Stathis:
"I know that whatever theory I come up with will almost certainly be proved 
wrong given enough
time, so I won't bother coming up with a theory at all."
Funny that you of all people come up with such a supposition so different 
from fundamental basic human nature!
We all hope to be smarter than , And speculate.
Even those "scientists" you refer to.
"Evidence"? that is what I scrutinize. It is subject to the level of our 
ongoing epistemic enrichment and without later findings one settles with 
insufficient ones that become soon obsolete.
I was challenged to propose technical levels 50 years ahead. It is 
impossible. I rather try to compose "what and why" of our present 
technological and theoretical status could  we NOT imagine 60 years ago...it 
is entertaining.

Man is optimist. Even myself with a cynical pessimism.

John M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John M" <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 7:22 AM
Subject: RE: Bruno's argument - Comp



John M writes:

> Earlier we lived in a telephone central switchboard, further back in a
> steam-engine. Not to mention the Turtle.
> The 'cat' specifies IMO ignorance without prejudice.

Very droll, very true! But what, then, must we do? Scientists come up with 
the
best theory consistent with the evidence, with a willingness to revise the 
theory
in the light of new evidence. They might not be quite as willing as they 
ideally
should be, but that's just human nature, and they all come around to doing 
the
right thing eventually. It would not be very helpful if we all thought, "I 
know that
whatever theory I come up with will almost certainly be proved wrong given 
enough
time, so I won't bother coming up with a theory at all."

Stathis Papaioannou


> > I recently read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit is 
> > may
> > be
> > a quantum computer.   Presumably when we observe Schrodinger's cat
> > simultaneously being killed and not killed, we are observing the quantum
> > computer in action.
> >
> > Norman Samish
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:05 PM
> > Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
> >
> >
> >>
> >> To All:
> >> I know my questions below are beyond our comprehension, but we read 
> >> (and
> >> write) so much about this idea that I feel compelled to ask:
> >>
> >> is there any idea why there would be 'comp'? our computers require 
> >> juice
> >> to
> >> work and if unplugged they represent a very expensive paperweight.
> >>
> >> What kind of "computing unit" (universe? multiverse, or some other
> >> satanic
> >> 'verse') would run by itself without being supplied by something that
> >> moves
> >> it? I hate to ask about its program as well, whether it is an
> >> "intelligent
> >> design"?
> >> Is it a pseudnym for some godlike mystery?
> >>
> >> Are we reinventing the religion?
> >>
> >> John Mikes
> >
> >
>
>
> >

_________________________________________________________________
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d




-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.7/409 - Release Date: 8/4/2006



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to