My sentence structure could have been better. The Nothing(s) encompass no
distinction but need to respond to the stability question. So they have an
unavoidable necessity to encompass this distinction. At some point they
spontaneously change nature and become Somethings. The particular Something
may also be incomplete for the same or some other set of unavoidable
questions. This is what keeps the particular incompleteness trace going.
In this regard also see my next lines in that post:
"The N(k) are thus unstable with respect to their "empty" condition. They
each must at some point spontaneously "seek" to encompass this stability
distinction. They become evolving S(i) [call them eS(i)]."
I have used this Nothing to Something transformation trigger for many years
in other posts and did not notice that this time the wording was not as
clear as it could have been.
However, this lack of clarity seems to have been useful given your
discussion of inconsistency driven traces. I had not considered this
[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Abram Demski
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 12:59 AM
Subject: Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?
I do not understand why the Nothings are fundamentally incomplete. I
interpreted this as inconsistency, partly due to the following line:
"5) At least one divisor type - the Nothings or N(k)- encompass no
distinction but must encompass this one. This is a type of incompleteness."
If they encompass no distinctions yet encompass one, they are
apparently inconsistent. So what do you mean when you instead assert
them to be incomplete?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at