Odious and Peculiar

Philology and esoterica: scribblings, ravings and mutterings.

O&P's Current Pick:

Forging the Sampo

Odious' Links:

The Little Bookroom
The Pumpkin King
Larissa Archer
Inverted Iambs
Eve Tushnet
Pamela Dean
Kambodia Hotel
Pen and Paper

Charles Darwin's Beagle Diary
Deep-Sea News
NASA's Mars Website
Classics Online
Perseus Digital Library

Nine Scorpions
The Blithe Kitchen
Letter from Hardscrabble Creek
Arts & Letters Daily
About Last Night



Chas Clifton's Nature Blog
Rock Art Photo Blog
Girl on a Whaleship
Nature Lyrics Languagehat
Jabal al-Lughat
Laputan Logic
Strange Maps
Vladimir Dinets: Polymath Russian Adventurer
Virtual Tour of Almaty, Kazakhstan
Aerial Landscape Photography
USGS Earth As Art
Panoramic Aerial Maps of the American West

The Internet Bird Collection
Bird Families of the World
Ancient Scripts
The Aberdeen Bestiary Project
The Cephalopod Page
The Ultimate Ungulate
The Red Book of the Peoples of the Russian Empire
USGS Streamflow Data

Worthy Miscellany
Finno-Ugrian Music
Boojum Expeditions
American River Touring Association

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

web metrics
Saturday, March 05, 2005
No, seriously, the question is, do boundaries imply an unbounded?

Boundaries imply, at the least, our ability to imagine the definition of unboundedness. Next, our willingness to consider the possibility of unboundedness. Perhaps they also imply the _actual_ possibility of unboundedness. Beyond that, I would say that I can see only boundaries, but of so many different types that they form a class of "boundedness" that implies its opposite pole of "unboundedness," being that we exist in a world that is not absolute.
What do you see as the essential difference between those first three implications? And why would the existence of a class imply an opposite to that class if the world is not absolute?
Post a Comment