>I asserted that atomism = holism (IAN's holism, I mean!)
IAN: Inversely I say "holism = Dan's atomism,"
which follows since Dan modified the standing
definition of atomism to model my definition
of holism, so the statement "atomism = holism
(IAN's holism, I mean!)" follows by design.
But you do cite a difference between Dan's
atomism and Ian's holism, which is that:
"[atomists believe] that particles may have
independent properties *within a single
reference frame*, ie in relation to zero."
How does A have an "independent property"
with respect to the property it acquired
from 0? If A acquires the property of A
from 0, then A has no independent property.
Please evidence an independent property of A.
I've carefully addressed the examples raised
that seem to be intended to support your claim,
and yet in your reply you've not even attempted
to show my counters are not true. See my last
post to see the contents of my counters:
http://www.extropy.com/exi-lists/extropians/5753.html
****************************************************************
VISIT IAN WILLIAMS GODDARD --------> http://Ian.Goddard.net
________________________________________________________________