G.G. wrote:

1Z wrote:
> It doesn't have to explain it on the basis of apriori axioms. Standard
> cosmology accepts
> that many features fo the universe stem from contingent, essentially
> unaccountable boundary conditions.

"Well, actually these strangely "contingent" conditions are what leads to
discussions of the "everything" sort - here, we want to explain these
contingents also (or say why they are not explainable)...."

We can speak only about the already discovered (known?)  part of
'contingent'  conditions - cf your parenthetic alternate).
I believe in n existent 'relity' (whatever that may be) and in our tiny part
of it we got hold of so far (through epistemic enrichment). Even that in a
way of interpretation by our feeble mental capabilities.
Everything is contingent, - a consequence of happenings - do we know those
or not. (My determinism). If we don't know the originating factors we speak
about random, chaotic, emergent, or ID-creational miracles.
In unknown cases we feel free to use our fantasy. Nobody is compelled to
believe it.
John M

As for 1Z's axioms:
In my vocabulary axioms are artifacts invented to make our theories
workable. If 1 + 1 is NOT 2, you can say goodby to math.
Furthermore I dislike the use of the word 'infinite' - in TEXTS I  rather
use: 'unlimited'.

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 

Reply via email to