On 08.07.2012 19:29 John Clark said the following:
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi<use...@rudnyi.ru>  wrote:

What I cannot comprehend though is why some people, which after all
are also just occasional conglomerates of small particles obeying
the Theory-of-Everything, react very differently when they see some

I don't understand your confusion, people are made of many parts so
they behave in complex ways, so sometimes you need adjectives to
describe them that are unnecessary for simpler conglomerates of
particles, adjectives like intelligence, consciousness, I, you , and

Do you know what part of the Theory-of-Everything responsible for
behavior of a conglomerates of particles in this case?

If you knew the Theory-of-Everything (assuming there is one and there
might not be) that would be a very nice thing to know but it would be
a little like knowing the rules of Chess, it's important but it alone
won't make you a grandmaster.  If you want to understand why people
are the way they are I don't think the Theory-of-Everything would
help you much, you'd do much better studding Evolutionary Biology,
neurology, or computer science.

I understand that when we come to a human being, complexity growth. My question though would be in principle. In Grand Design they say that as it is impossible to use the very basic physical theory in practice, one needs effective sciences. Yet, if I have understood correctly, the authors mean that the theory considered in the book can describe everything including human beings that nothing more than biological machines.

I do not not understand in this respect your analogy with chess. Do you mean that I have freedom to play my own game in the M-theory?


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