Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

[Hal Ruhl]

Hi Jesse:
I think I respond to most earlier questions and comments below:
As to the Laws of Logic with respect to information [and I think I said 
this earlier] the information in a kernel is indeed static.  The laws of 
Logic are just our locally grown [and apparently sequential] way of 
revealing it.  The question I raise is the implicit inclusion of time in 
this process.  Should we have the hubris to impose this somewhat questioned 
concept on all other universes?  In my view the states of all universes 
preexist in the All [as some of the kernels] and Physical Reality washes 
over them in some sequentially inconsistent way.  Just like being in 
Bruno's transporter etc. we would never notice.

My approach is designed to address the residual information problem and 
provide a basis for a dynamic.

I do not agree with your rather based cancelation of the residual 
information issue since I see it as an unnecessary complication of my own 
method.

Can a kernel of information be self inconsistent?  From Bruno's last post I 
think it is possible to impose this idea on the All.

My interest was to have a dynamic which did not impose any residual 
information on the All.  My current view is that each state of that dynamic 
has to be completely independent of the current state.  The way I describe 
this is to say that the dynamic is inconsistent.   It helps this idea if 
there are kernels that are pairwise inconsistent.  I think that is straight 
forward enough.   If there are kernels that are self inconsistent then all 
the better.  Why should they be selected out?

Can any of this exclude a universe that has a sequence of successive states 
that follow a set of fixed rules?  I think that one must insist that the 
inconsistency permeate every corner of the dynamic i.e. some level of 
external noise impressed on all state sequences.

As to does mathematics contain information, mathematics has the potential 
to erect boundaries so by my definition it is information.  It also seems 
possible that there is room for what might be called bifurcated boundaries 
- inconsistencies.

Hal

  

Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

[Pete Carlton]

As usual when I ask a question like this, if the answer is available in 
a text on logic or elsewhere, please just tell me where to look.

..I'm also interested in the implicit use of time, or sequence, in many 
of the ideas discussed here.

For instance you might say that some of your Somethings are 
'bitstrings' that could make up one of Bruno's or Jürgen's 
worlds/observers.  Part of our idea of a string is the convention that 
one element comes first, then the second, then the third, et cetera.  
However, the information that accounts for that convention is not 
contained in the string itself.   'Taking' a Something as a bitstring 
involves some degree of external convention.

So my question is, what do you mean when you say a universe that has a 
sequence of successive states that follow a set of fixed rules?  What 
could make one state give rise to the next state?Citing 
causality just gives a name the problem; it doesn't explain it.  And 
I don't think introducing a Turing machine helps with this basic 
problem, since in any automaton you have rules that say e.g. state X at 
time T begets state Y at time T+1, again placing a convention of 
sequence (time, here) external to the system itself.

This question doesn't engage with your schema head-on; it's more of a 
side detour I've thought of asking about many times on the list; I 
thought it might get explained at some point.  Well, now I'm asking.

Best regards
Pete
On Dec 17, 2004, at 6:48 PM, Hal Ruhl wrote:
snip
My interest was to have a dynamic which did not impose any residual 
information on the All.  My current view is that each state of that 
dynamic has to be completely independent of the current state.  The 
way I describe this is to say that the dynamic is inconsistent.   It 
helps this idea if there are kernels that are pairwise inconsistent.  
I think that is straight forward enough.   If there are kernels that 
are self inconsistent then all the better.  Why should they be 
selected out?

Can any of this exclude a universe that has a sequence of successive 
states that follow a set of fixed rules?  I think that one must insist 
that the inconsistency permeate every corner of the dynamic i.e. some 
level of external noise impressed on all state sequences.

As to does mathematics contain information, mathematics has the 
potential to erect boundaries so by my definition it is information.  
It also seems possible that there is room for what might be called 
bifurcated boundaries - inconsistencies.

Hal