--- 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
> 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
> 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(?)