Hi John:
Sorry this took awhile - I have been very busy.
At 07:49 AM 1/31/2005, you wrote:
Hi, Hal, I stepped out from this discussion a while ago, because it grew above my head (or attentional endurance), but I keep reading. Now is a remark of yours I want to ask about:
">I defined information as the potential to establish a boundary. A kernel is the potential to establish a particular boundary.<"
I don't work with the rigor and discipline you display, - I am no designing engineer, nor administrator of people doing such precision - I let my intuition tease me. So more than a decade ago I identified (my?) "information" as "acknowledged difference" whereby the difference was the criterion for the "existence". (Your ALL & Nothing don't exist in this sense, I am sorry for the kill.) "Acknowledged", of course by anything. Now I think a difference involves a boundary. Without such 'implied', no diference could be establihed. I feel a clsoeness here. Do you?
A bit. I do not know how to do a one for one on "acknowledged".
Then the 2nd part: which invokes my more recent domain: wholeness (akin to Robert Rosen's complexity concept, the 'natural' one) where I consider "models" as the basis for our ways of thinking, since we cannot encompass the tota;lity in our little mind. Topical and other models, maps, territories, the sciences, ideas, etc. They are in intereffect, all of them, in diverse "depth" as Kampis identifies it (that part is what I am concerned about lately) and it gives some(!) natural basis for the topical/scientific model-selection. The models are surrounded by their boundaries and our reductionistic observation stops right there. Neglecting the 'beyond', which leads to paradoxes, poorly understood concepts, and all the misunderstanding we can explore in discussions like this one. I feel such chosen/selected models are akin to your kernels if they are not offended by it. Within boundaries that can occasionally be trasncended if one must. The difference is that I think (my) boundaries are selected.
I am not sure how to work with this. My All contains all potential boundaries [kernels] including itself, the Nothing and the boundary between them [the Everything]. This I reconciled in the "An All/Nothing multiverse model" thread. At this level there can be no selection. However, the dynamic internal to the All "selects" kernels to which it gives physical reality for awhile.
(Time is another open questionmark for me, I don't feel ready to address it).
"Time" is tough. I am struggling with it re my posted effort to understand how choice in my (2) model can function and whether or not a SAS can be explained by that functioning. I do not think an ideal clock which is - as usually conceived - just a repeated loop of relative mechanical position has anything to do with "time" which seems more some measure of non repeated change. This is why I think that my oil canning boundaries within a kernel having physical reality are "outside" "time".
Did I miss some important aspect of yours?
I do not know. I am working on a post to bring all my recent posts together.
Hal Ruhl
