On 11/3/2012 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I read Russell. Never found something that non sensical. If the basic
object have no properties, I don't see how anything can emerge from
it. You have to explain your point, not to refer to the literature.
Did you notice that I distinguish between "having no properties"
and "having no particular properties"? The former is undefinable, the
latter is equivalent to "having all possible properties". The word
"particular" seems to cause confusion. It is used to bracket one against
many, like a figure and its ground. It implies a choice...
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