Hi John,

> It boils down to my overall somewhat negative position (although
> I have no better one) of UDA, MPG, comp, etc. - all of them are
> products of HUMAN thinking and restrictions as WE can imagine
> the unfathomable existence (the totality - real TOE).
> I find it a 'cousin' of the reductionistic conventional sciences, just
> a bit 'freed up'. Maybe a distant cousin. Meaning: it handles the
> totality WITHIN the framework of our limited (human) logic(s).

I think that Human logic is already a progress compared to Russian, or  
Belgian, or Hungarian, or American logic, or ...

And then  you know how much I agree with you, once you substitute  
"human" by "lobian" (where a lobian machine/number is a universal  
machine who know she is universal, and bet she is a machine).

> Alas, we cannot do better.

I'm afraid so. Thanks for acknowledging.

>  just want to take all this mental
> exercise with the grain of salt of "there may be more to all of it"

Sure. And if we take ourself too much seriously, we can miss the  
ultimate cosmic divine joke (if there is one).

> what we cannot even fancy (imagine, fantasize of) today,
> with our mind anchored in our restrictions. (Including 'digital',
> 'numbers', learned wisdom, etc.).

Be careful and be open to your own philosophy. The idea that "digital"  
and "numbers" (the concept, not our human description of it) are  
restrictions could be due to our human prejudice. May be a machine  
could one day believes this is a form of unfounded prejudicial  

I hope you don't mind my frank attitude, and I wish you the best,


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