I had written:
>"Collective entity" seems to involve a contradiction, since a collection
of
>objects can't itself be a physical object, it exists solely as a concept.
I had written:
>Apparently you wish
>to include concepts such as sets, relations and systems under the
>definition of "entity". But this usage generates confusion, since there
are
>obvious basic differences between physical things on the one hand and
>arrangements of things on the other, and grave errors ensue from failing
to
>distinguish different categories.
Ian responds:
IAN: Your error of saying physical objects
(which are collections of entities) cannot
exist seems the gravest and only error here.
But of course I said nothing of the sort. See above.
Again me:
>Smith's famous invisible hand - virtually synonymous with the extropian
>principle of spontaneous organisation - is the internal organizing
>principle of a complex relational nexus.
Dick