Hi John,
Sorry to hear about your 2010. I hope that 2011 allows your flavour of feist to resume here on 'everything'.

I am at the very end of my PhD writeup and have been more flaky than usual here. I was amused to see that I appeared to be advocating any sort of XYXism or to be an 'XYZist'. It has always been a puzzle to me how a declaration of the presence of XYZism somehow acts as any sort of explanation of anything. To me, the explanation comes first. After that you can sit around and debate whether the solution is a member of the set of all XYZism solutions.

Interestingly, when I attempt to calibrate my developments as examples of XYZism, I continually find myself somewhere in between. It's like there's a multi-dimensional space of XYZisms, and my approach is a single point in that space, and on no particular axis of it.

At this stage, my actual physical working proposition is based purely on the properties of electromagnetism, and my cosmology results from finding out what perspective exists from which electromagnetism delivers consciousness. So maybe I am an 'electromagnetist'? :-)

This year I get to start building stuff. Exciting!


John Mikes wrote:
(Including Stephens initiation of course).
After some time spent enjoying 2 heart attacks in 2010 I returned to
the computer and found similar discussions to the earlier ones.
Maybe the words changed, references, too, conclusions are more
sophisticated (?). SOME new members, as well
(Please, give me credit for all those poisons the medics stuffed me
withp impeding my brain and clarity of mind, if
I ever had any such thing.
What I see here is a Colin-position pointing to 'theoretical
justification of the validity of math-statements' and Bruno's position
on Bruno's position (comp included, valid, or not). Hard to argue
because all the sophistication is based on the present status of our
limited ignorance and unlimited explanatory breadth of Colin's
mini-solipsism (i.e. the part of the world we so far got a glimpse
Our sciences dwell within and reach out in their conclusions to those
unknowables we 'imagine' (calculate?) from that partial view of the so
far experienced (and explained by the limited ways). Such is our
'scientific' view and I think none of us can be exempt to that.
We think what we think we know. We conclude within.

By such limited tools humanity established an incredible technology
and descriptions galore to explain it to ignorants within the
ignorance. Physics, engineering, bio, psych, etc. etc. And a
mathematics - so fundamental in Bruno's words(?) about numbers.
What we see is a complex interlacing of not always discernible items
allowing more to be involved.
Upon such views humanity could not have established its 'scientific'
(technological) results, but being anchored into it may interfere
with further understanding of the unknown. Of course we cannot think
beyond our mind-contents/function limited as it may be.
(My fundamentals among others: Colin and Robert Rosen).

What the WORLD is, if it exists (what does that mean?) what we call a
"universe" or "existence" is hazy. No outside view.

With best wishes to 2011 and beyond

John Mikes

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

Reply via email to