Thursday, September 15, 2016


Can "nothing" be defined solely in terms of the absence of properties?  E.g., NOT(having mass), ..., NOT(having length), NOT(having width), ... , even, NOT(having duration)?  But NOT(some property) seems, itself, to be a property.  Certainly Asa H handles NOT(category X) in the same way it handles some (category X).  And Boolean logic circuits handle NOT(X) the same way they handle X. If NOT a property IS a property too and if any "something" is just defined by its list of properties then "nothing" is a "something" too.  (See my blog of 20 Feb. 2015)

For any of the concepts that Asa H has learned (see, for example, my blogs of 5 November 2015 and 1 October 2015) NOT(concept) also makes sense and can be used in Asa's reasoning.

No comments:

Post a Comment