Hal,

I lost you 2) - 13): I cannot squeeze the philosophical content into a
physicalist-logical formalism. The 'terms' are naturally vague to me,
cannot follow them 'ordered. The words in your perfect schematic are
(IMO) not adequate for the ideas they are supposed to express: our
language is inadequate for the (my?) advanced thinking.
I am for total interconnection, no separable divisions etc. Aspects,
no distinctions.
I am not ready to make a conventional scientific system out of the
inconventional. I am not an 'engineer': I am a dreamer.

Maybe if I learned your entire vocabulary?....(I cannot - it
interferes with mine).

Thanks for your effort, it was counterproductive FOR ME.

I appreciate your way as your way.

John M

On Sat, Feb 9, 2008 at 10:55 PM, Hal Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  Hi John and Tom:
>
>  Below is a first try at a more precise expression of my current model.
>
>  1) Assume [A-Inf] - a complete, divisible ensemble of A-Inf that
>  contains its own divisions.
>
>  2) [N(i):E(i)] are two component divisions of [A-Inf] where i is an
>  index [as are j, k, p, r, t, v, and z below] and the N(i) are empty
>  of any [A-Inf] and the E(i) contain all of [A-Inf].
>  {Therefore [A-Inf] is a member of itself, and i ranges from 1 to infinity}
>
>  3) S(j) are divisions of [A-Inf] that are not empty of [A-Inf].
>    {Somethings}
>
>  4) Q(k) are divisions of [A-Inf] that are not empty of [A-Inf].
>    {Questions}
>
>  5) mQ(p) intersect S(p).
>   {mQ(p) are meaningful questions for S(p)}
>
>  6) umQ(r) should intersect S(r) but do not, or should intersect N(r)
>  but can not.
>  {umQ(r) are un-resolvable meaningful questions}.
>
>  7) Duration is a umQ(t) for N(t) and makes N(t) unstable so it
>  eventually spontaneously becomes S(t).
>   {This umQ(t) bootstraps time.}
>
>  8) Duration can be a umQ(v) for S(v) and if so makes S(v) unstable so
>  it eventually spontaneously becomes S(v+1)
>   {Progressive resolution of umQ, evolution.}
>
>  9) S(v) can have a simultaneous multiplicity of umQ(v).
>   {prediction}
>
>  10) S(v+1) is always greater than S(v) regarding its content of [A-Inf].
>   {progressive resolution of incompleteness} {Dark energy?} {evolution}
>
>  11) S(v+1) need not resolve [intersct with] all umQ(v) of S(v) and
>  can have new umQ(v+1).
>   {randomness, developing filters[also 8,9,10,11], creativity, that
>  is the unexpected, variation.}
>
>  12) S(z) can be divisible.
>
>  13) Some S(z) divisions can have observer properties [also S
>  itself??]: Aside from the above the the S(v) to S(v+1) transition can
>  include shifting intersections among S subdivisions that is
>  communication, and copying.
>
>  Perhaps one could call [A-Inf] All Information.
>
>  Well its a first try.
>
>  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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to