I feel a misunderstanding here:

"origination point" IMO is part of the item to be originated, the pertinent 
'point' (within and for) the evolving total to grow out from. 
As I used 'origination" refers to the entailment producing such "point" - if we 
use a 'point' to start with. 
Such 'point' is the limit we can go back to, not further to 'its' entailing 
circumstgances we have no access to. 
I tried to adjust to a vocabulary I responded to, not my own and preferred one. 
Hence the misunderstandability.  Sorry.

John Mikes
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: 明迪 
  To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 10:45 AM
  Subject: Re: JOINING post


  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
    > 
    >
    >
    >
    >


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to