On 8/16/2012 7:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
One must assume a mereology (whole-part relational scheme) in any
ontological theory or else there is no way to explain or communicate
it or about it.
That is exactly what I told you. Any universal system has a mereology.
But your existence theory has not, as you disallow properties for your
"neutral" existence. So you are making my point here. Numbers have a
rich mereology, actually infinitely many.
Let me ask a question: Is there a name in your repertoire that
denotes the totality of all that exists? I denote this as Existence
it-self or Dasein. Does it have any particular properties or is the
question of it having (or not having) properties simply inappropriate?
How do you believe properties come to be associated with objects,
concepts, things, entities, etc.
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at