Chris,
Hi. I admit that something and nothing may be more of a comedy gold
mine than I first wrote. It's nothing to sneeze at! :-) Although, I wonder
if people who aren't interested in this stuff (e.g. almost everyone) would
find it funny?
It sounds like we're pretty much in agreement on a lot of things. A
couple of comments on your comments are:
1. It sure is hard to visualize the "absolute lack-of-all", I agree. What
I try to do is to shut my eyes and try to imagine the universe and all its
volume collapsing down to just my body and then just my mindscape. Then, I
push that darkness of the mindscape off to the side into a little point and
try to imagine getting rid of that point. I've never pushed it all the way
away out of fear that it may not be so good for your health, but it helps
me think that only once it's all gone, including our mind, do we jump to
the outside and see the "absolute lack-of-all" as the entirety of all there
is and thus an existent entity. But, it's possible it's just my imagination
2. You mentioned
"...the set is a pure conceptual entity, it never the less is also imbued
with a rich set of operations and properties. Even the empty set is a
non-trivial conceptual entity."
I don't think of the existent entity that I used to call the "absolute
lack-of-all", which is similar to the empty set, as a conceptual entity
because in the "absolute lack-of-all" or the nullness inside the empty set,
there would be no mind for it to be conceived in. It's a real existent
entity, IMHO, just like an electron is a real existent entity. Who knows
what's inside an electron. All we really know is that it's an existent
entity. "Electron" and "empty set" are just names for existent entities.
3. When I was talking about removing all things thought to exist in order
to get to the "absolute lack-of-all", I don't think there's still a
container left. Instead, I think that that that "absolute lack-of-all"
itself is the container. That nothingness would be the entirety of all
there is and thus the grouping, or container, defining what is contained
within. That nothingness is both what is contained within and the
container.
4. In regard to the auto-catalytic nature of the existent entity/empty set,
I totally agree. But, my vote for what the multiplication operation would
be is that:
o If the "absolute lack-of-all" is a grouping defining what is contained
within and thus an existent entity, a grouping is the similar to a surface
or edge defining what is contained within and giving substance and
existence to the thing.
o If you have this initial surface, what's next to the surface? The
"absolute lack-of-all". This new instance of the "absolute lack-of-all" is
itself an existent entity next to the surface of the original entity. In
fact, I think new identical "absolute lack-of-all" existent entities would
cover the entire surface of the original entity.
o Each of the new "absolute lack-of-all" existent entities would repeat the
process and you'd have an expanding space composed of these "absolute
lack-of-all" existent entities.
This would be my vote on the autocatalytic mechanism for how this
initial entity/empty set could replicate itself.
See you.
Roger
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
