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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > > > >
