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 <jami...@gmail.com> 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 <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Kim Jones <kimjo...@ozemail.com.au> 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 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. -- 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.
