From: Dick.Gray@bull.com
Date: Wed Jan 20 1999 - 10:59:05 MST
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.
Ian replies:
IAN: A stone is an object, and as I understand,
it's composed of "a collection of objects" known
as molecules, atoms, and subatomic entities; which
directly falsifies your claim that "a collection
of objects can't itself be a physical object."
Perhaps I should've written "mere collection of objects". A stone is
emphatically *not* just a "collection" (a mental grouping or association)
but a coherent whole that responds to changes as a unit. You can kick it,
you can stub your toe on it. You can't kick a mere collection of things,
such as "all the rocks in the universe".
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.
And he:
IAN: And the "complex relational nexus"
is the "collective entity." I think that
the case to the contrary is just semantics.
I'll agree to disagree. "Just semantics" discounts the importance of
careful language usage IMO, but have it your way.
Dick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:02:53 MST