Hal: Do you have any suppositions how 'fragments' can be part of 'this' or rather 'that' description? Is there anything in 'everything' (pardon me the pun) which 'makes' more likely for a (possible??? see below) component to belong to ensemble D vs. ensemble F? Are there attributes of the fragments (component? and how can they be found/defined? (I use 'information' in a different sense: as an 'absorbed' (acknowledged) difference - giving to the characteristic of a difference a way to (real) existence).
Your 'theory' seems to round itself to more and more completion (I still call 'mine' a narrative) the only striking word lately (for me) was: "possible", meaning "in our view?" or "also exceeding the possibilities WE find so"? How can we include - in our terms - impossibles into the list of the possibles? I hope this is not more nitpicking than our overall struggle with words to express the inexpressible... John Mikes --- Hal Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 08:18 PM 9/17/2005, you wrote: ...SNIP > Assumption: There is [exists] a list of all possible > components of > descriptions [not descriptions themselves - these > are derivative of the > list's existence but have a potential [a kernel in > my model's lexicon] of > instantiations of reality [a "dust in the wind" > "physical" existence.]] > Cut > > Yours > > Hal Ruhl > > >
