I am probably not that far from agnosticism but the question is how to make it useful for practitioners like me who have to earn money. I mean that it is still necessary to take decisions and then the question would be how.

Although this could be just illusion somehow made by numbers to confuse my first person view and in the reality as Rex says, everything is determined by the initial state of the universe (or Platonia).


on 10.03.2011 21:57 John Mikes said the following:
Thanks, David, for a reasonable post. I admire Evgeniy for his
boldness of a frontal attack against conventional physicality's
terms. I would go a step further (is it a surprise?) like: ontology
is rather a description of a stagnant knowledge (state? even if
dynamic) of *a phase*considered in conventional science - if we
consider a continuously changing complexity of everything for* "the
world"* (whatever) - way beyond the limitations of our knowables
(i.e. the 'model' we carry about our solipsism: the (world)view based
upon the acquired knowables and their explanation at the level we
actually reached).

In such views atoms and molecules are cute explanations at a
primitive level of knowledge for phenomena humanity thought to have
observed and tried to understand (explain).

So is the Brownian and other 'movement'(?) applied in the terms of
'heat' (not really) of those marvels. Since 'movement' is the
relationship between our poorly understood terms of space and time
the uncertainty is no surprise.

Your last sentence may be a connotation to all that 'stuff' of
everything' - outside of the so far acquired knowables, yet in the
indivisible wholeness-complexity duly influencing whatever comes as
'knowable' within our model. (This - the so far unknown, but seeping
gradually into our ssolipsism of yesterday - yet affecting the
observed *model-behavior* serves my agnosticism, the uncertainty, the
fact that our (conventional) sciences are* "ALMOST"* OK. Meaning: we
may be proud of our knowledge and skills, but technological failures,
evaluational mishaps, sicknesses, societal malaise and unexpected
catastrophes etc. still occur.)

To Evgeniy's train of thought I would attach another question (what
you, savants of Q-science may answer easily): if the universe expands
(does it, indeed?) do the interstitial spaces in an atom expand
similarly, or they are exempt and stay put? If they expand, a
recalculation of the entire (Q?)physics and cosmology would be in
order<G>. If they don't, there must be some Big Bang initial volume -
not a zero-point start-up, unless that ridiculous 'inflation-theory'
works to save the evening. I like fairy tales.

Spilberg may get a physical Nobel. The idea is not new: Lenin said
that the large increase in quantity turns into a change in quality.


John M

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:08 PM, David Nyman<>

On 9 March 2011 19:22, Evgenii Rudnyi<>  wrote:

So I personally not that sure that molecular motion has more
meaning *ontologically* than heat.

Actually, I agree with you.  Of course whatever we can speak or
theorise about is, strictly, entirely epistemological and
consequently those aspects we label "ontological" are properly a
subset of the theory of knowledge.  And of course even in these
terms it isn't clear that the "physical" is simply reducible to
independently existing fundamental entities and their relations.
Even though I was attempting to pursue some rather obvious
consequences of the idea that reality might be so reducible, I
accept that the relation between what we know and what may
ultimately ground such knowledge is doubtless altogether more
complex, subtle and opaque.


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