Re: My model re Comp and Life re the Everything
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
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
On Sunday, March 30, 2014 7:21:29 PM UTC-4, 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.
I call this Sense.
ii) Devisor:
That which encloses a quantity [zero to every] of distinctions. [Some
divisors are thus collections of divisors.]
I would call this a quale (as in qualia)
iii): Define “N”s as those divisors that enclose zero distinction. Call
them Nothing(s).
This is not necessary to me. Something that functions only to enclose and
does not enclose anything need not be reified. It's not 'Nothing', there
just isn't anything there to define.
iv): Define “S”s as divisors that enclose a non zero number of
distinctions but not all distinctions. Call them Something(s).
These are still just qualia. There doesn't need to be a 'nothing' defined,
so any sense encounter or sense distinction is 'something'. Note that by
saying that sense encounter, I am extending sense even beneath the level of i)
Distinction. We need not be able to experience distinct difference to have
awareness. Awareness makes distinctions and appreciated the, but
distinctions are not things in themselves. We can tell the difference
between anger and sadness, but they need not be distinct, nor does either
one need to be made distinct to be felt. Anger is a self-evident condition
of (our) experience which is not generated by distinctions.
MODEL:
1) Assumption # A1: There exists a set consisting of all possible
divisors. Call this set “A”.
I would call this the Absolute.
“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.
So far so good.
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.
It can be both, neither, or one and not the other in some frame of
reference ('in some sense'). In your terms I would say that each
Divisor/Quale (Q) is made distinct from A by its signature perspectives of
A (A minus Q), and its signature perspectives of every Other Q (O). For me
the Earth is flat or round. For an rabbit it is only flat. For a rabbit on
a spaceship it is only a round image. What is static or dynamic is a
function of the relative scale of Q to O.
This requires that all divisors individually enclose the self referential
distinction of being static or dynamic.
I can move or I can sit still. I need not choose a label of which one I am.
3) At least one divisor type - the “N”s, by definition (iii), enclose no
such distinction but by (2) they must enclose this one.
Lost me there. Why would nothing have to be defined as static or dynamic.
Nothing can be neither. Stasis and motion are distinctions (qualia) just
like everything else.
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.]
Once you define something as Nothings, you can't do anything with them.
They are neither complete nor incomplete. They are certainly not capable of
becoming aware of the meaningfulness of a question. Incompleteness relates
to the limitations of formal representation, not to ontology.
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.
I can get behind a notion of Almost Nothing (±N), in which case I would
agree in the instability in which there is a fluctuation toward and away
from distinction. The transition is not objective though - it is the
perspective, the window of sense through which distinctions are made that
is giving the appearance of transition. From the perspective of A, beyond
time, the transition is eternal, instantaneous, and everything in between.
4) By (3) Transitions between divisors exist.
Locally, yes, but it is relativistic. The acorn appears to us to
Re: My model re Comp and Life re the Everything
On Monday, March 31, 2014 12:21:29 AM UTC+1, 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? I would struggle to imagine an expression of life is inherently self-destructive that is meaningful by itself. There's always a sense or context in which life has a certain property. Life is inhernent absorbant, recycling, balancing, pulsating even, life is inherently hairy or scaly, or cellular...beat cellular., You need to say something more than just the property. Because life is inherently self destructive. But then again, life is the most long running chemical sequence in the universe. So on that measure life is the least destructive. A chemical reaction will exponentiall seek equilibrium, which is self destructive from the perspective of the chemical reaction. IMHO rather than produce a large landscape of essentialy personal creative envisioning what the world is like, focus on one thing, and look into it intensively and if you manage to get a breakthrough in understanding, speak of that. Take it further. Now you're a scientist, a discovery. A lot better than to be creative definer. Thus far, regarding the tendencies of life, you've not added anything. No slight intended...it's really hard to add something. It's really easy to throw out a load envisioning. 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
Re: My model re Comp and Life re the Everything
Hi Hal,
On 01 Apr 2014, at 01:48, Hal Ruhl 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 ?].
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?
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).
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, by accepting that some code will not output any
answer for some predicate (distinction)
No machine can distinct the totally distinguishable from the non
distinguishable.
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.
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).
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.
It is, if you take the superset above. If you take only the total
predicates, you get a sort of god, which means a non Turing emulable
entity. This one is not even emulable with the halting oracle. But the
UD makes clear we don't have to assume it in the ontology once we
assume mechanism.
As for the issue of the nature of life please see my draft at:
http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/
It is a pleasure to converse with you again.
Thanks, you are welcome back,
Bruno
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 Ns as those divisors that enclose zero
distinction. Call them Nothing(s).
iv): Define Ss 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 Ns, 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 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 stability
distinction. They thereby transition into
Re: My model re Comp and Life re the Everything
Dear Hal, you wrote as IMO the 'fundamental' statement: *1) Assumption # A1: There exists a set consisting of all possible divisors. Call this set A. * *A encompasses every distinction.* Possible as per what? our present inventory of knowledge, or including what we would deem impossible today? How about the presently unknown/unknowable but included into Everything (A?) as additional items, qualia, functions and divisors we have not the faintest idea about in today's inventory of our knowledge? This is my Agnosticism talking, 'assuming' more than our past - or present - mental inventory even in some anticipatory and reverse-causational etc. enhancement. John Mikes On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Hal Ruhl halr...@alum.syracuse.edu 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 Ns as those divisors that enclose zero distinction. Call them Nothing(s). iv): Define Ss 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 Ns, 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 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 stability distinction. They thereby transition into Ss. 4) By (3) Transitions between divisors exist. 5) Some of the Ss resulting from Ns [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 Ss 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.
Re: My model re Comp and Life re the Everything
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 Ns as those divisors that enclose zero distinction. Call them Nothing(s). iv): Define Ss 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 Ns, 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 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 stability distinction. They thereby transition into Ss. 4) By (3) Transitions between divisors exist. 5) Some of the Ss resulting from Ns [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 Ss 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. 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,
Re: My model re Comp and Life re the Everything
Dear Hal, I have been thinking about 'life' a lot over the past decades and came up with ONE (not my own) for our terrestrial bio-life (which is not 'all of it'). It says a living entity has to absorb from the environment high sophistication energy (e.g. metabolism) while exuding a portion as low level energy (e.g. heat) continuing a reduction of its entropy (which is counterproductive). Extending such 'life' ID may take care of that, producing synergy by bio-death. In my narrative about the cosmic existence the 'Everything' (Plenitude) is an infinite symmetry (equilibration) of unrestricted items - beyond our vaguest imagination today - and inevitably concentrates 'similar'(?) items in the dynamic existence. I call these universes and as they form - they re-dissipate into the equilibration (timeless spaceless system). From the INSIDE, however, (time-space acknowledged) the process takes a long time and extension. What our physicists call 'energy' is the stress to re-dissipate. In such sense the BIO-life is self destructive. It adds to the wrong pool. I am far from being able to clarifying my ideas. Forgive my intrusion John Mikes On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Hal Ruhl halr...@alum.syracuse.edu 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 Ns as those divisors that enclose zero distinction. Call them Nothing(s). iv): Define Ss 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 Ns, 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 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 stability distinction. They thereby transition into Ss. 4) By (3) Transitions between divisors exist. 5) Some of the Ss resulting from Ns [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 Ss 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
Re: My model re Comp and Life re the Everything
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
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.
RE: My model re Comp and Life re the Everything
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.
Re: My model re Comp and Life re the Everything
On 1 April 2014 13:18, hal ruhl halr...@comcast.net wrote: Hi Liz: Hi Hal A number can be interpreted as encoded information. The decoder can even be a segment of the number. This is true of course, however I'm still a bit confused. You define a distinction as that which enables a separation which seems a bit of a hazy notion to me. Of course that may be just me being obtuse. But ISTM that if you wish to distinguish (say) a shade of red from other colours, that could be encoded in many ways e.g. like a red, red rose or photons with a wavelength of 700nm or pantone colour #12345 or neurone 12345 fires when the image appears on my retina - and no doubt a lot of other ways. Could you perhaps give some examples of how your model works? -- 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
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.
