Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
This is starting to sound like discussion Hume must have had with himself. RM
Re: Fw: An All/Nothing multiverse model
Hi John: At 05:46 PM 11/16/2004, you wrote: snip > "My" Multiverse consists of universes unlimited in number and qualia > (process capability, whatever). My All would be infinite and could contain multiple multiverses - multiple Somethings - evolving all at once. I see no restriction on the nature of these Somethings except that they all are subject to information injection from an external random oracle i.e. the current but momentary "remainder" [relative to that individual multiverse] of the All. snip Hal
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
Hi George: At 09:13 PM 11/16/2004, you wrote: Hal Ruhl wrote: > At 05:58 PM 11/16/2004, you wrote: Hal Ruhl wrote: Boundaries: I have as I said in one post of this thread and as I recall in some earlier related threads defined information as a potential to erect a boundary. So the All is chuck full of this potential. Actual boundaries are the Everything and any evolving Something. This is unclear to me. To take a practical and simple example, from which wavelength a monochromatic radiation ceases to be red ? Color is a complex and local system reaction to the collision between a small system - a photon to temporarily stay with a "particle" view - and a larger system - a photo receptor etc. The information in the photon [its energy] and the information in the chemistry of the photo receptor determine the initial path of this response in a given large system and create a boundary between this initiation and the initiation that would have been if the information differed. [By the way I do not support this description of such systems but that is another discussion.] Do you mean that it is a nonsense to say that a monochromatic radiation of 700 nm is red if it does not actually hit and activate some photoreceptors of the appropriate type ? Such a photon has only part of the information required for the parsing of red from other "color" responses of a particular large system. Further you and I may both indicate red when colliding with such a photon but this is a learned designation for who knows what different sensations [change] we our respective large systems have. Not that I believe in observers or in the isolation of systems. > The All and the Nothing are not mutually exclusive. I understand that one can have a view differing from mine on this question. In any sound sense of these concepts for me, they are exclusive however. > Perhaps the > "exclusive" idea is based on a hidden assumption of some sort of space > that can only be filled with or somehow contain one or the other but not > both. This is interesting. I have exactly the opposite feeling. In my view, there cannot be anything like space or time (and therefore no other time/place for any something to hide or coexist) if there is(*) nothing. As I said my approach to "physics" differs from the standard one re space and time etc. I meant here something similar to the "standard" space and time as considered in physics and "common sense". I could consider other possible senses but I currently can't figure any. My use of these words is convenience only but my point is why should existence be so anemic as to prohibit the simultaneous presence of an All and a Nothing. The "prohibition" does not "come from" an anemia of existence (as you suggest) but rather from the strength of nothing(ness), at least in my view of things. This would be an arbitrary truncation without reasonable justification. Just as the opposite. I provided a justification - a simple basis for evolving universes - which does not yet seem to have toppled. Hal
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
Hal Ruhl wrote: > At 08:48 PM 11/16/2004, you wrote: Darwin seems to have felt this way about "Origins" [Stephen Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory", page 2] so why should my ideas be special? We agree here. Interesting reference. Georges.
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
At 08:48 PM 11/16/2004, you wrote: Hal Ruhl wrote: > At 05:39 PM 11/16/2004, you wrote: Hal Ruhl wrote: > [...] The idea that defining a thing actually defines two things seems self evident [once you notice it]. At least one case of unavoidable definition also seems self evident [once you notice it]. The problem with evidence is that on one side there is no other known basis to build certainties and on the other it appears to be very relative [once you notice it]. :-) Here I was not trying to support the idea that "Self-evident" is necessarily a positive characteristic of an idea but rather that Monday morning quarterbacking can make it appear so. Do you mean that for the particular idea that "defining a thing actually defines two things" ? I mean it in a universal way - it is always the situation. > This was in response to the comment I received. I suppose that many ideas originally considered to be "self evident" after near term reflection were ultimately rejected. Do you consider that this could be the case for this particular idea ? Darwin seems to have felt this way about "Origins" [Stephen Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory", page 2] so why should my ideas be special? Also, (self) evidence that seems so sounds like a pleonasm to me. To me "self evident" is a belief. OK. Fine. > The validity assigned to most mathematical proofs appears - as has been said by others - to be dependent on the belief of the majority who examine the proof. In most cases this belief is all that is available so it is not redundant but it is no more than majority opinion. I agree here. And sometimes, even unanimity fails (there is a famous example: Cauchy produced a false theorem about the continuity of a series of continuous functions, he taught it and it was in class books for years whithout anyone finding any problem until some day someone noticed that it fails for the Fourier series of f(x) = x; of course, he saved the theorem by adding an additional premise but the false theorem had been recognized/believed as true in the mean time). Georges. Hal
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
Hal Ruhl wrote: > At 05:58 PM 11/16/2004, you wrote: Hal Ruhl wrote: Boundaries: I have as I said in one post of this thread and as I recall in some earlier related threads defined information as a potential to erect a boundary. So the All is chuck full of this potential. Actual boundaries are the Everything and any evolving Something. This is unclear to me. To take a practical and simple example, from which wavelength a monochromatic radiation ceases to be red ? Color is a complex and local system reaction to the collision between a small system - a photon to temporarily stay with a "particle" view - and a larger system - a photo receptor etc. The information in the photon [its energy] and the information in the chemistry of the photo receptor determine the initial path of this response in a given large system and create a boundary between this initiation and the initiation that would have been if the information differed. [By the way I do not support this description of such systems but that is another discussion.] Do you mean that it is a nonsense to say that a monochromatic radiation of 700 nm is red if it does not actually hit and activate some photoreceptors of the appropriate type ? > The All and the Nothing are not mutually exclusive. I understand that one can have a view differing from mine on this question. In any sound sense of these concepts for me, they are exclusive however. > Perhaps the > "exclusive" idea is based on a hidden assumption of some sort of space > that can only be filled with or somehow contain one or the other but not > both. This is interesting. I have exactly the opposite feeling. In my view, there cannot be anything like space or time (and therefore no other time/place for any something to hide or coexist) if there is(*) nothing. As I said my approach to "physics" differs from the standard one re space and time etc. I meant here something similar to the "standard" space and time as considered in physics and "common sense". I could consider other possible senses but I currently can't figure any. My use of these words is convenience only but my point is why should existence be so anemic as to prohibit the simultaneous presence of an All and a Nothing. The "prohibition" does not "come from" an anemia of existence (as you suggest) but rather from the strength of nothing(ness), at least in my view of things. This would be an arbitrary truncation without reasonable justification. Just as the opposite. Georges.
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
Hal Ruhl wrote: > At 05:39 PM 11/16/2004, you wrote: Hal Ruhl wrote: > [...] The idea that defining a thing actually defines two things seems self evident [once you notice it]. At least one case of unavoidable definition also seems self evident [once you notice it]. The problem with evidence is that on one side there is no other known basis to build certainties and on the other it appears to be very relative [once you notice it]. :-) Here I was not trying to support the idea that "Self-evident" is necessarily a positive characteristic of an idea but rather that Monday morning quarterbacking can make it appear so. Do you mean that for the particular idea that "defining a thing actually defines two things" ? > This was in response to the comment I received. I suppose that many ideas originally considered to be "self evident" after near term reflection were ultimately rejected. Do you consider that this could be the case for this particular idea ? Also, (self) evidence that seems so sounds like a pleonasm to me. To me "self evident" is a belief. OK. Fine. > The validity assigned to most mathematical proofs appears - as has been said by others - to be dependent on the belief of the majority who examine the proof. In most cases this belief is all that is available so it is not redundant but it is no more than majority opinion. I agree here. And sometimes, even unanimity fails (there is a famous example: Cauchy produced a false theorem about the continuity of a series of continuous functions, he taught it and it was in class books for years whithout anyone finding any problem until some day someone noticed that it fails for the Fourier series of f(x) = x; of course, he saved the theorem by adding an additional premise but the false theorem had been recognized/believed as true in the mean time). Georges.
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
At 05:58 PM 11/16/2004, you wrote: Hal Ruhl wrote: Boundaries: I have as I said in one post of this thread and as I recall in some earlier related threads defined information as a potential to erect a boundary. So the All is chuck full of this potential. Actual boundaries are the Everything and any evolving Something. This is unclear to me. To take a practical and simple example, from which wavelength a monochromatic radiation ceases to be red ? Color is a complex and local system reaction to the collision between a small system - a photon to temporarily stay with a "particle" view - and a larger system - a photo receptor etc. The information in the photon [its energy] and the information in the chemistry of the photo receptor determine the initial path of this response in a given large system and create a boundary between this initiation and the initiation that would have been if the information differed. [By the way I do not support this description of such systems but that is another discussion.] > The All and the Nothing are not mutually exclusive. I understand that one can have a view differing from mine on this question. In any sound sense of these concepts for me, they are exclusive however. > Perhaps the > "exclusive" idea is based on a hidden assumption of some sort of space > that can only be filled with or somehow contain one or the other but not > both. This is intersting. I have exactly the opposite feeling. In my view, there cannot be anything like space or time (and therefore no other time/place for any something to hide or coexist) if there is(*) nothing. As I said my approach to "physics" differs from the standard one re space and time etc. My use of these words is convenience only but my point is why should existence be so anemic as to prohibit the simultaneous presence of an All and a Nothing. This would be an arbitrary truncation without reasonable justification. (*) "is" must be considered here in an intemporel mode and not in the present one. Somehow like "equals" in "2 and 2 equals 4 " See above. Hal
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
Eric Cavalcanti wrote: > On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 08:39, Georges Quenot wrote: Hal Ruhl wrote: > [...] The idea that defining a thing actually defines two things seems self evident [once you notice it]. At least one case of unavoidable definition also seems self evident [once you notice it]. The problem with evidence is that on one side there is no other known basis to build certainties and on the other it appears to be very relative [once you notice it]. :-) But that's inevitable, or isn't it? Can we have any certainty other than those logically derived from assumed principles? That's part of the problem, yes. And in this case, isn't it desirable that at least the assumed principles are self-evident? Oh, lots of things appear desirable. That does not make them true (unfortunately in many cases). And when desirableness comes in as a cause (if not a reason) things turns even more relative. > Could we have something better? That's another part of the problem. Also, (self) evidence that seems so sounds like a pleonasm to me. Yes, I think I agree with you, but that's the common usage. Yes and no. I don't feel it is neutral, even if frequent. A'self-evident' means evident without proof. But can something be 'evident' only after proof? It seems to me that an 'evident' proposition doesn't need proof either. I meant: did anyone ever encounter such a thing as an evidence that did not seem to be so ? How can one discriminate between an evidence and something that would just seem to be an evidence ? Georges.
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
At 05:39 PM 11/16/2004, you wrote: Hal Ruhl wrote: > [...] The idea that defining a thing actually defines two things seems self evident [once you notice it]. At least one case of unavoidable definition also seems self evident [once you notice it]. The problem with evidence is that on one side there is no other known basis to build certainties and on the other it appears to be very relative [once you notice it]. :-) Here I was not trying to support the idea that "Self-evident" is necessarily a positive characteristic of an idea but rather that Monday morning quarterbacking can make it appear so. This was in response to the comment I received. I suppose that many ideas originally considered to be "self evident" after near term reflection were ultimately rejected. Also, (self) evidence that seems so sounds like a pleonasm to me. To me "self evident" is a belief. The validity assigned to most mathematical proofs appears - as has been said by others - to be dependent on the belief of the majority who examine the proof. In most cases this belief is all that is available so it is not redundant but it is no more than majority opinion. Hal
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 08:39, Georges Quenot wrote: > Hal Ruhl wrote: > > > > [...] > > The idea that defining a thing actually defines two things seems self > > evident [once you notice it]. > > At least one case of unavoidable definition also seems self evident > > [once you notice it]. > > The problem with evidence is that on one side there is no other > known basis to build certainties and on the other it appears to > be very relative [once you notice it]. :-) But that's inevitable, or isn't it? Can we have any certainty other than those logically derived from assumed principles? And in this case, isn't it desirable that at least the assumed principles are self-evident? Could we have something better? > Also, (self) evidence that seems so sounds like a pleonasm to me. Yes, I think I agree with you, but that's the common usage. A'self-evident' means evident without proof. But can something be 'evident' only after proof? It seems to me that an 'evident' proposition doesn't need proof either. Eric.
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
Hal Ruhl wrote: Boundaries: I have as I said in one post of this thread and as I recall in some earlier related threads defined information as a potential to erect a boundary. So the All is chuck full of this potential. Actual boundaries are the Everything and any evolving Something. This is unclear to me. To take a practical and simple example, from which wavelength a monochromatic radiation ceases to be red ? > The All and the Nothing are not mutually exclusive. I understand that one can have a view differing from mine on this question. In any sound sense of these concepts for me, they are exclusive however. > Perhaps the > "exclusive" idea is based on a hidden assumption of some sort of space > that can only be filled with or somehow contain one or the other but not > both. This is intersting. I have exactly the opposite feeling. In my view, there cannot be anything like space or time (and therefore no other time/place for any something to hide or coexist) if there is(*) nothing. (*) "is" must be considered here in an intemporel mode and not in the present one. Somehow like "equals" in "2 and 2 equals 4 " Georges.
Fw: An All/Nothing multiverse model
- Original Message - From: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 4:26 PM Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model > Hi, Hall, (to your post below and many preceding that): > > I feel there is a semantic game going on." ALL" we know of (or: can know > of), or ALL that 'exists' (another restriction) or ALL just undefined to > 'everything? In most minds the restrictions in thinking is considering this > (our) universe- world. Even expanded into thinking in terms of a Multiverse > sticks of similar universes. A BIG restriction. > "My" Multiverse consists of universes unlimited in number and qualia > (process capability, whatever). ALL in my mind is an invariant multitude of > processes (sorry, I am not on ontological "is" bases, rather in 'changes' > (whatever does change) resulting in the final infinite i.e. invariant > symmetry of total multitude. > I never used this 'ALL' term. > I used as a beginning the "nothingness" which, by identifying ITSELF as > such, became a "somethingness" as realizing the nothingness. What meant a > "difference" which I call: "existence". Acknowledged difference is the > "information" and here we are: a system. The details come in unlimitedly. > > Concepts: I cannot blame you for not 'believeing' in such things: they are > limited views of topically restricted 'parts' of the total (I call it > "wholeness") and such 'models' can be formulated as we wish. > > Arithmetic in my mind is ONE plane of the views: based on the quale of > quantizability. I still did not develop my idea of mathematics without > quantitative connotations, nobody showed the way to such understanding > (although I asked many plavces - many times). The qualia, however, of the > totality, consist of unlimited such planes and all interfere in so far very > scantily discovered ways. So arithmetic is a limited model, the reason for > Goedel (even Turing, as you wrote). > (Maybe I should use 'math'? it might stand in the broader way for human > logic and I don't want to overextend what I say). > > Decision is also a model-based conclusion. Within the observed boundaries of > the restricet view. I would not be able to anticipate a conclusion which the > "infinite computer" may produce. BTW to call it (the infinite) a computer is > an oxymoron: unless we allow the functions in unlimited nature/fashion, > which is not really > 'computer-wise'. To call a qualitatively infinite result-churning system a > 'computer' seems to me as a pars pro toto. (A reverse: totum pro parte is > AI, which is indeed a contraption for the Artificial Machine Intelligence - > not a device for Artificial Human Intelligence > as many regard it). > > Sorry for the long winded writing. I don't want to persuade anybody to > accept my ideas, just wanted to add my tuppence. > > John Mikes > > > - Original Message - > From: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 10:33 PM > Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model > > > > Hi Eric: > > > > At 09:46 PM 11/15/2004, you wrote: > > >On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 10:13, Hal Ruhl wrote: > > > > To respond to comments on consistency. > > > > > > > > I see no reason why components of the system need to be internally > > > > consistent. And I have indicated that the All is not internally > > > > consistent. Generally speaking evolving Somethings are also not > > > > consistent. Actually evolving Somethings are a sequence of Somethings > in > > > > that each new "quantum" of information incorporated into a Something > makes > > > > it a new system. > > > > > > > > Arithmetic and any system that incorporates it can not prove its > [their] > > > > own consistency. > > > > > >Not to be able to prove its consistency doesn't mean > > >it's inconsistent, does it? > > > > Going a little further Turing showed that there is in general no decision > > procedure. Godel's proof is a corollary of this. So if arithmetic ever > > became complete it would have to be inconsistent. The All contains all > > arithmetics including the complete and inconsistent one. So the All is > > internally inconsistent. > > > > Also if you did add an axiom to arithmetic how could this be done so it > was > > known to be consistent with the previous axioms? > > > > > > >I'm thinking about an inconsistent system as one that > > >can prove both a statement and its negation. > > > > That is right > > > > >What exactly do you mean by your All? All systems of > > >representations, or All that 'exists'? If the latter, > > >what does it mean 'to exist'? If the former, do these > > >systems necessarily have a one-to-one correspondence > > >to something that 'exists', and in what sense? > > > > As I said in an earlier post the information within the All may have a > > separate "physical existence". > > I left open for now what that might be. I do believe this to be in any > way > > essential as part of the desc
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
Hal Ruhl wrote: > [...] The idea that defining a thing actually defines two things seems self evident [once you notice it]. At least one case of unavoidable definition also seems self evident [once you notice it]. The problem with evidence is that on one side there is no other known basis to build certainties and on the other it appears to be very relative [once you notice it]. :-) Also, (self) evidence that seems so sounds like a pleonasm to me. Georges.
