Hi Hal and fellow Members, I hae been following Hal's work for quite some time. Some comments...
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Caylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Everything List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:42 AM Subject: Re: Properties of observers > > On Feb 3, 11:46 am, 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. >> > > Hi again between my being too busy to converse here in a while. > Surprise, surprise, that the crux of the matter ends up in yet another > circumstance being the mystery of where meaning comes from. Alas, > this single unsolved problem has a viral effect to the rest of any > theory of everything. See below. > >> 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. >> > > Without the ability to give meaning to anything, how can there be a > "meaningful question"? > [SPK] Does this "inability" need to be, itself, Complete? It seems to me that "meaning" per say is relational and more of a sort of "how much of X is expressed in Y". A Complete resolution of a "question" such as this would be like unto a exact equality between X and Y. We could use Leibniz' principle of the Indentity of Indiscernables here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles >> 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. >> [SPK] Consider how a word in a dictionary is "defined" in terms of a web of relations with other words... How would we quantify this amount of Incompleteness? >> 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. >> > > How can there be any meaningful "progressive resolution" without > meaning? > [SPK] Maybe because there is no "meaningfulness" in absense of a relationship. Meaning would arise just as the notion of "between-ness". (This idea comes from James N. Rose) >> 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. >> > > I think you've summed up in your words the crux of the matter. > >> 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. >> > > I don't see how creativity just pops automatically out of randomness. > That's the crux of the matter. > [SPK] COuld it be that a "random set" is just a stand in for some collection chosen without a pre-established "rule"? Again, consider a dictionary and the sequensing of words in a paragraph or a string of symbols.Given a notion of a grammar, do the words/symbols follow necessarily monotonically from a fixed one-to-one and onto type of rule? No. Just because a rule may exist that could generate a given string, it does not follow that said string was in fact thus generated. >> 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 snip Onward, Stephen --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---