HAL, it was interesting to read "your version" of some
concepts. It is much more involved than just to reply
ny pushing the button when reading. 
Glossarymaking is a sweaty work, more than a
vocabulary or a thesaurus. I for one identify
'existence' as some "difference" - without which
nothing can exist (nirvana). Then there is
'information' - a red flag. I identify 'mine' as an
acknowledged difference of ANY kind by ANY
Object I like to call an item WITH characteristics
(your property?) and I condone matter as ideational
one with effects one can perceive. 
You donot seem to differentiate in your IDs between
the properties(?) of objects (callable: physical??)
and ideational items. Or do you call ideation

We are in a maze of millennia-long misunderstandings
of faulty observations and their explanation in ways
of the epistemic level of that particular age. And
mostof us keep 'religiously' the old (improper)
distinctions of limited model-view of old. We still
cannot do much better (ha ha). 

What the hell are those "numbers"???

John M

--- Hal Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> A few comments:
> IMO it is necessary to make a distinction between
> existence, reality, 
> and physical reality.
> My latest model:
> Existence:  A property that should be reserved for
> the basis of the 
> specific "everything" model such as "numbers".
> Reality:  A property of any entity derived from the
> existence of the basis.
> Physical reality: A property of such an entity that
> allows it to 
> alter the properties of another entity or have its
> properties so 
> altered. The only such alteration that seems
> possible is the one that 
> gives an entity the property of physical reality or
> not - thus 
> entities interact through altering which entities
> have physical reality.
> A "flow" or a dynamic in physical reality has thus
> been introduced.
> Notice that the notion of "property" runs through
> all of these.  Thus 
> in my view "property" should be the basis in the
> form of a list of 
> all properties.  Divisions of the list are entities
> and come in pairs 
> and all have a degree of reality since they are
> derived from the list.
> Entities equivalent to numbers would be a division
> and also this 
> division would be contained within other divisions.
> Another division would be the generator of the
> Nothing and the 
> All.  Can the Nothing have physical reality?  There
> seems to be a 
> problem with "it can".   If it does then it does not
> since no other 
> entity then could.  If it does not then there is no
> issue and it 
> would remain in this condition.
> Can zero entities have physical reality?  No - this
> would be the same 
> as no physical reality - essentially the Nothing
> having physical reality.
> Can just one entity have physical reality?  No -
> this violates the 
> definition of physical reality.
> Can those entities having physical reality be
> static?  No - this is 
> equivalent to the absence of physical reality.
> Can just two entities have physical reality?  No -
> this would permit 
> the possibility of just one entity having physical
> reality and this 
> is not allowed.
>  From this basis - a list of properties - I
> therefore conclude that 
> many entities except the Nothing can have  physical
> reality and that 
> there must be a flow of physical reality.
> Further there would be more entities than those
> based just on numbers.
> 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