> Replying to LO862 --
>
> >[...]
> >Incorporated in the above definition, by reference, is the definition of
> >SYSTEM given by the greatest native-born American physical scientist, J.
> >Willard Gibbs:
> >
> >"...any PORTION of the material universe which we choose to separate in
> >thought from the rest of the universe, for the purpose of considering and
> >discussing the various changes which may occur within it under various
> >conditions."
> >
> >What do you think of that?
> >
> >JOHN WARFIELD
> >Jwarfiel@osf1.gmu.edu
>
> I would say that the SYSTEM inheres in those thoughts by which we
> separated out a portion of the universe, not the portion of the universe
> itself as Gibbs suggests. I.e., systems are mental constructs, not things
> to be found in the material universe.
>
> I also would not limit them to abstractions of the MATERIAL universe,
> although I can see why a physicist like Gibbs might do that.
>
> I do like Gibbs's implicit notion that the universe is whole and, in
> systematizing, we choose to abstract.
>
> John Snyder
> Innovation On Demand
> Round Rock, TX
> jsnyder@bga.com
>
>
>
John S., it seems implicit in your comments above that you think ideas
are not material. I am always very reluctant to question geniuses, which
Gibbs clearly was, and one might speculate that thoughts are material
after all. I have been advsied at some point in my life that a person's
weight at death changes ever so slightly, and one could speculate that
even the soul is material!
John W.
Jwarfiel@osf1.gmu.edu