from: John Mikes <>
to: <>
date: Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:10 PM
subject: Complete *Thepry* of Everything - - *Now* corrected:* "Theory..."
*mailed-by <>

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 <> 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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to