Georges Quenot wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
> At 08:16 AM 11/14/2004, you wrote:
> >
> > Hal Ruhl wrote:
> > >
> > > 4) A Something: A division of the All into two subparts.
> >
> > That too, sounds bad to me. It might well be that the only  something that
> > deserve the title of Something would be the All itself. Everything  else
> > might appear so only in our minds (and/or in other types of minds).
> I believe my use of the term "Something" in the text of the justification
> is consistent with my definition.   One must allow for the case that the
> All could have internal boundaries of some sort.

Hi Hal,

I would say that this is a matter of faith. Indeed, It *could*. But no
one has the ability to prove either It has or It hasn't any such boundary
(in an absolute sense, of course). From this point of view, I am at best
agnostic and I seriously doubt It actually has. That's why I would also
like to say : One must allow for the case that the All could have no (true)
internal boundaries of any sort.

In a previous post, I asked TOE participants their opinion about the existence of Concepts. What I meant might not be clear. It is in fact equivalent to the (hopefully) clearer idea of Boundary mentionned here. Again, using the upper case for "Boundary", I mean here something that would exist in an "absolute" sense and not just the relative, contingent and fuzzy boundaries we use in everday life. A Concept would be something tht would be on one side of a Boundary ande vices versa. Do some TOE participants believe in such Boundaries, even at least in some particular cases ? If yes, which ones and on whice bases ?

To take a particular example. It is often considered in this group the
concept od Self-Aware Structure (SAS). Who believes that Boundaries can
be drawn around individuals SASs and/or around the category ?


Reply via email to