David: when I first tried to make sense of the 'world' (that was after
retirement and ~200 recently issued books on advanced 'thoughts') I started
with an 'ode':
In the Beginning there was Nothingness and when Nothingness realized it's
Nothingness, it changed. becoming a "Somethingness". - The rest is history.
IMO the ominous 'mind-body' problem arose when Descartes wanted to escape
the threat of the Inquisition and included "the" eternal SOUL into his
worldview (cf: dualism). I wonder if that smart mind indeed believed it.
However it fooled some centuries ever since and supported superstitious
views all over the 'civilized' world.
Since I did not receive even a refutation (?) I repeat myself:
Viewed by comparison over millennia, our (knowledge) inventory of the
'world' increases continually and there is a solid basis to believe in
further increment, meaning yesterday we did not know them all. Tomorrow we
may know even more, so our today's level MUST be treated with the
agnosticism of all we so far did not learn. And we do learn!
We live in a* 'model'* world of our so far acquired knowledge base and our
dear conventional science tries to explain everything from (by?) it, until
the newly to-be-acquired knowledge forces us to *ACK*nowledge newer
additions and change our *'model'*.
A big truth: We don't know what we don't know, so whatever is 'hidden'
beyond the limitations of our present 'model' is unknown for now.
*Y E T* *it influences* *whatever we experience.* All the newcomer details
are *UNKNOWN* before we learn them (anticipation and creativity may be not
so absolutely reliable) so my "agnosticism" (more decent word than
ignorance) is justified as long as we cannot claim omniscience. (And IMO
not even the Universal Machine - any! - can claim it).
I feel free to call the 'beyond our model' an infinite complexity of
I have no idea WHAT relations and WHAT complexity and how are our terms
(items, functions, facts(?) or observations) related to their ORIGIN in
that infinite complexity. This may be the fallacy of the "physical world",
the figments of matter, mass, energy, etc. etc. - even our (excuse me,
I like to call on the spirit of Robert Rosen in such aspects, nevertheless
I am not in complete congruence with neither his 'followers' nor his
publications - I only THINK he had ideas similar to those I exposed. He
worked and wrote - published in a conventional science environment as a
bio-mathematician and formulated his issues for an understanding among the
late 20th c. scientific audience. I have cut my natural (polymer) science
past when I started to think (see above). I may be wrong and do not want
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:29 AM, David Nyman <da...@davidnyman.com> wrote:
> I attach a comment by Victor Stenger on Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe
> from Nothing". You might also want to follow the link to David
> Albert's critical review. Is it meaningful to speak of a "nothing"
> beyond the void of RQFT? Or beyond the truths of arithmetic?
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
> 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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at