I cannot follow you: one the one hand you say:
Something if incomplete will have to
increase its completeness to answer meaningful questions
which implies volition and therefore spirit;
and on the other hand you say:
There is no intent to imply some sort of choice on
the part of the Something.
which denies spirit,
and on the third hand:
the quest is an ... system induced need for a
ongoing influx of information
in which the term "need" goes back to supporting a spirit-based system.
Hal Ruhl wrote:
>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
>>>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