--- Hal Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi John:
> 
> I do not know if one should use the word Theory but
> what strikes me 
> is the convergence I see in numerous lines of
> thought.  I see my 
> model as having many features in common with
> Russell's even though 
> some of the differences may not be subject to
> complete 
> reconciliation.  I also see a place for Bruno's
> consistent histories, 
> consistent extensions computational hypothesis
> approach as a sub 
> component of mine.   I have been made aware of
> others that fit the 
> same pattern of convergence towards what appears to
> me to be a single 
> simple model.
> 
> The apparent convergence from such different
> starting places and 
> ensuing seemingly incompatible lines of thought I
> find 
> remarkable.  It makes me believe that the model at
> the apex of this 
> convergence is the correct one as far as we can ever
> know it.
> 
> Hal Ruhl
> 
That is all fine, but all those 'convergent' thinking
comes from the limited minds of present day humans. 
If nature is not restricted to our understanding
(watch for the word: "UNDER") then we have no right to
speak about 'everything' (without due identification).
Similar to "possible" (which includes "our" deemed
impossibilities as well, restricted to our feeble
imagination). Even "imaginable" is a restriction.
Nature is not limited to that - as I like to think
about her. Not even in her 'logic'.

With friendly greetings from our perceived universe(?)


John M

Reply via email to