On 3/12/2010 12:49 PM, John Mikes wrote:
why should I accept opinions of (even respected!) scientists? I asked
You mean when you wrote, "So what kind of a 'universe' is it? bootstrap,
self reflecting autodidacta? Creator-made?"
I'm not sure I have anything strong enough to even constitute an opinion
as to what the universe *is*, except in the rather trivial sense that it
is the most comprehensive model I use to explain things to myself.
Intuitively I'm attracted to a neutral monist model.
Old (ancient) savants based their conclusions on a much smaller cognitive
inventory of the world than what epistemy provided up-to-date.
basic worldview they think 'in' is mostly different from the one I use
Don't forget that IMO chemistry (after my 38 patents in it) is a
/_figment_/ based on
the 'physical worldview' - the explanational attempts of poorly
- mostly on mathematical basis (which makes it a bit lopsided at best).
I consider 'Quantum science' as an 'extension' (?) of physics, less
pragmatic and less
clear - with more (scientific) fantasy included. A segment in the
I would like to attain as an interrelated complexity of them all
(known and unknown).
Axioms? artifacts derived to make our (conventional) sciences valid.
logic (worldview?) different axioms may be necessary.
I agree. Axioms are just some hypotheses we entertain and logic is just
some rules to try to avoid talking nonsense.
And to the view that so many people accept Q-Sci I think of times when
almost ALL of
the scientifically thinking people on Earth believed the Flat Earth
(and other oldie
systems as well, during the development of our cultural history).
Science is not a democratic voting occasion.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at