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.
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...