helpful to
me - I think we are bound to come up with different solutions if we have
different starting assumptions.
- Original Message -
From: H J Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 23 February 2002 21:39
Subject: Re: Draft Philosophy Paper
Dear Alastair:
What I have
Dear Alastair:
The infinite tape was just a way to show how your example actually has a
most interesting behavior under an extension to more dimensions and to
infinity. I believe you still miss what I am trying to say.
The nested Everythings are not and can not be exact copies of each other.
be an equal chance of either? If so, that would require a different
'random' sequence - but they should be the same hits!
- Original Message -
From: H J Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 23 February 2002 03:05
Subject: Re: Draft Philosophy Paper
Dear Alastair:
I think
-
From: H J Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 23 February 2002 03:05
Subject: Re: Draft Philosophy Paper
Dear Alastair:
I think you still fail to see my point. So here I try to draw a picture.
Original single venue system [V(0)]:
V(0) x
In an earlier post:
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m3532.html
I stated:
Can type #1 universes {those that do not allow true noise} become type #2
universes {Those that do allow true noise}. They must be able to or again
there would be a selection.
The rational is as follows:
- Original Message -
From: H J Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 2/21/02, [ I ] wrote:
If you are saying that it is the uncountability itself of copies that
imparts indeterminacy, or changes the preponderancy, then effectively you
are also saying that random selections from all the reals
Dear Alastair:
I think you still fail to see my point. So here I try to draw a picture.
Original single venue system [V(0)]:
V(0) x -- -1 - 0
-- + 10
Take a random sample into the line.
The target size between x =
This is just an effort to get the diagram to post reasonably on the list
archive.
Original single venue system [V(0)]:
V(0) x -1 - 0 --- + 10
My infinite venues system [V(0) to V(infinity)]
y
V(infinity) x -1 - 0
At 2/21/02, you wrote:
If you are saying that it is the uncountability itself of copies that
imparts indeterminacy, or changes the preponderancy, then effectively you
are also saying that random selections from all the reals between -1 and +10
do not converge towards a ratio of 10:1 for positive
Dear Alastair:
An clarification of my analysis of your -1 to + 10 example:
That is your model and it is one dimensional [call it x] that is it has one
venue.
Now add a dimension call it y that is infinite and perpendicular to your
example's x. This is an infinite number of venues. Add the
Message -
From: H J Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 21 February 2002 03:08
Subject: Re: Draft Philosophy Paper
Dear Alastair:
I think you still miss the thrust of my comment.
As directly as I can say it:
The Everything is the ensemble of all counterfactuals
Dear Alastair:
I think you still miss the thrust of my comment.
As directly as I can say it:
The Everything is the ensemble of all counterfactuals.
The counterfactuals cancel out resulting in no information in the Everything.
The Everything and the Nothing are cancelling counterfactuals and
The information is contained within the Anthropic Principle
itself. Resource constraints that any observer must have impose a bias
towards simpler descriptions - that is the thrust of Alistair's and my
argument. Without the AP, the Everything is indeed devoid of any
structure whatsoever. I never
Dear Russell:
As to any surprise that we are in the universe we are in I see none. It is
just chance.
My previous post did not go into the part of my approach as to why a
universe should evolve. What drives this dynamic inside an Everything?
The process I have currently set up for this
: Draft Philosophy Paper
Dear Alastair:
In the appendix of your paper if we call m logical units a venue why do
you
have just one such venue?
If there are an infinite number of venues of strength m in the Everything
then any sub m sets in m appear an infinite number of times in the
Everything
February 2002 04:50
Subject: Re: Draft Philosophy Paper
Dear Alastair:
In the appendix of your paper if we call m logical units a venue why do
you
have just one such venue?
If there are an infinite number of venues of strength m in the Everything
then any sub m sets in m appear
of rules),
which can make the problem non-trivial to solve.
Alastair
- Original Message -
From: H J Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 16 February 2002 06:25
Subject: Re: Draft Philosophy Paper
I see no reason why any difficulty along this line arises in the first
place
Dear Alastair:
I will read your paper, but it seems to me that the no information
approach to formulating an Everything precludes selection. Selection
assigns a property to a subset of the ensemble that the other members do
not share. This destroys the ensemble.
Prevalence being a property
I see no reason why any difficulty along this line arises in the first place.
In my model all evolving universes have rules of state succession that
allow some degree of true noise entering the universe at each transition.
In this venue there would be an infinite number of universes that have
19 matches
Mail list logo
