--- John M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 08:17:12 -0800 (PST)
> From: John M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Let There Be Something
> To: Norman Samish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> --- Norman Samish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > --Stathis Papaioannou:
> > >
> > > I'll grant you it may be strange, but how is it
> > any more pointless than
> > > anything that can happen (or a subset thereof)
> > happening only once, or a
> > > finite number of times?
> > >
> > > Norman Samish writes:
> > >
> > >>If the multiverse concept, as I understand it,
> > true, then anything that
> > >>can exist does exist, and anything that can
> > has happened and will
> > >>continue to happen, ad infinitum. The sequence
> > events that we observe
> > >>has been played in the past, and will be played
> > the future, over and
> > >>over again. How strange and pointless it all
> > seems.
> > a "fuzzy feeling" that there "should" be a point
> > it all that I can
> > understand, and that a sequence of events "should"
> > occur only once.
> >[ Implicit in these feelings is the assumption that
> > there is some kind of
> > "God" which designed the multiverse for some
> > and keeps track of all
> > events. ]
> How "eye-opening"!
> I settle down with my restrictions that only MY
> is of any interest to me, I don't care for anything
> beyond "my views and understandability" (or rather:
> This is an extended solipsism, but keeps me from
> I acknowledge (don't go any further) the infinitness
> of worlds and occurrences, beyond the "whatever can
> happen" which is pointing to something like "in my
> (our) views". I cut it off there, HOPING(!) that
> "those worlds and events - really OUT there - do
> no influence upon our life.
> Implied: if they 'have', we would sense it and in
> case "those worlds and happenings" would enter what
> may call: "our world and observational domains".
> However in case of 'that' infinity I don't see
> 'second thought' of the requirement of any god.
> infinity? a category mistake of human pretension. If
> we cannot understand, we should not explain. Not by
> fairy tales, not by mathematical formulae.
> I would not go beyond such limitations in my
> speculation about my speculation.
> John Mikes