Hi Georges

At 07:32 AM 3/10/2006, you wrote:

>I do not understand. You are considering objects that would not
>have any property at all

No.  The most asymmetric divisions of the list possible are those 
containing one property in one division and all other properties in 
the other division.   The Nothing [properties: "empty", "consistent", 
"incomplete" - contains nothing] and the All [some of its properties: 
"contains the rest of the list", "complete", "inconsistent"]* are an 
object pair resulting from a [three:rest] division.

*The All actually contains all the properties of the list so it 
contains the list as a potential sub division.

>  and objects that would simultaneously
>have all imaginable properties?

Perhaps my definition of objects from the current configuration of my 
model would help:

Object: That which has a set of properties.  Objects have an 
associated degree of potential physical reality.  The degree is 
distinguished by both imperativeness and duration.  Imperativeness is 
a measure of the number of universes that can contain - imbed - the 
object.  Objects with an inconsistent set of properties may have zero 
imperativeness.  Duration is a measure of the maximum number of 
successive states of a universe [another definition] that can imbed 
the object that are capable of having a non zero degree of 
simultaneous physical reality.

Of course this is now out of the context of the rest of the 
description of the model.

Hal Ruhl

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to