Dear Sami, thanks for your multiple agreement, (not that I could do anything if we disagree - except acknowledging it) in your 9-3-10 post in which you wrote among others: * *"The subject of this group: to discuss the idea that all possible universes exist. * *Here "exist" is used in the absolute, unqualified sense. It's as if an object by itself is not enough, it needs a property of existence to be real. I'd like to deny meaning to this property."* *** I beg to add: the *"possible"* should be extended to sveral cases of *'humanly impossible'* since our restricted mental capabilities cannot cope with nature's *ALL* variations. We may deem 'impossible' what indeed does exist in nature. So 'possible' is meaningless IMO, that would restrict nature to our thinking limitations. According to - what I suppose - the overwhelming composition of the list (many thinking in mathematically inclined physicist-ways) I take exception to the term 'universes' as well, the term mostly applied in the conventional cosmological way (ensembles of (our type?) galaxies following the conventional rules (so called *natural laws*?) of the "physical world" plus our primitive (binary?) computations which combination I consider only "*a way"* how to explain (within our capabilites) those (poorly understood and observed) phenomena that transpired into our attention during the millennia of our epistemic enrichment. During the decade, or so I do read (and sometimes bore) the participants of this list the topics engulfed a much wider domain and a more diversified variety. It is a beautiful list of free spirits.
Just two illustrational questions from the above quote of yours: What is an *"object*"? What is *"real"?* ** Concepts like these plus many more did not constitute a problem to me before I started to *"think"* - after my retirement from a career of R&D in polymer synthesis and application: (I accepted the 'conventional' meanings as brainwashed into my skull in college for a Ph.D. in chemistry and D.Sc. in polymer Sci,) Updating my 'thinking', however, my mindwork erased much of the vocabulary-terms and I became an agnostic as far as 'worldview' is concerned. The complexity of 'everything' in unfathomable relations in a dynamic ensemble which does not follow necessarily the "arrow of time" certainty was mindboggling. To accept that in a cause-effect entailment not only the originating circumstances, but also the (possible? = more likely and attainable?) end-formulation has to be anticipated, (cf: Robert Rosen and Mihai Nadin) humbled me into agnosticism. I accept the overall 'model'-view of domains we know about, considering it as *"ALL OF IT"* and drawing (*model*?) conclusions for the "totality" (wholeness) - conclusions that involve more factors than what our knowledge-extent may encompass. What gives an insecurity in *"all we know".* * Due to such insecurity I cannot formulate 'my' position, ideas, even vocabulary in adequate words. Greetings John M * * -- 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.
