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
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
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.


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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to