--- 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, is
> true, then anything that 
> >>can exist does exist, and anything that can happen
> has happened and will 
> >>continue to happen, ad infinitum.  The sequence of
> events that we observe 
> >>has been played in the past, and will be played in
> the future, over and 
> >>over again.  How strange and pointless it all
> seems.
-----(excerpts): 
> a "fuzzy feeling" that there "should" be a point to 
> 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 reason,
> and keeps track of all 
> events. ]
>...

How "eye-opening"! 
I settle down with my restrictions that only MY WORLD
is of any interest to me, I don't care for anything
beyond "my views and understandability" (or rather:
observability). 
This is an extended solipsism, but keeps me from going
crazy. 
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 have
no influence upon our life.

Implied: if they 'have', we would sense it and in that
case "those worlds and happenings" would enter what we
may call: "our world and observational domains". 

However in case of 'that' infinity I don't see Normans
'second thought' of the requirement of any god. Before
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

Reply via email to