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): >HR: >"...> What I indicated was all paths to completion." >JM: >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 >it. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
