Dear John, > JM: 'evolutionary' is 'relational' anyway originated in 'human mind > capabilities' - D.Bohm: "there are no numbers in nature". (Not arguing > against Bruno, who IMO stands for "nature is IN numbers"<G>)
Well yes, that is the interesting question. But if you say that there are no numbers (apart from human invention), then how do you answer Wigner's question? (of the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics) > JM: (misunderstood) conclusions upon (m..) conclusions ((figments)) > based on millennia of '(mis)observations' and their explanations within > the simplex and ever enriching epistemic cognitive inventory level snip > JM: I take it as 'thought experiments' to fabricate unreasonable > circumstances to prove (or at least facilitate) the hypothetical snip > problem with "evolving" /structures /at all. Unless one 'believes' in > /energy??? /that has become somehow and is directed somehow into doing > something. What?? You remain only in the question. Maybe that is a reaction because you feel that society has presented you with "answers" that weren't any? I suggest taking the middle way: questions, thinking, answers, new questions, criticising and eliminating old answers etc - that is more interesting (more fun!) than remaining only in the question (which is also a bit of a "dogmatic" position ;-) Cheers, Günther --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
