Hi, Hal: - Hopefully without risking strawmanship, a further remark on our humanly limited language (however infiltrating into the 'meaning' of texts): HR: "...> What I indicated was all paths to completion." JM: 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 it.
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
