I have not posted for awhile but here is the latest revision to my model: Hal Ruhl DEFINITIONS: V k 04/03/10 1) Distinction: That which describes a cut [boundary], such as the cut between red and other colors. 2) Devisor: That which encompasses a quantity of distinctions. Some divisors are collections of divisors. [A devisor may be "information" but I will not use that term here.] Since a distinction is a description, a devisor is a quantity of descriptions. [A description can be encoded in a number so a devisor may be simply a number encoding some multiplicity of distinctions. There is no restriction on the variety or encoding schemes so the number can include them all. I wish to not include other properties of numbers herein and mention them only in passing to establish a possible link.] 3) Incomplete: The inability of a divisor to answer a question that is meaningful to that divisor. [This has a mirror image in inconsistency wherein all possible answers to a meaningful question are in the devisor [yes and no, true and false, etc.] MODEL: 1) Assumption #1: There exists a complete ensemble [possibly a "set" but I wish to not use that term here] of all possible divisors - call it the "All", [The "All" may be the "Everything" but I wish not to use that term here]. 2) The All therefore encompasses every distinction. The All is thus itself a divisor and therefore contains itself an unbounded number of times. 3) Define N(j) as divisors that encompass a zero quantity of distinction. Call them Nothings. By definition each copy of the All contains at least one N(j). 4) Define S(k) as divisors that encompass a non zero quantity of distinction but not all distinction. Call them Somethings. 5) An issue that arises is whether or not a particular divisor is static or dynamic in any way [the relevant possibilities are discussed below]. Devisors cannot be both. This requires that all divisors individually encompass the self referential distinction of being static or dynamic. 6) From #3 one divisor type - the Nothings - encompass zero distinction but must encompass this static/dynamic distinction thus they are incomplete. 7) The N(j) are thus unstable with respect to their zero distinction condition [dynamic one]. They each must at some point spontaneously "seek" to encompass this static/dynamic distinction. That is they spontaneously become Somethings. 8) Somethings can also be incomplete and/or inconsistent. 9) The result is a "flow" of a "condition" from an incomplete and/or inconsistent Something to a successor Something that encompasses a new quantity of distinction. 10) The "condition" is whether or not a particular Something is the current terminus of a path or not. 11) Since a Something can have a multiplicity of successors the "flow" is a multiplicity of paths of successions of Somethings until a complete something is arrived at which stops the individual path [i.e. a path stasis [dynamic three.]] 12) Some members of the All describe individual states of universes. 13) Our universe's path would be a succession of such members of an All. A particular succession of Somethings can vary from fully random to strictly driven by the incompleteness and/or inconsistency of the current terminus Something. I suspect our universe's path has until now been close to the latter. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.