--- Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi John:
I do not know if one should use the word Theory but
what strikes me
is the convergence I see in numerous lines of
thought. I see my
model as having many features in common with
Russell's even though
some of the differences may not be
Le 22-sept.-05, à 06:27, Marc Geddes a écrit :
What I'd like is a *logical scaffolding* - a *finite* system which is
*universal* in scope - or at least applying everywhere in reality
where sentient minds can exist and which explains the relationship
between Mind and Reality. That for me
Bruno:
according to your (and Marc's?) definition,
is Hal's work a TOEandTON?
Or would you include Nothing into the relations of
Mind (again: wat is it really?) and reality (same
question really!)?
(I mean: defined in less than 1000 words G)
John M
--- Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side,
The one the other will include With ease, and you
beside.-Emily DickinsonIn all of the history of
humans' exploration of the universe, theperpetual message that keeps
coming back to us from the universe isthat the
THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side,
The one the other will include With ease, and you
beside.-Emily DickinsonIn all of the history of
humans' exploration of the universe, theperpetual message that keeps
coming back to us from the universe isthat the
On 9/22/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*Given* that we want a metaphysical 'Theory Of Everything' (the name of this mailing list after all!) we must *assume* as a starting point that mind can comprehend reality. Our assumption could be wrong.That's why it's called a *theory*
6 matches
Mail list logo
