Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

From: Georges Quenot <Georges.Quenot.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:40:34 +0100

Hal Ruhl wrote:
>
> At 08:16 AM 11/14/2004, you wrote:
> >
> > Hal Ruhl wrote:
> > >
> > > 4) A Something: A division of the All into two subparts.
> >
> > That too, sounds bad to me. It might well be that the only something that
> > deserve the title of Something would be the All itself. Everything else
> > might appear so only in our minds (and/or in other types of minds).

> I believe my use of the term "Something" in the text of the justification
> is consistent with my definition. One must allow for the case that the
> All could have internal boundaries of some sort.

Hi Hal,

I would say that this is a matter of faith. Indeed, It *could*. But no
one has the ability to prove either It has or It hasn't any such boundary
(in an absolute sense, of course). From this point of view, I am at best
agnostic and I seriously doubt It actually has. That's why I would also
like to say : One must allow for the case that the All could have no (true)
internal boundaries of any sort.

Georges.
Received on Mon Nov 15 2004 - 04:43:07 PST