Hi John:

It would surprise me if it turns out somehow that a single description [kernel] can have two fully contradictory properties from the list such as fully square and fully round simultaneously assigned to the same object. I do not currently allow that this is in any way "logical". However, I would allow that a transitioning object may have aspects of roundness and aspects of squareness simultaneously. Otherwise I am fairly liberal in what I allow is "logical" for objects. I do not include "ideas" - such as inconsistent mathematical systems - in this "exclusion".

Thus I would currently allow that all descriptions that do not contain fully contradictory objects but can perhaps contain self contradictory collections of ideas are in the All and thus eventually given instantations of physical reality over and over.

As to the full list I suspect that to allow for inconsistent "ideas" such as inconsistent mathematics that some of the items on the list [properties] could themselves be self contradictory.


Hal Ruhl

At 04:00 PM 9/19/2005, you wrote:

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

Reply via email to