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
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.
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
> 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
> 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