>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 

Reply via email to