Hi, Hal:  -  Hopefully without risking strawmanship, a further remark
on our humanly limited language (however infiltrating into the
'meaning' of texts):
"...> What I indicated was all paths to completion."
does anything like 'completion' make sense in speaking about an
unlimited totality? Furthermore: are 'copies' considerable substantial
items, or simply our figment of looking from different angles into
different angles - at the same item?
I try to 'cut' my human incompleteness (didn't claim success) when
using a totality-vocabulary (way above my head) and all that may be in

1. If there is  -a- 'nothingness' does it multiply when we in our
human logic detect "it" again?
2. Do we assign qualia to nothingness? of course not.
-  I am inclined to sort nothingness with infinity: we can talk about
it but have no (human) reason-based meaning - understanding - about
its essence. Georg Cantor tried it for the "infinity" - what
I still consider a mathematical game of details - not the end.

Parlance: nothingness is different from nothing. Saying about a
construct "there is nothing in it about the storch" does not mean a
storch-restricted nothingness included as part of the construct.
So if there appears innumerable nothingness-occasions in the
everything - it may be our detection of the ONE - existing there
(=found?) many times over.
Would it jibe with your vocabulary?

John M

On Jan 7, 2008 9:31 PM, Hal Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 

Reply via email to