Hi John:

At 04:01 PM 1/8/2008, you wrote:

>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?

The idea of completeness in this case is not a matter of an objects 
size [amount of information within] but rather its ability to resolve 
any meaningful question about itself.  Low information objects can be 
complete. The Nothing has too little information within to resolve 
any such question but such a question exists, so it is 
incomplete.  Further the duration question is always eventually asked 
so the Nothing must become a something which answers this particular 
question.  However, this initial Something may not be able to answer 
all meaningful questions about itself that in fact get asked.   The 
Everything is complete but contains multiple answers to at least some 
meaningful questions so it is inconsistent. Our particular Nothing or 
origin is now gone but there is an unlimited supply in the Everything.

>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

The question appears related to: does net information need a physical 
tablet upon which it is manifest in order to exist.  The Everything 
has no net information so needs no such tablet.  I suspect that it 
can not be established that sub components of the Everything 
containing net information would need one.

>1. If there is  -a- 'nothingness' does it multiply when we in our
>human logic detect "it" again?

This would require observers to have an effect on the amount of 
content of the Everything.  I see no argument to support this.

>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.

I define Nothing as an object [no physical structure required] that 
has too little information to answer any meaningful question about 
itself.  I have such a question and it must be asked thus I conclude 
that it is incomplete and unstable.  I have no idea how little 
information is required to answer the least demanding question but 
the smallest amount above none seems like it might answer some such 
question so I set the Nothing at no internal information to be a 
content opposite so to speak of the Everything.

>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?

The Everything is an ensemble and is a member of itself [The 
definition of an object is information and equivalent to the object 
itself in this venue and the Everything contains all information so 
it contains itself]. As such it is divisible along the boundaries of 
its members and sets of its members.  The Nothing and all its copies 
in the "member of itself Everything" are of course members of the 
ensemble but I see "nothingness" as a multiplicity [or set] of 
various other members since nothingness can have various sub texts.

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