Hi Everyone:


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


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.]




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


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



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to