On Sunday, March 30, 2014 7:21:29 PM UTC-4, 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?
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> Thanks
>
> Hal Ruhl
>
>
>
>
> DEFINITIONS:
>
>
>
> i) Distinction:
>
>
>
> That which enables a separation such as a particular red from other colors.
>
I call this Sense.
>
>
> ii) Devisor:
>
>
>
> That which encloses a quantity [zero to every] of distinctions. [Some
> divisors are thus collections of divisors.]
>
I would call this a quale (as in qualia)
>
>
> iii): Define “N”s as those divisors that enclose zero distinction. Call
> them Nothing(s).
>
This is not necessary to me. Something that functions only to enclose and
does not enclose anything need not be reified. It's not 'Nothing', there
just isn't anything there to define.
>
>
> iv): Define “S”s as divisors that enclose a non zero number of
> distinctions but not all distinctions. Call them Something(s).
>
These are still just qualia. There doesn't need to be a 'nothing' defined,
so any sense encounter or sense distinction is 'something'. Note that by
saying that sense encounter, I am extending sense even beneath the level of i)
Distinction. We need not be able to experience distinct difference to have
awareness. Awareness makes distinctions and appreciated the, but
distinctions are not things in themselves. We can tell the difference
between anger and sadness, but they need not be distinct, nor does either
one need to be made distinct to be felt. Anger is a self-evident condition
of (our) experience which is not generated by distinctions.
>
>
>
>
> MODEL:
>
>
>
> 1) Assumption # A1: There exists a set consisting of all possible
> divisors. Call this set “A”.
>
I would call this the Absolute.
>
>
> “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.
>
So far so good.
>
>
> 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.
>
It can be both, neither, or one and not the other in some frame of
reference ('in some sense'). In your terms I would say that each
Divisor/Quale (Q) is made distinct from A by its signature perspectives of
A (A minus Q), and its signature perspectives of every Other Q (O). For me
the Earth is flat or round. For an rabbit it is only flat. For a rabbit on
a spaceship it is only a round image. What is static or dynamic is a
function of the relative scale of Q to O.
>
>
> This requires that all divisors individually enclose the self referential
> distinction of being static or dynamic.
>
I can move or I can sit still. I need not choose a label of which one I am.
>
>
> 3) At least one divisor type - the “N”s, by definition (iii), enclose no
> such distinction but by (2) they must enclose this one.
>
Lost me there. Why would nothing have to be defined as static or dynamic.
Nothing can be neither. Stasis and motion are distinctions (qualia) just
like everything else.
> 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.]
>
Once you define something as Nothings, you can't do anything with them.
They are neither complete nor incomplete. They are certainly not capable of
becoming aware of the meaningfulness of a question. Incompleteness relates
to the limitations of formal representation, not to ontology.
>
> 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.
>
I can get behind a notion of Almost Nothing (±N), in which case I would
agree in the instability in which there is a fluctuation toward and away
from distinction. The transition is not objective though - it is the
perspective, the window of sense through which distinctions are made that
is giving the appearance of transition. From the perspective of A, beyond
time, the transition is eternal, instantaneous, and everything in between.
>
> 4) By (3) Transitions between divisors exist.
>
Locally, yes, but it is relativistic. The acorn appears to us to transition
into an oak tree. From the absolute perspective, the acorn and oak tree our
only opposite ends of a four dimensional Divisor.
>
>
> 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).
>
It sounds like you might be reaching for what I call Significance...which
is basically the squaring of Divisorhood. Qualia is a presence which can
also represent other qualia.
>
>
> 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.
>
Yes, experience becomes richer and more specialized within any given frame
of reference that can itself become more sensitive.
>
>
> 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.
>
You're making time and succession primitive, but I don't think its that
simple. Succession is relative, like simultaneity, to perspective.
>
>
> 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.
>
This is not needed if sense is the foundation. We do not need to split
white light into multiple colors, the color is already intrinsic within our
sense of light. The whole MWI model can be thrown out, as sense allows
divisors to pretend and imagine rather than choose mechanically. Not
everything has to happen. The paths that are pruned I think amplify the
remaining qualia so that they are richer and deeper. This is part of why
biological qualia are richer than inorganic qualia - mortality requires
sacrifices.
>
>
> 11) A path may also originate on an incomplete “S” not just the "N"s.
>
There can't be any Ns.
>
>
> 12) Observer constructs such as life entities and likely all other
> constructs imbedded in a universe bear witness to the transitions.
>
Witness is too aloof. We are the universe. We are embedded within ourselves
as direct participants, not voyeurs.
>
>
> 13) Transition paths [“traces” may be a better term] can be of any length.
>
Donno. Not sure it matters.
>
>
> 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).
>
What happens if they become infrequent? Infrequent according to whom?
Pretty good overall though, IMO. Thanks for posting.
Craig
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
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.
