from: John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com>
to: everything-list@googlegroups.com <toeverything-l...@googlegroups.com>
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 <jami...@gmail.com> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to