2 objections: A. If I state that i cannot do something that does not (logically) imply that I CAN do another thing.
B. Your last line is "your opinion" substantiated by nothing, I appreciate anybodies "opinion" as such, it may have a personal (not factual) meaning - weight. We diverted from my point that I resist to "reach back" in statements to a state that may have been (or may not have been?) before (outside?) our comprehensive limits. John M On 3/6/07, 明迪 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear John Mikes, I thought your words 'Origin of (our) universe' are the > same as the word 'origination-point'. > > You said: (1) > > > 1 Origin of (our) universe: we have no way to know. > > > > And you also said: (2) > > > we CANNOT reach to earlier items than the origination-point (whatever it > > may be) of our existence (I called it 'universe', not quite precisely). > > > > From (2) claim it logically follows a statement "we can reach to items > later or equal to origination-point." > > I agree (2) statement, but slightly disagree with (1) statement. > > > Mindaugas Indriunas > > On 3/5/07, John M < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Mindaugas Indriunas, > > what I meant consists of the worldview that we can use > > > > in our speculations only our present cognitive > > inventory of our existing mind. > > No information from super(extra)natural sources > > included. Accoredingly we CANNOT reach to earlier > > items than the origination-point (whatever it may be) > > of our existence (I called it 'universe', not quite > > precisely). > > Nor can a 'valid' ALGORITHM reach back further. Itg > > cannot 'generate' information about ' no information' > > topics. All we can speak about are intra-existence > > items, the rest is fantasy, sci-fi, religion. > > What I may use in a narrative, but by no means in the > > conventionally outlined "scientific method". > > > > John M > > > > > > > > --- 明迪 < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Dear John Mikes. > > > > > > I am sorry for the late response. I will reply only > > > to 1 part of your > > > letter: > > > > > > 1 Origin of (our) universe: we have no way to know. > > > > > > > > > If we do come up with an alorythm that actually does > > > produce the data that > > > we postdict (predict in the past), we may be able to > > > (with some certainty) > > > know it. Even the cellular automaton that is > > > equivalent to universal turing > > > machine, has its beginning. > > > > > > Mindaugas Indriunas > > > http://i.tai.lt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
