I was wondering if I could get the benefit of your collective
knowledge: I am looking for a word in philosophy (whether that be of
math/metaphysics/religion) that denotes "everything", as in the whole
continuous plenum that is reality - before we chop it up and partition
it into conceptual objects and categories for everyday use

Hi all,

I was wondering if I could get the benefit of your collective
knowledge: I am looking for a word in philosophy (whether that be of
math/metaphysics/religion) that denotes "everything", as in the whole
continuous plenum that is reality - before we chop it up and partition
it into conceptual objects and categories for everyday use

I'm wondering if there is already a technical (or at least
philosophical) term that describes the whole "fabric" of the universe
of discourse.

The closest I have found is something like
"anatta" (thanks to google/wikipedia) but i'm not sure its perfect.
The term "everything" is loaded in that it implies a set of all
things, when really i'm coming from the reverse angle, of one
universal thing that we then cut up as suits whatever task we are
dealing with.

Anyhow, thanks in advance for _any_ guidance you guys can give.

All best, J.

Jason wrote:

I was wondering if I could get the benefit of your collective
knowledge: I am looking for a word in philosophy (whether that be of
math/metaphysics/religion) that denotes "everything", as in the whole
continuous plenum that is reality - before we chop it up and partition
it into conceptual objects and categories for everyday use ;)

I've read about Wu, or Wu Chi, or Wuji.
Some translate it as Nothingness or Nonbeing.
Others say it connotes (if not denotes)
undifferentiated. Not knowing Chinese however,
anything I say is subject to dispute.

I'm wondering if there is already a technical (or at least
philosophical) term that describes the whole "fabric" of the universe
of discourse.

The fabric of the universe of discourse
might mean something else.

Everything, in terms of Taoism,
is often referred to as the ten thousand things
or wan-wu, or wanwu.

Anyhow, thanks in advance for _any_ guidance you guys can give.

A word or phrase may work just fine
but it might not work fine all the time.
That cud be some thing to keep in mind.
Chewy thought. One mulls.

Semantics can be frought with quibbles.

All best, J.

Good luck.
-cheers!

On Mon, 12 May 2008 16:12:34 -0700 (PDT), Jason Glumidge
Jason.Glumi... at (no spam) gmail.com> said:

Hi all,

I was wondering if I could get the benefit of your collective
knowledge: I am looking for a word in philosophy (whether that be of
math/metaphysics/religion) that denotes "everything",

That would be ""everything"", wouldn't it?

as in the whole continuous plenum that is reality - before we chop it
up and partition it into conceptual objects and categories for
everyday use ;)

Ohhhh, then how about "everything"?

I'm wondering if there is already a technical (or at least
philosophical) term that describes the whole "fabric" of the universe
of discourse.

"Fabric" seems to imply the sort of conceptualizing and categorizing
you're hoping to avoid, doesn't it?

The closest I have found is something like "anatta" (thanks to
google/wikipedia) but i'm not sure its perfect. The term "everything"
is loaded in that it implies a set of all things,

Does it? It is true that the concept of a formal interpretation for a
formal language requires that the universal quantifiers of the language
range over sets, but why do you think the ordinary concept of everything
implies that there is a set of all things? Surely that is not part of
the ordinary meaning of "everything".

In case you *are* interested in the connections to formal issues here,
Peter Smith posted a series of very comprehensive reviews of a recent
collection of papers on unrestricted quantification on his blog; click
here:http://logicmatters.blogspot.com/search?q=absolute+generality

On May 13, 7:14 pm, Chris Menzel <cmen... at (no spam) remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote:





On Mon, 12 May 2008 16:12:34 -0700 (PDT), Jason Glumidge
Jason.Glumi... at (no spam) gmail.com> said:

Hi all,

I was wondering if I could get the benefit of your collective
knowledge: I am looking for a word in philosophy (whether that be of
math/metaphysics/religion) that denotes "everything",

That would be ""everything"", wouldn't it?

as in the whole continuous plenum that is reality - before we chop it
up and partition it into conceptual objects and categories for
everyday use ;)

Ohhhh, then how about "everything"?

I'm wondering if there is already a technical (or at least
philosophical) term that describes the whole "fabric" of the universe
of discourse.

"Fabric" seems to imply the sort of conceptualizing and categorizing
you're hoping to avoid, doesn't it?

Agreed. Its a sloppy word to use. Something like "single universal
whole" would be far more apt, without wishy washy talk about
"fabrics".



The closest I have found is something like "anatta" (thanks to
google/wikipedia) but i'm not sure its perfect.  The term "everything"
is loaded in that it implies a set of all things,

Does it?  It is true that the concept of a formal interpretation for a
formal language requires that the universal quantifiers of the language
range over sets, but why do you think the ordinary concept of everything
implies that there is a set of all things?  Surely that is not part of
the ordinary meaning of "everything".

I would probably better have said aggregation than set - don't wanna
rule out them there mereologists. Either way I'd still suggest that
"everything" infers an aggregation of things (as in 'every', and
'thing'), which is something was trying to get away from (i.e. the
state of play before we've split that whole up into bundles).



In case you *are* interested in the connections to formal issues here,
Peter Smith posted a series of very comprehensive reviews of a recent
collection of papers on unrestricted quantification on his blog; click
here:http://logicmatters.blogspot.com/search?q=absolute+generality

many thanks for the link.lots of good reading to be had. Regards.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Tue, 13 May 2008 13:14:40 -0700 (PDT), Jason Glumidge
Jason.Glumi... at (no spam) gmail.com> said:



On May 13, 7:14 pm, Chris Menzel <cmen... at (no spam) remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2008 16:12:34 -0700 (PDT), Jason Glumidge
Jason.Glumi... at (no spam) gmail.com> said:
Hi all,

I was wondering if I could get the benefit of your collective
knowledge: I am looking for a word in philosophy (whether that be of
math/metaphysics/religion) that denotes "everything",

That would be ""everything"", wouldn't it?

as in the whole continuous plenum that is reality - before we chop it
up and partition it into conceptual objects and categories for
everyday use ;)

Ohhhh, then how about "everything"?

I'm wondering if there is already a technical (or at least
philosophical) term that describes the whole "fabric" of the universe
of discourse.

"Fabric" seems to imply the sort of conceptualizing and categorizing
you're hoping to avoid, doesn't it?

Agreed. Its a sloppy word to use. Something like "single universal
whole" would be far more apt, without wishy washy talk about
"fabrics".

The closest I have found is something like "anatta" (thanks to
google/wikipedia) but i'm not sure its perfect. The term
"everything" is loaded in that it implies a set of all things,

Does it? It is true that the concept of a formal interpretation for
a formal language requires that the universal quantifiers of the
language range over sets, but why do you think the ordinary concept
of everything implies that there is a set of all things? Surely that
is not part of the ordinary meaning of "everything".

I would probably better have said aggregation than set - don't wanna
rule out them there mereologists. Either way I'd still suggest that
"everything" infers an aggregation of things (as in 'every', and
'thing'),

So you are saying that it is actually part of the meaning of
"everything" that, among all the things, there is also a thing with is
the set/collection/aggregation of all the things.

I'm not sure what
circles you run in,

but I don't think anyone I know thinks that. I'm
really sure my wife doesn't, and she seems to me to speak excellent
English.

On May 14, 10:40 pm, Chris Menzel <cmen... at (no spam) remove-this.tamu.edu
wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008 13:14:40 -0700 (PDT), Jason Glumidge
Jason.Glumi... at (no spam) gmail.com> said:
On May 13, 7:14 pm, Chris Menzel <cmen... at (no spam) remove-this.tamu.edu
wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2008 16:12:34 -0700 (PDT), Jason Glumidge
Jason.Glumi... at (no spam) gmail.com> said:
Hi all,

I was wondering if I could get the benefit of your collective
knowledge: I am looking for a word in philosophy (whether that
be of math/metaphysics/religion) that denotes "everything",

That would be ""everything"", wouldn't it?

as in the whole continuous plenum that is reality - before we
chop it up and partition it into conceptual objects and
categories for everyday use ;)

Ohhhh, then how about "everything"?

I'm wondering if there is already a technical (or at least
philosophical) term that describes the whole "fabric" of the
universe of discourse.

"Fabric" seems to imply the sort of conceptualizing and
categorizing you're hoping to avoid, doesn't it?

Agreed. Its a sloppy word to use. Something like "single universal
whole" would be far more apt, without wishy washy talk about
"fabrics".

The closest I have found is something like "anatta" (thanks to
google/wikipedia) but i'm not sure its perfect. The term
"everything" is loaded in that it implies a set of all things,

Does it? It is true that the concept of a formal interpretation
for a formal language requires that the universal quantifiers of
the language range over sets, but why do you think the ordinary
concept of everything implies that there is a set of all things?
Surely that is not part of the ordinary meaning of "everything".

I would probably better have said aggregation than set - don't
wanna rule out them there mereologists. Either way I'd still
suggest that "everything" infers an aggregation of things (as in
'every', and 'thing'),

So you are saying that it is actually part of the meaning of
"everything" that, among all the things, there is also a thing with
is the set/collection/aggregation of all the things.

No, I was saying that the term "everything" implies that there were
"things" in the first place, before we considered all of them
together. I was just wondering if there was a term already used that
tried to avoid that commitment....

I'm not sure what circles you run in,

ever decreasing ones by the looks of it

but I don't think anyone I know thinks that. I'm really sure my wife
doesn't, and she seems to me to speak excellent English.

I was wondering if I could get the benefit of your collective
knowledge: I am looking for a word in philosophy (whether that be of
math/metaphysics/religion) that denotes "everything", as in the whole
continuous plenum that is reality - before we chop it up and partition
it into conceptual objects and categories for everyday use

Hi all,

I was wondering if I could get the benefit of your collective
knowledge: I am looking for a word in philosophy (whether that be of
math/metaphysics/religion) that denotes "everything", as in the whole
continuous plenum that is reality - before we chop it up and partition
it into conceptual objects and categories for everyday use

I'm wondering if there is already a technical (or at least
philosophical) term that describes the whole "fabric" of the universe
of discourse. The closest I have found is something like
"anatta" (thanks to google/wikipedia) but i'm not sure its perfect.
The term "everything" is loaded in that it implies a set of all
things, when really i'm coming from the reverse angle, of one
universal thing that we then cut up as suits whatever task we are
dealing with.

Anyhow, thanks in advance for _any_ guidance you guys can give.

All best, J.

kleptomaniac6... at (no spam) hotmail.com schrieb:

The notion of quantifying over "everything" is as unsatisfactory as
the naive notion of the "set of all sets". Using the english language,
or a language with roughly equivalent expressions to the above, for
many years, may lead one to think that because you can say it in the
english (or equivalent) language, it is coherent, and one should be
able to have rational conversations about it. This is, however, not
the case.

Maybe should work with v Neuman set theory,
instead of ZFC. It seems that it allows large
objects, with the provisio:

large(x) <=> not exists y (x in y)

Thus is large objects cannot be membership
of other objects.

Bye

On May 18, 2:22 pm, Jan Burse <janbu... at (no spam) fastmail.fm> wrote:



kleptomaniac6... at (no spam) hotmail.com schrieb:

The notion of quantifying over "everything" is as unsatisfactory as
the naive notion of the "set of all sets". Using the english language,
or a language with roughly equivalent expressions to the above, for
many years, may lead one to think that because you can say it in the
english (or equivalent) language, it is coherent, and one should be
able to have rational conversations about it. This is, however, not
the case.

Maybe should work with v Neuman set theory,
instead of ZFC. It seems that it allows large
objects, with the provisio:

large(x) <=> not exists y (x in y)

Thus is large objects cannot be membership
of other objects.

Bye

Well, obviously there is the distinction between sets and classes that
enables one to dodge Russell's paradox, at least for the time being
(by that I mean, as far as we know). But for me the unsatisfactory
nature of the notion does not depend on Russell's paradox. Russell's
paradox is a sympton that should make one think "hang on, if the
notion I am dealing with is so nice, elegant and above all logical,
why am I forced to repeatedly dodge things like this?"

Jason Glumidge wrote:

I was wondering if I could get the benefit of your collective
knowledge: I am looking for a word in philosophy (whether that be of
math/metaphysics/religion) that denotes "everything", as in the whole
continuous plenum that is reality - before we chop it up and partition
it into conceptual objects and categories for everyday use ;)

"Universe"?

The notion of quantifying over "everything" is as unsatisfactory as
the naive notion of the "set of all sets". Using the english language,
or a language with roughly equivalent expressions to the above, for
many years, may lead one to think that because you can say it in the
english (or equivalent) language, it is coherent, and one should be
able to have rational conversations about it. This is, however, not
the case.

kleptomaniac666_ at (no spam) hotmail.com schrieb:

The notion of quantifying over "everything" is as unsatisfactory as
the naive notion of the "set of all sets". Using the english language,
or a language with roughly equivalent expressions to the above, for
many years, may lead one to think that because you can say it in the
english (or equivalent) language, it is coherent, and one should be
able to have rational conversations about it. This is, however, not
the case.

Maybe should work with v Neuman set theory,
instead of ZFC. It seems that it allows large
objects, with the provisio:

large(x) <=> not exists y (x in y)

Thus is large objects cannot be membership
of other objects.