Re: My model presented more traditionally

From: jamikes <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 09:58:44 -0400

Dear Hal,
thank you for your post. I will study your points before I can say Yeah or
Nah to any one of them. It seems I have to make up your mind <G> whether the
"everything includes itself" means an infinite succession of an increasing
line of 'evrythings', all including the previous one, or is it a 'one time'
wordflower?

I would appreciate your definition, how you define "noise" in Prop.6?

Prima vista it seems to include sort of a reductionistic modeling (as in
'parsing') and an arbitrrary dynamics ('nested' - as in a hierarchy), but I
have to think about that before I ask you.

Thank you for the homework I got. As you said 2-3 years ago, our thinking
includes 'close' foundation in different wording/conntoations. It still
seems so.

John Mikes

----- Original Message -----
From: "H J Ruhl" <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 11:51 PM
Subject: My model presented more traditionally


> The following is a new effort to present my model in a more traditional
> way.
>
SNIP
Received on Fri Oct 11 2002 - 10:09:54 PDT