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 everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to