On Monday, March 31, 2014 12:21:29 AM UTC+1, Hal Ruhl 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? > I would struggle to imagine an expression of "life is inherently self-destructive" that is meaningful by itself. There's always a sense or context in which life has a certain property. Life is inhernent absorbant, recycling, balancing, pulsating even, life is inherently hairy or scaly, or cellular...beat cellular., You need to say something more than just the property. Because life is inherently self destructive. But then again, life is the most long running chemical sequence in the universe. So on that measure life is the least destructive. A chemical reaction will exponentiall seek equilibrium, which is self destructive from the perspective of the chemical reaction. IMHO rather than produce a large landscape of essentialy personal creative envisioning what the world is like, focus on one thing, and look into it intensively and if you manage to get a breakthrough in understanding, speak of that. Take it further. Now you're a scientist, a discovery. A lot better than to be creative definer. Thus far, regarding the tendencies of life, you've not added anything. No slight intended...it's really hard to add something. It's really easy to throw out a load envisioning.
> > > > > > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
