Kim Jones wrote:
> On 24/11/2008, at 1:50 PM, Colin Hales wrote:
>> It seems that the last thing physicists want to do is predict
>> themselves. They do absolutely "everything" except that. When they
>> say "everything" in a "Theory of Everything", that's what they
>> actually mean: Everything except physicists (and their P-
> Yes. It's 2,000+ years of:
> The eye cannot see itself in action (EVEN in a mirror - try catching
> your eye in the act of moving when you have a shave tomorrow)
> The tongue cannot taste itself (except after a hangover maybe)
> The hammer cannot hit itself (always wondered about this one...)
> The boot drive in your PC cannot analyse any problems it might be
> having IF the diagnostic software is run out of the boot drive (very
> sad, that)
> You cannot tell that the Earth is round if you are standing on it
> (senses bedevil the intellect)
> You cannot tell if the Sun goes round the Earth or the Earth goes
> round the Sun if you are standing on the one or the other (ditto)
> You cannot be sure if you are sane or insane ('Cogito ergo sum' is
> therefore nonsense - somebody tell poor old René)
> You cannot tell if you are a self-referentially correct machine or not
> (Go Bruno!)
> You cannot be sure that anybody else exists apart from your experience
> of them (GO the solipsists!!!)
> You cannot tell if we are a simulation or the real McCoy - whatever
> that is (GO Nick Bostrom!!!)
I beg to disagree with this...you won;t have qualia unless the noumenon
is real, not 'computed/abstracted on something else)... but this begs
the whole COMP argument, which we've all done to death before. It'll keep.
> You cannot tell whether the temporary equilibrium that is Nothing will
> break down at some time and become ????
> Well - it already has, hasn't it? Isn't that why we are here?
An unstable equilibrium is one where the slightest departure from the
null-point results in a massive departure (positive feedback). So
yep..we are in one of those. I rather nifty one I think.
> So - in answer to the question "Why is there something rather than
> nothing?" - I believe the answer to be:
> "Nonsense. Nothing exists."
I have to agree. Nothing really exists. Indeed it's impossible for
Nothing not to exist. We are the Not-Nothings that prove it.... and
taxes of course. :-)
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