On 12/8/2012 2:28 PM, John Mikes wrote:
it is amazing how we formulate our (belief) systems similarly, except
for yours in a descriptive - mine in an agnostic "explanation" (=a joke).
;-) I try hard to stay in a superposed state, somewhere between
serious and 'just kidding". We understand each other here. :-)
I deny to be an atheist because one would need a God to deny and I do
not detect the concept for such.
Exactly! This is partly why I make such a big deal about how people
use the concept of 'existence'. It is impossible to deny the existence
without first assuming the possibility that it could indeed exist! To
avoid this trap, why not pull existence completely away from any
dependence on anything else and take it as an ontological primitive. We
then say (with Ayn Rand) "existence exists". Full Stop.
Also: when you wrote
*/" I am claiming that "local determination/causation' and 'apparent
causation' are the same thing! This implies that there is no global or
total cause or 'orchestration'."/*
it resonates with my "denial" of classic causation in which it is
presumed to know about ALL initiative entailment - what my agnosticism
denies from our present knowable.
'What is Knowledge' is almost as difficult a question as 'what is
truth'! I really like Bruno's proposed solution, but he seems to have a
hard time with my attempt to "parametrize" truth using agreements or
mutual consistency in a game theoretical sense. What I propose is no
different from the solution to the problem of "perfect knowledge" in
game theory! Thinking of knowledge and truth via semantic games has the
nice bonus of allowing for a nice extension into statistics and
probability. I really like when one mathematical idea connects to another.
I am struggling with the 'changes' that occur: the best I can think of
is the least obstructed possibility in 'relations' to go for,
considering more than we may know within our presently knowable model
of the world.
OK. What I do to think of this is to ask: "what situation is
necessary for the appearance of a type of change to vanish, in some
class of related circumstances?" I first noticed that this implies that
for a change to be non-vanishing there has to be a non-vanishing means
to measure the change or otherwise keep track of its effects. Take away
the means to measure change, and what is left?
I am also struggling with the driving force behind all 'that' (meaning
the infinite complexity) IMO the origination of anything. A have no
identification for the 'relations' either. Nor for any 'interchange' -
a possible and inevitably occurring 'cause' for violating the
(presumed?) infinite symmetry (call it equilibrium?) - generating
undefinable "universes" (in my narrative).
The way I see it, perfect infinite symmetry is changeless. Why?
What would act as the measure of change of the P.I.S.? Nothing! If we
some how break the symmetry, we get an immediate potential difference
and, check it out, the difference between the perfectly symmetric case
and the not so symmetric case is the same kind of difference that we see
between the states of a system in a maximum entropy state and a state
some distance away from maximum entropy. Voila! We have at least an
intuitive way to think of change and a measure of such.
*Orchestration *is a good word, thank you. All I can think of is the
'least obstructed way' of *change* substituting even for
Yeah, this is, IMHO, the main reason why people have such a problem
understanding the nature of time! The fact that the sequence of events
can be mapped to the Real numbers gets all the attention and leads to
thoughts that time is a dimension and the question as to "How did the
events get sequenced like that in the first place?" gets ignored.
The 'Overall Conductor' (God?) is a requirement of human thinking
within those limitations we observed over the past millennia.
I agree, it is a comforting idea.
The 'local governor' is within the model-limitations of yesterday. By
no means an 'absolute' denomination (not a */'real entity'/*).
"Take me to your leader", explained the invader. "Whatr is a
leader?", asked the native. "None of you rules over the rest?" asked the
invader in surprise. "Why should there be such?, "We are all different
and have our own unique thoughts, why should some 'one' rule over the
rest?". "Oh my!", exclaimed the invader, "I had better rethink my tactics!".
I want to press that I do not feel "above" such limitations myself,
but at least I try to find wider boundaries.
Boundaries are merely horizons to expand.
I would not say:
*/"...to imagining that a physical computer can run without a power
rather push such driving force (see above) into my agnostic ignorance,
Right, does my line of reasoning make sense?
Bundle it up with 'energy', 'electricity' and the other zillion
marvels our conventional sciences USE, CALCULATE, DIFFERENTIATE,
without the foggiest idea WHAT they are and HOW they work. I accept
our overall ignorance.
I have sworn eternal enmity toward ignorance!
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