On Apr 22, 9:23 pm, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter,
> if we 'free-up' our minds to think wider than our conventional sciences
> based 'unconventionality' (as applied on this list frequently) and recognize
> the unlimited Everything in the complexity of the wholeness we end up in
> (my?) agnosticism:
> We know only part of the total, visualize WITHIN our mind-restricted imaging
> and formulate 'models' of the already known world (already: because it
> widened by newer input historically as we 'learn'). The totality's inter
> influenceing results in changing relations - partly followable -
> acknowledged by the part of our 'then' knowledge.
> In such view "Random" is "I don't know", Chaos is: "I don't know" and
> stochastic is sort of a random.

Don't known what? The HIdden Variables that mean apparent
actually stems from determinism. Your position is completely
inconsistent. You
are saying we can't know or understand things we can see, they are
mere "models",
but we can know that there is this  underlying determinism which we
can't see..

>What conventional science does is a
> compromise into the "almost": our technology is "almost perfect", some
> planes fall off from the sky, some sicknesses/wars break out, some genetic
> mishaps occur, some theories fail, etc. etc. Compromising means to invent
> cute factors that enhance a match (at least mathematically) in cases of
> trouble. Presumptions make assumptions and vice versa, in endless series and
> at the end it is believed as a fact.
> Deterministic? there is SOME order that keeps the world churning,

Yep. And "some order" means "stochastic", not deteministic.

> applying
> ALL relational changes in the wholeness including ALL ingredients of the
> Everything. We don't know what
> are such 'ingredients' only the imagined 'model-substitutions' we use in our
> limited knowledge.
> We don't know what kind of alterations the relations in the unlimited
> totality may undergo, we
> only experience SOME and interpret them within our figment (physical world).
> Presumably -
> and now I use this word as well <G> - there is an order in the wholeness and
> this encompasses all the totality in the alterations of the relationships -
> so I feel justified to use
> the word 'deterministic'. Not to "understand" it, though. In limbo - you
> say: be my guest.
> We cannot overstep our capabilities and think only within our models. By
> human logic, which has no claim to be the general characteristic of nature
> (the totality). We think human. Me, too.
> A bit stepping further seems to be allowed in 'anticipation' what I just
> study how to get to it,
> on the bases of Robert Rosen and Mihai Nadin. I am not there yet.
> Rules, mathematical formula, quantum science, physics, other conventional
> sciences: all
> figments of the human mind how to explain the partial phenomena we
> 'accepted' over the time of our existence here on Earth.
> One more obstacle: users of different vocabularies cannot effectively argue
> with each other,
> the meaning of the words is different. Bruno has a vocabulary, conventional
> sciences use another one, my concepts are differently identified, religions
> have their own versions, every
> one understands arguments within their own vocabulary - the rest is
> 'stupid'.
> Regards
> John

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