To Ron:
Thanks for the Wikipedia article on atoms you
included in your last addresed to me.
In the preceding line to the Wikipedia quote tou
write "Keeping patterns in mind:"
I read it, keeping patterns in mind, but I failed to
see anything to substantiate the proposition: 'a rock
is a pattern'.
I've never argued against the notion that a rock may
be said as made up of atoms,ions or molecules.Nor
anything againstthe prevalent theories about
elementary particles conforming atoms. Nor against the
notion that we can discern patterns in most
collections of atoms, especially so if they are
structured like in crystals.
I'll repeat my argument again, because there lies, I
think, the source of our discrepancy:
"The fact that some thing includes parts or
components which may be properly called patterns does
not make the whole a pattern"
__________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
