Hi John and George: In my post:
"I see no motivator to any dynamics within the Everything other than the incompleteness of some of its members and the unavoidable necessity to progressively resolve this incompleteness." I used "motivator" in the sense that a gas engine is a motivator of dynamics. I use incompleteness in the sense of a lack of information. The initial "meaningful" question concerns the duration of a particular Nothing. This question is inevitable and must be answered ["unavoidable necessity"], but the Nothing can answer no questions so is incomplete so it becomes a Something to gain information. A Something is a sub set of the members of the Everything and is defined by its current boundary with the Everything. The same question will apply to Somethings: What is the duration of the current boundary? If a Something can not answer this question it must change its boundary [expand it into the Everything]. This is a new Something and the expansion may not have encompassed a sufficient general answer to this question and so the process repeats ["progressively resolve this incompleteness"]. I currently see no other dynamic motivator/process within the Everything or in/of any of its sub sets. Hal Ruhl At 07:48 AM 1/20/2008, you wrote: >George and Hal: >Why does a "question" emerge? Why does it 'imply' to be answered? (I >avoid 'why do we feel') Where did 'incompleteness' occur from? >All these are very 'human' concepts and we impersonate them into a >wider sense. >"WE" (as Bruno asked: who is that? and I replied 'humanly thinking >machines') still 'think' in our restricted human terms - cannot do >otherwise - using that incomplete primitive tool (brain function) >which in Self-reflection (consciousness? I hate that term) realizes >its own incompleteness and projects it towards the targets of its >thinking. >So the question itself does not 'emerge': it 'imerges in our thinking. >"Something" stands for the unidentified content - a challenge (human that is). >And - George - yes, the English language IS broken (as are all other >ones, maybe the English - as a mixed artifact - a bit more) because it >stands for unclear symbols and their communication with the pretension >of clarity. Words are restrictive tools of a restrictive >brainfunction. >Sorry for the holiday-breaking denigration > >John --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
