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.

Dear Bruno,

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to