Hi, Hal, I feel we have a semantic dichotomy: using "model" in diverse meanings. As I guess yours is a 'metaphoric compendium" some simulation of a 'total' into usable terms from other sources, while I use the word as a cut-off from totality, focussing on the characteristics (content?) relevant to the study (observation, discussion), omitting the 'not involved' connotations. 'Yours' is more comprehensive, 'mine' is incomplete, reductionistic.
John Mikes ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 4:36 PM Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model > Hi John: > > I am trying to make the model independent of what might be the detail > structure of individual universes within it. > > Hal > > At 10:41 AM 11/21/2004, you wrote: > >Hal: > >how about this: > > > >a 'concept' is THE part of ALL cut (limited?) by topical boundaries into a > >(topical) model disregarding other connections and e/affects. > >Our reductionist science uses such restrictions because of our incapability > >to encompass a wider domain of ALL into our mental function. (I am not the > >best in formulating). > > > >John Mikes > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 11:32 PM > >Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model > > > > > I was asked about "concepts". > > > I would define "concept" as any division of the All into two sub > > > components, each of the sub components is a concept. > > > Usefullness of a concept as judged by a SAS [if they exist] is not an issue. > > > > > > Hal
