email function check

2017-11-23 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hello Everyone:

Just a check of my new email account so I can resume participation.

Hal 

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


RE: My model, comp, and the Second Law

2017-08-07 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi everyone:

 

Unfortunately I have been very ill for the last 15 months or so.

 

I am working on this project again and hope to post soon.

 

Hal Ruhl 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of auxon
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 3:08 PM
To: Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: My model, comp, and the Second Law

 

I can't wait to dig into this.  

On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 7:02:13 PM UTC-5, hal Ruhl wrote:

 

Hi Everyone:

 

Its been a while since I posted.

 

I would like to start a thread to discuss the Second Law of Thermodynamics

and the possibility that its origins can be found in perhaps my model, or comp, 
or their combination.

 

As references I will start with use are:

 

"Time's Arrow: The Origin of Thermodynamic Behavior" , 

1992 by Micheal Mackey

 

"Microscopic Dynamics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics"

2001 by Michael Mackey.

 

my model as it appears in my posts of March and April of 2014.

 

My idea comes from the fact that almost all the real numbers fail to be 
computable and this

causes computational termination and/or computational precision issues.

 

This should make the operable phase space grainy.  This ambiguity causes 

entropy [system configuration uncertainty] to increase or stay the same 

at each evolutionary [trajectory] step.

 

The system should also not be reversible for the same reason. 

 

If correct, would [my Model,Comp] be observationally verified?

 

Hal

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


My model, comp, and the Second Law

2017-01-27 Thread hal Ruhl

Hi Everyone:

Its been a while since I posted.

I would like to start a thread to discuss the Second Law of Thermodynamics
and the possibility that its origins can be found in perhaps my model, or 
comp, or their combination.

As references I will start with use are:

"Time's Arrow: The Origin of Thermodynamic Behavior" , 
1992 by Micheal Mackey

"Microscopic Dynamics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics"
2001 by Michael Mackey.

my model as it appears in my posts of March and April of 2014.

My idea comes from the fact that almost all the real numbers fail to be 
computable and this
causes computational termination and/or computational precision issues.

This should make the operable phase space grainy.  This ambiguity causes 
entropy [system configuration uncertainty] to increase or stay the same 
at each evolutionary [trajectory] step.

The system should also not be reversible for the same reason. 

If correct, would [my Model,Comp] be observationally verified?

Hal





 

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: My model re Comp and Life re the Everything

2014-04-04 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Bruno:
 

On Friday, April 4, 2014 12:36:13 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 Hal,

 Yes, we might be on the same length wave for the ultimate TOE, 

 
Thank you
 

 but your terming is rather terrible.
  

 
I will work on it, perhaps needing some help.
 
Today I tend to think of the current state of my model as managing to 
parachute in using a bed sheet without sustaining a fatal injury.
 
Hal
 

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: My model re Comp and Life re the Everything

2014-04-03 Thread Hal Ruhl
 

Hi Bruno, John, Liz, and everyone:

 

Bruno:

 

Your comments helped me to refine my thoughts about my model and the model 
itself.

 

See below.

 

Thank you.

 

I believe my model as clarified below has convinced me that Comp to the 
degree I may understand it and to the degree it is “machine” is at least 
one component of a correct and complete description of our observer 
experience.  This because I believe it to be a different expression part of 
if not all of my approach.  There may be other components but this may be 
TBD. 

 

On 01 Apr 2014, at 01:48, Hal Ruhl wrote:

 

Reintroducing some mathematical terms to my model:

A distinction is a description of a boundary between two things see 
definition ”i”.  As a description it is a number - I suppose [a positive 
integer ?].

-

Do you mean the code of a program computing a predicate P(x), that is a 
function from N to {0, 1}, so that some digital machine can distinguish if 
some number, of finite input, verifies or not that property?

---

*I am not very strong on computer science but just an MSEE minted in 60’s, 
however I think my answer would be a qualified yes with the following 
qualifications:*

 

*a) I take your “predicate” to be the subject number itself.*

*b) The program for the machine is in that number.*

*c) The rest of the number is the data for the machine.*

*d) Not all numbers, such as maybe zero, can be distinctions since they 
encode an incomplete machine and or incomplete data.*

---

This makes a divisor - a collection of distinctions by definition “ii” - a 
collection of numbers.

Why use divisor, where x is divisor of y already means Ez(z*x = y), 
 (i.e. it exists a number z such that z times x is equal to y).



*By definition “ii” regarding “divisors” I merely give a relevant short 
name to a subset of numbers.*

 

*Also by “ii” some divisors contain zero distinctions [the “N”s by 
definition “iii”] but nevertheless can contain numbers that contain 
incomplete code.  *

 

*Further some divisors can contain numbers that are distinctions and some 
that are not because such numbers encode incomplete machines or data or 
both.*

 

*Notes:*

*I need to clarify definition “ii” per the underlined words above*

 

*Here I have tried to structure the clarifications so that there is no need 
to resort to a machine that is external to a divisor.*



The collection of numbers (codes of the total computable predicates) will 
not be a computable set of numbers, but you can compute a superset of them, 

--

*I am not sure I understand.  Some numbers [+integers] are excluded from 
being distinctions in the above because they contain incomplete codes. *

 

*However the full set of distinctions [call it “d”] should still be [I 
think] a countable infinite set of integers.  *

 

*Divisors include all subsets of the set {“d” Union [the set of all 
integers that are not distinctions - call this set “I”]}*

 

* This I think makes “A” -  the set of all divisors -  an uncountable 
infinite powerset of {“d” U “I”}.  So by your comment I think both {“d” U 
“I”} and “A” are computable (perhaps some with the aid of a random oracle. 
  *

 

--

by accepting that some code will not output any answer for some predicate 
(distinction)

---

*I think the above covers that.*

--

No machine can distinct the totally distinguishable from the non 
distinguishable.

--

*I do not think this applies, but I think my clarifications may  help 
decide the issue.*

 

*Many incomplete codings [machine, data or both] should produce output 
which is at least partly a guess on some of the incomplete coding [output 
of a random oracle].  I would identify this as the transition from an 
incomplete divisor [a universe state by assumption A2] to a successor 
divisor [universe state] which itself may be incomplete – a trace in “A” is 
started, continued or terminated [on a complete divisor].  *


--

Since I think any number can be description and thus a member of a divisor, 
“A” since it contains all divisors by assumption A1 contains all numbers.  I 
consider “A” to be the Everything.

---

*See the clarification of “Divisor” above.*



It works with the superset above. I think. As you are a bit unclear, I take 
the opportunity to understand you in the frame which makes already some 
sense to me (mainly the mechanist hypothesis).

--

*See my last comment below.*

--

To get a dynamic in the “A” - one of my personal goals - I point to the 
incompleteness of a subset of divisors.

A universe [see assumption A2] needs to answer all meaningful questions 
relevant to it, so it must eventually become complete in this sense.

Thus a trace from state to state is created within “A” for each universe.  The 
trace eventually ends on a complete divisor. 

I see “A” and its traces

Re: My model re Comp and Life re the Everything

2014-03-31 Thread Hal Ruhl
 
Hi Bruno:
 

Reintroducing some mathematical terms to my model:

A distinction is a description of a boundary between two things see 
definition ”i”.  As a description it is a number - I suppose [a positive 
integer ?].

This makes a divisor - a collection of distinctions by definition “ii” - a 
collection of numbers.

Since I think any number can be a description and thus a member of a 
divisor, “A” since it contains all divisors by assumption A1 contains all 
numbers.  I consider “A” to be the Everything.

To get a dynamic in the “A” - one of my personal goals - I point to the 
incompleteness of a subset of divisors.

A universe [see assumption A2] needs to answer all meaningful questions 
relevant to it, so it must eventually become complete in this sense.

Thus a trace from state to state is created within “A” for each universe.  The 
trace eventually ends on a complete divisor. 

I see “A” and its traces as a UD.

As for the issue of the nature of life please see my draft at:

*http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/*http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/

It is a pleasure to converse with you again.

Hal
 
 

On Monday, March 31, 2014 4:12:08 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 Hi Hal,

 I read and try to understand. I am not sure life is inherently 
 self-destructive. It is more inherently self-replacing.
 Can you define the A of your assumption more specifically? Your notion of 
 divisors is quite vague for me.

 Best,

 Bruno


 On 31 Mar 2014, at 01:21, Hal Ruhl wrote:

 Hi everyone:
  
 I am currently interested in two questions:
  
 Does my model of why there are dynamic universes within the Everything 
 [latest version is below] include Bruno's Comp?  Hi Bruno.
  
 If life is inherently self destructive under any reasonable definition of 
 life [see some of my recent posts], then how does this impact the 
 Everything since I see it as a restriction [selection] on the scope of 
 possible universes? 
  
 Comments welcome. 
  
 Thanks
  
 Hal Ruhl
  
  
  
 DEFINITIONS:
  
 i) Distinction:
  
 That which enables a separation such as a particular red from other colors.
  
 ii) Devisor:
  
 That which encloses a quantity [zero to every] of distinctions. [Some 
 divisors are thus collections of divisors.] 
  
 iii): Define “N”s as those divisors that enclose zero distinction.   Call 
 them Nothing(s).
  
 iv): Define “S”s as divisors that enclose a non zero number of 
 distinctions but not all distinctions.  Call them Something(s). 
  
  
 MODEL:
  
 1) Assumption # A1: There exists a set consisting of all possible 
 divisors. Call this set “A”.
  
 “A” encompasses every distinction. “A” is thus itself a divisor by 
 definition (i) and therefore contains itself an unbounded number of times 
 [“A” contains “A” which contains “A” and so on. 
  
 2) An issue that arises is whether or not an individual specific divisor 
 is static or dynamic. That is: Is its quantity of distinction subject to 
 change? It cannot be both.
  
 This requires that all divisors individually enclose the self referential 
 distinction of being static or dynamic. 
  
 3) At least one divisor type - the “N”s, by definition (iii), enclose no 
 such distinction but by (2) they must enclose this one.  This is a type 
 of incompleteness.  [A complete divisor can answer any self meaningful 
 question but not necessarily consistently i.e. sometimes one way sometimes 
 another] That is the “N”s cannot answer this question which is nevertheless 
 meaningful to them.  [The incompleteness is taken to be rather similar 
 functionally to the incompleteness of some mathematical Formal Axiomatic 
 Systems – See Godel.]
  
 The “N” are thus unstable with respect to their initial condition.  They 
 each must at some point spontaneously enclose this stability distinction.  
 They thereby transition into “S”s. 
  
 4) By (3) Transitions between divisors exist.
  
 5) Some of the “S”s resulting from “N”s [see (3)] may themselves be 
 incomplete in a similar manner but perhaps in a different distinction 
 family. They must evolve – via similar incompleteness driven transitions - 
 until “complete” in the sense of (3).
  
 6) Assumption # A2: Each element of “A” is a universe state.
  
 7) The result is a “flow” of “S”s most of which are encompassing more and 
 more distinction with each transition.
  
 8) This flow is a multiplicity of paths of successions of transitions 
 from element to element of the All.  That is (by A2) a transition from a 
 universe state to a successor universe state. 
  
 9) Our Universe’s evolution would be one such path on which the S 
 constantly gets larger.
  
 10) Since incompleteness can have multiple resolutions the path of an 
 evolving “S” may split into multiple paths at any transition. 
  
 11) A path may also originate on an incomplete “S” not just the Ns. 
  
 12) Observer constructs such as life entities and likely all other 
 constructs imbedded in a universe bear witness to the transitions. 
  
 13

RE: My model re Comp and Life re the Everything

2014-03-31 Thread hal ruhl
Hi Liz:
 
A number can be interpreted as encoded information.  The decoder can even be
a segment of the number.
 
Hal
 
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 7:53 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: My model re Comp and Life re the Everything
 
On 1 April 2014 12:48, Hal Ruhl halr...@alum.syracuse.edu wrote:
 
Hi Bruno:
 
Reintroducing some mathematical terms to my model:
A distinction is a description of a boundary between two things see
definition i.  As a description it is a number - I suppose [a positive
integer ?].
Sorry I don't quite see this. If you want to draw a distinction between a
particular shade of red and any other colour, how is that a number?
 
 
-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


My model re Comp and Life re the Everything

2014-03-30 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi everyone:
 
I am currently interested in two questions:
 
Does my model of why there are dynamic universes within the Everything 
[latest version is below] include Bruno's Comp?  Hi Bruno.
 
If life is inherently self destructive under any reasonable definition of 
life [see some of my recent posts], then how does this impact the 
Everything since I see it as a restriction [selection] on the scope of 
possible universes? 
 
Comments welcome. 
 
Thanks
 
Hal Ruhl
 
 
 

DEFINITIONS:

 

i) Distinction:

 

That which enables a separation such as a particular red from other colors.

 

ii) Devisor:

 

That which encloses a quantity [zero to every] of distinctions. [Some 
divisors are thus collections of divisors.] 

 

iii): Define “N”s as those divisors that enclose zero distinction.   Call 
them Nothing(s).

 

iv): Define “S”s as divisors that enclose a non zero number of distinctions 
but not all distinctions.  Call them Something(s). 

 

 

MODEL:

 

1) Assumption # A1: There exists a set consisting of all possible divisors. 
Call this set “A”.

 

“A” encompasses every distinction. “A” is thus itself a divisor by 
definition (i) and therefore contains itself an unbounded number of times 
[“A” contains “A” which contains “A” and so on. 

 

2) An issue that arises is whether or not an individual specific divisor is 
static or dynamic. That is: Is its quantity of distinction subject to 
change? It cannot be both.

 

This requires that all divisors individually enclose the self referential 
distinction of being static or dynamic. 

 

3) At least one divisor type - the “N”s, by definition (iii), enclose no 
such distinction but by (2) they must enclose this one.  This is a type of 
incompleteness.  [A complete divisor can answer any self meaningful 
question but not necessarily consistently i.e. sometimes one way sometimes 
another] That is the “N”s cannot answer this question which is nevertheless 
meaningful to them.  [The incompleteness is taken to be rather similar 
functionally to the incompleteness of some mathematical Formal Axiomatic 
Systems – See Godel.]

 

The “N” are thus unstable with respect to their initial condition.  They 
each must at some point spontaneously enclose this stability distinction.  They 
thereby transition into “S”s. 

 

4) By (3) Transitions between divisors exist.

 

5) Some of the “S”s resulting from “N”s [see (3)] may themselves be 
incomplete in a similar manner but perhaps in a different distinction 
family. They must evolve – via similar incompleteness driven transitions - 
until “complete” in the sense of (3).

 

6) Assumption # A2: Each element of “A” is a universe state.

 

7) The result is a “flow” of “S”s most of which are encompassing more and 
more distinction with each transition.

 

8) This flow is a multiplicity of paths of successions of transitions 
from element to element of the All.  That is (by A2) a transition from a 
universe state to a successor universe state. 

 

9) Our Universe’s evolution would be one such path on which the S 
constantly gets larger.

 

10) Since incompleteness can have multiple resolutions the path of an 
evolving “S” may split into multiple paths at any transition. 

 

11) A path may also originate on an incomplete “S” not just the Ns. 

 

12) Observer constructs such as life entities and likely all other 
constructs imbedded in a universe bear witness to the transitions. 

 

13) Transition paths [“traces” may be a better term] can be of any length.

 

14) A particular transition may not resolve any incompleteness of the 
subject evolving S.

 

15) White Rabbits: Since many elements of A are very large, large 
transitions could become infrequent on a long path [trace] whereon the 
particular S itself gets large.  (Also few White Rabbits if both sides of 
the divisors on either side of the transition are sufficiently similar in 
size).  

 

 

 

 

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: New NASA study predicts high probability of collapse of industrial civilization

2014-03-20 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Russell and everyone
 
I appreciate the comments in the thread such as those on entropy vs 
universe dynamics which reveal the fact that I may be somewhat old school 
re physics.
 
In the blog discussion I pointed to in my earlier post I do cover many 
points.
 
For example at definition #3, I discuss closed systems.  I hypothetically 
designate our solar system as essentially closed for the purposes of the 
blog post.
 
Over the duration of my posting on this list I have presented a 
collection of models regarding how the Everything can allow and implement 
dynamic universes at least as viewed by life entities inside those 
universes.
 
I am currently interested in several aspects of the results of 
the observation of life in our local life system, how the observational 
results can be understood, and what impact do the resulting conclusions 
have on models of the Everything and humanities [Homo Sapiens Sapiens] 
continued existence or perhaps imposed life style changes. 
 
In the blog post I am trying to explain why numerous warnings of impending 
socio-economic disaster have been, by prior trials, largely ignored. 
 
I would like to refine the blog [or even abandon it if it is shown to be 
unrealistic] so I would deeply appreciate comments on it.  
Hal Ruhl
 
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:28:15 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:

 On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:44:17PM +1300, LizR wrote: 
   Yes, I think that's what Carl Sagan said about the possibility of life 
  existing indefinitely, too. The entropy ceiling goes up indefinitely, 
 but 
  the energy remaining goes down, and ultimately I would imagine it ends 
 up 
  at the noise level. Since entropy is an emergent concept I'm not sure 
 where 
  the rising ceiling gets us in the long run, although it certainly helps 
 in 
  the short term (the big bang was near equilibrium, yet we're now far 
 from 
  it). 
  

 It's not as clear cut as that. In a Friedman universe, gravity 
 eventually slows the expansion of the universe, (whether open or 
 closed) so the entropy ceiling slows down in being raised.  This would 
 imply that eventually that dissipative process will eventually 
 assymptotically consume the available free energy. 

 (Apparently, in a closed Friedman universe, it is possible to obtain 
 energy from the big crunch - Tipler's Omega point, so I probably 
 haven't got this quite right for closed universes. Something to do 
 with reversing the direction of the second law, I suppose.) 

 But it now appears that the universe's expansion is accelerating due 
 to dark energy. This would entail that free energy will forever be 
 created faster than the dissipative processes can consume it. 

 Again, consider this to all be revised again in our lifetimes. 

 Cheers 

 -- 

  

 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
 Principal, High Performance Coders 
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript: 
 University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
  



-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: New NASA study predicts high probability of collapse of industrial civilization

2014-03-18 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi John:
 
It is a distinct pleasure to hear from you.
 
To answer your question I think the narrowest characterization of the type 
of life I talk about is that it is one of the possible processes within a 
universe that if implemented increase the entropy of that universe.  
Further all such processes will be implemented in any universe in which 
they are possible.  Since entropy has a fixed maximum in a closed system (a 
universe) then life must enable its own extinction.
 
Yours
 
Hal

On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 5:23:58 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote:

 Dear Hal Ruhl,

 it has been for long since we had our last exchangeI clicked the URL 
 and found mostly agreeable general ideas (with my peculiar thoughts in 
 frequent questioning).

 *May I ask WHAT kind of LIFE are you talking about?*

 I believe our Terresstrial 'bio' is only a segment. Then again evolution 
 etc. are not within my agnostic framework of worldview, so your explanation 
 would find fertile grounds. 

 Good to hear from you again

 John Mikes oldtimer


 On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Hal Ruhl 
 hal...@alum.syracuse.edujavascript:
  wrote:

 Hi everyone
  
 Below is a URL from one of my posts on the subject of life being 
 inherently self destructive which I believe it to be.  It provides my 
 curent argument on the subject.
  
 I think such discussion is relevant to the main history of this group's 
 threads because if life is indeed always inherently self 
 destructive wherever it appears in any allowed universe then why is there 
 such a down select in the types of allowed universes.   
  
 -
  
 *http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/*http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/
  
  
 
  
 Hal Ruhl

  

  -- 
 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: New NASA study predicts high probability of collapse of industrial civilization

2014-03-17 Thread Hal Ruhl
 Hi everyone
 
Below is a URL from one of my posts on the subject of life being inherently 
self destructive which I believe it to be.  It provides my curent argument 
on the subject.
 
I think such discussion is relevant to the main history of this group's 
threads because if life is indeed always inherently self 
destructive wherever it appears in any allowed universe then why is there 
such a down select in the types of allowed universes.   
 
-
 
*http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/*http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/

 

 
Hal Ruhl

 


-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal

2014-02-11 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Bruno and Liz:
 
I think it is not fruitful to look further at the words natural and 
unnatural.  They seem to carry too much baggage.  I should not have used 
them.
 
I suggest looking at my post I pointed to:   

*http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/*http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/
and go through it and discuss it one step at a time.  It uses the term 
inherent.
 
After that we could explore how the collection of universes in the 
Everything permits the result of the discussion.
 
For example if the result is that life appears always inherently self 
extinguishing how does this lack of choice influence the origin and 
structure [if this is a reasonably applicable term] of the Everything. 
Hal Ruhl
 
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:18:57 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 11 Feb 2014, at 03:57, LizR wrote:

 On 11 February 2014 15:22, Hal Ruhl hal...@alum.syracuse.edujavascript:
  wrote:

 Hi Liz:
  
 I am not sure I understand your comment.
 As to rate I posit a positive feedback loop in the life system that 
 forces natural ecocide that also makes the rate at which life approaches 
 it accelerate.
 There is always a chance that an essentially outside originating 
 influence could terminate the natural extinction process with an 
 unnatural one [cometary impact, etc.].
 By natural here I mean inherent in life itself.  Unnatural would be 
 external to life. [I suppose that these distinctions may have permeable 
 boundaries.]
  In any event my point is that my argument supports a natural and thus 
 unavoidable extinction event built into life and it is fully effective 
 absent an unnatural earlier one. 

 I still don't think we should be killing off all the species we are, if 
 only for our own sake. I think we benefit from biodiversity, probably even 
 more so than the next species since we have occupied almost every niche on 
 the planet apart from deep sea smokers.

 I also don't like the suggestion that ecocide is a natural and 
 unavoidable aspect of life because that appears to be an attempt at 
 justifying ourselves.



 It is the same error than the lawyer who justified his client's murder by 
 the fact that it just obeys the laws of physics. It is natural!
 It is empty also, in this case, as we can say that the human reaction to 
 avoid the natural ecocide is natural too, like the jury member can condemm 
 the murderer to any pain, by justifying them by the fact that they too obey 
 the physical laws. 

 naturality add nothing on each sides of the debate. Here nature plays a 
 role of the gap, and some others could just say Oh, that's God will.
 I think this has a name: fatalism. 

 Invoking God or Matter in this way, is, in comp+Theaetetus, a theological 
 error. 

 Comp explains why this is false, even if true at the non justifiable 
 truth level, but it becomes false when asserted (it put us in a 
 cul-de-sac world, which can satisfies []A - ~A.)

 We do exist, as human or Löbian person, and we do have partial control, 
 and thus relative responsibilities. If comp is true.




 I doubt if the species that came through the k-t boundary with some 
 members alive had an easy time of it for the next few million years, and I 
 don't particularly want the same for our children.


 OK.

 Bruno






 -- 
 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal

2014-02-10 Thread Hal Ruhl

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:35:01 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 http://www.endecocide.eu/

 Hi Liz

Back on 10/31/2012 I started a thread Life: Origin, Purpose, and Qualia 
Spectrum wherein I argue that ecocide [to adopt a term] is a natural and 
unavoidable aspect of life.
A draft later version [4/18/2013] is at   
 
http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/
 
Hal Ruhl

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal

2014-02-10 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Liz:
 
I am not sure I understand your comment.
As to rate I posit a positive feedback loop in the life system that 
forces natural ecocide that also makes the rate at which life approaches 
it accelerate.
There is always a chance that an essentially outside originating 
influence could terminate the natural extinction process with an 
unnatural one [cometary impact, etc.].
By natural here I mean inherent in life itself.  Unnatural would be 
external to life. [I suppose that these distinctions may have permeable 
boundaries.]
 In any event my point is that my argument supports a natural and thus 
unavoidable extinction event built into life and it is fully effective 
absent an unnatural earlier one. 
 
Hal Ruhl
 
On Monday, February 10, 2014 8:33:08 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 It certainly isn't natural at the rate we've been doing it. We're coming 
 close to a cometary impact. 


 On 11 February 2014 14:02, Hal Ruhl hal...@alum.syracuse.edujavascript:
  wrote:


 On Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:35:01 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 http://www.endecocide.eu/

 Hi Liz

 Back on 10/31/2012 I started a thread Life: Origin, Purpose, and Qualia 
 Spectrum wherein I argue that ecocide [to adopt a term] is a natural and 
 unavoidable aspect of life.
 A draft later version [4/18/2013] is at   
  
 http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/
  
 Hal Ruhl

 -- 
 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal

2014-02-10 Thread Hal Ruhl

On Monday, February 10, 2014 9:57:56 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

  

 I still don't think we should be killing off all the species we are, if 
 only for our own sake. I think we benefit from biodiversity, probably even 
 more so than the next species since we have occupied almost every niche on 
 the planet apart from deep sea smokers.

 I also don't like the suggestion that ecocide is a natural and 
 unavoidable aspect of life because that appears to be an attempt at 
 justifying ourselves.

 I doubt if the species that came through the k-t boundary with some 
 members alive had an easy time of it for the next few million years, and I 
 don't particularly want the same for our children.

  
Hi Liz:
 
The argument I present is based in the laws of physics as we know them in 
our universe and resulting information flows.
 
The laws of physics make no kind of judgment as to the nature of the 
emotional consequences of actions that result from them other than are the 
resulting emotions a correct result of the physics in play.  
 
My position is that the emotions anti ecocide will never come even close 
to outweighing the emotions pro the process that leads to the ecocide.
 
However I do make allowance for such a possibility.
 
See the material I pointed to:  http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/ 
 
 Hal Ruhl
 

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: A humble suggestion to the group

2014-02-04 Thread Hal Ruhl

On Monday, February 3, 2014 3:58:07 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:

 On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:09:00AM -0800, Hal Ruhl wrote: 

  
  Hi Russell and everyone 
  



  
  My personal archive goes back to March of 2008 if there might be 
 something 
  in there that could help a wiki construction. 

 Backup of the wiki or an email archive? Email archives exist, of 
 course, particularly through googlegroups, but seem to be difficult to 
 search, for some reason. 

  
 Hi Russell
It is just email posts.  It may not be of use but I can try searching it if 
someone has a search criteria.
 
Hal Ruhl 

  

 

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


RE: A humble suggestion to the group

2014-02-04 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Russell and everyone

Interesting that the first time I look at the list for a very long time I
find something I like.

My personal archive goes back to March of 2008 if there might be something
in there that could help a wiki construction.

As I recall I once a very long time ago started a FAQ for the list but the
project died.

Hal Ruhl

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 5:38 PM
To: Everything List
Subject: Re: A humble suggestion to the group

That is a pity, given I wrote quite a few of those pages. I don't have the
time now to repeat the effort :(. But I'll chime on of other people's
efforts.

We must make sure we have backups this time!

PS - checked the Wayback machine, and it did only one archive of the wiki
back in 21st of July last year - alas it got an Error 403 :(

https://web.archive.org/web/20130721124015/http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx

Cheers


-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: A humble suggestion to the group

2014-02-03 Thread Hal Ruhl
 

Hi Russell and everyone

 

Interesting that the first time I look at the list for a very long time I 
find something I like.

 

My personal archive goes back to March of 2008 if there might be something 
in there that could help a wiki construction.

 

As I recall I once a very long time ago started a FAQ for the list but the 
project died.

 

Hal Ruhl

 

-Original Message-

From: *everything-list@googlegroups.com* everything-list@googlegroups.com[
*mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com* everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Russell Standish

Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 5:38 PM

To: Everything List

Subject: Re: A humble suggestion to the group

 

That is a pity, given I wrote quite a few of those pages. I don't have the 
time now to repeat the effort :(. But I'll chime on of other people's 
efforts.

 

We must make sure we have backups this time!

 

PS - checked the Wayback machine, and it did only one archive of the wiki 
back in 21st of July last year - alas it got an Error 403 :(

 

*https://web.archive.org/web/20130721124015/http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx*https://web.archive.org/web/20130721124015/http:/everythingwiki.gcn.cx

 

Cheers

 

 

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


RE: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index

2012-12-21 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Roger :
 
Then Try:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
 
and
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States
 
Hal
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index

2012-12-18 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Roger :

Try:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_distribution_in_the_United_States

Then Try:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States

Hal

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: On Income Fairness in the USA and the world

2012-12-18 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Roger:

Try this and sort by wealth Gini

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribution_of_wealth

Hal

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: On Income Fairness in the USA and the world

2012-12-18 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Roger :

Try:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_distribution_in_the_United_States
Then Try:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States

Hal

Sorry if this posts more than once - some of my posts just disappear

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

2012-11-13 Thread Hal Ruhl


This is an effort to clarify what I have said in earlier posts. I
think it strengths the idea that we have a very substantial problem on
our hands.

[Terms not defined herein have the usual “Laws of Physics” definition]


1) Definition {1}:  Energy (E) is the ability to subject a mass to a
force.

2) There are several types of energy currently known or proposed:

 a) Mass itself via the conversion: [M = E/(c*c)]
 b) Gravitational
 c) Electromagnetic
 d) Nuclear [Strong and Weak forces]
 e) Dark Energy [proposed]

3) Definition {2}: Work (W) is the FLOW OF ENERGY amongst the various
types in (2) by means of a change in the spatial configuration,
dynamics and/or amount of mass in a physical system brought about by
an actual application of a force to a mass.

4) The exact original distribution of energy amongst the various types
can't be reestablished and the new configuration can't do as much work
as the prior configuration was capable of doing. [Less ability to
apply forces to masses] [See the Second Law of Thermodynamics]

5) Time is not a factor: Once a flow of energy is possible it will
take place immediately through an energy flow conduit.

6) If we look at the usual attempts to define life, we find things
such as has a metabolism, grows larger [+ growth], procreates, etc.
These require a FLOW OF ENERGY (3) from an initial ability to do work
to a lower ability to do work (4) and through the life entity or its
associated instrumentality [Tools: such as a rock hammer, bow, car
engine or its piece of a vast food production and distribution system
etc.].  Think of the life entity as a pipe or conduit for this FLOW
OF ENERGY.]

7) Conclusion [1]: Therefore from (1) thru (6), wherever the
possibility of life exists [the proper ingredients are appropriately
present] life will appear as rapidly as possible.  This is the
origin of life proposed herein.

8) All [more references needed] FLOWS OF ENERGY suffer from what are
known as Energy Flow Hang-up Barriers such as nuclear bonding
coefficient issues, spatial configuration, spin, other spatial statics
[location] and dynamics, ignition temperature requirements,
electromagnetic repulsion, etc.  [Energy Flow Hang-up Barriers is
not my terminology - I think there was a twenty year or so old article
in Scientific American I am looking for and a quick Internet search
found a discussion of the repulsion hang-up in Cosmology The Science
of the Universe by Edward Robert Harrison.  If energy flow hang-up
barriers did not exist then by (5) the universe would have become
incapable of supporting life very soon after it began. [Big Bang?]

9) Conclusion [2] Therefore life is just an energy flow conduit
necessarily drilling holes in energy flow hang-up barriers as per the
current ability of the particular life entity so as to enable even
more energy flow i.e. + growth, procreation, etc.

10) Definition {3} Operable work depletion: The depletion of the
ability to actually apply a force to a mass and as a result accomplish
the energy flow required by (3) with the consequences in (4) in a
region of the universe occupied by a particular biosphere.  There may
be a great many biospheres in the universe.

11) Conclusion [3]: (9) and (10) combine into the proposed Function
#1 [pF1] of life. [Function seems better than Purpose.] In other
words life's function is to hasten the operable work depletion in its
region of the host universe.

12) Now add in evolution which is a random walk with a lower but no
upper bound, thus capable of producing ever more capable energy flow
hang-up busters.

-

i) Consciousness: Define it for now as the detection by a life entity
of the current system energy configuration both internal and external
to the life entity sufficient to ensure its adherence to its
Actual Function [AF] in its universe.  In our universe it appears
that even single cells may have antenna to facilitate this detection.
See ScienceNews, 11/03/12, page 16.  I have proposed that life's AF
in this universe is the one I derived above.  I see no reason how the
life’s Origin that I propose and pF1 conflict with such antenna on
individual cells.

ii) Freewill:  pF1 precludes it because life must always follow its
function, so too for any Actual Function [AF] that differs from pF1.

iii) Species survival: Life on this planet is in the midst of an
extinction event [not a new idea] that can't be stopped because pF1
would be the only priority for life.  We may not be extinguished as a
species but we can't self exclude ourselves from the extinction
because of pF1.  There have been a number of extinction events.
However, evolution has used some of these to produce new life entities
with greater energy hang-up barrier busting ability than the
extinguished ones - new life entities such as ourselves from the K-Pg
event.

iv) Current Economic Conditions:  The news in this area has been
rather bad for some time.  The most frequently offered solution has
been that national 

RE: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

2012-11-11 Thread Hal Ruhl
I have tried to post this several times.  It appears I am again having
issues with my email software.  I am sorry if it eventually posts multiple
times.
 
Hi John and Russell:
 
As far as I know all the Laws of Physics are based on observation and are
absent closed form proof.
 
Given the data I have seen, resource consumption and real GDP follow similar
size trajectories.  Twenty or more years ago I played with ideas on how they
[using quality of life experience for which real GDP would be a reasonable
proxy] might be decoupled to the benefit of species survival .   This
included consideration of what I now call pAP1.  Recently I had reason to
resurrect these old unpublished writings.   Review of these writings,
conversations  with  associates and the vantage point of 20 more years of
observation have caused me to believe that pAP1 has a global and unbreakable
hold on human behavior.   I believe even outliers such as survivalists if
subjected to accurate energy flow analysis would be shown to be fully in its
grasp. The consequences of this would be rather unpleasant as I indicated
and Russell appears to support.   Thus my recent posts looking for a
falsification of pAP1.  [I am  currently rewriting the early post to improve
clarity.] 
 
John: I think my response to Stephen re his finite resolution. responds to
your post also.
 
Hal 
 
AFAIK, there is no requirement for resource consumption to be proportional
to GDP. So it should be possible to save the economy without wrecking the
planet.
 
But yes, ultimately life will have to move on from H. Sapiens...
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

2012-11-10 Thread Hal Ruhl


I have tried to post this several times.  It appears I am again having
issues with my email software.  I am sorry if it eventually posts
multiple times.

Hi John and Russell:

As far as I know all the “Laws of Physics” are based on observation
and are absent closed form proof.

Given the data I have seen, resource consumption and real GDP follow
similar size trajectories.  Twenty or more years ago I played with
ideas on how they [using quality of life experience for which real GDP
would be a reasonable proxy] might be decoupled to the benefit of
species survival .   This included consideration of what I now call
pAP1.  Recently I had reason to resurrect these old unpublished
writings.   Review of these writings, conversations  with  associates
and the vantage point of 20 more years of observation have caused me
to believe that pAP1 has a global and unbreakable hold on human
behavior.   I believe even outliers such as survivalists if subjected
to accurate energy flow analysis would be shown to be fully in its
grasp. The consequences of this would be rather unpleasant as I
indicated and Russell appears to support.   Thus my recent posts
looking for a falsification of pAP1.  [I am  currently rewriting the
early post to improve clarity.]

John: I think my response to Stephen re his “finite resolution…”
responds to your post also.

Hal

AFAIK, there is no requirement for resource consumption to be
proportional to GDP. So it should be possible to save the economy
without wrecking the planet.

But yes, ultimately life will have to move on from H. Sapiens...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



RE: RE: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

2012-11-09 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Roger:


Roger: Talk to Dawkins. The purpose of the gene is to create more genes. So
the purpose of life (at a minimum) is to create more life.

 Response from Hal: No. Life creates more life in compliance with pAP1.
A reasonable result is one heck of a mass extinction. Repeat until there are
no more operative energy hang-up barriers. 


Roger: You may notice that earth was once lifeless but its surface become
alive with plants, fishes... 

SNIP

 Response from Hal: You help make my point. 

Hal 




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



RE: RE: Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

2012-11-09 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Roger:

I try to practice reasonable bandwidth conservation. Your comment You say
life hastens death. which is in my response seemed sufficient for the
discussion. If you need something from one of your prior posts and you do
not have it just cut and paste it from the Google archive. 

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/everything-list

Hal

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 8:42 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

Hi Hal Ruhl  

Sorry, I can not respond as you clipped off my previous post containing said
metaphors. 


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/9/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -
From: Hal Ruhl
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-08, 12:13:48
Subject: RE: Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum 


Hi Roger: 

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 6:09 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum 

Hi Hal,  

Just look at the metaphors you use to see that your idea below is wrong.  
You say that life hastens death.  

Of course it does - all day every day in . Animals are parasitic on
photosynthesis and frequently each other as well as the energy hang-up
barriers they must bust.  

Hal 



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



RE: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

2012-11-09 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Stepen:

Interesting post.

I indicated in the initiating posts that life should rapidly appear where
the conditions supporting it are found.

I suspect that in most cases the sphere of influence for a particular
instance of a biosphere is small when compared to the size of the universe.
Therefore I propose to change heat death to operative heat death re your
finite resolving power for observers.  This should allow for the
possibility of an open universe.  

I am also considering changing purpose of life to function of life.

Thanks

Hal


Dear Hal,

 What consequences would there be is the Universe (all that exists) is
truly infinite and eternal (no absolute beginning or end) and what we
observe as a finite (spatially and temporally) universe is just the result
of our finite ability to compute the contents of our observations? It is
helpful to remember that thermodynamic arguments, such as the heat engine
concept, apply only to closed systems. It is better to assume open systems
and finite resolving power (or equivalently finite computational abilities)
for observers.

--
Onward!

Stephen



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

2012-11-09 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Everyone:
 
At this time I would like to go a bit further re item iii: 
 
iii) Species survival: Life on this planet is in the midst of an extinction
event [not a new idea] that can't be stopped because pAP1 would be the only
priority for life.  We may not be extinguished as a species but we can't
exclude ourselves from the extinction because of pAP1 [fixed typo].  There
have been a number of extinction events.  However, evolution has used some
of these to produce new life entities with greater energy hang-up barrier
busting ability than the extinguished ones - new life entities such as
ourselves from the K-Pg event.
 
Iiia) Current Economic Conditions:  The news in this area has been rather
bad for some time.  The most frequently offered solution has been that
national economies and thus the world economy must grow real GDP.  In fact
grow it exponentially or even super exponentially.  Since the planet has
only a finite supply of energy - see prior posts under #2 for energy types -
a new trick has to be learned.  However, the offered solution is in
compliance with pAP1.  Thus if pAP1 is correct then no other solution can be
offered.  In this case weep for the children.  I hope someone can falsify
pAP1.
 
 
Hal

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



RE: RE: RE: Consciousness = life = intelligence

2012-11-08 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Roger:

You have to look at the net effect of the entire biosphere.  I am not a
biologist and can't speak to the total net effect of photosynthesis.  But it
does store some part of the energy flow it encompasses.  Humans are rather
substantial energy hang-up barrier busters.  We also store internal energy
as fat or external energy as say chemical energy in a battery or
gravitational energy as water behind a dam.  We are also dependent on the
storage ability of photosynthesis to live. I am currently convinced that the
net effect of the biosphere [life] is in compliance with pAP1.  I suspect
that each individual life entity upon sufficiently close inspection will be
found to be as well.

Further the environment necessary for life to arise as I propose and be
sustainable is hardly random. 

Hal   

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 5:51 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Consciousness = life = intelligence

Hi Hal Ruhl  

Since life in the form of photosynthesis creates order in the form of cell
structure out of a random (entropic) environment,  life seems to reverse
time's arrow, and hence slow down the heat death of the universe.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/8/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -
From: Hal Ruhl
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-07, 14:27:03
Subject: RE: RE: Consciousness = life = intelligence 


Hi Roger: 

pAP1 [proposed Actual Purpose #1] is the life purpose I introduced in the
discussion initiating posts. See below. I recently posted giving acronyms. 
AP is the actual purpose of life acronym.  

8) Conclusion (2): Once life is present it will immediately punch as many
holes in as many Energy Hang-up Barriers as the details of the particular
life entity involved allows - this is how it realizes its energy flow
conduit character. This is the purpose of life herein. In other words
life's purpose is to hasten the heat death of its host universe. 

Hal 

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 12:34 PM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: RE: Consciousness = life = intelligence 

Hi Hal Ruhl  
  
What is pAP1 ?  


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/7/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen  


- Receiving the following content -
From: Hal Ruhl
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-07, 12:18:21
Subject: RE: Consciousness = life = intelligence  


Hi Roger:  

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 11:06 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Consciousness = life = intelligence  

Hi Hal Ruhl  

Consciousness = life = intelligence. These are an inseparable, subjective,
inextended properties of a living being.  

Hal: Consciousness is merely a qualia of life enabling life's compliance
with pAP1.  

In addition, intelligence requires free will of some degree in order to make
life-preserving choices for an associated, objective body, such as are
required for self-animation, metabolism, self-defense, eating and mating.  

Hal: pAP1 precludes freewill because ALL of life's qualia [such as
consciousness] merely enable compliance with pAP1.  

Hal Ruhl  


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.  
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.  
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.  
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You

RE: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

2012-11-08 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Stephen:

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen P. King
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 6:56 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

On 11/7/2012 11:40 AM, Hal Ruhl wrote:
 Hi Stephen:

 pAP1 is #8 of the discussion initiating posts

 8) Conclusion (2): Once life is present it will immediately punch as 
 many holes in as many Energy Hang-up Barriers as the details of the 
 particular life entity involved allows - this is how it realizes its 
 energy flow conduit character.  This is the purpose of life herein.  
 In other words life's purpose is to hasten the heat death of its host
universe.

 Hal
Dear Hal,

 Is heat death truly real or a necessary concept?

Well the term has been around for awhile but I have not seen a proposed end
state or series of end states of the universe in which the ability to run a
heat engine does not become zero or asymptotically approach it.

Hal  



 -Original Message-
 From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen P. King
 Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 11:07 AM
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Subject: Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

 On 11/7/2012 9:38 AM, Hal Ruhl wrote:
 Hi Everyone:

 This may show up more than once as a few others did.  In recent days 
 I have had issues with my internet connection.  It has been 16 hours 
 since I sent this the second time. This time I tried  sending it 
 again and then again as plain text.  Very sorry if my troubles cause 
 some
 clutter.
 At this time I would like to go a bit further re item iii:

 iii) Species survival: Life on this planet is in the midst of an 
 extinction event [not a new idea] that can't be stopped because pAP1 
 would be the only priority for life.  We may not be extinguished as a 
 species but we can't exclude ourselves from the extinction because of
 pAP1 [fixed typo].  There have been a number of extinction events.
 However, evolution has used some of these to produce new life 
 entities with greater energy hang-up barrier busting ability than the 
 extinguished ones - new life entities such as ourselves from the K-Pg
 event.
 iiia) Current Economic Conditions:  The news in this area has been 
 rather bad for some time.  The most frequently offered solution has 
 been that national economies and thus the world economy must grow 
 real GDP.  In fact grow it exponentially or even super exponentially.
 Since the planet has only a finite supply of energy - see prior posts 
 under #2 for energy types - a new trick has to be learned.  However, 
 the offered solution is in compliance with pAP1.  Thus if pAP1 is 
 correct then no other solution [new trick] can be offered.  In this 
 case weep for the children.  I hope someone can falsify pAP1 and 
 anything
 near it.

 Hal

 Dear Hal,

   Could you restate pAP1?





--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



RE: Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

2012-11-08 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Roger:

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 6:09 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

Hi Hal, 

Just look at the metaphors you use to see that your idea below is wrong. 
You say that life hastens death. 

Of course it does - all day every day in .  Animals are parasitic on
photosynthesis and frequently each other as well as the energy hang-up
barriers they must bust. 

Hal


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



RE: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

2012-11-07 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Stephen:

pAP1 is #8 of the discussion initiating posts  

8) Conclusion (2): Once life is present it will immediately punch as many
holes in as many Energy Hang-up Barriers as the details of the particular
life entity involved allows - this is how it realizes its energy flow
conduit character.  This is the purpose of life herein.  In other words
life's purpose is to hasten the heat death of its host universe.

Hal



-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen P. King
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 11:07 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

On 11/7/2012 9:38 AM, Hal Ruhl wrote:
 Hi Everyone:

 This may show up more than once as a few others did.  In recent days I 
 have had issues with my internet connection.  It has been 16 hours 
 since I sent this the second time. This time I tried  sending it again 
 and then again as plain text.  Very sorry if my troubles cause some
clutter.

 At this time I would like to go a bit further re item iii:

 iii) Species survival: Life on this planet is in the midst of an 
 extinction event [not a new idea] that can't be stopped because pAP1 
 would be the only priority for life.  We may not be extinguished as a 
 species but we can't exclude ourselves from the extinction because of 
 pAP1 [fixed typo].  There have been a number of extinction events.  
 However, evolution has used some of these to produce new life entities 
 with greater energy hang-up barrier busting ability than the 
 extinguished ones - new life entities such as ourselves from the K-Pg
event.

 iiia) Current Economic Conditions:  The news in this area has been 
 rather bad for some time.  The most frequently offered solution has 
 been that national economies and thus the world economy must grow real 
 GDP.  In fact grow it exponentially or even super exponentially.  
 Since the planet has only a finite supply of energy - see prior posts 
 under #2 for energy types - a new trick has to be learned.  However, 
 the offered solution is in compliance with pAP1.  Thus if pAP1 is 
 correct then no other solution [new trick] can be offered.  In this 
 case weep for the children.  I hope someone can falsify pAP1 and anything
near it.


 Hal

Dear Hal,

 Could you restate pAP1?

--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



RE: Consciousness = life = intelligence

2012-11-07 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Roger:

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 11:06 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Consciousness = life = intelligence

Hi Hal Ruhl  

Consciousness = life = intelligence. These are an inseparable, subjective,
inextended properties of a living being.

Hal: Consciousness is merely a qualia of life enabling life's compliance
with pAP1.

In addition, intelligence requires free will of some degree in order to make
life-preserving choices for an associated, objective body, such as are
required for self-animation, metabolism, self-defense, eating and mating. 

Hal: pAP1 precludes freewill because ALL of life's qualia [such as
consciousness] merely enable compliance with pAP1.

Hal Ruhl


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

2012-11-06 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Everyone:
 
Here are some expansions on my prior post regarding the following three
topics: 
 
i) Consciousness: Define it for now as the detection by a life entity of the
current system energy configuration both internal and external to the life
entity sufficient to ensure its adherence to its Actual Purpose [AP] in
its universe.  In our universe it appears that even single cells may have
antenna to facilitate this detection.  See ScienceNews, 11/03/12, page 16.
I have proposed that life's AP in this universe is the one I derived in
earlier posts.  Call this proposed Actual Purpose 1 [pAP1].  I see no
reason how the life's Origin that I propose and pAP1 conflict with such
antenna on individual cells.  
 
ii) Freewill:  pAP1 precludes it because life must always follow its
purpose, so too for any AP that differs from pAP1.  
 
iii) Species survival: Life on this planet is in the midst of an extinction
event [not a new idea] that can't be stopped because pAP1 would be the only
priority for life.  We may not be extinguished as a species but we can't
exclude ourselves from the extinction because of pPA1.  There have been a
number of extinction events.  However, evolution has used some of these to
produce new life entities with greater energy hang-up barrier busting
ability than the extinguished ones - new life entities such as ourselves
from the K-Pg event.
 
 
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



RE: Debunking people's belief in free will takes the intention out of their movements

2012-11-05 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi John:
 
See my 11/4/12 @ 4:43PM post on life re proposal ii - freewill precluded.
 
Hal Ruhl
 
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 1:57 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Debunking people's belief in free will takes the intention out
of their movements
 
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012  Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
 
 The finding implies that free will is illusory.

Free will is not illusionary.  A illusion is a perfectly respectable
subjective phenomena, but free will is not respectable, free will is just
gibberish. 

  John K Clark
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



RE: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

2012-11-04 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Stephen and John:

I believe I absorbed the evolution is a random walk with a lower bound but
no upper bound  from my readings of Stephen Gould.  I have no memory of
where and when and the memory may be false.  In any event I do not see that
it excludes selection.  I think there was an illustration something like: A
staggering drunk is walking down a city street on a sidewalk bounded on one
side by a solid row of locked buildings and on the other by the street.
Given a long enough walk the drunk will always end up in the gutter - the
gutter in this case representing either a new player on the field or a
pruning.

This discussion is important to where I want to take my posts.

Thanks

Hal

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen P. King
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 12:09 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

On 11/4/2012 12:09 AM, John Mikes wrote:

 snip

 ## to 9 I have objections. I cannot imagine (maybe my mistake) 
 evolution without a goal, a final aim which would require an 
 intelligent design to approach it. (I may have one: the 
 re-distribution into the Plenitude). My way (as of yesterday) is the 
 ease-and-potential path of changes allowed by the available 
 configurations (relations) when a change occurs.
 NO RANDOM, it would make a grits out of nature. Even authors with high 
 preference on random treatises withdrew into a conditional random
 when I attacked the term. Conditionality kills random of course.
 So in my terms: NO random mutations, (especially not FOR survival) I 
 call 'evolution' the HISTORY of our universe. The unsuccessful mutants 
 die, the successful go on - science detects them in its snapshots 
 taken and explains them religiously. (Survival of the fittest - the 
 Dinosaur was fit when it got extinct by the change in circumstances).
 I accept ONE random (in mathematical puzzles): take ANY number...

 Your lower, but not upper bound is highly appreciable. Thanks.

 I apologize for my haphazard remarks upon prima vista reading. The 
 list-discussion is not a well-founded scientific discourse upon new 
 ideas. Most people tell what they formulated over years. A reply is 
 many times instantaneous.

snip
 [HR] 9) Now add in evolution which is a random walk with a lower but 
 no upper bound.
snip

Dear John,

 I wanted to make a remark on just this part of your post as I need to
ask a question. Why is the Selective aspect of evolution almost completely
ignored? It is easy to talk about mutations and models of them, such as
random walks - which I favor!, but what about the selection aspect? what
about how the Tree of Life is almost constantly pruned by events that kill
off or otherwise blunt growth in some directions as opposed to others?

 My question to you is specific. How do polymers mold themselves to
local parameters that influence their molecules? What determines their
shape? Is there a deterministic explanation of the shape of a polymer? 
Would this explanation work for, say, DNA or peptite molecules?

--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

2012-11-04 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Everyone:

I would now like to expand the discussion re the two current conclusions in
the slightly edited version of the first post [below] as follows: 

i) Consciousness: The origin and purpose of life herein leads me to believe
that consciousness is distributed across life entities in accordance with
their ability to act in accord with it.  Even single celled entities would
have a non zero degree of it to properly enable life's purpose.

ii) Freewill:  Life's purpose as given herein precludes it.

iii) Species survival: Life on this planet is in the midst of a mass
extinction [not a new idea] that can't be stopped because implementation of
the purpose as given herein is the only priority for life.  We can't exclude
ourselves from the extinction. [There have been a number of mass extinctions
but evolution has sometimes used these to produce new life entities with
greater energy hang-up barrier busting ability than the extinguished ones -
new life entities such as ourselves. 



Edited first post

1) Definition (1):  Energy (E) is the ability to subject a mass to a force.

2) There are several types of energy currently known or proposed:

 a) Mass itself via the conversion: [M = E/(c*c)]
 b) Gravitational
 c) Electromagnetic
 d) Nuclear [Strong and Weak forces]
 e) Dark Energy

3) Definition (2): Work (W) is the flow of energy amongst the various types
by means of a change in the spatial configuration, dynamics and/or amount of
mass in a system brought about by an actual application of a force to a
mass.

4) The exact original distribution of energy amongst the various types can't
be reestablished and the new configuration can't do as much work as the
prior configuration was capable of doing. [Second Law of Thermodynamics]

5) Time is not a factor: Once a flow of energy is possible it will take
place immediately.

6) Conclusion (1):  Since life is an energy flow conduit, wherever the
possibility of life exists life will appear as rapidly as possible.  This is
the origin of life herein.

[If we look at the usual attempts to define life, we find things such as
grow, procreate,[Thanks John] etc.  These require a flow of energy from an
initial ability to do work to a lower ability to do work and through the
life entity.  Think of the life entity as a pipe or conduit for this
flow.]  
 
7) Some energy flows are prevented by what are known [in my memory] as
Energy Flow Hang-up Barriers such as nuclear bonding coefficient issues,
spatial configuration, spin, other spatial dynamics, ignition temperature
requirements, electromagnetic repulsion, etc.  [Energy Flow Hang-up
Barriers is not my terminology - I think there was a twenty year or so old
article in Scientific American I am looking for and a quick Internet search
found a discussion of the repulsion hang-up in Cosmology The Science of the
Universe by Edward Robert Harrison.

[Therefore life herein is just an energy flow conduit drilling holes in
energy flow hang-up barriers as rapidly as possible for the particular
entity to enable even more such energy flow.]

8) Conclusion (2): Once life is present it will immediately punch as many
holes in as many Energy Hang-up Barriers as the details of the particular
life entity involved allows - this is how it realizes its energy flow
conduit character.  This is the purpose of life herein.  In other words
life's purpose is to hasten the heat death of its host universe.

9) Now add in evolution which is a random walk with a lower but no upper
bound.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

2012-11-04 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Everyone:

I would now like to expand the discussion re the two current conclusions in
the slightly edited version of the first post [below] as follows: 

i) Consciousness: The origin and purpose of life herein leads me to believe
that consciousness is distributed across life entities in accordance with
their ability to act in accord with it.  Even single celled entities would
have a non zero degree of it to properly enable life's purpose.

ii) Freewill:  Life's purpose as given herein precludes it.

iii) Species survival: Life on this planet is in the midst of a mass
extinction [not a new idea] that can't be stopped because implementation of
the purpose as given herein is the only priority for life.  We can't exclude
ourselves from the extinction. [There have been a number of mass extinctions
but evolution has sometimes used these to produce new life entities with
greater energy hang-up barrier busting ability than the extinguished ones -
new life entities such as ourselves. 



Edited first post

1) Definition (1):  Energy (E) is the ability to subject a mass to a force.

2) There are several types of energy currently known or proposed:

 a) Mass itself via the conversion: [M = E/(c*c)]
 b) Gravitational
 c) Electromagnetic
 d) Nuclear [Strong and Weak forces]
 e) Dark Energy

3) Definition (2): Work (W) is the flow of energy amongst the various types
by means of a change in the spatial configuration, dynamics and/or amount of
mass in a system brought about by an actual application of a force to a
mass.

4) The exact original distribution of energy amongst the various types can't
be reestablished and the new configuration can't do as much work as the
prior configuration was capable of doing. [Second Law of Thermodynamics]

5) Time is not a factor: Once a flow of energy is possible it will take
place immediately.

6) Conclusion (1):  Since life is an energy flow conduit, wherever the
possibility of life exists life will appear as rapidly as possible.  This is
the origin of life herein.

[If we look at the usual attempts to define life, we find things such as
grow, procreate,[Thanks John] etc.  These require a flow of energy from an
initial ability to do work to a lower ability to do work and through the
life entity.  Think of the life entity as a pipe or conduit for this
flow.]  
 
7) Some energy flows are prevented by what are known [in my memory] as
Energy Flow Hang-up Barriers such as nuclear bonding coefficient issues,
spatial configuration, spin, other spatial dynamics, ignition temperature
requirements, electromagnetic repulsion, etc.  [Energy Flow Hang-up
Barriers is not my terminology - I think there was a twenty year or so old
article in Scientific American I am looking for and a quick Internet search
found a discussion of the repulsion hang-up in Cosmology The Science of the
Universe by Edward Robert Harrison.

[Therefore life herein is just an energy flow conduit drilling holes in
energy flow hang-up barriers as rapidly as possible for the particular
entity to enable even more such energy flow.]

8) Conclusion (2): Once life is present it will immediately punch as many
holes in as many Energy Hang-up Barriers as the details of the particular
life entity involved allows - this is how it realizes its energy flow
conduit character.  This is the purpose of life herein.  In other words
life's purpose is to hasten the heat death of its host universe.

9) Now add in evolution which is a random walk with a lower but no upper
bound.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



RE: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

2012-11-03 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Stephen:

-Original Message-

 Hi Hal,

   Could it be that information is being created and forcing the 
 physical universe to make room for its instantiation? After all, space 
 is not a conserved quantity!

 [HH] I think that what you mention is at least part of the source of 
 Dark Energy but I wonder if the members of the multiverse are 
 completely isolated from each other.

 Of course they are, otherwise we would see them!


Perhaps we have yet to look in the right place in the right way.  Perhaps a
component of Dark Energy is a first peak at a larger world.


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



RE: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

2012-11-03 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi John:

My responses are below within an edited original post.  Thanks for your
comments.



1) Definition (1):  Energy (E) is the ability to subject a mass to a force.



*
Re the use of ability here:   What I am trying to do here is establish a
process such that at the instant an ability becomes a possibility that
possibility is realized immediately since the necessary series of events
unfold immediately .  Take as an example a radioactive isotope deep in the
earth's core.  We can reasonably assume that it was fused together billions
of years ago in some ancient stellar event.  Since then it has had the
ability to undergo fission [ a type of energy ] but has not because
conditions in it have never been quite right.   Then all of a sudden
conditions are right - appropriate Bosons are exchanged and the fission
unfolds.   Energy is redistributed amongst the various types.  Thus at the
moment I will therefore leave the above wording as is.   
*




*
2) There are several types of energy currently known or proposed :

I agree with you about Dark Energy - I had intended the wording to be as it
now appears above.  


++



a) Mass itself via the conversion: [M=E/(c*c)]

I do not think the above is a restriction in the sense I think you mean.
For example a spring when compressed [as I understand it] is more massive
when compressed then when relaxed.


++

  
b) Gravitional
c) Electromagnetic
d) Nuclear [Strong and Weak forces]
e) Dark Energy

3) Definition (2) Work (W): Work is the flow of energy amongst the various
types by means of a change in the spatial configuration, dynamics and/or
amount of mass in a system brought about by an actual application of a force
to a mass.

4) The exact original distribution of energy amongst the various types can't
be reestablished and the new configuration can't do as much work as the
prior configuration was capable of doing. [Second Law of Thermodynamics]

5) Time is not a factor: Once a flow of energy is possible it will take
place immediately.

6) Conclusion (1):  Since life is an energy flow conduit, wherever the
possibility of life exists life will appear as rapidly as possible.  The
origin of life herein.


\


If we look at the usual attempts to define life, we find things such as
grow [larger I suppose], reproduce, etc.  These require a flow of energy
from an initial ability to do work to a lower ability to do work and through
the life entity.  Think of the life entity as a pipe or conduit for this
flow.  
 
Therefore life herein is just an energy flow conduit drilling holes in
energy flow hang-up barriers as rapidly as possible for the particular
entity to enable even more such energy flow - a simple but not necessarily
uplifting origin-purpose. 
***



7) Some energy flows are prevented by what are known [in my memory] as
Energy Flow Hang-up Barriers such as nuclear bonding coefficient issues,
spatial configuration, spin, other spatial dynamics, ignition temperature
requirements, electromagnetic repulsion, etc.  [Energy Flow Hang-up
Barriers is not my terminology - I think there was a twenty year or so old
article in Scientific American and a quick Internet search found a
discussion of the repulsion hangup in Cosmology The Science of the
Universe.

8) Once life is present it will immediately punch as many holes in as many
Energy Hang-up Barriers as the details of the particular life entity
involved allows - this is how it realizes its energy flow conduit character.
The purpose of life herein.  In other words life's purpose is to hasten
the heat death of its host universe.

9) Now add in evolution which is a random walk with a lower but no upper
bound.

A discussion of the possible consequences [such as qualia levels of
particular life entities] should await a critique and possibly a revision of
the above.


Thanks again for your comments.

Hal

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



RE: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

2012-11-02 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Stephen:

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen P. King
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 11:50 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

On 10/31/2012 9:48 PM, Hal Ruhl wrote:
 Hi Everyone:

 I would like to restart my participation on the list by having a 
 discussion regarding the aspects of what we call life in our 
 universe starting in a simple manner as follows: [terms not defined 
 herein have the usual Laws of Physics definition]

 1) Definition (1):  Energy (E) is the ability to subject a mass to a
force.

 2) There are several types of energy currently known:

   a) Mass itself via the conversion: [M = E/(c*c)]
   b) Gravitational
   c) Electromagnetic
   d) Nuclear [Strong and Weak forces]
   e) Dark Energy

Hi Hal,

 Nice post!

Thank you.

 Any way that the energy/force/work relation can be considered as a broken
symmetry restoration concept?

I had not thought of the unfolding of the scene I propose in terms of
symmetry.  But now that you mention it is seems that our universe may have
started with full rotational symmetry [a point] and may end up with the same
symmetry based on an infinite uniform and quite cold gas. 



 3) Definition (2) Work (W)  Work is the flow of energy amongst the various
types by means of a change in the spatial configuration, dynamics and/or
amount of mass in a system brought about by an actual application of a force
to a mass.

 4) The exact original distribution of energy amongst the various types 
 can't be reestablished and the new configuration can't do as much work 
 as the prior configuration was capable of doing. [Second Law of 
 Thermodynamics]

 Isn't the maximum entropy of a system a type of symmetry, where all
equiprobable states look the same?
  
See above response.


 5) Time is not a factor: Once a flow of energy is possible it will take
place immediately.

 6) Conclusion (1):  Since life is an energy flow conduit, wherever the
possibility of life exists life will appear as rapidly as possible.  The
origin of life herein.

 Let me refer you to a very old paper of mine: 
http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/life.html

I took a quick look.  I may need some help understanding it fully.  I
occasionally play with the idea that Dark Energy is a spatially uniform leak
of information from outside combined with a maximum information packing
density in our universe.



 7) Some energy flows are prevented by what are known [in my memory] as
Energy Flow Hang-up Barriers such as nuclear bonding coefficient issues,
spatial configuration, spin, other spatial dynamics, ignition temperature
requirements, electromagnetic repulsion, etc.  [Energy Flow Hang-up
Barriers is not my terminology - I think there was a twenty year or so old
article in Scientific American I am looking for and a quick Internet search
found a discussion of the repulsion hang-up in Cosmology The Science of the
Universe by Edward Robert Harrison.

 8) Once life is present it will immediately punch as many holes in as many
Energy Hang-up Barriers as the details of the particular life entity
involved allows - this is how it realizes its energy flow conduit character.
The purpose of life herein.  In other words life's purpose is to hasten
the heat death of its host universe.

 9) Now add in evolution which is a random walk with a lower but no upper
bound.

 Do you see mutation as a one-to-many map and selection as a many
-to-one map?

Well the DNA strings we know of are finite [n characters] so a particular
example is a one in some sense and this string's finite number of
mutations 4 ^ n+ is a many.  However, I do not see that selection will
always produce just one successor.   

My intent with #9 was to open the door a crack on what I would like to post
next.

Slightly larger crack: I too have been chewing on these concepts for many
years.  I have several unpublished works expressing versions of these ideas
such as A Path to Socioeconomic Sustainability, 1992, Library of Congress
deposit # TXu 554 900 among others and a very few published tiny pieces.

My goal here is to make sure the underling engine of what I will now try to
publish is sound.  As potential returns to the list some of the engine's
consequences seem of interest here such as consciousness distribution in an
ecosystem and the engine's impact on the concept of freewill.  

 

 A discussion of the possible consequences [such as qualia levels of
particular life entities - like degrees of consciousness] should await a
critique and possibly a revision of the above.



 Comments are eagerly sought.

 Thank you

 Nice!


   Thanks again
--
Onward!

   Indeed!

Stephen

Hal Ruhl
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com

RE: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

2012-11-02 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Stephen:

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen P. King
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 6:37 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

On 11/2/2012 4:27 PM, Hal Ruhl wrote:
   Let me refer you to a very old paper of mine:
 http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/life.html

 I took a quick look.  I may need some help understanding it fully.  I 
 occasionally play with the idea that Dark Energy is a spatially 
 uniform leak of information from outside combined with a maximum 
 information packing density in our universe.
Hi Hal,

 Could it be that information is being created and forcing the
physical universe to make room for its instantiation? After all, space is
not a conserved quantity!

I think that what you mention is at least part of the source of Dark Energy
but I wonder if the members of the multiverse are completely isolated. 

Hal

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



RE: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

2012-11-02 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Stephen:

I think this got lost so I sending it again.

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen P. King
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 6:37 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

On 11/2/2012 4:27 PM, Hal Ruhl wrote:
   Let me refer you to a very old paper of mine:
 http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/life.html

 I took a quick look.  I may need some help understanding it fully.  I 
 occasionally play with the idea that Dark Energy is a spatially 
 uniform leak of information from outside combined with a maximum 
 information packing density in our universe.
Hi Hal,

 Could it be that information is being created and forcing the
physical universe to make room for its instantiation? After all, space is
not a conserved quantity!

I think that what you mention is at least part of the source of Dark Energy
but I wonder if the members of the multiverse are completely isolated from
each other.


Hal
--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

2012-10-31 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Everyone:

I would like to restart my participation on the list by having a discussion 
regarding the aspects of what we call “life” in our universe starting in a 
simple manner as follows: [terms not defined herein have the usual “Laws of 
Physics” definition] 

1) Definition (1):  Energy (E) is the ability to subject a mass to a force.

2) There are several types of energy currently known:

 a) Mass itself via the conversion: [M = E/(c*c)]
 b) Gravitational
 c) Electromagnetic
 d) Nuclear [Strong and Weak forces]
 e) Dark Energy

3) Definition (2) Work (W)  Work is the flow of energy amongst the various 
types by means of a change in the spatial configuration, dynamics and/or amount 
of mass in a system brought about by an actual application of a force to a mass.

4) The exact original distribution of energy amongst the various types can’t be 
reestablished and the new configuration can’t do as much work as the prior 
configuration was capable of doing. [Second Law of Thermodynamics]

5) Time is not a factor: Once a flow of energy is possible it will take place 
immediately.

6) Conclusion (1):  Since life is an energy flow conduit, wherever the 
possibility of life exists life will appear as rapidly as possible.  The 
“origin” of life herein.

7) Some energy flows are prevented by what are known [in my memory] as “Energy 
Flow Hang-up Barriers” such as nuclear bonding coefficient issues, spatial 
configuration, spin, other spatial dynamics, ignition temperature requirements, 
electromagnetic repulsion, etc.  [“Energy Flow Hang-up Barriers” is not my 
terminology – I think there was a twenty year or so old article in Scientific 
American I am looking for and a quick Internet search found a discussion of the 
repulsion hang-up in “Cosmology The Science of the Universe” by Edward Robert 
Harrison.

8) Once life is present it will immediately punch as many holes in as many 
Energy Hang-up Barriers as the details of the particular life entity involved 
allows – this is how it realizes its energy flow conduit character.  The 
“purpose” of life herein.  In other words life’s purpose is to hasten the heat 
death of its host universe.

9) Now add in evolution which is a random walk with a lower but no upper bound.

A discussion of the possible consequences [such as qualia levels of particular 
life entities - like degrees of consciousness] should await a critique and 
possibly a revision of the above.

Comments are eagerly sought. 

Thank you

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



RE: The limit of all computations

2012-05-23 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Brent:

What you appear to be asking for are predictions of the physics of a
particular universe. 

My belief is that the best we can do is to predict the components of physics
common to every evolving universe.

My efforts have focused on understanding why there is a dynamic within the
Everything [such as UDs] and what observers in a universe containing them
are observing.  

In my model I have identified a dynamic driver [incompleteness] and what
observers observe [TRANSITIONS between universe states]. 

Since I do not prohibit computations, I believe Comp [including any
prediction of QM in many universes] is allowed within my model but is not
the only descriptor of universe evolution.  Many evolving universes may
contain no such computational component.

Hal Ruhl

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 3:52 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The limit of all computations

On 5/23/2012 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 On 23 May 2012, at 19:08, meekerdb wrote:

 On 5/23/2012 8:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 Hmm... I agree with all your points in this post, except this one. The
comp model 
 (theory) has much more predictive power than physics, given that it 
 predicts the whole of physics,

 It's easy to predict the whole of physics; just predict that 
 everything happens.  But that's not predictive power.

  I will take it that you are forgetting the whole argument. When I say 
 that it predicts the whole physics, I mean it literally. And not 
 everything happens only something like what is described by the 
 physical theories, except that physicists derive them from direct
observation, and comp derives them by the logic of universal machine
observable.

 Physics, with comp, and arguably already with QM, is not at all 
 everything happens, but more everything interfere leading to non 
 trivial symmetries and symmetries breaking, etc.

 Bruno

I don't see that comp has predicted anything except uncertainty.  Can comp
explain the reason QM is based on complex Hilbert space instead or real, or
quaternion, or octonion?  
Can it explain where the mass gap comes from?  Can it predict the
dimensionality of spacetime?  Can it tell whether spacetime is discrete at
some level?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



RE: The limit of all computations

2012-05-23 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Brent:

 

I ask if it is reasonable to propose that a theory of everything must be
able to list ALL the aspects of the local physics for each one of a complete
catalog of universes?

 

Suppose ours is just number 9,876,869,345 in the catalog.  Would we ever
complete such a project within the observers present  lifetime of our
universe?  

 

My current belief is that Comp is a broad brush description of a subset of
universes within my own model.  If Bruno thinks his approach is more precise
than that I do not have a problem with that.

 

My model appears to answer my questions about the basis of dynamics within
the everything and a response as to what observers observe.

 

Perhaps this sort of level is all we can expect, but it is, I believe,
necessary to police the results so that most individuals can eventually
sign on some day.  For example we sure need in my opinion a substantially
increased level of comprehension of economics which is actually a result of
any local physics.  I can't accomplish this re most of Bruno's work since I
am definitely not adequate in the relevant logic disciplines.

 

Hal Ruhl

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 4:41 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The limit of all computations

 

On 5/23/2012 1:20 PM, Hal Ruhl wrote: 

Hi Brent:
 
What you appear to be asking for are predictions of the physics of a
particular universe.


It's the other extreme from 'predicting' everything happens. Since we only
have the one physical universe against which to test the prediction, it's
the only kind of prediction that means anything.

Brent

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



RE: The limit of all computations

2012-05-23 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Brent:

 

I shall try to respond tomorrow. 

 

Hal Ruhl

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 8:41 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The limit of all computations

 

On 5/23/2012 4:42 PM, Hal Ruhl wrote: 

Hi Brent:

 

I ask if it is reasonable to propose that a theory of everything must be
able to list ALL the aspects of the local physics for each one of a complete
catalog of universes?


But I wasn't asking for ALL the aspects, just a few very general ones which
are questions in current research, meaning there's a chance we might be able
to check the predictions.

Brent

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



RE: The limit of all computations

2012-05-22 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Everyone:

Unfortunately I have been unable to support a post reading/creation activity
on this list for a long time.

I had started this post as a comment to one of Russell's responses [Hi
Russell] to a post by Stephen [Hi Stephen].

I have a model (considerably revised here) that I have been developing for a
long time and was going to use it to support my comments.   However, the
post evolved.   

Note:
The next most recent version of the following model was posted to the list
on Friday, December 26, 2008 @ 9:28 PM as far as I can reconstruct events.

  A brief model of - well - Everything 

SOME DEFINITIONS:

i) Distinction:

That which enables a separation such as a particular red from other colors.

ii) Devisor:

That which encloses a quantity [none to every] of distinctions. [Some
divisors are thus collections of divisors.] 


MODEL:

1) Assumption # A1: There exists a set consisting of all possible divisors.
Call this set A [for All].

A encompasses every distinction. A is thus itself a divisor by (i) and
therefore contains itself an unbounded number of times. 


2) Definition (iii): Define Ns as those divisors that enclose zero
distinction.  Call them Nothings.

3) Definition (iv): Define Ss as divisors that enclose non zero
distinction but not all distinction.  Call them Somethings. 

4) An issue that arises is whether or not an individual specific divisor is
static or dynamic. That is: Is its quantity of distinction subject to
change? It cannot be both.

This requires that all divisors individually enclose the self referential
distinction of being static or dynamic. 

5) At least one divisor type - the Ns, by definition (iii), enclose no
such distinction but must enclose this one.  This is a type of
incompleteness.  That is the Ns cannot answer this question which is
nevertheless meaningful to them.  [The incompleteness is taken to be rather
similar functionally to the incompleteness of some mathematical Formal
Axiomatic Systems - See Godel.]

The N are thus unstable with respect to their initial condition.  They
each must at some point spontaneously enclose this static or dynamic
distinction.  They thereby transition into Ss. 

6) By (4) and (5) Transitions exist.

7) Some of these Ss may themselves be incomplete in a similar manner but
in a different distinction family.  They must evolve - via similar
incompleteness driven transitions - until complete in the sense of (5).

8) Assumption # A2: Each element of A is a universe state.

9) The result is a flow of Ss that are encompassing more and more
distinction with each transition.

10) This flow is a multiplicity of paths of successions of transitions
from element to element of the All.  That is (by A2) a transition from a
universe state to a successor universe state. 

Consequences:

a) Our Universe's evolution would be one such path on which the S has
constantly gotten larger.

b) Since a particular incompleteness can have multiple resolutions, the path
of an evolving S may split into multiple paths at any transition. 

c) A path may also originate on any incomplete S not just the Ns. 

d) Observer constructs such as life entities and likely all other constructs
imbedded in a universe bear witness to the transitions via morphing. 

e) Paths can be of any length.

f) Since many elements of A are very large, large transitions could become
infrequent on a long path where the particular S gets very large.  (Few
White Rabbits if both sides of the transition are sufficiently similar).  

---

So far I see no computation in my model. 

However, as I prepared the post and did more reading of recent posts and
thinking I found that I could add one more requirement to the model and thus
make it contain [but not be limited to] comp as far as I can tell:

Add to the end of (5):

Any transition must resolve at least one incompleteness in the relevant S.
Equate some  fraction of the incompleteness of SOME relevant Ss to a
snapshot of a computation(s) that has(have) not halted. 
  
The transition path of such an S must include (but not limited to)
transitions to a next state containing the next step of at least one such
computation.

Thus I see the model as containing, but not limited to, comp. 


Well, the model is still a work in progress.



Hal Ruhl

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



RE: everything-list and the Singularity

2010-04-04 Thread Hal Ruhl
I believe Stephen Gould indicated evolution was a random walk with a lower
bound.  It seems reasonable that the longest random walk would more or less
double in length more or less periodically i.e. exponential growth.

 

Hal Ruhl 

 

  _  

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jason Resch
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 10:46
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: everything-list and the Singularity

 

Hello Skeletori,

Welcome to the list.  I enjoy your comments and rationalization regarding
personal identity and of why we should consider I to be the universe /
multiverse / or the everything.  I have some comments regarding the
technological singularity below.

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Skeletori sami.per...@gmail.com wrote:

Hello!

I have some tentative arguments on TS and wanted to put them somewhere
where knowledgeable people could comment. This seemed like a good
place. I also believe in an ultimate ensemble but that's a different
story.

Let's start with intelligence explosion. This part is essentially the
same as Hawkins' argument against it (it can be found on the Wikipedia
page on TS).

When we're talking about self-improving intelligence, making improved
copies of oneself, we're talking about a very, very complex
optimization problem. So complex that our only tool is heuristic
search, making guesses and trying to create better rules for taking
stabs in the dark. 


The recursive optimization process improves by making better
heuristics. However, an instinctual misassumption behind IE is that
intelligence is somehow a simple concept and could be recursively
leveraged not only descriptively but also algorithmically. If the
things we want a machine to do have no simple description then it's
unlikely they can be captured by simple heuristics. And if heuristics
can't be simple then the metasearch space is vast. I think some people
don't fully appreciate the huge complexity of self-improving search.

The notion that an intelligent machine could accelerate its
optimization exponentially is just as implausible as the notion that a
genetic algorithm equipped with open-ended metaevolution rules would
be able to do so. It just doesn't happen in practice, and we haven't
even attempted to solve any problems that are anywhere near the
magnitude of this one.

So I think that the flaw in IE reasoning is that there should, at some
higher level of intelligence, emerge a magic process that is able to
achieve miraculous things.

If you accept that, it precludes the possibility of TS happening
(solely) through an IE. What then about Kurzweil's law of accelerating
returns? Well, technological innovation is similarly a complex
optimization problem, just in a different setting. We can regard the
scientific community as the optimizing algorithm here and come to the
same conclusions as with IE. That is, unless humans possess some kind
of higher intelligence that can defeat heuristic search. I don't think
there's any reason to believe that.

Complex optimization problems exhibit the law of diminished returns
and the law of fits and starts, where the optimization process gets
stuck in a plateau for a long time, then breaks out of it and makes
quick progress for a while. But I've never seen anything exhibiting a
law of accelerating returns. This would imply that, e.g., Moore's law
is just an accident, a random product of exceedingly complex
interactions. It would take more than some plots of a few data points
to convince me to believe in a law of accelerating returns. 


If not the plots what would it take to convince you?  I think one should
accept the law of accelerating returns until someone can describe what
accident caused the plot.  Kurzweil's page describes a model and assumptions
which re-create the real-world data plot:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1

It is a rather long page, Ctrl+F for The Model considers the following
variables: to find where he describes the reasoning behind the law of
accelerated returns.

 

It also
depends on how one defines exponential growth, as one can always take
X as exp(X) - I suppose we want the exponential growth of some
variable that is needed for TS and whose linear growth corresponds to
linear increase in technological ability (that's very vague, can
anybody help here?).

In conclusion, I haven't yet found a credible lawlike explanation of
anything that could cause a runaway TS where things become very
unpredictable.

All comments are welcome.



I think intelligence optimization is composed of several different, but
interrelated components, and that it makes sense to clearly define these
components of intelligence rather than talk about intelligence as a single
entity.  I think intelligence embodies.

1. knowledge - information that is useful for something
2. memory - the capacity to store, index and organize information
3. processing rate - the rate at which information

RE: my model revision

2010-04-04 Thread Hal Ruhl
I had some trouble with this post the first time.  It is in the archives but
I got no bounce back so I am not sure it got distributed and this is an
unfamiliar computer.  The post is only about a page so I posted again.
Sorry if it is a duplication of a distribution that worked before.

 

Hal Ruhl

 

 Hi Everyone:

 

I have not posted for awhile but here is the latest revision to my model: 

 

Hal Ruhl

 

DEFINITIONS: V k 04/03/10

 

1) Distinction: That which describes a cut [boundary], such as the cut
between red and other colors.

 

2) Devisor: That which encompasses a quantity of distinctions. 

Some divisors are collections of divisors.  [A devisor may be information
but I will not use that term here.]  Since a distinction is a description, a
devisor is a quantity of descriptions.  [A description can be encoded in a
number so a devisor may be simply a number encoding some multiplicity of
distinctions.  There is no restriction on the variety or encoding schemes so
the number can include them all.  I wish to not include other properties of
numbers herein and mention them only in passing to establish a possible
link.]

 

3) Incomplete: The inability of a divisor to answer a question that is
meaningful to that divisor.  [This has a mirror image in inconsistency
wherein all possible answers to a meaningful question are in the devisor
[yes and no, true and false, etc.]

 

MODEL:

 

1) Assumption #1: There exists a complete ensemble [possibly a set but I
wish to not use that term here] of all possible divisors - call it the
All, [The All may be the Everything but I wish not to use that term
here].

 

2) The All therefore encompasses every distinction.  The All is thus itself
a divisor and therefore contains itself an unbounded number of times.

 

3) Define N(j) as divisors that encompass a zero quantity of distinction.
Call them Nothings.  By definition each copy of the All contains at least
one N(j).

 

4) Define S(k) as divisors that encompass a non zero quantity of distinction
but not all distinction.  Call them Somethings.

 

5) An issue that arises is whether or not a particular divisor is static or
dynamic in any way [the relevant possibilities are discussed below].
Devisors cannot be both.  This requires that all divisors individually
encompass the self referential distinction of being static or dynamic. 

 

6) From #3 one divisor type - the Nothings - encompass zero distinction but
must encompass this static/dynamic distinction thus they are incomplete.

 

7) The N(j) are thus unstable with respect to their zero distinction
condition [dynamic one].  They each must at some point spontaneously seek
to encompass this static/dynamic distinction.  That is they spontaneously
become Somethings.

 

8) Somethings can also be incomplete and/or inconsistent.

 

9) The result is a flow of a condition from an incomplete and/or
inconsistent Something to a successor Something that encompasses a new
quantity of distinction. 

 

10) The condition is whether or not a particular Something is the current
terminus of a path or not.

 

11) Since a Something can have a multiplicity of successors the flow is a
multiplicity of paths of successions of Somethings until a complete
something is arrived at which stops the individual path [i.e. a path stasis
[dynamic three.]]

 

12) Some members of the All describe individual states of universes.

 

13) Our universe's path would be a succession of such members of an All.  A
particular succession of Somethings can vary from fully random to strictly
driven by the incompleteness and/or inconsistency of the current terminus
Something.  I suspect our universe's path has until now been close to the
latter. 

 

 

 

 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Latest revision of my model

2010-04-03 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Everyone:

 

I have not posted for awhile but here is the latest revision to my model: 

 

Hal Ruhl

 

DEFINITIONS: V k 04/03/10

 

1) Distinction: That which describes a cut [boundary], such as the cut
between red and other colors.

 

2) Devisor: That which encompasses a quantity of distinctions. 

Some divisors are collections of divisors.  [A devisor may be information
but I will not use that term here.]  Since a distinction is a description, a
devisor is a quantity of descriptions.  [A description can be encoded in a
number so a devisor may be simply a number encoding some multiplicity of
distinctions.  There is no restriction on the variety or encoding schemes so
the number can include them all.  I wish to not include other properties of
numbers herein and mention them only in passing to establish a possible
link.]

 

3) Incomplete: The inability of a divisor to answer a question that is
meaningful to that divisor.  [This has a mirror image in inconsistency
wherein all possible answers to a meaningful question are in the devisor
[yes and no, true and false, etc.]

 

MODEL:

 

1) Assumption #1: There exists a complete ensemble [possibly a set but I
wish to not use that term here] of all possible divisors - call it the
All, [The All may be the Everything but I wish not to use that term
here].

 

2) The All therefore encompasses every distinction.  The All is thus itself
a divisor and therefore contains itself an unbounded number of times.

 

3) Define N(j) as divisors that encompass a zero quantity of distinction.
Call them Nothings.  By definition each copy of the All contains at least
one N(j).

 

4) Define S(k) as divisors that encompass a non zero quantity of distinction
but not all distinction.  Call them Somethings.

 

5) An issue that arises is whether or not a particular divisor is static or
dynamic in any way [the relevant possibilities are discussed below].
Devisors cannot be both.  This requires that all divisors individually
encompass the self referential distinction of being static or dynamic. 

 

6) From #3 one divisor type - the Nothings - encompass zero distinction but
must encompass this static/dynamic distinction thus they are incomplete.

 

7) The N(j) are thus unstable with respect to their zero distinction
condition [dynamic one].  They each must at some point spontaneously seek
to encompass this static/dynamic distinction.  That is they spontaneously
become Somethings.

 

8) Somethings can also be incomplete and/or inconsistent.

 

9) The result is a flow of a condition from an incomplete and/or
inconsistent Something to a successor Something that encompasses a new
quantity of distinction. 

 

10) The condition is whether or not a particular Something is the current
terminus of a path or not.

 

11) Since a Something can have a multiplicity of successors the flow is a
multiplicity of paths of successions of Somethings until a complete
something is arrived at which stops the individual path [i.e. a path stasis
[dynamic three.]]

 

12) Some members of the All describe individual states of universes.

 

13) Our universe's path would be a succession of such members of an All.  A
particular succession of Somethings can vary from fully random to strictly
driven by the incompleteness and/or inconsistency of the current terminus
Something.  I suspect our universe's path has until now been close to the
latter. 

 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



RE: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?

2009-01-03 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi Abram and Bruno:

My goal some time ago was to find an origin to a dynamic in the Everything.
It seemed that many on the list were pointing to such a dynamic - the UD for
example. 

I came up with the Nothing to Something incompleteness dynamic initiator
maybe 10 or more years ago.

Since then I have been trying to make the resulting model as simple as I
could.

I have looked at Abram's idea of adding inconsistency derived traces in the
dynamic:

I have in recent changes stopped using information to avoid the
complications this term seemed to bring with it.  This lead to a compact
model with just two definitions, one assumption, and the stability trigger
question resulting in the dynamic.  To maintain this simplicity I note that
when a Nothing in a particular All containing just one copy of the Nothing
converts to a Something this also converts the particular All into a
Something.  The All is inconsistent by reason of its absolute completeness.
The absence of its Nothing which was consistent but incomplete is not likely
to make the Something the All became consistent Something.  So this
Something may be a source of inconsistency driven traces.

As far as learning how to communicate this model in a more mathematical
language [logic, set theory, etc.] to aid understanding by others, I have
consumed what little time I had available over the years just getting to the
current state of the model.  It has been said that it takes 10,000 hours of
practice in some endeavor to become an expert in it.  Since I understand
less than half the mathematical logic based comments in this tread regarding
my model I am far from expert in such a language. 

My engineering career gives me some formal exposure and practical
understanding of it, and I have studied small additional pieces of it in the
course of developing this model.  However, the current realities of life
have made adding new time intensive endeavors such as becoming sufficiently
fluent in such a communication method an overcome by events effort. I
might find maybe an hour a week for my total participation on the list. This
seems extremely insufficient.  Thus I suspect that despite my real interest
in developing an alternative means of communication for my ideas in this
area, my primary reliance for communicating the model will unfortunately
have to remain using as small a set of words as I can muster. 

Hal


-Original Message-
From: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 3:25 AM
To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?



On 03 Jan 2009, at 02:04, Abram Demski wrote:


 Bruno,

 Interesting point, but if we are starting at nothing rather than PA,
 we don't have provability logic so we can't do that! How can we tell
 if an *arbitrary* set of axioms is incomplete?


nothing is ambiguous and depends on the theory or its intended  
domain. Incompleteness means usually arithmetically incomplete.
The theory with no axioms at all? Not even logical axioms? Well, you  
can obtain anything from that.
The theory with nothing ontological? You will need a complex  
epistemology, using reflexion and comprehension axioms, that is a bit  
of set theory, to proceed.
Nothing physical? You will need at least the numbers, or a physics:  
the quantum emptiness is known to be a very rich and complex entity.  
It needs quantum mechanics, and thus classical or intuitionistic  
logic, + Hilbert spaces or von Neumann algebra.
I would say that nothing means nothing in absence of some logic, at  
least.
No axioms, but a semantic. Right, the empty theory is satisfied by all  
structure (none can contradict absent axioms). But here you will have  
a metatheory which presupposes ... every mathematical structure. The  
metatheory will be naïve set theory, at least.
I suspect since some time that Hal Ruhl is searching for a generative  
set theory, but unfortunately he seems unable to study at least one  
conventional language to make his work understandable by those who  
could be interested.





 This can be related with the so-called autonomous progressions  
 studied
 in the literature, like:  PA, PA+conPA, PA+conPA+con(PA +conPA), etc.
 The etc here bears on the constructive ordinals. conPA is for PA
 does not derive P~P.

 I have been wondering recently, if we follow the ... to its end, do
 we arrive at an infinite set of axioms that contains all of
 arithmetical truth, or is it gappy?


The ... is (necessarily) ambiguous. If it is constructive, it will  
define a constructive ordinal. In that case the theory obtained is  
axiomatizable but still incomplete. If the ... is not constructive,  
and go through all constructive ordinals at least, then Turing showed  
we can get a complete (with respect to arithmetical truth) theory,  
but, as can be expected from incompleteness, the theory obtained will  
not be axiomatizable

RE: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?

2008-12-29 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi Abram:

My sentence structure could have been better.  The Nothing(s) encompass no
distinction but need to respond to the stability question.  So they have an
unavoidable necessity to encompass this distinction.  At some point they
spontaneously change nature and become Somethings.  The particular Something
may also be incomplete for the same or some other set of unavoidable
questions.  This is what keeps the particular incompleteness trace going.

In this regard also see my next lines in that post:

The N(k) are thus unstable with respect to their empty condition.  They
each must at some point spontaneously seek to encompass this stability
distinction.  They become evolving S(i) [call them eS(i)].

I have used this Nothing to Something transformation trigger for many years
in other posts and did not notice that this time the wording was not as
clear as it could have been.

However, this lack of clarity seems to have been useful given your
discussion of inconsistency driven traces.  I had not considered this
before.

Yours

Hal  

-Original Message-
From: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Abram Demski
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 12:59 AM
To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?


Hal,

I do not understand why the Nothings are fundamentally incomplete. I
interpreted this as inconsistency, partly due to the following line:

5) At least one divisor type - the Nothings or N(k)- encompass no
distinction but must encompass this one.  This is a type of incompleteness.

If they encompass no distinctions yet encompass one, they are
apparently inconsistent. So what do you mean when you instead assert
them to be incomplete?

--Abram



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



RE: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?

2008-12-28 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi Abram:

I have interlaced responses with - symbols.

Original Message-
From: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Abram Demski
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 3:10 PM
To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?


Hal,

Is there a pattern to how the system responds to its own
incompleteness? You say that there is not a pattern to the traces, but
what do you mean by that?

---

That is not what I actually said.  I indicated that there were no
restrictions on the copy process.  There would be a pattern to some of the
traces.  The incompleteness of the Nothings causes them individually to
eventually become a more distinction encompassing Something.  This is a
little like cold booting a computer that has a large [infinite] hard drive
containing the All.  [a Nothing - a Something] - The BIOS chip loads the
startup program and some data into the dynamic memory and the computer
boots.  The program/data would be the first Something in a trace.  From this
point on there is no fixed nature to traces.  The program could at one
extreme generate the entire remaining trace [a series of Somethings] from
just the data already present in the computer - without reading in more from
the All - outputting each resulting computer state to the All on the hard
drive.  The All already contains these states many times over so this is
just a copy process.  At the other extreme the program could just generate
random output which states are also in the All - another copy process. There
would be all nature of traces between these two extremes. 

The incompleteness I cite is just the instability question.  There may be
others.  [A trace would end if the output went into a continuous repeat of a
particular state.]

Other incompleteness issues of a particular Something seem like they should
also prevent a trace from stopping. 

-

It sounds to me like what you are describing is some version of an
inconsistent set theory that is somehow trying to repair itself.

-

In other postings I have said that the All, being absolutely complete, is
therefore inconsistent since it contains all answers to all questions [all
possible distinctions and therefore no distinction]. 



(Except rather then sets, which are 2-fold distinctions because a
thing can either be a member or not, you are admitting arbitrary
N-fold distinctions, including 1-fold distinctions that fail to
distinguish anything... conceptually interesting, I must admit.)



I am not well versed in set theory or logic but I believe I understand what
you are saying.  I see this as the All contains an N-fold distinction -
itself. 

---

So the question is, what is the process by which the system attempts
to repair itself?

---

The individual traces so far are attempts by a Nothing to repair its
incompleteness.  The terminus of some traces would be the All - an
absolutely complete, and thus inconsistent divisor.

You seem to be adding traces based on inconsistency which seems reasonable -
see my responses below.

---  

Here is one option:

The system starts with all its axioms (a possibly infinite set). It
starts making inferences (possibly with infinitistic methods),
splitting when it runs into an inconsistency; the (possibly infinite)
split rejects facts that could have led to the inconsistency.

So, the process makes increasingly consistent versions of the set
theory. Some will end up consistent eventually, and so will stop
splitting. These may be boring (having rejected most of the axioms) or
interesting. Some of the interesting ones will be UDs.



So far I have not tried to identify a second source of the dynamic.  I see
the Nothings as consistent because they can produce no answers but therefore
incomplete since they need to answer at least one.  Some traces starting
here evolve towards completeness. The All contains at least one inconsistent
divisor - itself.  It is interesting to consider if traces could originate
at inconsistent divisors and evolve towards consistency.



The entire process may or may not amount to more than a UD, depending
on whether we use infinities in the basic setup. You did in your post,
and it seems likely, since set theory is not finitely axiomizable and
your system is an extension of set theory. On the other hand, there
would be some fairly satisfying axiomizations, in particular those
based on naive set theory. This does have an infinite number of
axioms, but in the form of an axiom schema, which can be characterized
easily by finite deduction rules. So, your system could easily be
crafted to be either a UD or more-than-UD, depending on personal
preference. (That is, if my interpretation has not strayed too far
from your intention.)


--Abram

-

So far I think the inconsistency driven traces you 

RE: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?

2008-12-27 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi Bruno:

Since I have not programmed computers beyond the use of simple spread sheet
data organizing displays for many years, about the best I can offer these
days is a kind of flow chart: 

Start with an input space that contains all possible collections of
distinctions. I call these collections Divisors.  [I wish to avoid the use
of the word information.]  

It is then noted that this collection contains itself. 

Next it is noted that at least one of these Divisors is incomplete in a way
that must be resolved.  This boot straps a dynamic within the input space.


To avoid adding additional types of components to the input space such as
labels on divisors it is simplest to describe the dynamic as creating a
succession of additional copies of divisors and adding them to the input
space. Since any divisor is already present an infinite number of times,
this dynamic is not changing the nature of the content of the input space. 

So far the simulating program is self booting and makes copies of portions
of its input space and outputs the copies to that space. Each of the
identified incomplete divisors is a seed for an additional such program
including any new copies of that divisor.

A particular succession of copies is a trace of a simulation particular
program. 

The copy process has no restrictions.  Some traces would be computationally
correct while others would be random and others a blend.  Traces can split.

The output process generates observer moments based on the outputted
divisors. 

The output of new copies of the incomplete Divisor and splitting traces
dovetails the dynamic.

I think this contains a UD but the unrestricted nature of the traces seems
to makes it more than that. 

Yours

Hal 

 




-Original Message-
From: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2008 5:36 AM
To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?


Hi Hal,

To see if your system is a UD, the first thing to do should consist in  
writing a program capable of simulating it on a computer, and then to  
see for which value of some parameters (on which it is supposed to  
dovetail) it simulates a universal Turing machine.
To simulate it on a computer would help you (and us) to interpret the  
words that you are using in the description of your system.

Best,

Bruno


On 27 Dec 2008, at 03:27, Hal Ruhl wrote:



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?

2008-12-26 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi everyone:

I have revised my model somewhat and think it might now be a form of UD. 



DEFINITIONS:

Distinction:

 That which enables separation [such as red from other colors]. 

Devisor:
 
That which encloses a quantity of distinction. Some divisors are
collections of divisors. A devisor may be information but I will not use
that term here. 

MODEL:

1) Assumption: There is a complete set of all possible divisors [call it the
All].

The All encompasses all distinction. The All is thus a divisor and therefore
contains itself an unbounded number of times - the All(j). 

2) Define N(k) as divisors that encompass zero distinction.  Call them
Nothing(s).

3) Define S(i) as divisors that encompass non zero distinction but not all
distinction.  Call them Something(s). 
 
4) An issue that arises is whether or not divisors are static or dynamic.
They cannot be both.

This requires that all divisors individually encompass the self referential
distinction of being static or dynamic. 

5) At least one divisor type - the Nothings or N(k)- encompass no
distinction but must encompass this one.  This is a type of incompleteness. 

The N(k) are thus unstable with respect to their empty condition.  They
each must at some point spontaneously seek to encompass this stability
distinction.  They become evolving S(i) [call them eS(i)]. 

6) The result is a flow of eS(i) that are encompassing more and more
distinction.

7)  The flow is a multiplicity of paths of successions of transitions from
temporary copy to temporary copy [copies] of members of the All.  Our
universe's [our eS(i)'s] path would be one such where the temporary copies
are universe states. As indicated the paths may split into multiple paths. 

I think this model could be characterized as a UD.

Hal Ruhl






--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



RE: everything wiki

2008-09-25 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi Jonni:

How does this affect the site?  I was hoping to use it this winter.

Yours

Hal Ruhl

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jonni jemp
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: everything wiki


hi just to let you know that
the site is now getting spammed
cf. http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/index.php?title=All_goldwow_sale

best

jonni jemp



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



RE: Simplest system?

2008-05-16 Thread Hal Ruhl


I had to revise the index system to count all the components.


1) Assume a complete ensemble of divisors [information? But I want to avoid
that term] and its own divisions - collections of divisors.  Call it the
[All]. The [All]
contains itself since it is a collection of divisors.

2) Define N(j) as a division of the [All] that is empty of divisors or
divisions of the [All].  Call it a Nothing.

3) Define S(j,i) as a division of the [All] that contains a portion of the
[All].  Call them Somethings [evolving universes]. [j identifies a
particular S and i identifies its current state. 

4) Define Q(j,i) as a division of the [All] that contains a portion of the
[All].  Call them questions.

5) Define cQ(j,i):S(j,i):N(j) as compulsatory questions for S(j,i) or N(j)
that
must be resolved by the S(j,i) or N(j).

6) Define uQ(j,i):S(j,i):N(j) as questions for S(j,i) or N(j) that are not
resolvable by the contents of S(j,i) or N(j).  This is incompleteness.  Of
course all Q(j,i) are uQ(j,i) for the N(j).

7) Define ucQ(j,i):S(j,i):N(j) as compulsatory questions for S(j,i) or N(j)
that
are not resolvable by the contents of S(j,i) or N(j).  

8) Duration is a ucQ(j,i) for all N(j) and makes the N(j) unstable so they
eventually spontaneously become S(j,i). This ucQ(j,i) bootstraps time.

9) Duration is also a ucQ(j,i) for S(j,i) because any internal notion of
duration of the current state is just the history of past states and not an
absolute answer for the current state.  This makes S(j,i) unstable so
it eventually spontaneously becomes S(j,i+1). 

10) S(j,i+1) is always greater than S(j,i) regarding its content of [All].
The
process continues until S(j,i+n) contains [All].
   
11) The [All] content delta between S(j,i) and S(j,i+1) will contain
divisors
and collections of divisors that answer no current Q(j,i) and this requires
a
selection mechanism acting on this data during the S(j,i) to S(j,i+1)
transition.

12) The selector mechanism can be the simplest possible or be an ensemble of
components ranging from simple to very complex.  Some could be complex
enough to be SAS.

Hal Ruhl








--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Simplest system?

2008-05-15 Thread Hal Ruhl

I think the following is the simplest system that has all the necessary
features.


1) Assume a complete ensemble of divisors [information? But I want to avoid
that term] and 
its own divisions - collections of divisors.  Call it the [All]. The [All]
contains itself since it is a collection of divisors.

2) Define N(i) as a division of the [All] that is empty of divisors or
divisions of the [All].  Call it a Nothing.

3) Define S(i) as a division of the [All] that contains a portion of the
[All].  Call them Somethings [evolving universes]. 

4) Define Q(i) as a division of the [All] that contains a portion of the
[All].  Call them questions.

5) Define cQ(i):S(i):N(i) as compulsatory questions for S(i) or N(i) that
must be resolved by the S(i) or N(i).

6) Define uQ(i):S(i):N(i) as questions for S(i) or N(i) that are not
resolvable by the contents of S(i) or N(i).  This is incompleteness.  Of
course all Q(i) are uQ(i) for the N(i).

7) Define ucQ(i):S(i):N(i) as compulsatory questions for S(i) or N(i) that
are not resolvable by the contents of S(i) or N(i).  

8) Duration is a ucQ(i) for all N(i) and makes the N(i) unstable so they
eventually spontaneously become S(i). This ucQ(i) bootstraps time.

9) Duration is also a ucQ(i) for S(i) because any internal notion of
duration of the current state is just the history of past states and not an
absolute answer for the current state.  This makes S(i) unstable so
it eventually spontaneously becomes S(i+1). 

10) S(i+1) is always greater than S(i) regarding its content of [All].  The
process continues until S(i) contains [All].
   
11) The [All] content delta between S(i) and S(i+1) will contain divisors
and collections of divisors that answer no current Q(i) and this requires a
selection mechanism acting on this data during the S(i) to S(i+1)
transition.

12) The selector mechanism can be the simplest possible or be an ensemble of
components ranging from simple to very complex.  Some could be complex
enough to be SAS.

Hal Ruhl






--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



RE: On Russell's Derivation of Quantum Mechanics

2008-04-27 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi Youness/Russell:

I am very interested in this thread.

Russell:

In our last conversation you got me to look at my completeness resolution
driven transitions in the evolution of my Somethings [universes] as
information processing. 

From that point, if I alter the transition slightly and make it an influx of
information from the rest of the Everything that enables resolution of some
of the incompleteness rather than directly resolving it then a selection
process on this new information is required to complete the resolution
process. While many selection processes may be possible an anthropic one
seems to fit some of the circumstances of our universe. 

I now seem to have covered the basic outputted aspects of your approach [I
think], but with just one [as far as I can tell] postulate:

There is an ALL [the complete ensemble of divisors [information] and its
own divisions [collections of information]] that contains as two of its
divisions the Everything and the Nothing.

From this using the inherent incompleteness- [the duration meaningful
question] - and no selection - [no net information in the ALL] properties
of these structures I extract the components: time, variation, selection
[anthropic included], heritability, prediction, communication, evolution,
filters. 

My approach seems to get to a similar place by a simpler path.

So I hope the derivation of quantum mechanics is also there, unfortunately I
do not have the background to aid the construction of the derivation in much
of a mathematical way.

Youness:

Regarding your comments on page 4 of your analysis:

I appear to have been able to derive the necessity for a selection process
within an evolving universe.  By the global no selection rule for the ALL
the type of process is not restricted. Therefore from this derivation
consciousness is not a requirement in order to have a process but may be
present. Also from this derivation, the process is an inseparable part of
the system.

Hal Ruhl   

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 6:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: On Russell's Derivation of Quantum Mechanics


Hi Youness,

Thanks for this, it is very impressive. You have gone into this in far
more depth than the referees of the Why Occams Razor paper. I will
respond to this soon, but rather than shoot from the hip, I'll take
some time to respond thoughtfully.

As for not proclaiming scientific revolutions, I sort of do that in
http://www.hpcoders.com.au/docs/revolution.pdf , which I wrote for the
centenary of Planck's revolutionary paper ushering in quantum
mechanics. It is basically an op ed where I noticed the similarities
between my approach, Bruno's and Roy Frieden's approaches, and
concluded that a scientific revolution was indeed in the
offing. Unfortunately, that article didn't get much airtime, which I
suspect says more about inherent media biases than anything else.

Nevertheless, if the argument I presented stands up, it is very
important, so it requires rigorous scrutiny. Extraordinary claims
requires extraordinary evidence, as the late AC Clarke would
say. Thank you for getting the ball rolling on this.



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



RE: Observer Moment or Observer Space?

2008-04-02 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi Russell:

[My current mail client does not work the way I like and I can not spend the
time to insert s in the right places so this indicator of who said what
will be missing from my posts for awhile, I will use an xxx separator for
my responses.]  


 
 Selecting out space like aspects would inject net information into the
 Everything - the out selection - so given a time dimension space
dimensions
 seem unavoidable.

I'm not sure this follows. A single bit process can exist in zero
dimensional space. However, perhaps single bit processes are too
uninteresting.

xx

I have found the no selection tool rather useful, so I will stick with it
in this case for the time being.

xxx


 
 I have constructed models in which matter is itself just a distortion of
[a
 discrete point] space time.
 
 If applicable, these types of matter models would make matter a direct
 consequence of the space and time aspects.  

I suspect that something like this will explain matter eventually, so
good luck with your theorizing. I'm personally intrigued by the Helon
model, but don't really have the smarts to do anything with it.

xxx

I will look at this and dust off my old stuff, which I have not looked at
for several years.

x


Why don't you see this transition as a form of information processing?
The transistions may be rather accidental in your model, but this is
from a bird view perspective. From the frog perspective, the
transitions must appear to be information processing.



I will accept that for now.

Importantly it seem to move the two points of view closer together 

Hal Ruhl


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



RE: Observer Moment or Observer Space?

2008-04-01 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi Russell:

You wrote:

The time postulate is a requirement of observerhood. I'm not sure this
means that time-like components are in the Everything, but I can
accept this is possible.

I don't know of any similar requirement for space, but I have tossed
around some ideas to do with embedding dimension of networks. It is
still very much an open question.

What does it mean to have a material aspect?


I see my model as requiring a time like aspect induced by the evolution
triggering endurance meaningful question.

Selecting out space like aspects would inject net information into the
Everything - the out selection - so given a time dimension space dimensions
seem unavoidable.

I have constructed models in which matter is itself just a distortion of [a
discrete point] space time.

If applicable, these types of matter models would make matter a direct
consequence of the space and time aspects.  

Sharing the same universe is I suppose equivalent to being able to
communicate. Rather than a conscious fly, it might be easier to
imagine an AI that works much faster than human intelligence, thus
having smaller OM durations, 

I take this as indicating that you hold that something [information
processing?] is going on during an observer moment.  This is as in your book
as I understand it so far.  I do not see this in my model.  In my model an
observer moment is a fixed state terminated by a transition to the next
state.  The selection of a next state is in part determined by the
incompleteness of the current state which is solely a product of its history
and the random sub set of the incompleteness that gets resolved by the state
to state transition.  Consciousness is inherent in the process of the
transition wherein both states momentarily overlap [for lack of a better
term], as some incompleteness is resolved [information added] and fresh
incompleteness is generated by that resolution. 

Currently I see each such transition as being a state change for the entire
universe supporting it.  

but still able to communicate with humans
(eg via a teletype interface). It would be interesting to see how
different the perspective is.

Indeed.

Hal Ruhl

-- 


A/Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics  
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au




--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



RE: Observer Moment or Observer Space?

2008-03-31 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi Russell:


On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 09:35:47PM -0500, Hal Ruhl wrote:
 
 Hi Russell:
 
 In response to Jason you wrote:
 
An OM is a state of a machine. In as far as the machine is embedded
in space, the the OM is spread across space. Successive OMs involve
state change,
 
In my model a universe is an incomplete entity [a Something or a Nothing]
within the Everything [the ALL(s) + the Nothing(s)[nesting provides the
multiplicity]] that is driven towards completeness by un-resolvable
meaningful [to that entities current state] questions that require
resolution. I suppose this constitutes a machine.
 
I wonder if these conclusions - [machines/dynamics] - indeed impose the
property of having space like aspects on the Everything in addition to
time
like aspects? Further - would that in turn give it a wider physical
matrix?
 

Its not obvious to me. What is your reasoning?

As I understand your Theory of Nothing book the Everything in it has or at
least contains time like components [time postulate].  I agree but
apparently for a different reason.
In your reply to Jason you allowed that the OM machine [our machines
also apparently differ] could have an extent in space as well.  This seems
to require the Everything to have space like aspects.  Actually if it
contains one dimension in a real sense to avoid selection it should contain
more.  If it has time and space aspects what prevents it from having
material aspects? Until now I had felt that the Everything did not require
space or material aspects but I am reconsidering the possibility. 

 
Of course this finite amount of time will be
observer dependent,
 
How do you mean that. I do not see that state dwell duration differs
within
a given universe.  I also do not see a fixed value even for a particular
universe.

Sounds like you're having a bob each way here...

As I understand your response to Jason you allow two different observers [a
fly and a human] in the same universe to have different OM durations and I
do not see this. Perhaps I do not understand your response. Did you intend
to have them in the same universe? 

Yours

Hal Ruhl


-- 


A/Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics  
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au




--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



RE: Observer Moment or Observer Space?

2008-03-30 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi Russell:

In response to Jason you wrote:

An OM is a state of a machine. In as far as the machine is embedded
in space, the the OM is spread across space. Successive OMs involve
state change,

In my model a universe is an incomplete entity [a Something or a Nothing]
within the Everything [the ALL(s) + the Nothing(s)[nesting provides the
multiplicity]] that is driven towards completeness by un-resolvable
meaningful [to that entities current state] questions that require
resolution. I suppose this constitutes a machine.

I wonder if these conclusions - [machines/dynamics] - indeed impose the
property of having space like aspects on the Everything in addition to time
like aspects? Further - would that in turn give it a wider physical
matrix?


ie must differ by at least a bit. Therefore, OMs must
also be extended in time by some finite amount, rather than be of
infinitesimal direction. 

I agree.

Of course this finite amount of time will be
observer dependent,

How do you mean that. I do not see that state dwell duration differs within
a given universe.  I also do not see a fixed value even for a particular
universe.

Hal Ruhl





--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Properties of observers

2008-02-11 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi John:

My intent is to eventually back fill the compacted description with 
additional discussion once I think it is OK.  Perhaps that will 
help.  In that regard I currently want information to be a divisor 
and packets of divisors to be a division of the [A-Inf].  I am trying 
to avoid the central use of the words information and 
meaning.   I redid the compact form along these lines and I put it 
below for easy reference.  I am also attempting to avoid or at least 
minimize appeal to math such as that associated with sets.  I hope 
there will not be much more to revise before I attempt a slightly 
longer discussion.

I am an engineer but I will try to make the added discussion more 
universal if that is the right word.  However, I am looking for a 
lattice upon which to build that discussion.

Interconnection is a main theme since the S(i) are intersected or 
should be [incompleteness] by the Q(i).

Are aspects also types of distinctions?  Information could be 
called a distinguisher I suppose, but I currently prefer divisor as 
in that which lies between, or outlines distinguishables.

Hal Ruhl

At 09:02 AM 2/11/2008, you wrote:

Hal,

I lost you 2) - 13): I cannot squeeze the philosophical content into a
physicalist-logical formalism. The 'terms' are naturally vague to me,
cannot follow them 'ordered. The words in your perfect schematic are
(IMO) not adequate for the ideas they are supposed to express: our
language is inadequate for the (my?) advanced thinking.
I am for total interconnection, no separable divisions etc. Aspects,
no distinctions.
I am not ready to make a conventional scientific system out of the
inconventional. I am not an 'engineer': I am a dreamer.

Maybe if I learned your entire vocabulary?(I cannot - it
interferes with mine).

Thanks for your effort, it was counterproductive FOR ME.

I appreciate your way as your way.

John M


1) Assume [A-Inf] - a complete, divisible ensemble of divisors and 
its own divisions.

2) [N(i):E(i)] are two component divisions of [A-Inf] where i is an
index [as are j, k, p, r, t, v, and z below] and the N(i) are empty
of any [A-Inf] and the E(i) contain all of [A-Inf].
{[A-Inf] contains itself.}{i ranges from 1 to infinity} {N(i) is the 
ith Nothing and E(i) is the ith Everything.}

3) S(j) are divisions of [A-Inf] that are not empty of [A-Inf].
{Somethings}

4) Q(k) are divisions of [A-Inf] that are not empty of [A-Inf].
{Questions}

5) cQ(p) intersect S(p).
   {cQ(p) are compulsatory questions for S(p)}

6) ucQ(r) should intersect S(r) but do not, or should intersect N(r)
but can not.
{ucQ(r) are un-resolvable compulsatory questions}.
{incompleteness}

7) Duration is a ucQ(t) for N(t) and makes N(t) unstable so it
eventually spontaneously becomes S(t).
   {This ucQ(t) bootstraps time.}

8) Duration can be a ucQ(v) for S(v) and if so makes S(v) unstable so
it eventually spontaneously becomes S(v+1)
   {Progressive resolution of ucQ, evolution.}

9) S(v) can have a simultaneous multiplicity of ucQ(v).
   {prediction}

10) S(v+1) is always greater than S(v) regarding its content of [A-Inf].
   {progressive resolution of incompleteness} {Dark energy?} {evolution}

11) S(v+1) need not resolve [intersct with] all ucQ(v) of S(v) and
can have new ucQ(v+1).
   {randomness, developing filters[also 8,9,10,11], creativity, that
is the unexpected, variation.}

12) S(z) can be divisible.

13) Some S(z) divisions can have observer properties [also S
itself??]: Aside from the above the the S(v) to S(v+1) transition can
include shifting intersections among S subdivisions that is
communication, and copying.

Hal Ruhl


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Properties of observers

2008-02-10 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi Stephen:

In response to your post I have revised my previous post.

I made division equal information and rewrote (1) and (2).
I replaced meaningful with compulsatory in various places at least for now.
The result is below.
As for associating randomness with creativity Russell argues this in 
his book and I was showing that my model has randomness and thus was 
not in conflict with his argument at least at this level.
As to degrees of incompleteness I do not see how this can be 
routinely measured.  Arithmetic may be known to be infinitely 
incomplete but for other structures the resolution of an 
incompleteness may lead to additional incompleteness.


1) Assume [A-Inf] - a complete, divisible ensemble of divisions.
  {[A-Inf] contains itself.}

2) [N(i):E(i)] are two component divisions of [A-Inf] where i is an 
index [as are j, k, p, r, t, v, and z below] and the N(i) are empty 
of any [A-Inf] and the E(i) contain all of [A-Inf].
{i ranges from 1 to infinity}

3) S(j) are divisions of [A-Inf] that are not empty of [A-Inf].
   {Somethings}

4) Q(k) are divisions of [A-Inf] that are not empty of [A-Inf].
   {Questions}

5) cQ(p) intersect S(p).
  {cQ(p) are compulsatory questions for S(p)}

6) ucQ(r) should intersect S(r) but do not, or should intersect N(r) 
but can not.
{ucQ(r) are un-resolvable compulsatory questions}.

7) Duration is a ucQ(t) for N(t) and makes N(t) unstable so it 
eventually spontaneously becomes S(t).
  {This ucQ(t) bootstraps time.}

8) Duration can be a ucQ(v) for S(v) and if so makes S(v) unstable so 
it eventually spontaneously becomes S(v+1)
  {Progressive resolution of ucQ, evolution.}

9) S(v) can have a simultaneous multiplicity of ucQ(v).
  {prediction}

10) S(v+1) is always greater than S(v) regarding its content of [A-Inf].
  {progressive resolution of incompleteness} {Dark energy?} {evolution}

11) S(v+1) need not resolve [intersct with] all ucQ(v) of S(v) and 
can have new ucQ(v+1).
  {randomness, developing filters[also 8,9,10,11], creativity, that 
is the unexpected, variation.}

12) S(z) can be divisible.

13) Some S(z) divisions can have observer properties [also S 
itself??]: Aside from the above the the S(v) to S(v+1) transition can 
include shifting intersections among S subdivisions that is 
communication, and copying.

Perhaps one could call [A-Inf] All Information [all divisions].

Well its a first try.

Hal Ruhl
  


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Properties of observers

2008-02-09 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi John and Tom:

Below is a first try at a more precise expression of my current model.

1) Assume [A-Inf] - a complete, divisible ensemble of A-Inf that 
contains its own divisions.

2) [N(i):E(i)] are two component divisions of [A-Inf] where i is an 
index [as are j, k, p, r, t, v, and z below] and the N(i) are empty 
of any [A-Inf] and the E(i) contain all of [A-Inf].
{Therefore [A-Inf] is a member of itself, and i ranges from 1 to infinity}

3) S(j) are divisions of [A-Inf] that are not empty of [A-Inf].
   {Somethings}

4) Q(k) are divisions of [A-Inf] that are not empty of [A-Inf].
   {Questions}

5) mQ(p) intersect S(p).
  {mQ(p) are meaningful questions for S(p)}

6) umQ(r) should intersect S(r) but do not, or should intersect N(r) 
but can not.
{umQ(r) are un-resolvable meaningful questions}.

7) Duration is a umQ(t) for N(t) and makes N(t) unstable so it 
eventually spontaneously becomes S(t).
  {This umQ(t) bootstraps time.}

8) Duration can be a umQ(v) for S(v) and if so makes S(v) unstable so 
it eventually spontaneously becomes S(v+1)
  {Progressive resolution of umQ, evolution.}

9) S(v) can have a simultaneous multiplicity of umQ(v).
  {prediction}

10) S(v+1) is always greater than S(v) regarding its content of [A-Inf].
  {progressive resolution of incompleteness} {Dark energy?} {evolution}

11) S(v+1) need not resolve [intersct with] all umQ(v) of S(v) and 
can have new umQ(v+1).
  {randomness, developing filters[also 8,9,10,11], creativity, that 
is the unexpected, variation.}

12) S(z) can be divisible.

13) Some S(z) divisions can have observer properties [also S 
itself??]: Aside from the above the the S(v) to S(v+1) transition can 
include shifting intersections among S subdivisions that is 
communication, and copying.

Perhaps one could call [A-Inf] All Information.

Well its a first try.

Hal Ruhl
  


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Properties of observers

2008-02-03 Thread Hal Ruhl

The following discusses observer properties under my model of the Everything.

I take the list of observer properties I discuss below from what I 
have so far found in Russell's Theory of Nothing.  One property - 
Giving meaning to data [number 5 on the list] - does not seem to be 
supportable under a description of the Everything as containing all 
information.

As indicated in earlier posts, within my model of the Everything is a 
dynamic which consists of incomplete Nothings and Somethings that 
progress towards completeness in a step by step fashion.  At each 
step they grow more complete by encompassing more of the information 
in the Everything.

The incompleteness is not just that of mathematical systems but is 
more general.  It is the inability to resolve any question that is 
meaningful to the particular Nothing or Something.  Some such 
questions may be of a sort that they must be resolved.  The one I 
focus on in this regard is the duration of the current boundary of 
the particular Nothing or Something with the Everything.

A Something will of course be divisible into subsets of the 
information it contains.  Many of these subsets will participate in 
the incompleteness of the Something of which it is a subset.  At each 
step wise increase in the information content of that Something many 
of its subsets will receive information relevant to the resolution of 
their local un-resolvable meaningful questions.

Resultant observer properties:

1) Prediction of the future behavior of the Something of which they 
are a subset [of their particular universe]:
The subsets share some of the incompleteness of their Something and 
participate in the progressive resolution of this 
incompleteness.  The current local incompleteness [part of the 
current state of an observer] can serve as a predictor of the 
Something's evolution since it is a target of the progressive influx 
of information.

2) Communication between subsets:
There is no requirement that the subsets be disjoint or have fixed 
intersections.  There are no restrictions on the number of copies of 
a given packet of information contained within in a Something and no 
restrictions on the copy function.  A Something containing any number 
of copies of part or all of itself is just as incomplete as if it 
contained just one copy.

3) Evolution:
The progressive resolution of the incompleteness is an evolution.

4) Developing filters [re: white rabbit density]:
The shifting incompleteness of a subset constitutes a shifting filter 
that is founded in the history of the dynamic for that Something.  [I 
mentioned white rabbits in this regard in another post.]

5) Giving meaning to data [symbol strings][generation of information?]:
The Everything is considered information.A symbol string seems to 
be just a link between the set of all possible meanings that 
particular string can have.   It is just a boundary within the 
Everything enclosing the associated set of meanings.  It is a 
definition, definitions are information [meaning] and thus part of 
the Everything.  How can an evolving Something and its subsets give 
more meaning to a meaning?  This property seems unsupportable in an Everything.

6) Necessity of Time:
As I mentioned in a earlier post the meaningful question I use 
bootstraps time and thus the dynamic.

7) Life:
The characteristics of life [evolution, copy, variation] are just 
part of the ensemble of potential meaningful questions - some 
un-resolvable - that can apply to some subsets of a Something and 
seem covered by the other discussions herein.

8) Randomness:
Each step in the progression towards completeness provides a 
resolution to a random set of the open meaningful questions.

9) Self awareness, consciousness:
The Something subset boundary dynamics/allowances described above 
appear to cover these varieties of subset evolution.

10 Creativity:
See #8 - randomness.

Subsets of evolving Somethings in my model appear to have the 
properties of observers mentioned above that also seem supportable by 
an Everything - all but giving meaning to data.

There is so far no subset based spontaneous influence on the 
progression of the dynamic.  All aspects of the information dynamic 
appear to originate from the history of the dynamic for a particular 
Something and its resultant current incompleteness.

Hal Ruhl





   


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: dark energy

2008-01-21 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi George:

I discussed time origins in an earlier post on 1/9/2008.

I see no need for a physical grounding.

No entity is required to ask the question, it is asked by the mere 
fact that Nothings are members of the member of itself nested Everything.

It is the question itself and the inability to respond that is the 
key not any possible response.

I see no way for any sub set of the Everything including itself to 
avoid this question and responding to it.  An Everything is the only 
member sure to have a response and a Nothing is the only member sure 
to not have one.   Somethings would be diverse on the issue.

Hal Ruhl

At 04:27 PM 1/21/2008, you wrote:

Hi, Hal:

... I used motivator in the sense that a gas engine is a motivator
of dynamics 
Indeed? does a gas engine 'work' without dynamics - what is supposed
to be motivated by its activity?

This question came in as an initiator to my reply, since 'dynamics' is
bound to a process in time (maybe I misunderstand it).  You also
mention several times duration - a definitely time-related concept.
Do you consider time, - that hard-to-identify term, the coordinate
WE use in THIS universe (together with space) to get a hold on
occurrences which otherwise would overstep our mental (?)
capabilities - as fundamental at the  Nothing - Something - Everything
discussion? If so, what is the origo? Is it in nothing or in
everything? How does it proceed from zero to nonzero?
*
... duration of a particular Nothing...
Does nothing carry qualia like 'duration'? Indirectly maybe, if you
compare identified 'somethings' to be cocurrent with 'nothing' and
then those 'somethings' WHEN you find no 'nothing connected.
It still would not mark the duration of 'nothing', only the duration
of its detection. I am weary of considering 'nothing' as a physical
system. By ANY attribute it becomes a something. Sorry, I may be
one-sided and ignorant, but I am stubborn.
*
Why must {anything} be answered {as an} [unavoidable
  necessity],...?
Our questions stem from our ignorance. With more mental power we
probably would know all the answers and have no questions.
I try to visualize (again the wrong view) mental scales and fear the
comparisons between concepts on different scales of ideation. (Cf:
quantized scale transition in chaos-thinking). We cannot overstep our
restricted level of [human] mental power just as Abbott's Mr 2D could
not think 3D.
*
I see your 'Something' point, not differentiated (all the way) to
Everything, when it becomes impredicative and unspecifiable.
I try to use the same concept locally in the R. Rosen type
'complexity',  applied (mostly) to 'our world' (this universe).
Regards
John



On Jan 20, 2008 3:40 PM, Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Hi John and George:
 
  In my post:
 
  I see no motivator to any dynamics within the Everything other than
  the incompleteness of some of its members and the unavoidable
  necessity to progressively resolve this incompleteness.
 
 
  I used motivator in the sense that a gas engine is a motivator 
 of dynamics.
 
  I use incompleteness in the sense of a lack of information.
 
  The initial meaningful question concerns the duration of a
  particular Nothing.
 
  This question is inevitable and must be answered [unavoidable
  necessity], but the Nothing can answer no questions so is incomplete
  so it becomes a Something to gain information.
 
  A Something is a sub set of the members of the Everything and is
  defined by its current boundary with the Everything.
 
  The same question will apply to Somethings: What is the duration of
  the current boundary?  If a Something can not answer this question it
  must change its boundary [expand it into the Everything].  This is a
  new Something and the expansion may not have encompassed a sufficient
  general answer to this question and so the process repeats
  [progressively resolve this incompleteness].
 
  I currently see no other dynamic motivator/process within the
  Everything or in/of any of its sub sets.
 
  Hal Ruhl
 
  At 07:48 AM 1/20/2008, you wrote:
 
  George and Hal:
  Why does a question emerge? Why does it 'imply' to be answered? (I
  avoid 'why do we feel') Where did 'incompleteness' occur from?
  All these are very 'human' concepts and we impersonate them into a
  wider sense.
  WE (as Bruno asked: who is that? and I replied 'humanly thinking
  machines')  still 'think' in our restricted human terms - cannot do
  otherwise - using that incomplete primitive tool (brain function)
  which in Self-reflection (consciousness? I hate that term) realizes
  its own incompleteness and projects it towards the targets of its
  thinking.
  So the question itself does not 'emerge': it 'imerges in our thinking.
  Something stands for the unidentified content - a challenge 
 (human that is).
  And - George - yes, the English language IS broken (as are all other
  ones, maybe the English - as a mixed artifact - a bit more) because it
  stands for unclear symbols

Re: dark energy

2008-01-20 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi John and George:

In my post:

I see no motivator to any dynamics within the Everything other than
the incompleteness of some of its members and the unavoidable
necessity to progressively resolve this incompleteness.


I used motivator in the sense that a gas engine is a motivator of dynamics.

I use incompleteness in the sense of a lack of information.

The initial meaningful question concerns the duration of a 
particular Nothing.

This question is inevitable and must be answered [unavoidable 
necessity], but the Nothing can answer no questions so is incomplete 
so it becomes a Something to gain information.

A Something is a sub set of the members of the Everything and is 
defined by its current boundary with the Everything.

The same question will apply to Somethings: What is the duration of 
the current boundary?  If a Something can not answer this question it 
must change its boundary [expand it into the Everything].  This is a 
new Something and the expansion may not have encompassed a sufficient 
general answer to this question and so the process repeats 
[progressively resolve this incompleteness].

I currently see no other dynamic motivator/process within the 
Everything or in/of any of its sub sets.

Hal Ruhl

At 07:48 AM 1/20/2008, you wrote:

George and Hal:
Why does a question emerge? Why does it 'imply' to be answered? (I
avoid 'why do we feel') Where did 'incompleteness' occur from?
All these are very 'human' concepts and we impersonate them into a 
wider sense.
WE (as Bruno asked: who is that? and I replied 'humanly thinking
machines')  still 'think' in our restricted human terms - cannot do
otherwise - using that incomplete primitive tool (brain function)
which in Self-reflection (consciousness? I hate that term) realizes
its own incompleteness and projects it towards the targets of its
thinking.
So the question itself does not 'emerge': it 'imerges in our thinking.
Something stands for the unidentified content - a challenge (human that is).
And - George - yes, the English language IS broken (as are all other
ones, maybe the English - as a mixed artifact - a bit more) because it
stands for unclear symbols and their communication with the pretension
of clarity. Words are restrictive tools of a restrictive
brainfunction.
Sorry for the holiday-breaking denigration

John


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: dark energy

2008-01-18 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi George:

I see no feeling of anything in a Something.   There is only an 
absence of the information needed to answer meaningful questions that 
are asked and must is be answered.

Hal Ruhl

At 11:13 PM 1/17/2008, you wrote:
Hal,
Allright. You are saying that incompleteness is the (only) motivator 
of the members. In other words the members feel motivated by 
incompleteness. They do have the feeling of being incomplete that 
motivates their behavior.  Is this correct?
George

Hal Ruhl wrote:

Hi George:

I see no motivator to any dynamics within the Everything other than
the incompleteness of some of its members and the unavoidable
necessity to progressively resolve this incompleteness.

Hal Ruhl

At 12:29 AM 1/17/2008, you wrote:



Hal Ruhl wrote:



This is an automatic process like a mass has to answer to the forces
[meaningful questions] applied to it.



What in the psyche of the mass makes it answer to the forces?

George











--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: dark energy

2008-01-17 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi George:

I see no motivator to any dynamics within the Everything other than 
the incompleteness of some of its members and the unavoidable 
necessity to progressively resolve this incompleteness.

Hal Ruhl

At 12:29 AM 1/17/2008, you wrote:

Hal Ruhl wrote:

 
  This is an automatic process like a mass has to answer to the forces
  [meaningful questions] applied to it.


What in the psyche of the mass makes it answer to the forces?

George



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: dark energy

2008-01-16 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi George:

I use the term quest because a Something if incomplete will have to 
increase its completeness to answer meaningful questions that get 
asked but it can not answer.  The motivator is partly external - an 
answer [mostly more than one is available] is out there in the 
unexplored Everything and partly internal - the particular question 
must be answered.  There is no intent to imply some sort of choice on 
the part of the Something.  To use your last thoughts below the quest 
is an [Everything, Something, Nothing] system induced need for a 
ongoing influx of information into the particular Something from the 
Everything [the boundary of the particular Something with the 
Everything alters to include more of the Everything.  The Something 
encompasses an ever increasing portion of the Everything but it must do so.

In this case I currently see no higher level of driver for any sub 
component of the Something including what one might call an 
observer.  I may need to reconsider when I get to that point in 
Russell's book but my time restraints force me to take considerable 
time doing so.

Hal Ruhl

At 02:21 PM 1/16/2008, you wrote:

Hi Hal,
This topic interests me, but I find it difficult to go past the second
sentence in your post. The phrase Something is on a quest carries a
lot of baggage, in particular that Something has intention,  purpose
and motivation. Either we have to assume that this intention is produced
by a fundamental spirit or soul that you have assigned to the
Something, or that the intention is emergent from a complex
consciousness simulation possibly involving Quantum Mechanics. If
you assume a spirit or soul you are making a quasi religious assumption.
Is this what you want? How do we explain spirit or soul? If you are
assuming a complex consciousness simulation, there is a whole layer that
needs to be explained which no one has yet fully explained yet.
Usually scientists use objective and impersonal criteria such as energy
minimization to explain how a reaction is driven in one particular
direction. In chemistry, for example, Le Chatelier Principle is used.

George

Hal Ruhl wrote:

 I have touched on this subject before but the following is my current
 view of Dark Energy
 
 In my approach a Something is on a quest for completeness within the
 Everything.
 
 Based on this, the following points can be made:
 
 1) The number of current incompleteness sites for a given Something
 would be at least proportional to the surface area of its boundary
 with the rest of the Everything if not proportional to its volume.
 
 2) Thus the larger [more information content] a Something is [has]
 the more such sites it has and the larger any given step in the 
 quest can be.
 
 3) This gives an increase in the average information influx as the
 quest progresses.
 
 4) If the universe described by that Something has a maximum finite
 information packing density in its space then an accelerating
 increase in the size of that space should be observed since both
 the volume and surface area of a Something inside the Everything
 increases as the quest progresses.
 
   Hal Ruhl
 
 
 
 
 
 




--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: dark energy

2008-01-16 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi George:

At 09:59 PM 1/16/2008, you wrote:
Hal,

I cannot follow you: one the one hand you say:


Something if incomplete will have to

increase its completeness to answer meaningful questions

This is an automatic process like a mass has to answer to the forces 
[meaningful questions] applied to it.


which implies volition and therefore spirit;
and on the other hand you say:



There is no intent to imply some sort of choice on

the part of the Something.
which denies spirit,


yes

and on the third hand:

the quest is an ... system induced need for a

ongoing influx of information
in which the term need goes back to supporting a spirit-based system.

Again the need is as a mass responding to the forces applied.

Hal Ruhl 
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



dark energy

2008-01-15 Thread Hal Ruhl

I have touched on this subject before but the following is my current 
view of Dark Energy

In my approach a Something is on a quest for completeness within the 
Everything.

Based on this, the following points can be made:

1) The number of current incompleteness sites for a given Something 
would be at least proportional to the surface area of its boundary 
with the rest of the Everything if not proportional to its volume.

2) Thus the larger [more information content] a Something is [has] 
the more such sites it has and the larger any given step in the quest can be.

3) This gives an increase in the average information influx as the 
quest progresses.

4) If the universe described by that Something has a maximum finite 
information packing density in its space then an accelerating 
increase in the size of that space should be observed since both 
the volume and surface area of a Something inside the Everything 
increases as the quest progresses.

  Hal Ruhl


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Russell's Theory of Nothing and time.

2008-01-09 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi John:

At 04:01 PM 1/8/2008, you wrote:

Hi, Hal:  -  Hopefully without risking strawmanship, a further remark
on our humanly limited language (however infiltrating into the
'meaning' of texts):
HR:
... What I indicated was all paths to completion.
JM:
does anything like 'completion' make sense in speaking about an
unlimited totality?

The idea of completeness in this case is not a matter of an objects 
size [amount of information within] but rather its ability to resolve 
any meaningful question about itself.  Low information objects can be 
complete. The Nothing has too little information within to resolve 
any such question but such a question exists, so it is 
incomplete.  Further the duration question is always eventually asked 
so the Nothing must become a something which answers this particular 
question.  However, this initial Something may not be able to answer 
all meaningful questions about itself that in fact get asked.   The 
Everything is complete but contains multiple answers to at least some 
meaningful questions so it is inconsistent. Our particular Nothing or 
origin is now gone but there is an unlimited supply in the Everything.

Furthermore: are 'copies' considerable substantial
items, or simply our figment of looking from different angles into
different angles - at the same item?
I try to 'cut' my human incompleteness (didn't claim success) when
using a totality-vocabulary (way above my head) and all that may be in
it.

The question appears related to: does net information need a physical 
tablet upon which it is manifest in order to exist.  The Everything 
has no net information so needs no such tablet.  I suspect that it 
can not be established that sub components of the Everything 
containing net information would need one.

1. If there is  -a- 'nothingness' does it multiply when we in our
human logic detect it again?

This would require observers to have an effect on the amount of 
content of the Everything.  I see no argument to support this.

2. Do we assign qualia to nothingness? of course not.
-  I am inclined to sort nothingness with infinity: we can talk about
it but have no (human) reason-based meaning - understanding - about
its essence. Georg Cantor tried it for the infinity - what
I still consider a mathematical game of details - not the end.

I define Nothing as an object [no physical structure required] that 
has too little information to answer any meaningful question about 
itself.  I have such a question and it must be asked thus I conclude 
that it is incomplete and unstable.  I have no idea how little 
information is required to answer the least demanding question but 
the smallest amount above none seems like it might answer some such 
question so I set the Nothing at no internal information to be a 
content opposite so to speak of the Everything.


Parlance: nothingness is different from nothing. Saying about a
construct there is nothing in it about the storch does not mean a
storch-restricted nothingness included as part of the construct.
So if there appears innumerable nothingness-occasions in the
everything - it may be our detection of the ONE - existing there
(=found?) many times over.
Would it jibe with your vocabulary?

The Everything is an ensemble and is a member of itself [The 
definition of an object is information and equivalent to the object 
itself in this venue and the Everything contains all information so 
it contains itself]. As such it is divisible along the boundaries of 
its members and sets of its members.  The Nothing and all its copies 
in the member of itself Everything are of course members of the 
ensemble but I see nothingness as a multiplicity [or set] of 
various other members since nothingness can have various sub texts.

Hal Ruhl




--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Russell's Theory of Nothing and time.

2008-01-07 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi John:

At 12:12 PM 1/7/2008, you wrote:

Hal,

  I read your post with appreciation (did not follow EVERY word in it
though)  - it reminded me of my Naive Ode (no rhymes) of Ontology
dating back into my pre-Everythinglist times, that started something
like:

...In the Beginning there was Nothingness ( - today I would add:
observer of itself). When it realized that it IS nothingness, that was
providing this information - making it into a Somethingness. The rest
is history. (Chris Lofting would say: it went alongside
Differentiation and Integration).

A minor remark: I would not denigrate Mama Nature by using the word
'bifurcation' - indicating that only 2 chances in the impredicative
unlimited totality.

I agree that there can be a multiplicity of simultaneous 
splits.  This was a mistake I realized later.


As a second (even more minor) remark: All possible states sounds to
me as being restricted to the level WE find possible. Since
cave-times (I don't go further) we have encountered many things that
looked like impossible. I wonder if Bruno's unlimited Loebian Machine
considers anything 'iompossible'?

What I indicated was all paths to completion.  I suspect that there 
may be sequences within the Everything that would not be on such paths.

Yes I did mean an unlimited number of Nothings in the 
Everything.  For the Everything to contain just one copy of the 
information in it would be a selection.  Rather it needs to contain 
an unlimited number of copies.

Have a good 2008

Thanks, you too.

Hal Ruhl 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



White Rabbits

2008-01-07 Thread Hal Ruhl

Using my approach White Rabbits can be dealt with as follows [I think]:

The dynamic starts with and continues a pattern - a path to completeness.

The path is not deterministic because most states would be multiply 
incomplete so any two successive states will differ by some 
fractional reduction in this incompleteness and that fraction can not 
be selected prior to the transition [minimal selection].

However, this fraction is nevertheless composed of information that 
reduces an incompleteness that started in a logic observation - 
responses to meaningful questions - and should remain in this venue.

There would be only one possible maximum size transitions and many 
possible small ones.

In this approach large transitions that resemble White Rabbits would 
be uncommon and patternless White Rabbit events should not exist.

Hal Ruhl





--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Russell's Theory of Nothing and time.

2008-01-06 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi Russell:

I have at last found a opportunity to start looking at your 
book.  Thanks for the cite.

My view has been that the Nothing is incomplete because it contains 
no ability to answer meaningful questions about itself and there is 
one it must answer and that is its duration.  This question is always 
asked and must be answered.  To answer it the Nothing must acquire 
information and become a Something.

Most initial Something landing pads - so to speak - will also be 
incomplete and continue the quest for completeness.  Such a quest 
must exhibit a monotonic increase in information in that Something.

Therefore the initial observation of an incomplete and unstable 
Nothing has within it the imposition of an ordered sequence of 
compatible states for a Something each containing more information 
than the last - that is the imposition of time.

Each step of the quest has an equal but opposite twin and so to 
minimize selection a Something bifurcates at each one.

The Everything contains enough Nothings [meaningful question: How 
many more Nothings beyond 1 are in the Everything?  Minimum selection 
response: unlimited.] so that all paths to completeness are followed 
over and over forever.

  Hal Ruhl



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-18 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi Marc:

The objects I use are divisions of the list - such divisions are 
static elements of the power set.

My objects have nothing to do with programing and do not change - 
they can be the current state of a something on its path to completion.

Hal

At 12:13 AM 9/18/2007, you wrote:



On Sep 18, 1:24 pm, Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Hi Youness:
 
  Bruno has indeed recommended that I study in more detail the
  underlying mathematics that I may be appealing to.  The response that
  I have made may be a bit self serving but at this point in my life I
  am having difficultly adding yet another area of skill to my resume.

My advise:  Listen to Bruno.  Your ideas are riddled with very basic
errors.  Example below:


Basic Error:


  There is no reason to create a multi-layered system distinguishing
  between a sub list and the object it identifies.

Yes there is.  Objects not only have identities, they also have states
and behaviours.  This is object-oriented-programming 101.  A set of
properties only defines an identity condition.





--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-18 Thread Hal Ruhl

I do see one mistake I made.


A Nothing is incomplete since it can not resolve any question but
there is one it must resolve - that of its own duration.  So it is
unstable - it eventually decays [Big Bang] into a something that
follows a path to completion by becoming an ever increasing sub
division of its list - that is,

it evolves by becoming one object after another - a progression of 
objects - an evolving universe.

I said the post was surely informal.  To clarify a few issues: by 
question I mean meaningful question and by path to completion I 
mean the incorporation of one or another resolution of a meaningful 
question the current system has insufficient content to otherwise 
resolve.  So the process is mathematical but not mathematical 
system specific.  By duration re the Nothing I do not intend a time 
factor but something more like a resource.

Hal Ruhl





--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-17 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi Youness:

Bruno has indeed recommended that I study in more detail the 
underlying mathematics that I may be appealing to.  The response that 
I have made may be a bit self serving but at this point in my life I 
am having difficultly adding yet another area of skill to my resume.

This notwithstanding I present below the current state of my model 
[surely an informal one] which is a combination of previous posts.

-

List of all properties: The list of all possible properties
objects can have.  The list can not be empty since there is at least
one object: A Nothing.  A Nothing has at least one property -
emptiness.  The list is most likely at least countably infinite and
is assumed herein to be so.  Any list can be divided into two
sub-lists - the process of defining two objects - a definitional
pair.  The set of all possible subsets of the list is a power set and
therefore uncountably infinite.  Therefore there are uncountably
infinite objects.

One sub list would identify the Nothing having the property empty.

There is no reason to create a multi-layered system distinguishing 
between a sub list and the object it identifies.

The list itself, being a particular sub list, is therefore an object 
with properties - so the list is a member of itself.

This nesting yields an infinite number of Nothings.

A Nothing is incomplete since it can not resolve any question but 
there is one it must resolve - that of its own duration.  So it is 
unstable - it eventually decays [Big Bang] into a something that 
follows a path to completion by becoming an ever increasing sub 
division of its list - that is, it becomes an evolving object - an 
evolving universe.

Since there is an infinite number of Nothings we have a multiverse.

Some such paths to completion will have SAS, Inflation and Dark 
energy which are expressions of the information flow dynamics 
resulting from the particular completion dynamics.

The completion path is naturally random but always grows in 
information.  Very large completion steps should be less common than 
smaller ones so SAS - if present - would therefore mostly observe 
small changes.

Hal Ruhl




At 02:22 AM 9/17/2007, you wrote:

Thank you for this remark, Hal. Indeed, you mentioned very similar
ideas:

List of all properties: The list of all possible properties
objects can have.  The list can not be empty since there is at least
one object: A Nothing.  A Nothing has at least one property -
emptiness.  The list is most likely at least countably infinite and
is assumed herein to be so.  Any list can be divided into two
sub-lists - the process of defining two objects - a definitional
pair.  The set of all possible subsets of the list is a power set and
therefore uncountably infinite.  Therefore there are uncountably
infinite objects.

But your theories are much more complex than that if my first
impression is correct. Sooner or later, I'll give attention to them in
more detail.


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-16 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi Youness:

I have been posting models based on a list of properties as the 
fundamental for a few years.

Hal Ruhl



At 06:36 PM 9/13/2007, you wrote:

On 13 Sep., 19:44, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Youness Ayaita wrote:

This leads to the
2nd idea:
We don't say that imaginable things are fundamental, but that the
properties themselves are. This idea was also expressed by 1Z in his
last reply (We define imaginable things through hypothetical
combinations of properties, Z1) and I think it's a very good
candidate for a solution. Then, we start from S being the set of all
properties (perhaps with the cardinality of the natural numbers). As
above, we define {0,1}^S as the ensemble of descriptions. This would
have the cardinality of the real numbers and could mathematically be
captured by the infinite strings {0,1}^IN (the formal definition of
the Schmidhuber ensemble to give an answer for Bruno).




--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

2007-02-20 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi Bruno:

As to my grasp of the UDA I think I understood it at one time well 
enough for my purpose but that will become clearer as I progress 
through my model.   There are not too many more steps.

Examining the complete list of possible properties of objects we 
should find Empty of all information.

This would on a sub list.   It would from at least part of the sub 
list that could be assigned the name The Nothing or just Nothing.

The Nothing would also be incomplete if there was a meaningful 
question it must answer.  The question would be Can The Nothing 
sustain its of property of being empty of information?  It can not 
answer this question so it is incomplete.  However, it must answer 
this question so its incompleteness is unstable.  It must eventually 
eat its way into the rest of the list so to speak - eventually having 
an countably infinite number of properties.  This is the source of my 
model's dynamic.

The list itself has properties and these are on a sub list.

We actually do not need the list if we allow for simplicity that the 
objects it and its sub lists define are themselves the sufficient 
elements of the model.  The list is then an object and contains 
itself.  It is infinitely nested.  Each nesting has its unstably 
incomplete Nothing.  An infinite nesting of dynamic potential.

If the list is complete which seems certain then it should be [I 
believe] inconsistent [will answer all questions all ways] which we 
have touched on before.  The inconsistency is inherited by the 
dynamic so the dynamic  has a random content.

All levels of randomness of trips to completeness are allowed.

A UD trace if I understand it correctly would be equivalent to a 
Nothing on a reasonably monotonic trip to completeness.

Yours

Hal Ruhl



At 12:10 PM 2/20/2007, you wrote:

Hi Hal,

You say my theory is a subset of yours. I don't understand. I have no
theory, just a deductive argument that IF we are (digital) machine then
the physical world is in our head. Then I show how a Universal Turing
Machine can discover it in its own head. This makes comp, or
variants, testable.

I have no theory (beside theory of number and machine), I'm just
listening to the machine. That's all. Then I compare the comp-physics
with empirical physics.

Do you grasp the Universal Dovetailer Argument? Ask if not.

Regards,

Bruno


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

2007-02-19 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi Bruno:

At 05:43 AM 2/19/2007, you wrote:


Le 18-févr.-07, à 03:33, Hal Ruhl a écrit :

 
  Hi Bruno:
 
  In response I will start with some assumptions central to my approach.
 
  The first has to do with the process of making a list.
 
  The assumption is:
 
  Making a list of items [which could be some of
  the elements of a set for example] is always a
  process of making a one to one mapping of the
  items to some of the counting numbers such as:
 
  1 - an item
  2 - an item not previously on the list
  3 - an item not previously on the list
  .
  .
  .
  n - last item and it was not previously on the list


I don' t see clearly an assumption here. I guess you are assuming
existence of things capable of being put in a list.

What I am trying to do is establish what making a 
list is in my model and does it have any mathematical credence.

I make it an assumption because some may believe 
that make a list means something different.

Effectively? then
why not use the Wi (cf Cutland's book or older explanations I have
provided on the list. Help yourself with Podniek's page perhaps, or try
to be just informal.


See below




 
  My second assumption is:
 
  Objects [such as states of universes for example] have properties.


You talk like if it was an axiomatic. A good test to see if it is an
axiomatic consists to change the primitive words you are using by
arbitrary words. You are saying glass of bears have trees and garden.

Did you mean class not glass?

You can add that you mean that the term glass of bear is *intended
for states of universes,

I am not a mathematician so I do not quite understand the above.

  but recall the goal is to provide an
explanation for the appearance of the states of universes.

If I understand you, that comes later in the walk through of my model

  In general
properties are modelized by sets. It is ok to presuppose some naive set
theory, but then you axiomatic has to be clean.


See below



 
  My third assumption is:
 
  All of the properties it is possible for objects to have can be listed.


I guess you assume church thesis, and you are talking about effective
properties.


To me at this point the Church Thesis is an 
ingredient in some of the possible state 
succession sequences allowed in my model.

I mean all properties I do not know if that is 
the same as your effective properties.


 
  My fourth assumption is:
 
  The list of possible properties of objects is countably infinite.


? (lists are supposed to be countably infinite (or finite)).


This is my point above - to list inherently a 
countably infinite [as max length] process.

I would add that my third assumption becomes more 
important later as one of the keys to my model's dynamic.



 
  Conclusions so far:
  [All possible objects are defined by all the sub lists of the full
  list.]
  [The number of objects is uncountably infinite]

What is the full list?

The list of all possible properties of objects.


 
  I will stop there for now and await comments.
 
  As to the remainder of the post:
 
  In the above I have not reached the point of
  deriving the dynamic of my model but I am not
  focusing on computations when I say that any
  succession of states is allowed.  Logically
  related successions are allowed.  Successions
  displaying any degree of randomness are also allowed.


I have already mentionned that comp entails some strong form of (first
person) randomness. Indeed, a priori to much.


Yes we have discussed this before, and it is one 
of the reasons I continue to believe that your approach is a sub set of mine.

I know it has taken a long time for me to reach a 
level in my model where I could even begin to use 
an axiom based description and I appreciate your patience.

 
  I would like to finish the walk through of my
  model before discussing white rabbits and observation.


I am really sorry Hall. It looks you want to be both informal and
formal. It does not help me to understand what you are trying to say.

I have read that it takes 10 years of focused 
practice to become an expert in a given sub discipline.

At this point in my practice of engineering I am 
on my way to becoming an expert in a fifth sub discipline.

I hope you can understand why I must continue to 
find a path to the development and expression of 
my ideas in this venue that is short of becoming 
an expert in mathematical expression.

I appreciate your help and perhaps with a little 
more of it I can reach what you are asking for.

Perhaps it is also a good idea to exhaust the 
idea of whether or not your approach is or is not 
a sub set of another approach.

Yours

Hal Ruhl





--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http

Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

2007-02-17 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi Bruno:

In response I will start with some assumptions central to my approach.

The first has to do with the process of making a list.

The assumption is:

Making a list of items [which could be some of 
the elements of a set for example] is always a 
process of making a one to one mapping of the 
items to some of the counting numbers such as:

1 - an item
2 - an item not previously on the list
3 - an item not previously on the list
.
.
.
n - last item and it was not previously on the list

My second assumption is:

Objects [such as states of universes for example] have properties.

My third assumption is:

All of the properties it is possible for objects to have can be listed.

My fourth assumption is:

The list of possible properties of objects is countably infinite.

Conclusions so far:
[All possible objects are defined by all the sub lists of the full list.]
[The number of objects is uncountably infinite]

I will stop there for now and await comments.

As to the remainder of the post:

In the above I have not reached the point of 
deriving the dynamic of my model but I am not 
focusing on computations when I say that any 
succession of states is allowed.  Logically 
related successions are allowed.  Successions 
displaying any degree of randomness are also allowed.

I would like to finish the walk through of my 
model before discussing white rabbits and observation.

Yours

Hal Ruhl

At 09:49 AM 2/12/2007, you wrote:

Hi Hal,


Le 12-févr.-07, à 03:37, Hal Ruhl a écrit :

 
  Hi Bruno:
 
  I was using some of the main components of my
  model to indicate that it allows white rabbits of
  all degree.  Any succession of states is
  allowed.  If the presence of SAS in certain
  successions requires a certain family of white
  rabbit distributions then these distributions are present.


Well, thanks for the white rabbit, but the current goal consists in
explaining why we don't see them. When you say any succession of states
is allowed, are you talking about computations? In computations the
states are logically related, and not all succession of states can be
allowed, or you talk about something else, but then what exactly?
What are your assumption, and what are your conclusion? I know you have
made an effort in clarity, but in your last definitions you adopt the
axiomatic way of talking, but not the axiomatic way of reasoning. This
makes your talk neither informally convincing (granted some sharable
intuition) nor formally clear. I have always been willing to attribute
to you some intuition, I continue doing so, and I have suggested to you
some books capable of providing helps toward much clarity, which is
what is needed to communicate to others, especially when working on
extremely  hard subject like what we are discussing.
I hope that Jason, who kindly proposes some act of systematization,
will be able to help you to develop your probably interesting ideas,

Regards,

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

2007-02-17 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi John:

This is what brought me to the idea that while 
all objects have simultaneous existence they 
also can have degrees of hyper existence. Hyper 
existence is like a tag that indicates states 
that are, those that are becoming, and those 
that have recently been [so to speak].

Hal Ruhl




At 04:26 PM 2/15/2007, you wrote:
Hal:
you seem to have mastered the problem I got 
stuck with in the 'timelessness' speculation
(Any succession of states is allowed. )
  I could not handle successions in reverse, if 
 time (as an indicator of succession) is cut out.
I did not want to resort to an atemporal system 
where ALL steps of processes (what is a process???) live side by side together.

John M
- Original Message -
From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Hal Ruhl
To: mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds


Hi Bruno:

I was using some of the main components of my
model to indicate that it allows white rabbits of
all degree.  Any succession of states is
allowed.  If the presence of SAS in certain
successions requires a certain family of white
rabbit distributions then these distributions are present.

Hal Ruhl

At 04:23 AM 2/9/2007, you wrote:


 Le 07-févr.-07, à 02:45, Hal Ruhl a écrit :
 
Given an uncountably infinite number of objects generated from a
   countably infinite list of properties and an uncountably infinite
   number of UD's in the metaphor I can not see an issue with this re my
   model.  As I said above Our World can be as precisely as random as
   it needs to be.
 
 
 I don't understand.
 
 Bruno
 
 
 
 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
 
 
 


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.36/681 
- Release Date: 2/11/2007 6:50 PM



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Jason + Stathis

2007-02-11 Thread Hal Ruhl


Hi Jason:

I want to thank you for you work re a centralized place to keep the 
various essences of the list and their variations.

Hal Ruhl


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

2007-02-11 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi Bruno:

I was using some of the main components of my 
model to indicate that it allows white rabbits of 
all degree.  Any succession of states is 
allowed.  If the presence of SAS in certain 
successions requires a certain family of white 
rabbit distributions then these distributions are present.

Hal Ruhl

At 04:23 AM 2/9/2007, you wrote:


Le 07-févr.-07, à 02:45, Hal Ruhl a écrit :

   Given an uncountably infinite number of objects generated from a
  countably infinite list of properties and an uncountably infinite
  number of UD's in the metaphor I can not see an issue with this re my
  model.  As I said above Our World can be as precisely as random as
  it needs to be.


I don't understand.

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

2007-02-07 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi John:

I think the idea before was to provide an acronym 
list and also give each person or like minded 
group a limit of a few pages in the FAQ document 
in which to present a summary of their point of view.

Hal Ruhl

At 11:59 AM 2/7/2007, you wrote:
Hal:
you really believe that anybody could provide 
responses acceptable for all others? (I did not say understandable)
Everybody sits in his own mindset and speaks his 
own scientific religion (=scientific belief 
system) - [said so, whether I aggraveted  now (again) Russell or not.]
We are in a pretty liquid exchange-state (liquid OM).
Otherwise the idea is excellent, with multiple choice.
John
- Original Message -
From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Hal Ruhl
To: mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

Hi John:

Long ago there was some effort to write a FAQ 
for the list.  Perhaps we should give it another try.

Hal Ruhl




At 11:30 AM 2/6/2007, you wrote:
Hal and list:
I do not think anybody fully understands what 
other listers write, even if one thinks so.
Or is it only my handicap?
John M
- Original Message -
From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Hal Ruhl
To: 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

Hi Bruno:
I do not think I fully understand what you are saying.
Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its
evolving universes - meaning I take it that all
successive states are fully logical consequences of their prior state.
I would see this as a selection of one possibility from two.
Lets us say that you are correct about this
result re your model, this just seems to
reinforce the idea that it is a sub set in order
to avoid the information generating selection in the full set.
Yours
Hal Ruhl

At 11:30 AM 2/5/2007, you wrote:

 Le 05-févr.-07, à 00:46, Hal Ruhl a écrit :
 
As far as I can tell from this, my model may include Bruno's model as
   a subset.
 
 
 This means that even if my theory makes disappear all (1-person)
 white rabbits, you will still have to justify that your overset does
 not reintroduce new one.
 
 Bruno
 
 
  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
 
 
 



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.29/673 
- Release Date: 2/6/2007 5:52 PM



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

2007-02-06 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Bruno:

At 06:23 AM 2/6/2007, you wrote:

Le 06-févr.-07, à 05:25, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :

Hal Ruhl writes:

  Hi Bruno:
 
  I do not think I fully understand what you are saying.
 
  Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its
  evolving universes - meaning I take it that all
  successive states are fully logical consequences of their prior state.

You mean physical consequences or something 
similar, don't you? I don't see anything 
logically inconsistent about a talking white 
rabbit or even the atoms of my keyboard 
reassembling themselves into a fire-breathing dragon.


My model taps the inconsistency of a complete 
collection of information to give the dynamic of 
its universe state to state succession at least 
some random content.  There is no conflict in my 
approach with talking white rabbits or uncommonly 
evolving keyboards.  What I indicated is that all 
I needed to encompass our world in a UD metaphor 
of a sub set of my model was a compatible ongoing 
intersection of a set [an infinite set most likely] of UD traces.

The picture is a set of say twenty traces all 
arriving at twenty Our World compatible 
successive states simultaneously.  If the traces 
assign a compatible degree of hyper existence to 
their respective states then the result is twenty 
immediately successive states with a rising then 
falling degree of Hyper existence.  The 
intersecting traces are not even necessarily 
logically related just compatibly coincident for 
one of Our World's ticks so to speak.  At the 
next tick of our world a completely different 
set of twenty traces can be involved.  Our 
World can be precisely as random as it needs to be.

I agree with Stathis. Much more, I can prove to 
you that the sound lobian machine agrees with Stathis!
It is a key point: there is nothing inconsistent 
with my seeing and measuring white rabbits (cf 
dreams, videa, ...). Both with QM and/or comp, 
we can only hope such events are relatively rare.
Now, a naive reading of the UD can give the 
feeling that with comp white rabbits are not 
rare at all, and that is why I insist at some 
point that we have to take more fully into 
account the objective constraints of 
theoretical computer science and mathematical 
logic (some of which are counter-intuitive and even necessarily so).


Hal Ruhl continued:


I would see this as a selection of one possibility from two.

Lets us say that you are correct about this
result re your model, this just seems to
reinforce the idea that it is a sub set in order
to avoid the information generating selection in the full set.



It *could* be the contrary. In quantum mechanics 
a case can be given that it *is* the contrary. 
It is by taking the full set of (relative 
histories) that the quantum phase randomization 
can eliminate the quantum aberrant histories (cf Feynman paths).
It works with the QM because of the existence of 
destructive interferences, and somehow what the 
computationalist has to justify is the (first 
person plural) appearance of such destructive effects.

Bruno

Given an uncountably infinite number of objects 
generated from a countably infinite list of 
properties and an uncountably infinite number of 
UD's in the metaphor I can not see an issue with 
this re my model.  As I said above Our World 
can be as precisely as random as it needs to be.

Hal Ruhl


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

2007-02-06 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi John:

Long ago there was some effort to write a FAQ for 
the list.  Perhaps we should give it another try.

Hal Ruhl




At 11:30 AM 2/6/2007, you wrote:
Hal and list:
I do not think anybody fully understands what 
other listers write, even if one thinks so.
Or is it only my handicap?
John M
- Original Message -
From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Hal Ruhl
To: mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds


Hi Bruno:

I do not think I fully understand what you are saying.

Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its
evolving universes - meaning I take it that all
successive states are fully logical consequences of their prior state.

I would see this as a selection of one possibility from two.

Lets us say that you are correct about this
result re your model, this just seems to
reinforce the idea that it is a sub set in order
to avoid the information generating selection in the full set.

Yours

Hal Ruhl


At 11:30 AM 2/5/2007, you wrote:


 Le 05-févr.-07, à 00:46, Hal Ruhl a écrit :
 
As far as I can tell from this, my model may include Bruno's model as
   a subset.
 
 
 This means that even if my theory makes disappear all (1-person)
 white rabbits, you will still have to justify that your overset does
 not reintroduce new one.
 
 Bruno
 
 
 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
 
 
 



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

2007-02-06 Thread Hal Ruhl

Just to clarify - in the metaphor a UD trace that assigns a Hyper 
Existence of say 0.2 does so to all states it lands on because the 
UD is that type of UD.

Hal Ruhl


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

2007-02-05 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi Bruno:

I do not think I fully understand what you are saying.

Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its 
evolving universes - meaning I take it that all 
successive states are fully logical consequences of their prior state.

I would see this as a selection of one possibility from two.

Lets us say that you are correct about this 
result re your model, this just seems to 
reinforce the idea that it is a sub set in order 
to avoid the information generating selection in the full set.

Yours

Hal Ruhl


At 11:30 AM 2/5/2007, you wrote:


Le 05-févr.-07, à 00:46, Hal Ruhl a écrit :

   As far as I can tell from this, my model may include Bruno's model as
  a subset.


This means that even if my theory makes disappear all (1-person)
white rabbits, you will still have to justify that your overset does
not reintroduce new one.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

2007-02-04 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi John:

Sorry I did not respond earlier.
Lately I do not have time to read the list posts and respond during the week.


At 04:02 PM 1/29/2007, you wrote:
Hal, a decade ago I 'read' your text easier than now: you firmed up 
your vocabulary - gradually out of my understanding. Sorry.
*
You seem to accept 'observer moments' and their interaction - even 
postulate one variable needed.


Observer moments and states of universes I take as being identical.

To say that they do not interact is a selection.  Selections create 
information and I prefer the point of view that the top level system 
should have zero net information.  The All [has many other names 
suppose] has zero net information because it contains all 
information.  I separate out of the information zero All for 
examination a list of all properties that an object can have.   That 
is I select a boundary in the All from among its infinite number of 
boundaries.  My list being a list can be countably infinite and the 
set of all its sub sets would then be uncountably infinite.  There 
are then an uncountably infinite number of objects which can be taken 
to be states of universes.

How long is an OM? a million years (cosmology) or a msec?

States of universes have permanent uniform existence.  The question 
is how long can they have a non zero hyper existence.  The answer 
is all values [to avoid more selection].

Even if it is a portion of the latter, it makes the existence quite 
discontinuous - with all the difficulties in it. If it is 
continuous, then how can we talk about 'moments'? Should we assign 
an equal rate change to all existence (meaning: ONE selection for 
the OM length)? If it can be ANY, varying from the infinitely short 
to the other extreme, it would 'wash away' any sense of the meaning 
of an Observer MOMENT concept.

My flow of hyper existence with its possible non binary pulse shapes 
could make consciousness continuous for some sequences of 
states.  SAS might find a universe state sequence in which the pulse 
rises from zero to 1 and then back to zero in a many step stair case 
fashion user friendly.

I think the OM is the figment of us, human observers, who want to 
use an 'understandable' model. [Like: numbers (in the human logic sense).]

Then, in view of the resulting 'unfathomable', we 'complicate' these 
models - originally created FOR comprehension - into 
incomprehensibility. [The way as e.g. to bridge Bohm's Explicate to 
the Implicate (by Nic de  Cusa's 2nd principle, left out by Bohm: 
the Complicate - what I like to assign as math).]
*
That 'one' variable property you mention as needed for state- 
interaction is IMO not necessarily  o n e  within our (present) comprehension.

I identify my list's sub sets as states of universes.  The 
interaction variable I call hyper existence could be compared with a 
UD trace.  When the trace lands on a state it gets a non zero hyper 
existence.  You could have UDs that assign a 0.1 hyper existence, UDs 
that assign a 0.2 value,  UDs that assign a 0.8 value,  UDs that 
assign a 1.0 value etc. etc.  Now all my model would ask for next is 
for a sting of universe states that look like ours is in lasting 
[infinite] compatible set of UD trace intersections.  Since all UDs 
are infinitely nested, an infinite set of such trace intersection 
sets would be obtained.  My model has a dynamic originated in the 
incompleteness of some of the list sub sets and this dynamic has a 
random content due to the internal and external inconsistency of some 
of the list's sub sets.

As far as I can tell from this, my model may include Bruno's model as a subset.

Yours

Hal Ruhl


- Original Message -
From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Hal Ruhl
To: mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 11:02 PM
Subject: RE: ASSA and Many-Worlds



One thing that I do not agree with is what seems to me to be a common
holding regarding observer moments [by this I mean discrete states of
universes [which are a sub set of possible objects]] is that they
are each so far assumed to have a set of properties that are to some
extent the same as other observer moments and to some extent
different from all other observer moments [to distinguish individual
moments] but nevertheless the properties of an individual observer
moment are fixed for that observer moment.

This to me is not logical since it is a selection and why that
selection?  Why not have some blend of variable properties and fixed
properties as a possibility?  This seems more in accord with a zero
information ensemble.

Further, if it is also held that observer moments can not interact -
that is also a selection.

I have proposed in other posts that there should be at least one
variable property through which universe states can interact.  The
idea is that all possible universe states have a uniform existence
property, but also can have an addition property that is a variable
that one could

RE: ASSA and Many-Worlds

2007-01-28 Thread Hal Ruhl


One thing that I do not agree with is what seems to me to be a common 
holding regarding observer moments [by this I mean discrete states of 
universes [which are a sub set of possible objects]] is that they 
are each so far assumed to have a set of properties that are to some 
extent the same as other observer moments and to some extent 
different from all other observer moments [to distinguish individual 
moments] but nevertheless the properties of an individual observer 
moment are fixed for that observer moment.

This to me is not logical since it is a selection and why that 
selection?  Why not have some blend of variable properties and fixed 
properties as a possibility?  This seems more in accord with a zero 
information ensemble.

Further, if it is also held that observer moments can not interact - 
that is also a selection.

I have proposed in other posts that there should be at least one 
variable property through which universe states can interact.  The 
idea is that all possible universe states have a uniform existence 
property, but also can have an addition property that is a variable 
that one could call hyper existence through which they can 
interact.  They interact by mutually altering each others hyper 
existence property.  This variable property should not have just a 
binary set of values as a possibility but should also have many 
discrete levels as a possibility - again to avoid selection.  In 
other words a universe state could experience a non square pulse of 
hyper existence which could span many of the this particular state 
to other state interactions.  This would be like a wave of hyper 
existence propagating through some succession of universe 
states.  Non binary, non square pulses of propagating hyper existence 
could be a basis for what is called consciousness - a flow of 
modulated awareness.

Given a random component to the underlying dynamic [which I have also 
discussed ] some such wave propagations with non binary, non square 
pulses of hyper existence would be through infinite strings of 
successive states that would all be life - and even beyond that - 
SAS friendly.

Hal Ruhl

  


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-01-01 Thread Hal Ruhl


Hi John:

One example of what I am saying would be the way we drill holes in 
the earth and pump out oil and oxidize it and the resulting energy 
flux soon dissipates, can do little more useful work, and radiates 
into space.  If the oil was left in place it could be many millions 
of years before it oxidized.


If a thermodynamic system always finds the fastest path to maximum 
entropy then in our universe entities such as we would be inevitable.


My current approach to existence results in a fully quantized 
mulitverse in which some objects [divisions of my list] are states of 
individual universes.  The level of a logically unavoidable [no 
selection] object interaction parameter is unevenly distributed over 
all the objects in the multiverse.  This distribution is in a state 
of random flux due to logical incompleteness and inconsistency of the 
multiverse.  I have called this parameter physical reality.   A 
high degree [maximum] of this physical reality parameter therefore 
moves from object to object.  The levels of this physical reality 
can not logically [no selection] be just binary [maximum:none] but 
must logically [no selection] have all possible other 
quantifications.  The random flux can produce infinitely long 
sequences of objects with maximally high degrees of this parameter 
that could be interpreted as being successive now states of well 
behaved evolving universes.


A non binary quantification for this parameter level [as mentioned 
above] for such a sequence could bridge successive states and 
perhaps be the origin of what we call consciousness.


Now that model may be physical in a sense but there does not seem 
to be a need for a material substrate.  The parameter is just a 
property of objects that can change while all their other properties 
remain fixed. I also think that Bruno's comp model might fit inside 
such a multiverse since some of the object sequences could be 
associated with the trace of a UD.


Hal Ruhl


At 06:59 PM 12/31/2006, you wrote:

Hal,
so yhou look at it... (at what?) - anyway from the standpoint of the 
'physical' model.

Can you come closer totell what you are 'looking at'?
Happy 2007!
John M


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: The Meaning of Life

2006-12-31 Thread Hal Ruhl



One way to look at life is from the point of view of energy hang-up 
barriers - those various facts about the structure of our universe 
that slow the dissipation of useful energy concentrations.


Life drills holes in these barriers and thus is on the fastest 
system path to maximum entropy.


That could be why life appeared quickly on earth and should also 
do so wherever conditions permit.


Life forms that are bigger [hold larger drills] and smarter [invent 
more kinds of drills] produce a wider variety of holes in the barriers.


Since body size and brain size [complexity] have only a lower bound 
and the thermodynamics above gives an additional bias towards large, 
smart life forms to an otherwise goal less evolution, large SAS seem 
inevitable.


Thus is life in a universe that can support it just an unavoidable 
thermodynamic tool and SAS just the top grade of such tool?


Hal Ruhl



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Objects, Lists, and continuums

2006-12-04 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi Tom

At 11:10 AM 12/4/2006, you wrote:

Hal Ruhl wrote:
  The idea is presented below and its result appears to be to exclude
  continuums from universes.
 
Assumptions:
 
  1) There is a list of all possible properties of objects.
 
The above object #1 is countable by definition.

It is only countable as I say in my model but by Cantor's argument as 
far as I know and not by definition.  If it was by definition then 
why his argument?


  2) The list and all its sublists are the descriptions of all 
 possible objects.
 

The above object #2 is uncountable by Cantor's diagonal argument.  It
is the power set of the first list.

As I say in my model it is indeed the power set and thus makes for an 
uncountable number of objects.

  It is not a list.

I did not say it was.


  By Cantor's diagonal argument lists can be no more than countably
  infinite in length.

The above refers to #1.  I thought that was clear since I did not try 
to say #2 was a list.


  An object's spacial coordinates are part of its description [its
  sublist] but because the full list is at most only countably infinite
  in length there can not be a continuum of spacial coordinates on
  it.  The same would apply to an object's time coordinates.
 

If you assume that space and/or time is a continuum, then there exists
an uncountable set of space and/or time coordinates, even in every
interval of non-zero measure.

Well the idea that you can map the points in an N dimensional 
continuum to the points on any line segment  makes me wonder how 
continuums can play a role in the description of universes especially 
since it does not seem necessary - at least to me.

But if you take a particular object, as
you are doing here, which has one set of space-time coordinate
(4-tuple), this is describable with a countable set of symbols.

If so then why is a continuum necessary?  My Physical reality 
dimension with countable - finite will do I think - values seems enough.

  Yes,
assuming a space-time continuum that is really a continuum is rather
hard to believe, as Feynman pointed out (at one point in his life ;).
But as I have been trying to point out, this kind of belief is
something that we do without thinking about it.  And yet it is faith.
It is based on evidence, a finite set of points of evidence, but it
takes faith to integrate over those points.

As I indicated appeal to continuums seems odd and unnecessary.  I 
have found no evidence that convinces me otherwise and I have no 
faith in the odd and unnecessary.

  Universes are objects described by sub lists of the full list and
  consist of sets of other sub lists but as such universes can not
  contain continuums of spacial or temporal coordinates or continuums
  of any other property its objects might have.
 
 
 
  As an aside, in my  current model the full list and its sub lists are
  both description and object.  Objects interact by mutually
  changing  just one property - their location on a Physical Reality
  dimension.  The change is just a shifting of boundaries between sublists.
 
 
  Hal Ruhl

Perhaps this is a good new angle to try to say what I'm trying to say.
If there is ultimately no such thing as a person,

Well a result of what I am saying seems to be that there are a 
countably infinite number of objects that are exactly as I am now 
but having every possible space-time combination.  However, one has 
to consider their location on the physical reality dimension.  This 
would allow a dynamic [which occurs by the nature of the # 1 list] to 
trace out chains of such as I could ever be objects that would 
appear as a person moving through space-time so long as at least 
several adjacent such objects all have non zero but first rising and 
then falling physical reality so that flow and apparent have a reference.


Must go it is late.

Hal


then there is no
subject-object distinction (needed for science, and even more for
scientists).
This is talking at the deepest level of philosophy, not
the common sense (sometimes the word naive is used) sense that is used
in everyday science.  I think it is best to always look at the whole
week (the living of everyday life at the finite level) from the
perspective of the weekend (personal eternity, the grand scheme of
things which the impersonal Everything does not provide).  The only way
to the continuum is to start with it.  No amount of making lists is
going to get you there.

Tom




--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



  1   2   3   4   >