To Elliot:
[Seriously, my last post for today]
> Jaron:
> > 100% different won't get
> > recognized as the journal article demonstrates.
>
> Elliot:
> I never said anyone would see it. that isnt the argument at all.
>
> Elliot
Opps! You're right, you didn't say that. I went back and reread after
this post. You said: .
Elliot: I don't agree that there is pure
uniqueness anywhere (in fact,as I said, I think uniqueness is an error)
that we can perceive, but as we do associate properties with things, there
must be something that is the opposite of all those properties. all is
included in existence, and in the end, uniqueness is just a word, a
concept, that does not exist in reality.
My mistake entirely. I agree with you on "uniqueness is just a word, a
concept, that does not exist in reality". The world is filled with stuff
and we classify that stuff with terms such as 'unique', 'different',
'similar, etc.
sorry for my confusion. Although, the article reference is a good one and I
hope you found it all interesting, even if I missed the point.
humble(d) student,
Gary
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:12 BST