Hi Peter,
----- Original Message ----- 
To: "Everything List" <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: Existence, individuation, instantiation


>> [PJ]
>> The existence of some (abstract, theoretical, hypothetical)
>> thing involves all the properties associated (theoretically)
>> with it. The existence of a camel entails the existence
>> if a hump. The existence of a unicorn would entail the
>> existence of a horn.
>> [SPK]
>>         Humm, are you not using semantic inferences here? The notion of a
>> "camel" entails the notion of a "hump", as well as the relation between
>> "unicorn" and "horn", along with all of the other traits/properties that 
>> go
>> into the "meaning" of the thing. I liken this to the meaning of words in 
>> a
>> dictionary: every word's meaning is given as its relationship with other
>> words, a *word* that has no relation with any other is by definition thus
>> meaningless! (This may relate to the notion of "mutual information...)
> [PJ]
> Well, that's one metaphor. Another is class/object or type/instance
> in a programming language.


    How is a "class/object or type/instance" within computer programing 
different? Forgive me, but I am completely ignorant of the minutia of 
computer programing. I was unable to get past page one of the manula on 
Basic and failed Algebra in Highschool. (It was discoved that I am memory 


    In order to comprehend a consept it is necessary for me to generate a 
way to somehow grasp it as a visual picture or as something that can be felt 
by tactile means.

>>     I like to think of this in terms of graph theory, where each word is 
>> a
>> vertex and a "definition" (the meaning) is given by the graph of edges 
>> that
>> connect any one to some other. Note that there is Dominance but no
>> convexity...
>>     On the other hand, I was not considering the particularities of
>> "properties", I am trying to drill down a bit deeper into the notion of
>> existence itself. Whether or not a Camel or Unicorn exist does not add
>> anything to its properties other than the obvious:
> [PJ]
> The fact that there are N instances of a thing is not soemthing
> that can be arrived at by contemplating its Form (or archetype
> or defintion or class..), so it is an extra item of information,
> even if not property. Assertons that
> something-or-other exists *mean* something, they are not
> hollow tautologies!


    I think that I am making that same claim... There must be *more* to 
computations than the mere existence of Numbers.

> [PJ]
> I think part of the confusion is about which properties
> belong to a thing, are intrinsic to it. Physical
> existents have spatial locations , even though
> a thing's location is not one of its instrinsic properties.


    I completely agree and go so far as to claim that all spatial and 
temporal properties are relationally derived, this goes further that Mach's 
idea to the notion that seems to be consistent with Quantum Mechanics that 
"objects have no definite properties at all in themselves." John Wheeler 
expressed this as:


"... every it--every particle, every field of force,
even the spacetime continuum itself--derives its function, its meaning,
its very existence entirely--even if in some contexts indirectly--from the
apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices,

> http://www.geocities.com/peterdjones/met_space.html


    Wow!!!! I will try to write a comment ASAP....



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