Hi DMB, (redundancy / unneccesary ridiculous kludge, whatever) ... I still don't see how your James quote really relates to multiverse ideas.
Yes, clearly as you say ""The truth is too great for any one actual mind, even thought that mind be dubbed 'the Absolute,' to know the whole of it. The facts and worths of life need many cognizers to take them in. There is no point of view absolutely public and universal." - James is saying that there is no objective truth, no absolute reality. Life is too rich and thick to be nailed down by any single view or perspective." But, taking multiple viewpoints in the world is not the same as suggesting that multiple worlds somehow physically exist simultaneously. Perhaps you were just using the analogy - anyway clearer now if that's all you were suggesting. (No argument that the latter is indeed a scientific kludge, even if sometimes a useful thought experiment for viewing possibilities.) Ian On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 3:37 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ian said: > > I can't see what it says to John's point about the redundancy ( non > pragmatism ) of multiverses / many worlds ? > > > dmb says: > > Did John have a point about redundancy? > > In any case, here is the basic idea: Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
