Dear Hal, I have been thinking about 'life' a lot over the past decades and came up with ONE (not my own) for our terrestrial bio-life (which is not 'all of it'). It says a living entity has to absorb from the environment high sophistication energy (e.g. metabolism) while exuding a portion as low level energy (e.g. heat) continuing a reduction of its entropy (which is counterproductive). Extending such 'life' ID may take care of that, producing synergy by bio-death. In my narrative about the cosmic existence the 'Everything' (Plenitude) is an infinite symmetry (equilibration) of unrestricted items - beyond our vaguest imagination today - and inevitably concentrates 'similar'(?) items in the dynamic existence. I call these universes and as they form - they re-dissipate into the equilibration (timeless spaceless system). From the INSIDE, however, (time-space acknowledged) the process takes a long time and extension. What our physicists call 'energy' is the stress to re-dissipate. In such sense the BIO-life is self destructive. It adds to the wrong pool.
I am far from being able to clarifying my ideas. Forgive my intrusion John Mikes On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Hal Ruhl <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone: > > I am currently interested in two questions: > > Does my model of why there are dynamic universes within the Everything > [latest version is below] include Bruno's Comp? Hi Bruno. > > If life is inherently self destructive under any reasonable definition of > life [see some of my recent posts], then how does this impact the > Everything since I see it as a restriction [selection] on the scope of > possible universes? > > Comments welcome. > > Thanks > > Hal Ruhl > > > > > DEFINITIONS: > > > > i) Distinction: > > > > That which enables a separation such as a particular red from other colors. > > > > ii) Devisor: > > > > That which encloses a quantity [zero to every] of distinctions. [Some > divisors are thus collections of divisors.] > > > > iii): Define "N"s as those divisors that enclose zero distinction. Call > them Nothing(s). > > > > iv): Define "S"s as divisors that enclose a non zero number of > distinctions but not all distinctions. Call them Something(s). > > > > > > MODEL: > > > > 1) Assumption # A1: There exists a set consisting of all possible > divisors. Call this set "A". > > > > "A" encompasses every distinction. "A" is thus itself a divisor by > definition (i) and therefore contains itself an unbounded number of times > ["A" contains "A" which contains "A" and so on. > > > > 2) An issue that arises is whether or not an individual specific divisor > is static or dynamic. That is: Is its quantity of distinction subject to > change? It cannot be both. > > > > This requires that all divisors individually enclose the self referential > distinction of being static or dynamic. > > > > 3) At least one divisor type - the "N"s, by definition (iii), enclose no > such distinction but by (2) they must enclose this one. This is a type > of incompleteness. [A complete divisor can answer any self meaningful > question but not necessarily consistently i.e. sometimes one way sometimes > another] That is the "N"s cannot answer this question which is nevertheless > meaningful to them. [The incompleteness is taken to be rather similar > functionally to the incompleteness of some mathematical Formal Axiomatic > Systems - See Godel.] > > > > The "N" are thus unstable with respect to their initial condition. They > each must at some point spontaneously enclose this stability distinction. > They thereby transition into "S"s. > > > > 4) By (3) Transitions between divisors exist. > > > > 5) Some of the "S"s resulting from "N"s [see (3)] may themselves be > incomplete in a similar manner but perhaps in a different distinction > family. They must evolve - via similar incompleteness driven transitions - > until "complete" in the sense of (3). > > > > 6) Assumption # A2: Each element of "A" is a universe state. > > > > 7) The result is a "flow" of "S"s most of which are encompassing more and > more distinction with each transition. > > > > 8) This "flow" is a multiplicity of paths of successions of transitions > from element to element of the All. That is (by A2) a transition from a > universe state to a successor universe state. > > > > 9) Our Universe's evolution would be one such path on which the "S" > constantly gets larger. > > > > 10) Since incompleteness can have multiple resolutions the path of an > evolving "S" may split into multiple paths at any transition. > > > > 11) A path may also originate on an incomplete "S" not just the "N"s. > > > > 12) Observer constructs such as life entities and likely all other > constructs imbedded in a universe bear witness to the transitions. > > > > 13) Transition paths ["traces" may be a better term] can be of any length. > > > > 14) A particular transition may not resolve any incompleteness of the > subject evolving "S". > > > > 15) White Rabbits: Since many elements of "A" are very large, large > transitions could become infrequent on a long path [trace] whereon the > particular "S" itself gets large. (Also few White Rabbits if both sides > of the divisors on either side of the transition are sufficiently similar > in size). > > > > > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
