(to your remark to Bruno: I don't "like" string theory either, consider it a
sweated out reductionist sci-fi which has been worked through by excellent
mathematicians so far that by now it looks like the panacea for high
science.  This is an opinion, I did not study Str-Th to understand
(believe?) it retrogradely - meaning to accept the starting sci-fi idea
impressed by the mathematical 'matches' it was supported  by later on. This
remark of mine will be deemed VERY 'unscientific', but you opened the way to

To the 'incomprehensible' absolutes:

It starts with what we would deem 'comprehensible' (not humanly only, of
course) - it is difficult, because to 'comprehend' carries a (human?) mental
activity in its semantics for 'understanding in its main features at least.
As: to put it into OUR reductionist models.
Now: widen this meaning into "to anything" (as you wrote: "ANY mind"?)
 [you must have a good identification for mind.  May I ask for it?] comes
back to the problem of 'comprehend' (understand?)  and its object(s). I feel
(again this personalized vagueness!) it refers to "information" in its more
common sense meaning.  (I could not get past the 'bit'-s meaninglessness: a
bit can refer (belong) to anything).
I boiled down the 'information' term to 'acknowledged difference'
generalizing it to "by anything" (I refrained to call it 'mind', because
features we do not deem mindful, (rather 'physical objects') also
acknowledge i.e. absorb into their structure the impacted differences from
other entities.
A difference is only information when it is acknowledged (mentally OR
In my opinion (and by Colin's argument I cannot start with anything else in
my private (scientific? theoretical? reality? my solipsism)
the entirety is deterministic in the sense that everything is entailed by
some originating factor. So 'occurring' means information  (i.e. acceptance)
from the originator (process?) which cannot occur without some sort of
comprehension - within human bounds or not to put it into place (action?).

This is why I was startled by the 'absolute incomprehensible' in wider sense
than just humanly.

Sorry for this convoluted explanation: my 'mind' works with differently
formed (in-formed?) ceptual ways than applicable for the math-physx based
'scientists' in THEIR solipsism.

It is a shame that you and me have to tackle these things when my original
idea was that the (logical?) ways of yours are palatable to me.

John M

----- Original Message -----
To: "Everything List" <>
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: Barbour's mistake: An alternative to a timless Platonia

> >Smolin's loop quantum gravity is the physics of the soul which has not
> >yet fallen (!). String theory, or better the string theories landscape
> >(as described by Smolin himself) would describe ... the gate of hell,
> >or the state of the fallen soul: the fourth hypostase
> Very funny.  So... I take it you don't like String Theory and think
> loop quantum gravity is the way the truth and the light? ;)
> >But the point here is that "timelessness critics" are again generated
> >by an internal first person plural view, and to make it ontic would be
> >a nth instantiation of Aristotle fundamental mistake of reifying time,
> >space and matter, despite the beauty feature of loop gravity that time,
> >space, and particles are fundamentally emergent ....
> >Bruno
> I'm prepared to believe that space and particles are not fundamental
> but are emergent.  However Bruno, I'm not yet convinced the same is
> true for time.  I don't see how time can be removed from our
> descriptions of reality.  I'll read the things you mention at some
> point.
> >We may concentrate on the part humanly comprehensible, but in the
> >wholistic view we cannot make it a substantial part of the existence.
> >John M
> Of course.  I certainly didn't man to restrict the conception of
> reality to reality which was only comprehensible to humans.  Just to
> clarify:  when I said that 'eXistenZ' was 'comprehensible reality' I
> didn't mean 'comprehensible to humans' I meant 'comprehensible to SOME
> mind' (which may be much greater than human).  ie. Comprehensible in
> principle.
> Reality which is 'Comprehensible in principle' is of course much
> greater than reality which is 'Comprehensible only to humans'.  By
> 'Incomprehensible' I meant the parts of reality which would be
> incomprehensible to ANY mind, even in principle.
> As for the vagueness of the definitions for Energy, Volition and
> Information you are quite right!  But this was exactly my point: these
> three concepts apparently cannot be directly defined, only referenced
> by their effects or 'potential'.  They appear to be incomprehensible
> concepts (incomprehensible to ALL minds, humans or not).

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to