HAL, it was interesting to read "your version" of some
concepts. It is much more involved than just to reply
ny pushing the button when reading.
Glossarymaking is a sweaty work, more than a
vocabulary or a thesaurus. I for one identify
'existence' as some "difference" - without which
nothing can exist (nirvana). Then there is
'information' - a red flag. I identify 'mine' as an
acknowledged difference of ANY kind by ANY
acknowledgor.
Object I like to call an item WITH characteristics
(your property?) and I condone matter as ideational
one with effects one can perceive.
You donot seem to differentiate in your IDs between
the properties(?) of objects (callable: physical??)
and ideational items. Or do you call ideation
'physical'?
We are in a maze of millennia-long misunderstandings
of faulty observations and their explanation in ways
of the epistemic level of that particular age. And
mostof us keep 'religiously' the old (improper)
distinctions of limited model-view of old. We still
cannot do much better (ha ha).
What the hell are those "numbers"???
John M
--- Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
> A few comments:
>
> IMO it is necessary to make a distinction between
> existence, reality,
> and physical reality.
>
> My latest model:
>
> Existence: A property that should be reserved for
> the basis of the
> specific "everything" model such as "numbers".
>
> Reality: A property of any entity derived from the
> existence of the basis.
>
> Physical reality: A property of such an entity that
> allows it to
> alter the properties of another entity or have its
> properties so
> altered. The only such alteration that seems
> possible is the one that
> gives an entity the property of physical reality or
> not - thus
> entities interact through altering which entities
> have physical reality.
>
> A "flow" or a dynamic in physical reality has thus
> been introduced.
>
> Notice that the notion of "property" runs through
> all of these. Thus
> in my view "property" should be the basis in the
> form of a list of
> all properties. Divisions of the list are entities
> and come in pairs
> and all have a degree of reality since they are
> derived from the list.
>
> Entities equivalent to numbers would be a division
> and also this
> division would be contained within other divisions.
>
> Another division would be the generator of the
> Nothing and the
> All. Can the Nothing have physical reality? There
> seems to be a
> problem with "it can". If it does then it does not
> since no other
> entity then could. If it does not then there is no
> issue and it
> would remain in this condition.
>
> Can zero entities have physical reality? No - this
> would be the same
> as no physical reality - essentially the Nothing
> having physical reality.
>
> Can just one entity have physical reality? No -
> this violates the
> definition of physical reality.
>
> Can those entities having physical reality be
> static? No - this is
> equivalent to the absence of physical reality.
>
> Can just two entities have physical reality? No -
> this would permit
> the possibility of just one entity having physical
> reality and this
> is not allowed.
>
> From this basis - a list of properties - I
> therefore conclude that
> many entities except the Nothing can have physical
> reality and that
> there must be a flow of physical reality.
>
> Further there would be more entities than those
> based just on numbers.
>
> Hal Ruhl
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sun Mar 19 2006 - 17:18:58 PST