I feel we have a semantic dichotomy: using "model" in diverse meanings. As I
guess yours is a 'metaphoric compendium" some simulation of a 'total' into
usable terms from other sources,
while I use the word as a cut-off from totality, focussing on the
characteristics (content?) relevant to the study (observation, discussion),
omitting the 'not involved' connotations.
'Yours' is more comprehensive, 'mine' is incomplete, reductionistic.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
> Hi John:
> I am trying to make the model independent of what might be the detail
> structure of individual universes within it.
> At 10:41 AM 11/21/2004, you wrote:
> >how about this:
> >a 'concept' is THE part of ALL cut (limited?) by topical boundaries into
> >(topical) model disregarding other connections and e/affects.
> >Our reductionist science uses such restrictions because of our
> >to encompass a wider domain of ALL into our mental function. (I am not
> >best in formulating).
> >John Mikes
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 11:32 PM
> >Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
> > > I was asked about "concepts".
> > > I would define "concept" as any division of the All into two sub
> > > components, each of the sub components is a concept.
> > > Usefullness of a concept as judged by a SAS [if they exist] is not an
> > >
> > > Hal