Hal, that is quite a description... - especially if one dos not abide inside your terminology. I feel it is based on somewhat 'humanized' thinking (...prediction of future...etc.) and 'subsets' (a humanly visualized hierarchy) with 'communication' as we understand it. Evolution fits my version, in a more general wording (would be long to compare here).
Information (=everything) is fine, I just add in MY terminology (not said as preferable!) an "acknowledged difference" which is not contradictory vs. 'realizing the everything'. (Acknowledged means ANY, maybe phenomenological imbibing or 'structural' absorption) [I don't exclude the 'humanized' versions of the more general meanings]. I give less validity to 'data' - maybe I look at them too narrowly as quatiz(able) markers. I like your 'symbol string' as boundary, giving 'meaning' to inside the boundary-s - what I call a model, topically distinct and identifiable domain within the totality (everything?). I am still strygglin with thinking 'atemporaneously', maybe I should pick on your 'bootstrap time'. Interesting view on 'randomness' as a result rather than random generational. Consciousness, self-awareness I mix into reflexive relations, not resolved so far. Creativity ditto, a relational game. Hal, please excuse my rambling about words I picked and indeed did not comprehend. Your system is way above the level I could follow. I scribbled the above reflections as an example from a different mindset and vocabulary as I 'glanced' at your post. Not argumentatively at all. My 'system' is NO system, just ideas in a heap. If you find something addressable in the above, please do let me know, I speculate on imported suggestions to resolve that vast amount of unresolved points in that heap. John Mikes On Sun, Feb 3, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Hal Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > information. > > 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---