Dear John,

It is refreshing to see that some people are willing to admit to the implicit solipsism that is at the heart of everyone's notion of "being in the world". ;-) We must understand that *all* that we have access to is 1st person and any 3rd person representation is merely an ansatz of some 1st person aspect.


Onward!

Stephen

----- Original Message ----- From: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Norman Samish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <everything-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: Let There Be Something


snip
-----(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