Georges Quenot wrote: >
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.
In a previous post, I asked TOE participants their opinion about the existence of Concepts. What I meant might not be clear. It is in fact equivalent to the (hopefully) clearer idea of Boundary mentionned here. Again, using the upper case for "Boundary", I mean here something that would exist in an "absolute" sense and not just the relative, contingent and fuzzy boundaries we use in everday life. A Concept would be something tht would be on one side of a Boundary ande vices versa. Do some TOE participants believe in such Boundaries, even at least in some particular cases ? If yes, which ones and on whice bases ?
To take a particular example. It is often considered in this group the concept od Self-Aware Structure (SAS). Who believes that Boundaries can be drawn around individuals SASs and/or around the category ?
Georges.
