Hal Ruhl wrote:
[...]
The idea that defining a thing actually defines two things seems self
evident [once you notice it].
At least one case of unavoidable definition also seems self evident
[once you notice it].
The problem with evidence is that on one side there is no other
known basis to
- Original Message -
From: John M [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
Hi, Hall, (to your post below and many preceding that):
I feel there is a semantic game going on. ALL we know of
Hal Ruhl wrote:
Boundaries: I have as I said in one post of this thread and as I recall
in some earlier related threads defined information as a potential to
erect a boundary. So the All is chuck full of this potential. Actual
boundaries are the Everything and any evolving Something.
This is
On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 08:39, Georges Quenot wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
[...]
The idea that defining a thing actually defines two things seems self
evident [once you notice it].
At least one case of unavoidable definition also seems self evident
[once you notice it].
The problem
At 05:39 PM 11/16/2004, you wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
[...]
The idea that defining a thing actually defines two things seems self
evident [once you notice it].
At least one case of unavoidable definition also seems self evident [once
you notice it].
The problem with evidence is that on one side
Eric Cavalcanti wrote:
On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 08:39, Georges Quenot wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
[...]
The idea that defining a thing actually defines two things seems self
evident [once you notice it].
At least one case of unavoidable definition also seems self evident
[once you notice it].
The
At 05:58 PM 11/16/2004, you wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
Boundaries: I have as I said in one post of this thread and as I recall
in some earlier related threads defined information as a potential to
erect a boundary. So the All is chuck full of this potential. Actual
boundaries are the Everything
Hal Ruhl wrote:
At 05:39 PM 11/16/2004, you wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
[...]
The idea that defining a thing actually defines two things seems self
evident [once you notice it].
At least one case of unavoidable definition also seems self evident
[once you notice it].
The problem with evidence is
Hal Ruhl wrote:
At 05:58 PM 11/16/2004, you wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
Boundaries: I have as I said in one post of this thread and as I
recall in some earlier related threads defined information as a
potential to erect a boundary. So the All is chuck full of this
potential. Actual boundaries
At 08:48 PM 11/16/2004, you wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
At 05:39 PM 11/16/2004, you wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
[...]
The idea that defining a thing actually defines two things seems self
evident [once you notice it].
At least one case of unavoidable definition also seems self evident
[once you notice
Hal Ruhl wrote:
At 08:48 PM 11/16/2004, you wrote:
Darwin seems to have felt this way about Origins [Stephen Gould's The
Structure of Evolutionary Theory, page 2] so why should my ideas be
special?
We agree here. Interesting reference.
Georges.
Hi George:
At 09:13 PM 11/16/2004, you wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
At 05:58 PM 11/16/2004, you wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
Boundaries: I have as I said in one post of this thread and as I
recall in some earlier related threads defined information as a
potential to erect a boundary. So the All is chuck
Hi John:
At 05:46 PM 11/16/2004, you wrote:
snip
My Multiverse consists of universes unlimited in number and qualia
(process capability, whatever).
My All would be infinite and could contain multiple multiverses - multiple
Somethings - evolving all at once.
I see no restriction on the nature
This is starting to sound like discussion Hume must have had with himself.
RM
14 matches
Mail list logo
