from: John Mikes <[email protected]> to: [email protected] <[email protected]> date: Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:10 PM subject: Complete *Thepry* of Everything - - *Now* corrected:* "Theory..." *mailed-by gmail.com <http://mailed-bygmail.com/> ----------------------------------- ('thermo')---XD:
Sorry for the typo: "p" and 'o' are too close NOT to mix them up occasionally. I didn't want to repeat those mile-long recent posts on *"Complete Theory of Everything"* as automatically added to my remark in continuing list-post, hence the 'new post' in the topic. I thought the text made it obvious. I should have typed in the 'proper' title before the 'in medias res' shorthand. . I would have appreciated some more reasonable replies as well. John Mikes On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:10 PM, John Mikes <[email protected]> wrote: > *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 mindset. > Compare such framework of yesterday with a similar assumption of 1000, or > 3000 years ago and the inductive development will be > obvious. > 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 > ---------------------------- *thermo* to everything-list, I though you were proposing "The Complete Therapy for Everyone", It was just a typo... XD ------------------------------------------ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
