Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

From: John M <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:27:58 -0500

Hal:
makes sense to me - with one question:
I take: "ALL" stands for the totality (wholeness as I say) and your -- "is"
is confined to whatever we do, or are capable (theoretically) to know -
whether already discovered or not.
In that case the 'definitional pair' wouold be anthropocentric?
(It would not make sense, if you consider it as the 'infinite computer'
rather than "us").
*
That would really equate ALL and NOTHING, because in the nothing the "is
not" component includes all. Not a pair?

John Mikes
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Ruhl" <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model


> In my [is, is not] definitional pair the "is not" component is the All
> minus the "is" component.
>
> Thus the "is not" member is not simply unwinged horses or the like. In
> most of these pairs I suspect the "is not" component has no apparent
> usefulness [to most SAS [if they exist]]. Be that as it may both members
> of the [All, Nothing] pair seem to have usefulness.
>
> Hal
>
>
>
>
Received on Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:54:46 PST