I use the term "quest" because a Something if incomplete will have to
increase its completeness to answer meaningful questions that get
asked but it can not answer. The motivator is partly external - an
answer [mostly more than one is available] is "out there" in the
unexplored Everything and partly internal - the particular question
must be answered. There is no intent to imply some sort of choice on
the part of the Something. To use your last thoughts below the quest
is an [Everything, Something, Nothing] system induced need for a
ongoing influx of information into the particular Something from the
Everything [the boundary of the particular Something with the
Everything alters to include more of the Everything. The Something
encompasses an ever increasing portion of the Everything but it must do so.
In this case I currently see no higher level of driver for any sub
component of the Something including what one might call an
observer. I may need to reconsider when I get to that point in
Russell's book but my time restraints force me to take considerable
time doing so.
At 02:21 PM 1/16/2008, you wrote:
>This topic interests me, but I find it difficult to go past the second
>sentence in your post. The phrase "Something is on a quest" carries a
>lot of baggage, in particular that "Something" has intention, purpose
>and motivation. Either we have to assume that this intention is produced
>by a fundamental "spirit" or "soul" that you have assigned to the
>Something, or that the intention is emergent from a complex
>consciousness simulation possibly involving Quantum Mechanics..... If
>you assume a spirit or soul you are making a quasi religious assumption.
>Is this what you want? How do we explain spirit or soul? If you are
>assuming a complex consciousness simulation, there is a whole layer that
>needs to be explained which no one has yet fully explained yet.
>Usually scientists use objective and impersonal criteria such as "energy
>minimization" to explain how a reaction is driven in one particular
>direction. In chemistry, for example, "Le Chatelier Principle" is used.
>Hal Ruhl wrote:
> >I have touched on this subject before but the following is my current
> >view of "Dark Energy"
> >In my approach a Something is on a quest for completeness within the
> >Based on this, the following points can be made:
> >1) The number of current incompleteness sites for a given Something
> >would be at least proportional to the surface area of its boundary
> >with the rest of the Everything if not proportional to its volume.
> >2) Thus the larger [more information content] a Something is [has]
> >the more such sites it has and the larger any given step in the
> quest can be.
> >3) This gives an increase in the average information influx as the
> >quest progresses.
> >4) If the universe described by that Something has a maximum finite
> >information packing density in its "space" then an accelerating
> >increase in the size of that space should be "observed" since both
> >the volume and surface area of a Something inside the Everything
> >increases as the quest progresses.
> > 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