Hi George:
I discussed time origins in an earlier post on 1/9/2008.
I see no need for a "physical" grounding.
No entity is required to ask the question, it is asked by the mere
fact that Nothings are members of the "member of itself" nested Everything.
It is the question itself and the inability to respond that is the
key not any possible response.
I see no way for any sub set of the Everything including itself to
avoid this question and responding to it. An Everything is the only
member sure to have a response and a Nothing is the only member sure
to not have one. Somethings would be diverse on the issue.
Hal Ruhl
At 04:27 PM 1/21/2008, you wrote:
>Hi, Hal:
>
>">... I used "motivator" in the sense that a gas engine is a motivator
>of dynamics...." <
>Indeed? does a gas engine 'work' without dynamics - what is supposed
>to be motivated by its activity?
>
>This question came in as an initiator to my reply, since 'dynamics' is
>bound to a process in time (maybe I misunderstand it). You also
>mention several times "duration" - a definitely time-related concept.
>Do you consider "time", - that hard-to-identify term, the coordinate
>"WE" use in THIS universe (together with space) to get a hold on
>occurrences which otherwise would overstep our mental (?)
>capabilities - as fundamental at the Nothing - Something - Everything
>discussion? If so, what is the origo? Is it in nothing or in
>everything? How does it proceed from zero to nonzero?
>*
>"... duration of a particular Nothing..."
>Does "nothing" carry qualia like 'duration'? Indirectly maybe, if you
>compare identified 'somethings' to be cocurrent with 'nothing' and
>then those 'somethings' WHEN you find no 'nothing connected.
>It still would not mark the duration of 'nothing', only the duration
>of its detection. I am weary of considering 'nothing' as a "physical"
>system. By ANY attribute it becomes a something. Sorry, I may be
>one-sided and ignorant, but I am stubborn.
>*
>Why "must {anything} be answered {as an} ["unavoidable
> > necessity"],..."?
>Our questions stem from our ignorance. With more mental power we
>probably would know all the answers and have no questions.
>I try to visualize (again the wrong view) "mental scales" and fear the
>comparisons between concepts on different scales of ideation. (Cf:
>quantized scale transition in chaos-thinking). We cannot overstep our
>restricted level of [human] mental power just as Abbott's Mr 2D could
>not think 3D.
>*
>I see your 'Something' point, not differentiated (all the way) to
>Everything, when it becomes impredicative and unspecifiable.
>I try to use the same concept locally in the R. Rosen type
>'complexity', applied (mostly) to 'our world' (this universe).
>Regards
>John
>
>
>
>On Jan 20, 2008 3:40 PM, Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> >
> > Hi John and George:
> >
> > In my post:
> >
> > "I see no motivator to any dynamics within the Everything other than
> > the incompleteness of some of its members and the unavoidable
> > necessity to progressively resolve this incompleteness."
> >
> >
> > I used "motivator" in the sense that a gas engine is a motivator
> of dynamics.
> >
> > I use incompleteness in the sense of a lack of information.
> >
> > The initial "meaningful" question concerns the duration of a
> > particular Nothing.
> >
> > This question is inevitable and must be answered ["unavoidable
> > necessity"], but the Nothing can answer no questions so is incomplete
> > so it becomes a Something to gain information.
> >
> > A Something is a sub set of the members of the Everything and is
> > defined by its current boundary with the Everything.
> >
> > The same question will apply to Somethings: What is the duration of
> > the current boundary? If a Something can not answer this question it
> > must change its boundary [expand it into the Everything]. This is a
> > new Something and the expansion may not have encompassed a sufficient
> > general answer to this question and so the process repeats
> > ["progressively resolve this incompleteness"].
> >
> > I currently see no other dynamic motivator/process within the
> > Everything or in/of any of its sub sets.
> >
> > Hal Ruhl
> >
> > At 07:48 AM 1/20/2008, you wrote:
> >
> > >George and Hal:
> > >Why does a "question" emerge? Why does it 'imply' to be answered? (I
> > >avoid 'why do we feel') Where did 'incompleteness' occur from?
> > >All these are very 'human' concepts and we impersonate them into a
> > >wider sense.
> > >"WE" (as Bruno asked: who is that? and I replied 'humanly thinking
> > >machines') still 'think' in our restricted human terms - cannot do
> > >otherwise - using that incomplete primitive tool (brain function)
> > >which in Self-reflection (consciousness? I hate that term) realizes
> > >its own incompleteness and projects it towards the targets of its
> > >thinking.
> > >So the question itself does not 'emerge': it 'imerges in our thinking.
> > >"Something" stands for the unidentified content - a challenge
> (human that is).
> > >And - George - yes, the English language IS broken (as are all other
> > >ones, maybe the English - as a mixed artifact - a bit more) because it
> > >stands for unclear symbols and their communication with the pretension
> > >of clarity. Words are restrictive tools of a restrictive
> > >brainfunction.
> > >Sorry for the holiday-breaking denigration
> > >
> > >John
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon Jan 21 2008 - 20:37:08 PST