Hi John,
Le 07-janv.-08, à 18:12, John Mikes wrote (to Hal Ruhl)
Hal,
I read your post with appreciation (did not follow EVERY word in it
though) - it reminded me of my Naive Ode (no rhymes) of Ontology
dating back into my pre-Everythinglist times, that started something
like:
...In
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 same
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. To
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, uniformity,
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 far
Günther:
your reply is well to the point(s) - I feel to explain why I opened Pandora's
(empty?G) 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
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' make
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:
A:
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' make sense in speaking about an
unlimited totality?
Hal,
I read your post with appreciation (did not follow EVERY word in it
though) - it reminded me of my Naive Ode (no rhymes) of Ontology
dating back into my pre-Everythinglist times, that started something
like:
...In the Beginning there was Nothingness ( - today I would add:
observer of
Hal, me again (John):
Do you seriously mean How many Nothings?
John
On Jan 7, 2008 12:12 PM, John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hal,
I read your post with appreciation (did not follow EVERY word in it
though) - it reminded me of my Naive Ode (no rhymes) of Ontology
dating back into my
Hi John:
At 12:12 PM 1/7/2008, you wrote:
Hal,
I read your post with appreciation (did not follow EVERY word in it
though) - it reminded me of my Naive Ode (no rhymes) of Ontology
dating back into my pre-Everythinglist times, that started something
like:
...In the Beginning there was
Hi Russell:
I have at last found a opportunity to start looking at your
book. Thanks for the cite.
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
