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 
> JM: I take it as 'thought experiments' to fabricate unreasonable 
> circumstances to prove (or at least facilitate) the hypothetical 
> 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 ;-)


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to