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 acknowledgor. 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 'physical'?
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
