----- Original Message -----
From: "David Nyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Everything List" <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: The anti-roadmap - an alternative 'Theology'
thanks fir the friendly and decent words. It was not questionable that you
did not 'attack' comp as false, I reflected principally as a
discussion-technique. I like Bruno a lot and use some not-so-kind
argumentation style lately to tease out from him a stronger argument.
We agree in the goal of learning. You are more of a professional than I am.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thanks for taking the trouble to express your thoughts at such length.
> I won't say too much now, as I have to leave shortly to meet a long
> lost relative - from Hungary! However, I just want to make sure it's
> clear, both for you and the list, that:
> > > "Comp is false". Let's see where *that* leads.....
> isn't intended as a definitive claim that comp *is* false. Rather, *if*
> it is false, in what ways specifically, and what are the alternatives?
> Can they be stated as clearly and explicitly as Bruno is trying to do
> for his approach ('to see where it leads')? Hence the 'anti-roadmap',
> or perhaps better - 'another roadmap', or some ideas for one. Most of
> the thoughts in it were originally expressed in some earlier postings
> on 'The Fabric of Reality' list, which Bruno was kind enough to copy to
> this list. Anyway, it's intended as a point of departure (for me
> certainly) and I look forward to some strenuous critiques.
> One misgiving I have, now that I've finally grasped (I think) that the
> comp 'theology' entails 'faith' in the number realm, is that by this
> token it seeks to provide a TOE (Bruno, am I wrong about this?) That
> is, beginning with an assertion of 'faith' in UDA + the number realm,
> we seek to axiomatise and 'prove' a complete theory of our origins.
> Bruno is a very modest person, but I worry about the 'modesty' of the
> goal. Of course, it's highly probable that I just misunderstand this
> point. However, I'm having trouble with my faith in numbers,
> monseigneur. My own intuition begins from my own indexical
> self-assertion, my necessity, generalised to an inclusive
> self-asserting necessity extending outwards indefinitely. I don't look
> for a way to 'get behind' this, and to this extent I don't seek a TOE,
> because I can't believe that 'everything' (despite the name of this
> list) is theoretically assimilable. This may well be blindness more
> than modesty, however.
> Having said this, of course in a spirit of learning I'm trying to
> understand and adopt *as if* true the comp assumptions, and continue to
> put my best efforts into getting my head around Bruno's roadmap as it
> emerges. I have a lot of experience of changing my mind (and maybe I'll
> get a better one!)
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at