Re: Book preview: Theory of Nothing

From: John M <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:00:24 -0700 (PDT)

Hal:

Do you have any suppositions how 'fragments' can be
part of 'this' or rather 'that' description? Is there
anything in 'everything' (pardon me the pun) which
'makes' more likely for a (possible??? see below)
component to belong to ensemble D vs. ensemble F? Are
there attributes of the fragments (component? and how
can they be found/defined? (I use 'information' in a
different sense: as an 'absorbed' (acknowledged)
difference - giving to the characteristic of a
difference a way to (real) existence).

Your 'theory' seems to round itself to more and more
completion (I still call 'mine' a narrative) the only
striking word lately (for me) was: "possible", meaning
"in our view?" or "also exceeding the possibilities WE
find so"? How can we include - in our terms -
impossibles into the list of the possibles?

I hope this is not more nitpicking than our overall
struggle with words to express the inexpressible...

John Mikes

--- Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden> wrote:

> At 08:18 PM 9/17/2005, you wrote:
...SNIP
> Assumption: There is [exists] a list of all possible
> components of
> descriptions [not descriptions themselves - these
> are derivative of the
> list's existence but have a potential [a kernel in
> my model's lexicon] of
> instantiations of reality [a "dust in the wind"
> "physical" existence.]]
>
Cut
>
> Yours
>
> Hal Ruhl
>
>
>
Received on Mon Sep 19 2005 - 16:02:28 PDT