What you're describing sounds a little bit like cellular automata, which start with a single cell (maybe the existent entity called "nothing"?) and a rule and out of that comes emergent stuff possibly like our universe. But, anyways I once again agree with what you're saying that the emergent properties of "nothing" can be pretty amazing, IMHO.
On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 2:57:29 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote: > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] <javascript:> [mailto: > [email protected] <javascript:>] > *Sent:* Saturday, January 24, 2015 9:52 PM > *To:* [email protected] <javascript:> > *Subject:* Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum > theory to dialectics? > > > > > > > > Roger: It's possible that what we see as existing is a simulation in some > other computer. But, even if we are a simulation, the simulation that is > us exists as does the computer and the code we're a simulation in. My > thinking is aimed at trying to figure out there are existent entities, > whether we call them simulations, singular arithmetic > computations/propositions, or whatever, instead of there not being existent > entities. > > Existence and non-existence can be viewed as different perspectives on > nothing…. existence and non-existence are emergent and understood in > dialectic opposition to each other… they arise out of each other, and are > defined in terms of each other. > > -Chris > > > > Chris, > > > > I totally agree and that's what I've been trying to get at in my > thinking and at the website. Well put! > > > > Well… it does seem we agree about nothing J > > > > Have been pondering something I read a while ago when I began reading > Russell’s book (online first and now in the much better form of a real book) > > It is this bit of information about information. A very simple > mathematical operation that can be described – defined by a simple > recursive program produces an unending stream of numbers defining it to an > ever more precise numeric precision… to infinity. Some such numbers say > 10/3 are highly ordered and repetitive though never ending. > > The example Russell gave is an unending numeric stream that is however > different from – say 10/3 -- in that the resulting stream of numbers that > it outputs is highly chaotic and unordered very much resembling the number > streams generated by the best random algorithms. > > The very simple operation of defining the square root of two generates an > -- (as far as we know infinitely extending) – number stream that is > characterized by a high degree of randomness. > > Now say you are an observer from a parallel universe who somehow gets a > kind of sample set through some absurd imaginary portal that deluges the > poor fellow with reams upon reams of seemingly random data – each one of > them, let’s give it a data dimension say a KB, MB, GB doesn’t matter, but > constrained to a given chunk or window size. These inter-dimensional data > packets unfortunately arrive to our observer in a scrambled order…. The > data deluge arrives for eternity… but will the recipient ever be able to > derive the function from the data. I doubt a highly random data stream – > generated by a very simple operation – could be re-ordered. > > What could those observers deduce from this endless series of out of order > packets containing numeric data of a given range of degrees of precision in > the infinite stream resulting from the eternal recursive refinement of this > operation? > > Would they ever be able to work back to the function from this out of > order quantized series of numeric data packets picked from random slots in > the infinite series? > > It seems highly improbable to me, maybe there is some subtle ordering in > the output stream that could eventually become apparent after enough data > chunks were cross compared. Who knows, I am no expert on the randomness of > the output of the square root of two, but in general sense there are > functions f() that can be defined by a simple set of recursive or looping > actions… e.g. a simple program... that can generate an infinite and – for > the sake of argument – perfectly random numeric output stream (doesn’t > matter if it is in base ten or base two, or any other base) – e.g. a simple > program like the one that recursively continues to define ever increasing > degrees of precision for the square root of two, but that is abstract and > ideal in that its output is taken to be perfectly random – one terabyte of > data in the stream looking pretty much like any other similar sized chunk > from the stream. > > I pity those observers, and feel that no matter how many resources they > brought to bear in trying to discover the meaning of this mysterious > numeric communication coming through their inter-dimensional portal… that > they would never be able to figure the actual simple formula / program that > produced the petabytes ^ petabytes ^ petabytes ^ petabytes (ad infinitum) > of data in their transmission. Maybe some would build a religion around the > mystery… who knows, more likely the portal would become abandoned after the > last researcher was driven insane trying to discover the meaning. > > The point of this long rambling dive into random data streams is to > illustrate how difficult or impossible it is to derive the original > function from the data output by it, and how the output of even a very > simple program can be an infinite series that would take infinite storage > capacity to contain. > > Another way of putting it is that an apparently infinitely huge container > {in a meta sense} would be required in order to contain the complete set of > the output resulting from a simple function, and that this is true no > matter what compression algorithms one tried to apply to the output stream > {e.g. the output is highly – or in the ideal perfectly -- random} > > From a simple program an endless stream of data and increasing complexity, > in fact ultimately infinite complexity in the sense of not being > susceptible to any form of compression. > > Naturally if by some incredibly stroke of luck our observers discovered > packet number one of the transmission – e.g. 1.414213562373095 – they would > have hit the cosmic lottery jackpot and could potentially put it all > together and deduce the meaning of the rest of the stream (assuming they > had figured out the encoding of the numeric stream and were able to > logically map the meaning of the ‘.’ Symbol) > > > > In the end this rather a lot about nothing, perhaps there is a point > hiding in there somewhere… a point about the amazing emergent complexity of > nothing in fact J > > -Chris > > > > > > > > Roger > > > > > > > > https://sites.google.com/site/whydoesanythingexist/ > <https://sites.google.com/site/whydoesanythingexist/> > > and a more detailed explanation along with more philosophical stuff and a > beginning model is at: > > https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/ > > (click on 3rd link down) > > While we are working on different models, it's been a great > discussion. Thanks. > > > > -- > 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > 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.
