makes sense to me - with one question:
I take: "ALL" stands for the totality (wholeness as I say) and your -- "is"
is confined to whatever we do, or are capable (theoretically) to know -
whether already discovered or not.
In that case the 'definitional pair' wouold be anthropocentric?
(It would not make sense, if you consider it as the 'infinite computer'
rather than "us").
That would really equate ALL and NOTHING, because in the nothing the "is
not" component includes all. Not a pair?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
> In my [is, is not] definitional pair the "is not" component is the All
> minus the "is" component.
> Thus the "is not" member is not simply unwinged horses or the like. In
> most of these pairs I suspect the "is not" component has no apparent
> usefulness [to most SAS [if they exist]]. Be that as it may both members
> of the [All, Nothing] pair seem to have usefulness.