joining

[Nick Prince]

This is my joining post!
I am a lecturer in mathematics and physics at a senior school in
England
my background is B.Sc and Master of Philosophy degrees in mathematical
physics, the latter was by research in cosmology and general
relativity - but this was some time ago.  I have published a few
papers which relate to physical eschatology,  particularly  the
simulation argument of Bostrom and the Omega point theory of Tipler.
I am interested in how these ideas, along with the many worlds
interpretation could fit together in the quantum theory of immortality.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Russell Standish-2]

Welcome. I look forward to some stimulating discussions in the future.

On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 10:18:02AM -0800, Argand wrote:

>
>
> This is my joining post!
> I am a lecturer in mathematics and physics at a senior school in
> England
> my background is B.Sc and Master of Philosophy degrees in mathematical
> physics, the latter was by research in cosmology and general
> relativity - but this was some time ago.  I have published a few
> papers which relate to physical eschatology,  particularly  the
> simulation argument of Bostrom and the Omega point theory of Tipler.
> I am interested in how these ideas, along with the many worlds
> interpretation could fit together in the quantum theory of immortality.
>

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
Mathematics                        
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 hpcoder@...
Australia                                http://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 everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Hal Ruhl-2]

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 everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[John Mikes]

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.

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'?

Have a good 2008

John M



On Jan 6, 2008 3:54 PM, Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl@...> wrote:

>
> 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 everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[John Mikes]

Hal, me again (John):
Do you seriously mean "How many Nothings"?
John

On Jan 7, 2008 12:12 PM, John Mikes <jamikes@...> 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.
>
> 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'?
>
> Have a good 2008
>
> John M
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 6, 2008 3:54 PM, Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl@...> wrote:
> >
> > 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 everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Hal Ruhl-2]

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 everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Hal Ruhl-2]

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 everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[John Mikes]

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? 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.

1. If there is  -a- 'nothingness' does it multiply when we in our
human logic detect "it" again?
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.

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?

John M

On Jan 7, 2008 9:31 PM, Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl@...> wrote:

>
> 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 everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Gevin Giorbran]

On Jan 8, 1:01 pm, "John Mikes" <jami...@...> wrote:

> JM: does anything like 'completion' make sense in speaking about an
> unlimited totality? Furthermore: are 'copies' considerable substantial
> items, or simply our figment of looking from different angles into
> different angles - at the same item?
> 1. If there is  -a- 'nothingness' does it multiply when we in our
> human logic detect "it" again?
> 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 haven't had a chance to explore RS's book yet, but I can share the
simple way that I unite nothing and infinity in my own book which is I
suppose is fundamentally about nothing and everything.

There is a real existing "nothing" and there is a concept nonexistence
and they should never be confused. The real nothing is common,
"nothing in the refrigerator", a white canvas, empty space (the ideal
or direction toward i.e., expansion). The real nothing is simply
balance, uniformity, perfect symmetry. It isn't a cancellation of
properties or existence, it is a unification or synthesis into a
single form, which we see as nothing. Cook everything in the frig
together and you end up with one thing with far fewer properties. That
property-less "one" in mathematics is zero. In a simple examination of
zero it appears to contain all other numbers, as x + -x equals zero.
However, zero mathematically refers to "no things" or cancellation,
and so we say the sum of all reals is indefinite. However, as I
explain in my book there are two mathematical systems not one. It is
all or nothing. Zero can either represents no things, or zero
represents all things. If zero is all things, zero becomes infinite,
and as a result all numbers become infinite. +1 becomes all numbers
except -1 is excluded, etc etc. Suddenly instead of counting things,
numbers represents fragments of the everything of zero. The radical
consequence of this is that the value or content of numbers decreases
rather than increases. Five is a larger infinity than four, since more
has been removed, it is a smaller fragment of the whole of a zero
everything. 5 billion is a much smaller value and as we count into
greater numerals our value or content is decreasing and even
converging toward an infinitely small value. What we are doing is
fragmenting zero, we are slicing it up into parts, and since our
numerical value is converging rather than diverging we can recognize a
smallest number, positive infinity, an exact division or fragmentation
made of zero, which in this system is an actual value, no less
definite and completed than the whole of zero, and so this infinity
not merely a never ending or unlimited process. I call this number
Proto, and the negative Elea. So where we are used to not having a
mathematical value to represent everything, and used to being caught
up in incomprehensible indefinite infinities, in this math the overall
infinity of mathematical values is bounded by extremes. There is an
all positive half, an all negative half, and the whole of zero. In the
same way there exists infinite fractions between zero and one, this
math system is infinite yet bounded by extremes, and note there is no
nothing in this system, or rather nothing and everything are the same
thing...zero.

My cosmological application of this system is that Proto, I claim, is
the infinitely dense (all positive) and infinitely small singularity
in our past, the extreme of all positive, and the pendulum swung all
the way to one side. (In this second system there cannot be a value
smaller than half of the whole, yet that smallest value is still
infinite). The zero of this math, or Omega, is the singularity of
empty space toward which our universe is currently accelerating
towards. It is the largest value in nature, and why the universe
expands and ultimate ends as a perfectly flat space extending
infinitely in all directions (perfect symmetry).

The most dramatic consequence of all this being the realization that
our universe is not simply becoming disordered, our universe is not
dying, rather time evolves away from one kind of order (the ultimate
grouping of all positive apart from all negative, with each having
high symmetry internally while relative to zero they are perfect
asymmetry) and time evolves towards a whole other kind of order
(unity, balance, perfect symmetry) which is actually the infinite
whole, a quantum superposition of all universes, matter and antimatter
worlds, antimatter worlds being those that travel from negative Elea
to zero.

So as to why we exist rather than nothing at all, the answer is that
nothing still exists. What we think of as nothing is really
everything, and zero is the native state of being, as non-being or
nonexistence cannot "be" (Parmenides). It simply is. We are inside the
real nothing, inside zero. Ordinary math is based upon the order of
the past, the distinction and form that results of slicing zero up,
with Proto claiming to be the great 1, the beginning, everything that
matters, more than zero. This second system, which I call symmetry
math, is certainly less functional in our everyday lives, but it is
less of an abstraction of true reality, and applies much more
effectively to cosmology, the study of the whole.

Gevin Giorbran
http://everythingforever.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Gevin Giorbran]

On Jan 6, 12:54 pm, Hal Ruhl <HalR...@...> wrote:
> 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.

I like that Hal. I describe it similarly, suggesting the original
asymmetry exists in the identity confusion of being everything and
nothing simultaneously. This produces two states, the masculine "I am
everything, you are nothing", (i.e., King of the world, all that
matters, "the self"), and the feminine "I am nothing, you are
everything" (all that matters, giving self over for family, spouse,
church, state). In the end there is the final "I am, you are
(infinity, God)" as well as "I am not, you are not (zero as nothing,
eastern emptiness)".

> 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.

Must and does, not just definitive information but also enfolded,
Bohm's implicate order. NOt just the exploring of distinct
possibilities, the slices of zero, but also a becoming of the
integrated whole, finally becoming or unifying with the everything.

> 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.

A natural impetus built into the timeless reality.

> Each step of the quest has an equal but opposite twin and so to
> minimize selection a Something bifurcates at each one.

INdeed, conservation of zero. There is always an equal opposite.

> 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.

Eternal inflation, are followed, will all be followed, have all been
followed, with each path ending at the final state of knowing itself
as both nothing and everything, Omega, completeness, zero, oneness,
returning home to know itself for the first time.
Cool stuff 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@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Günther Greindl]

Hi,

> There is a real existing "nothing" and there is a concept nonexistence
> and they should never be confused. The real nothing is common,
> "nothing in the refrigerator", a white canvas, empty space (the ideal
> or direction toward i.e., expansion). The real nothing is simply
> balance, uniformity, perfect symmetry.

Hmm - your real existing nothing is just a word without referent - like
a null pointer.
Q: "What is on the paper?"

As answer you expect that what is written.
As the paper is still blank:
A: "Nothing."

You are being returned a null pointer, not a metaphysical reference to
balance, uniformity, symmetry or whatever.

Your concept of _nonexistence_ would then be a metaphysical null
pointer. Attributing either concept some kind of "existence" is major
metaphysical error IMHO.

> It isn't a cancellation of
> properties or existence, it is a unification or synthesis into a
> single form, which we see as nothing. Cook everything in the frig
> together and you end up with one thing with far fewer properties. That
> property-less "one" in mathematics is zero.

These are all features of language. I recommend Niiniluoto's "Critical
Scientific Realism" how to resolve these issues - indeed, how they have
been resolved through diligent work of many philosophers (that does not
mean that there is no disagreement anymore ;-))

> converging toward an infinitely small value. What we are doing is
> fragmenting zero, we are slicing it up into parts, and since our
<snip>

You seem to have a certain preconception of what a number is; or at
least develop a conception which one must not naturally share.


> high symmetry internally while relative to zero they are perfect
> asymmetry) and time evolves towards a whole other kind of order
> (unity, balance, perfect symmetry) which is actually the infinite

I suppose you do not mean the heat death of the universe. But what would
perfect symmetry be but heat death?

Regards,
Günther


--
Günther Greindl
Department of Philosophy of Science
University of Vienna
guenther.greindl@...
http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/

Blog: http://dao.complexitystudies.org/
Site: http://www.complexitystudies.org

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[John Mikes]

Gevin,
thanks for your comprehensive - and very understandable - explanation about
"nothing" (no pun) and its qualia-circumstances.
My post to Hal targeted "nothingness" as differentiated from
"nothing". The concept, not the qualia or nature of its adjectival
meaning.
I regret to have missed so far your book. It must be an intresting reading.
John M

On Jan 9, 2008 7:23 AM, Gevin Giorbran <gevgiorbran@...> wrote:

>
> On Jan 8, 1:01 pm, "John Mikes" <jami...@...> wrote:
> > JM: does anything like 'completion' make sense in speaking about an
> > unlimited totality? Furthermore: are 'copies' considerable substantial
> > items, or simply our figment of looking from different angles into
> > different angles - at the same item?
> > 1. If there is  -a- 'nothingness' does it multiply when we in our
> > human logic detect "it" again?
> > 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 haven't had a chance to explore RS's book yet, but I can share the
> simple way that I unite nothing and infinity in my own book which is I
> suppose is fundamentally about nothing and everything.
>
> There is a real existing "nothing" and there is a concept nonexistence
> and they should never be confused. The real nothing is common,
> "nothing in the refrigerator", a white canvas, empty space (the ideal
> or direction toward i.e., expansion). The real nothing is simply
> balance, uniformity, perfect symmetry. It isn't a cancellation of
> properties or existence, it is a unification or synthesis into a
> single form, which we see as nothing. Cook everything in the frig
> together and you end up with one thing with far fewer properties. That
> property-less "one" in mathematics is zero. In a simple examination of
> zero it appears to contain all other numbers, as x + -x equals zero.
> However, zero mathematically refers to "no things" or cancellation,
> and so we say the sum of all reals is indefinite. However, as I
> explain in my book there are two mathematical systems not one. It is
> all or nothing. Zero can either represents no things, or zero
> represents all things. If zero is all things, zero becomes infinite,
> and as a result all numbers become infinite. +1 becomes all numbers
> except -1 is excluded, etc etc. Suddenly instead of counting things,
> numbers represents fragments of the everything of zero. The radical
> consequence of this is that the value or content of numbers decreases
> rather than increases. Five is a larger infinity than four, since more
> has been removed, it is a smaller fragment of the whole of a zero
> everything. 5 billion is a much smaller value and as we count into
> greater numerals our value or content is decreasing and even
> converging toward an infinitely small value. What we are doing is
> fragmenting zero, we are slicing it up into parts, and since our
> numerical value is converging rather than diverging we can recognize a
> smallest number, positive infinity, an exact division or fragmentation
> made of zero, which in this system is an actual value, no less
> definite and completed than the whole of zero, and so this infinity
> not merely a never ending or unlimited process. I call this number
> Proto, and the negative Elea. So where we are used to not having a
> mathematical value to represent everything, and used to being caught
> up in incomprehensible indefinite infinities, in this math the overall
> infinity of mathematical values is bounded by extremes. There is an
> all positive half, an all negative half, and the whole of zero. In the
> same way there exists infinite fractions between zero and one, this
> math system is infinite yet bounded by extremes, and note there is no
> nothing in this system, or rather nothing and everything are the same
> thing...zero.
>
> My cosmological application of this system is that Proto, I claim, is
> the infinitely dense (all positive) and infinitely small singularity
> in our past, the extreme of all positive, and the pendulum swung all
> the way to one side. (In this second system there cannot be a value
> smaller than half of the whole, yet that smallest value is still
> infinite). The zero of this math, or Omega, is the singularity of
> empty space toward which our universe is currently accelerating
> towards. It is the largest value in nature, and why the universe
> expands and ultimate ends as a perfectly flat space extending
> infinitely in all directions (perfect symmetry).
>
> The most dramatic consequence of all this being the realization that
> our universe is not simply becoming disordered, our universe is not
> dying, rather time evolves away from one kind of order (the ultimate
> grouping of all positive apart from all negative, with each having
> high symmetry internally while relative to zero they are perfect
> asymmetry) and time evolves towards a whole other kind of order
> (unity, balance, perfect symmetry) which is actually the infinite
> whole, a quantum superposition of all universes, matter and antimatter
> worlds, antimatter worlds being those that travel from negative Elea
> to zero.
>
> So as to why we exist rather than nothing at all, the answer is that
> nothing still exists. What we think of as nothing is really
> everything, and zero is the native state of being, as non-being or
> nonexistence cannot "be" (Parmenides). It simply is. We are inside the
> real nothing, inside zero. Ordinary math is based upon the order of
> the past, the distinction and form that results of slicing zero up,
> with Proto claiming to be the great 1, the beginning, everything that
> matters, more than zero. This second system, which I call symmetry
> math, is certainly less functional in our everyday lives, but it is
> less of an abstraction of true reality, and applies much more
> effectively to cosmology, the study of the whole.
>
> Gevin Giorbran
> http://everythingforever.com
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[John Mikes]

Günther:
your reply is well to the point(s) - I feel to explain why I opened Pandora's
(empty?<G>) box of nothingness.  It was long ago when we discussed
these things with Hal, I changed my views a lot since then - as well,
as Hal also developed a comprehensive theory of his own. I wrote a
macama on 'Ontology' (what I hold today as a 'model-view' of a reduced
aspect in the royaume 'existence'). In my present view ontology is a
frozen state related explanation in a (dynamic?) world of continuous
change. As we look at it today. So my recollection was just that: a
recollection.
I referred to a "starting point" what most theories shove under the
rug, mostly as some meaningless free concept to start a hazy process
(thinking of Q-science) - and at 'that' time I did not accept it. I
was 2 decades younger.
so I started with "nothingness" - and elevated it into our worldview.
As a later phase I started from an imagined 'plenitude' - perfect(!)
symmetry invariant  singularity (atemporal, aspatial of course) and
deduced from my arbitrary conditions the innumerable "Bigbangs" for
the unlimited multiverse (diverse qualia, including ours) with all the
peculiarities we induce HERE. The 'universes' are lashing up and
dissipating complexity-knots (ours looks different from the inside
only).
I call this a "narrative" and accept the origination of that
'plenitude' as untouchable as any other shoved under the rug.
I write this in explanation for my not going into discussion of
details of the 'old' idea.
The closest (a bit obsolete) is included in my Karl Jaspers Forum
#TA-62MIK-2003.
John M

On Jan 9, 2008 9:43 AM, Günther Greindl <guenther.greindl@...> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> > There is a real existing "nothing" and there is a concept nonexistence
> > and they should never be confused. The real nothing is common,
> > "nothing in the refrigerator", a white canvas, empty space (the ideal
> > or direction toward i.e., expansion). The real nothing is simply
> > balance, uniformity, perfect symmetry.
>
> Hmm - your real existing nothing is just a word without referent - like
> a null pointer.
> Q: "What is on the paper?"
>
> As answer you expect that what is written.
> As the paper is still blank:
> A: "Nothing."
>
> You are being returned a null pointer, not a metaphysical reference to
> balance, uniformity, symmetry or whatever.
>
> Your concept of _nonexistence_ would then be a metaphysical null
> pointer. Attributing either concept some kind of "existence" is major
> metaphysical error IMHO.
>
> > It isn't a cancellation of
> > properties or existence, it is a unification or synthesis into a
> > single form, which we see as nothing. Cook everything in the frig
> > together and you end up with one thing with far fewer properties. That
> > property-less "one" in mathematics is zero.
>
> These are all features of language. I recommend Niiniluoto's "Critical
> Scientific Realism" how to resolve these issues - indeed, how they have
> been resolved through diligent work of many philosophers (that does not
> mean that there is no disagreement anymore ;-))
>
> > converging toward an infinitely small value. What we are doing is
> > fragmenting zero, we are slicing it up into parts, and since our
> <snip>
>
> You seem to have a certain preconception of what a number is; or at
> least develop a conception which one must not naturally share.
>
>
> > high symmetry internally while relative to zero they are perfect
> > asymmetry) and time evolves towards a whole other kind of order
> > (unity, balance, perfect symmetry) which is actually the infinite
>
> I suppose you do not mean the heat death of the universe. But what would
> perfect symmetry be but heat death?
>
> Regards,
> Günther
>
>
> --
> Günther Greindl
> Department of Philosophy of Science
> University of Vienna
> guenther.greindl@...
> http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/
>
> Blog: http://dao.complexitystudies.org/
> Site: http://www.complexitystudies.org
>
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Hal Ruhl-2]

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 al