One page plus SAS
Some initial musings on extending my one page model to cover SAS: The only characteristics I can see that can distinguish various portions of a given isomorphism are: i) The way in which they interact during successive isomorphic links with other portions of the isomorphism. ii) The manner in which the random or "Do not care" portion of the rules of isomorphic succession apply to them. As for the first - SAS seek out other portions of the isomorphism [ranging from individual "particles" [such as photons] to whole collections of "particles" [such as a slice of roast]] and absorb some part of them. As for the second - SAS - in order to accomplish the first - need to be structured so that more medium and large size acceptable succession cascades [medium and large "events" within a series of successive isomorphic links] are triggered by the random portion of the rules than for non SAS portions of the isomorphism. This is necessary because "seek" is an incomplete information concept - SAS have to hunt information and food. Observation: An observation is just the change in a SAS that takes place from a current "Something" to its immediate successor acceptable "Something" for that SAS's universe. Free will: If no portion of the next "Something" is acceptable as an isomorphic link for a SAS's universe even with the random content of the rules then that universe skips until an acceptable link is found in some future "Something". Free will can only be found in a SAS's ability - if any - to restrict the range of acceptable successor isomorphic links, that is to reduce the degree to which the random portion of the rules of succession apply to its own structure. I currently see no reason why some portions of a isomorphism could not have a structure that has the above distinctions that establish it as a SAS while also exhibiting "free will". xx A slightly edited version of the initial post is below 1) The single postulate is "The total system contains no information." 2) The "Nothing" contains at least some information: Whenever it is manifest any question asking if it is manifest must receive the response "yes". 3) #2 violates the postulate so the system must contain more component(s), i.e. a "Something" or succession of "Somethings" or an ensemble of all possible "Somethings" that balance or neutralize this information. 4) The "Nothing" since it contains information can not be stable with respect to the manifestation of the other component(s) or the system again violates the postulate because no neutralization is possible. 5) Any individual "Something" or a simultaneously manifest ensemble of all possible "Somethings" must also comply with #2 so are violations of the postulate and unstable with respect to the "Nothing". 6) The instabilities result in an alternation between the "Nothing" and the other component(s). 7) The incorporation into the system of a FIXED "other component" which is either an individual "Something" or the complete ensemble of "Somethings" is a selection representing additional information which can not be balanced out by corresponding antipodal information present in the "Nothing". 8) The way to make the total system comply with the postulate: a) The Nothing alternates with a succession of "Somethings" randomly selected [no rules of selection control] from the ensemble. b) The selection of the next "Something" out of the ensemble must be random or the selection process is additional information in violation of the postulate. c) The ensemble contains an infinite number of individual "Somethings" so there can be no endless loops of repeats which would represent additional information and are forbidden by the postulate. --- Evolving universes are successive isomorphisms [isomorphic links] to some portion of each successive "Something". An individual "Something" is just a pattern and a given universe is just an isomorphism to a portion of this pattern. Each manifestation of the "Nothing" corresponds to the emptiness or gap between successive discrete isomorphisms of universe evolution. Enduring evolving universes with fully deterministic rules of isomorphism succession find no home in this model because the gap for such universes would quickly become open ended. This violates the "Nothing" "Something" alternation and the condition of "evolving". The total system or "Grand Ensemble" is the "Everything". It contains no information and it can not contain enduring fully deterministic universes.
RE: immortality
> -Original Message- > From: Marchal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > >Somehow I missed rwas's reply detailing those 'experiences. > Could anybody > >supply them to me? Or perhaps C. Goodwin himself who now wrote: > > > >"Mystic experiences of course. Experiences which have rendered > >understanding which makes participating in the predominate discourse > >found on this list very painful to endure. Sequential, temporal, > >in-the-box thinking is not how to transcend the physical in my view." > > > >Maybe this paragraph is the answer. In which case I rest my case. As Bruno has pointed out, that was rwas's response to my email that you quoted. But I'm still curious to know what you mean by "I rest my case". Charles
re: immortality
John Mikes wrote: >Somehow I missed rwas's reply detailing those 'experiences. Could anybody >supply them to me? Or perhaps C. Goodwin himself who now wrote: > >"Mystic experiences of course. Experiences which have rendered >understanding which makes participating in the predominate discourse >found on this list very painful to endure. Sequential, temporal, >in-the-box thinking is not how to transcend the physical in my view." > >Maybe this paragraph is the answer. In which case I rest my case. It was not Goodwin's answer you quoted, but rwas's one. So indeed that paragraph is the answer or part of the answer you seek. About mystic experiences I tend to believe awareness or consciousness is sort of degree 1 mystic experiences, and I would not be astonished that the psychology of machine entails a vast number of variate possible "mystical" experiences, but all belongs to G* minus G and would be uncommunicable/unprovable (like consciousness). But I am skeptical about *direct* use of mystic experiences *against* attempts of third person communications among searchers. (Note that there could be positive inspirations from *any* personal experience, mystic or not). Bruno
