Hey Günther, thanks for the comments.
On Jan 9, 6:43 am, Günther Greindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm - your real existing nothing is just a word without referent - like
> a null pointer.
> Q: "What is on the paper?"
> As answer you expect that what is written.
> As the paper is still blank:
Hi John:
At 04:01 PM 1/8/2008, you wrote:
>Hi, Hal: - Hopefully without risking strawmanship, a further remark
>on our humanly limited language (however infiltrating into the
>'meaning' of texts):
>HR:
>"...> What I indicated was all paths to completion."
>JM:
>does anything like 'completion'
Günther:
your reply is well to the point(s) - I feel to explain why I opened Pandora's
(empty?) box of nothingness. It was long ago when we discussed
these things with Hal, I changed my views a lot since then - as well,
as Hal also developed a comprehensive theory of his own. I wrote a
macama on
Gevin,
thanks for your comprehensive - and very understandable - explanation about
"nothing" (no pun) and its qualia-circumstances.
My post to Hal targeted "nothingness" as differentiated from
"nothing". The concept, not the qualia or nature of its adjectival
meaning.
I regret to have missed so fa
Le 07-janv.-08, à 16:51, Mirek Dobsicek a écrit :
>
> Bruno wrote:
>> The Shepherdson Sturgis coffee-bar formal definition of computability.
>> (A variant by Cutland).
>>
>>
>> Here is a job offer in an (infinite) coffee bar in Platonia.
>> (Infinite, just for making things a bit simpler.)
>>
>
Hi,
> There is a real existing "nothing" and there is a concept nonexistence
> and they should never be confused. The real nothing is common,
> "nothing in the refrigerator", a white canvas, empty space (the ideal
> or direction toward i.e., expansion). The real nothing is simply
> balance, unifo
On Jan 6, 12:54 pm, Hal Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My view has been that the Nothing is incomplete because it contains
> no ability to answer meaningful questions about itself and there is
> one it must answer and that is its duration. This question is always
> asked and must be answered.
On Jan 8, 1:01 pm, "John Mikes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> JM: does anything like 'completion' make sense in speaking about an
> unlimited totality? Furthermore: are 'copies' considerable substantial
> items, or simply our figment of looking from different angles into
> different angles - at the
8 matches
Mail list logo