*In my opinion an oxymoron*.
We cannot even 'think' of it without a *complete* knowledge of everything,
the *entire wholeness*, call it 'totality' *underlying such 'th*eory'.
"All possible" anything, (algorithms, descriptions, assumptions, whatever) -
encompass only those 'possibilities' we can think of
in the volume of our acquired knowledge (of yesterday). Even (our?)
'impossibilities' are impossible within such framework.
We cannot step out from our circle of knowledge into the unlimited
*unknown*world. Any comp we can identify (or even just 'speak' about)
is within our
world of known items and their relations. Includable into our ongoing
Compare such framework of yesterday with a similar assumption of 1000, or
3000 years ago and the inductive development will be
There is no way we could include the presently (still?) unknown (but maybe
tomorrow learnable) details of the world (including maybe new logical ways,
math, phenomenological domains, etc.) into our today's worldview of "all
possible". [Forget about sci-fi]

Maybe even the ways of composing 'our' items (topics, factors, relations and
even 'numbers') is a restricted limitational view in the
'model' representing the present level of our development - of which
conventional sciences form a part.
Comparing e.g. the caveman-views with Greek mythology and with modern
'scientific' futurism (like some on this list) supports this opinion. So I
would be cautious to use the qualifier 'COMPLETE'.

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