On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 4:49 PM Mindey <[email protected]> wrote: > I defined "nothing" as infinite unbounded homogeneity. If you have a >> better definition of "nothing" I'd like to hear it. > > > > I define "nothing" as absence of information about any aspect > <https://groups.google.com/g/everything-list/c/3ZdcQpJCPpE/m/Kwfh69V4Y24J> > (projection axis, defining semantic dimension) whatsoever. >
I think my definition is more fundamental because Information is physical, it takes physical energy to erase information, and there is a limit to how much of it a given volume can contain and it is proportional to the area of the surface of that volume. Purely abstract things don't have that property, it would be silly to ask how much something abstract like love a sphere with a radius of 1 meter could contain, but it would not be silly to ask how much information it could contain. And you can't have information without a discontinuity of some sort, and you can't have a discontinuity if everything is just one thing because the smallest bit of information there is involves a change from on to off. Also, your definition is somewhat circular because "absence" already implies the thing you're trying to define. John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> ggf > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3Ov0gRpimWAmazjbA1UN-hdunuYbjeVG84O9xoGT8u0A%40mail.gmail.com.
