Hi John:

At 04:23 PM 10/5/2005, you wrote:
>
That is all fine, but all those 'convergent' thinking
comes from the limited minds of present day humans.
If nature is not restricted to our understanding
(watch for the word: "UNDER") then we have no right to
speak about 'everything' (without due identification).
Similar to "possible" (which includes "our" deemed
impossibilities as well, restricted to our feeble
imagination). Even "imaginable" is a restriction.
Nature is not limited to that - as I like to think
about her. Not even in her 'logic'.

With friendly greetings from our perceived universe(?)


John M

I tried to express a degree of locality in my comments when I used "me", "believe", and "we". in my last sentence:

  It makes me believe that the model at
> the apex of this
> convergence is the correct one as far as we can ever
> know it.
>

As to the founding idea of this thread I naturally do not believe - based on my model - that any single item on my list such as a component of mathematics or of cognition has any higher degree of essentiality [a more primitive position] in the pattern of understanding we seek than any other item on the list. This would include the item of "empty" associated with the founding definition of the All, Nothing pair. Rather it is this definition that has a distinction from all other definitions.

Yours

Hal Ruhl



Reply via email to