Of course! To quote one of the most preeminent magicians of all time: Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law! 8^)
But what it doesn't seem like you see is that by calling them *modes*, I've created a middle ground between them. It is the same *stuff*, just different processes. (Or, dually, the same process, just different stuff.) If you admit to that similarity, then we can take it a step further and show more than just 2 modes ... perhaps even countably infinite modes. Then your distinction of kind becomes a distinction of degree ... which means it's all the same thing, merely dependent on which part of the spectrum you're working on. I.e. the *domain*. On 4/10/20 11:43 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > Am I allowed to agree with the second without agreeing to the second? Am I > allowed, in fact to use the success of your second argument as evidence > AGAINST the aritificiality of the distinction? -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
