The following discusses observer properties under my model of the Everything.

I take the list of observer properties I discuss below from what I 
have so far found in Russell's "Theory of Nothing".  One property - 
Giving meaning to data [number 5 on the list] - does not seem to be 
supportable under a description of the Everything as containing all 

As indicated in earlier posts, within my model of the Everything is a 
dynamic which consists of incomplete Nothings and Somethings that 
progress towards completeness in a step by step fashion.  At each 
step they grow more complete by encompassing more of the information 
in the Everything.

The incompleteness is not just that of mathematical systems but is 
more general.  It is the inability to resolve any question that is 
meaningful to the particular Nothing or Something.  Some such 
questions may be of a sort that they must be resolved.  The one I 
focus on in this regard is the duration of the current boundary of 
the particular Nothing or Something with the Everything.

A Something will of course be divisible into subsets of the 
information it contains.  Many of these subsets will participate in 
the incompleteness of the Something of which it is a subset.  At each 
step wise increase in the information content of that Something many 
of its subsets will receive information relevant to the resolution of 
their "local" un-resolvable meaningful questions.

Resultant observer properties:

1) Prediction of the future behavior of the Something of which they 
are a subset [of their particular universe]:
The subsets share some of the incompleteness of their Something and 
participate in the progressive resolution of this 
incompleteness.  The current "local" incompleteness [part of the 
current state of an observer] can serve as a predictor of the 
Something's evolution since it is a target of the progressive influx 
of information.

2) Communication between subsets:
There is no requirement that the subsets be disjoint or have fixed 
intersections.  There are no restrictions on the number of copies of 
a given packet of information contained within in a Something and no 
restrictions on the copy function.  A Something containing any number 
of copies of part or all of itself is just as incomplete as if it 
contained just one copy.

3) Evolution:
The progressive resolution of the incompleteness is an evolution.

4) Developing filters [re: white rabbit density]:
The shifting incompleteness of a subset constitutes a shifting filter 
that is founded in the history of the dynamic for that Something.  [I 
mentioned white rabbits in this regard in another post.]

5) Giving meaning to data [symbol strings][generation of information?]:
The Everything is considered information.    A symbol string seems to 
be just a link between the set of all possible meanings that 
particular string can have.   It is just a boundary within the 
Everything enclosing the associated set of meanings.  It is a 
definition, definitions are information [meaning] and thus part of 
the Everything.  How can an evolving Something and its subsets give 
more meaning to a meaning?  This property seems unsupportable in an Everything.

6) Necessity of "Time":
As I mentioned in a earlier post the meaningful question I use 
bootstraps time and thus the dynamic.

7) Life:
The characteristics of life [evolution, copy, variation] are just 
part of the ensemble of potential meaningful questions - some 
un-resolvable - that can apply to some subsets of a Something and 
seem covered by the other discussions herein.

8) Randomness:
Each step in the progression towards completeness provides a 
resolution to a random set of the open meaningful questions.

9) Self awareness, consciousness:
The Something subset boundary dynamics/allowances described above 
appear to cover these varieties of subset evolution.

10 Creativity:
See #8 - randomness.

Subsets of evolving Somethings in my model appear to have the 
properties of observers mentioned above that also seem supportable by 
an Everything - all but giving meaning to data.

There is so far no subset based spontaneous influence on the 
progression of the dynamic.  All aspects of the information dynamic 
appear to originate from the history of the dynamic for a particular 
Something and its resultant current incompleteness.

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