John M.... on second examination.... not bad..... I need to look over
it again though and see if I can reply.

On Jul 7, 8:29 am, John Mikes <> wrote:
> Friends:
> Lots of *mouse*-traps written in this and
> other*posts/preposts/repost/superposts/etc.
> *
> God? Truth? Reality? even: 'physical world' - goes on and on. Our thoughts
> (human)? imagination? experiential vs. experiential (Incl. Kim's French
> explanation) are un-finishable qualms online. Bruno involves himself based
> on his professional knowledge in arithmetic (human?) logic and a long
> standing UNBROKEN line of research. I change.
> I KNOW (in my agnostic worldview - <G>) that there is an info-transfer into
> 'us' from the limitless complexity (I base it on history, comparing the
> epistemic enrichment over long periods of human development) what we include
> into our "mini-solipsism" about the world.
> It all is* adjusted* by our genetic tool-structure (brain-function) modified
> by our so far accepted experience (in memory?) plus other factors we are not
> aware of. So it all IS a personalized view of the 'world' (existence,
> totality, wholeness, limitless complexity - you name it) unique for each of
> us as the immune system, DNA, or fingerprint. We SHARE a lot according to
> cultural bases and so it becomes OUR VIEW of the world (call it: ongoing
> conventional science). Expressed as *'our reality'*: it is a
> *PERCEIVED*one. A figment.
> During our ages of early mental development when phenomena 'reached us'
>  without proper explanatory base-knowledge (not excluded the 'wisdom' of the
> Old Greeks and Hindus) the "speculation" was not restricted by factual
> limitations, so the smart thinkers could be really SMART, inventive and
> surprising. There was always a trend to "explain" which led to the invention
> of explanations, believed and introduced into science. They staid - even
> modified.
> People made systems of their belief - scientific, religious, - and
> established their worldview accordingly. They are wrong, - I did the same,
> but I am right -- The position of all of us.
> Monotheists have the hard time to dismiss the hateful acts of god and keep
> the "Good Lord" image. Polytheists create separate gods for the bad deeds.
> Believers (the faithful) take the hearsay and formulate their systems
> accordingly.
> In the Crusades the Christians prayed to Christ (God) to kill the
> unfaithful, the Muslims to Allah, to kill the infidels. The Israelites asked
> "The God of Israel" to kill the opponents, the Greeks, Vikings, Germanic
> etc. applied to specific 'gods' to favor THEIR goals. One side wins, one is
> at a loss, one 'hero' survives, another dies, all have prayed religiously.
> In science the theories fight, all of them 'believed' to be true by devoted
> scientists - based on reputable people who taught them.
> We have 'humanly' devised ideas (from religion through sciences to math,)
> and logic to serve our thinking capabilities. Our ideas do not restrict
> Nature (the world) but gives some comfort to those who seek the "TRUTH".
> Everybody in all directions.
> Vocabularies are composed according to the belief systems and the diverse
> meanings do not match: every system "proves" it's own vocabulary and denies
> the rest of them.
> Finally a word on the Theory(s?) of Everything:
> Since we get more and more from the still unknown unlimited complexity of
> the totality and  the old inventories proved incomplete even in today's
> knowledge, we may not claim to know what "everything' means, eo ipso we
> cannot make theories on unknowable. I find it a game to speak even within
> the "physical" segment - not only with past discoveries like electricity,
> radioactivity, etc., but 'known' unknowable like gravitation, mass, matter
> etc.
> Nobody knows, what may be the next epistemic 'surprise' emerging in our
> future?
> Peace
> John M
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Jason Resch <> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Kim Jones <> wrote:
> >> Now that's truly silly. If we are God then we would know everything and
> >> know everything we certainly do not.
> > But would God not know what it is like to be you?  To know that would
> > require forgetting, at least temporarily, one is God.
> > Jason
> >  --
> > 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
> >

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