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.
