On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:05 AM, B Soroud <bsor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Is it important what is in my mind when I use the words?  I don't
> have to hold the whole earth or the whole solar system in my head for
> them to exist."
> I think your playing language games... What is this whole earth or
> whole solar system to which you confidently refer? I assert they don't
> exist, they never have existed, and they never will exist... They are
> just your convenient fictions or prejudices...

What do you believe in then?  I thought it was the phenomenal world, but the
above sounds like immaterialism or solipsism.

> Furthermore, there
> definitely is not utterly abstract totality to which you blindly refer
> and abstractly project.

I agree they are concrete.  However, some are prejeudced and call the parts
of reality they cannot see "abstract".

Secondly, I do not blindly accept the totality, but rather I've found it to
be the most simple, and scientific explanation of the fine tuning of the
universe.  It has the fewest assumptions of any claimed theory of
everything, and it is consistent with all observations (so far as I have
been able to ascertain), thus it is the preferred theory according to
Ockham's razor.

For what evidence or reason do you postulate the only universe that exists
is the one you happen to be in?  Is this not a little chauvinistic?

> There is no static, objective, absolute,  truly apprehended or
> comprehended "whole earth" (which includes you), this is just your
> misconstrued delusion.

Earth is my delusion?  Please provide some more explanation or justification
for what you mean by this.



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