Hi John and George:

In my post:

"I see no motivator to any dynamics within the Everything other than
the incompleteness of some of its members and the unavoidable
necessity to progressively resolve this incompleteness."

I used "motivator" in the sense that a gas engine is a motivator of dynamics.

I use incompleteness in the sense of a lack of information.

The initial "meaningful" question concerns the duration of a 
particular Nothing.

This question is inevitable and must be answered ["unavoidable 
necessity"], but the Nothing can answer no questions so is incomplete 
so it becomes a Something to gain information.

A Something is a sub set of the members of the Everything and is 
defined by its current boundary with the Everything.

The same question will apply to Somethings: What is the duration of 
the current boundary?  If a Something can not answer this question it 
must change its boundary [expand it into the Everything].  This is a 
new Something and the expansion may not have encompassed a sufficient 
general answer to this question and so the process repeats 
["progressively resolve this incompleteness"].

I currently see no other dynamic motivator/process within the 
Everything or in/of any of its sub sets.

Hal Ruhl

At 07:48 AM 1/20/2008, you wrote:

>George and Hal:
>Why does a "question" emerge? Why does it 'imply' to be answered? (I
>avoid 'why do we feel') Where did 'incompleteness' occur from?
>All these are very 'human' concepts and we impersonate them into a 
>wider sense.
>"WE" (as Bruno asked: who is that? and I replied 'humanly thinking
>machines')  still 'think' in our restricted human terms - cannot do
>otherwise - using that incomplete primitive tool (brain function)
>which in Self-reflection (consciousness? I hate that term) realizes
>its own incompleteness and projects it towards the targets of its
>So the question itself does not 'emerge': it 'imerges in our thinking.
>"Something" stands for the unidentified content - a challenge (human that is).
>And - George - yes, the English language IS broken (as are all other
>ones, maybe the English - as a mixed artifact - a bit more) because it
>stands for unclear symbols and their communication with the pretension
>of clarity. Words are restrictive tools of a restrictive
>Sorry for the holiday-breaking denigration

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

Reply via email to