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 

Reply via email to