Re: Let There Be Something
Norman Samish writes: If the multiverse concept, as I understand it, is true, then anything that can exist does exist, and anything that can happen has happened and will continue to happen, ad infinitum. The sequence of events that we observe has been played in the past, and will be played in the future, over and over again. How strange and pointless it all seems. I'll grant you it may be strange, but how is it any more pointless than anything that can happen (or a subset thereof) happening only once, or a finite number of times? --Stathis Papaioannou _ MyCareer.com.au: Visit the NEW Salary Survey http://www.mycareer.com.au/salary-survey/?s_cid=203697
Re: Let There Be Something
Norman Samish writes: If the multiverse concept, as I understand it, is true, then anything that can exist does exist, and anything that can happen has happened and will continue to happen, ad infinitum. The sequence of events that we observe has been played in the past, and will be played in the future, over and over again. How strange and pointless it all seems. ~~ I'll grant you it may be strange, but how is it any more pointless than anything that can happen (or a subset thereof) happening only once, or a finite number of times? --Stathis Papaioannou ~~ That's a good question, forcing me to realize that I have an irrational fuzzy feeling that there should be a point to it all that I can understand, and that a sequence of events should occur only once. Implicit in these feelings is the assumption that there is some kind of God which designed the multiverse for some reason, and keeps track of all events. I suppose my early first cause training is at work. I think now that the premises of the First Cause argument are unproven.
Fwd: Re: Let There Be Something
--- John M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 08:17:12 -0800 (PST) From: John M [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Let There Be Something To: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED], everything-list@eskimo.com --- Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... --Stathis Papaioannou: I'll grant you it may be strange, but how is it any more pointless than anything that can happen (or a subset thereof) happening only once, or a finite number of times? Norman Samish writes: If the multiverse concept, as I understand it, is true, then anything that can exist does exist, and anything that can happen has happened and will continue to happen, ad infinitum. The sequence of events that we observe has been played in the past, and will be played in the future, over and over again. How strange and pointless it all seems. -(excerpts): a fuzzy feeling that there should be a point to it all that I can understand, and that a sequence of events should occur only once. [ Implicit in these feelings is the assumption that there is some kind of God which designed the multiverse for some reason, and keeps track of all events. ] ... How eye-opening! I settle down with my restrictions that only MY WORLD is of any interest to me, I don't care for anything beyond my views and understandability (or rather: observability). This is an extended solipsism, but keeps me from going crazy. I acknowledge (don't go any further) the infinitness of worlds and occurrences, beyond the whatever can happen which is pointing to something like in my (our) views. I cut it off there, HOPING(!) that those worlds and events - really OUT there - do have no influence upon our life. Implied: if they 'have', we would sense it and in that case those worlds and happenings would enter what we may call: our world and observational domains. However in case of 'that' infinity I don't see Normans 'second thought' of the requirement of any god. Before infinity? a category mistake of human pretension. If we cannot understand, we should not explain. Not by fairy tales, not by mathematical formulae. I would not go beyond such limitations in my speculation about my speculation. John Mikes
Re: Let There Be Something
--- Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... --Stathis Papaioannou: I'll grant you it may be strange, but how is it any more pointless than anything that can happen (or a subset thereof) happening only once, or a finite number of times? Norman Samish writes: If the multiverse concept, as I understand it, is true, then anything that can exist does exist, and anything that can happen has happened and will continue to happen, ad infinitum. The sequence of events that we observe has been played in the past, and will be played in the future, over and over again. How strange and pointless it all seems. -(excerpts): a fuzzy feeling that there should be a point to it all that I can understand, and that a sequence of events should occur only once. [ Implicit in these feelings is the assumption that there is some kind of God which designed the multiverse for some reason, and keeps track of all events. ] ... How eye-opening! I settle down with my restrictions that only MY WORLD is of any interest to me, I don't care for anything beyond my views and understandability (or rather: observability). This is an extended solipsism, but keeps me from going crazy. I acknowledge (don't go any further) the infinitness of worlds and occurrences, beyond the whatever can happen which is pointing to something like in my (our) views. I cut it off there, HOPING(!) that those worlds and events - really OUT there - do have no influence upon our life. Implied: if they 'have', we would sense it and in that case those worlds and happenings would enter what we may call: our world and observational domains. However in case of 'that' infinity I don't see Normans 'second thought' of the requirement of any god. Before infinity? a category mistake of human pretension. If we cannot understand, we should not explain. Not by fairy tales, not by mathematical formulae. I would not go beyond such limitations in my speculation about my speculation. John Mikes
Re: Let There Be Something
Dear John, It is refreshing to see that some people are willing to admit to the implicit solipsism that is at the heart of everyone's notion of being in the world. ;-) We must understand that *all* that we have access to is 1st person and any 3rd person representation is merely an ansatz of some 1st person aspect. Onward! Stephen - Original Message - From: John M [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 11:17 AM Subject: Re: Let There Be Something snip -(excerpts): a fuzzy feeling that there should be a point to it all that I can understand, and that a sequence of events should occur only once. [ Implicit in these feelings is the assumption that there is some kind of God which designed the multiverse for some reason, and keeps track of all events. ] ... How eye-opening! I settle down with my restrictions that only MY WORLD is of any interest to me, I don't care for anything beyond my views and understandability (or rather: observability). This is an extended solipsism, but keeps me from going crazy. I acknowledge (don't go any further) the infinitness of worlds and occurrences, beyond the whatever can happen which is pointing to something like in my (our) views. I cut it off there, HOPING(!) that those worlds and events - really OUT there - do have no influence upon our life. Implied: if they 'have', we would sense it and in that case those worlds and happenings would enter what we may call: our world and observational domains. However in case of 'that' infinity I don't see Normans 'second thought' of the requirement of any god. Before infinity? a category mistake of human pretension. If we cannot understand, we should not explain. Not by fairy tales, not by mathematical formulae. I would not go beyond such limitations in my speculation about my speculation. John Mikes
Re: Let There Be Something
Dear Stephen, thanks for the consent. I would use instead of your ansatz rather Ersatz which means rather a non identical substitute, not an implenishing of another person's 1st person opinion (called for me a 3rd person view) when I absorb it as my 1st person variant of it. Thanks again John M --- Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear John, It is refreshing to see that some people are willing to admit to the implicit solipsism that is at the heart of everyone's notion of being in the world. ;-) We must understand that *all* that we have access to is 1st person and any 3rd person representation is merely an ansatz of some 1st person aspect. Onward! Stephen - Original Message - From: John M [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 11:17 AM Subject: Re: Let There Be Something snip -(excerpts): a fuzzy feeling that there should be a point to it all that I can understand, and that a sequence of events should occur only once. [ Implicit in these feelings is the assumption that there is some kind of God which designed the multiverse for some reason, and keeps track of all events. ] ... How eye-opening! I settle down with my restrictions that only MY WORLD is of any interest to me, I don't care for anything beyond my views and understandability (or rather: observability). This is an extended solipsism, but keeps me from going crazy. I acknowledge (don't go any further) the infinitness of worlds and occurrences, beyond the whatever can happen which is pointing to something like in my (our) views. I cut it off there, HOPING(!) that those worlds and events - really OUT there - do have no influence upon our life. Implied: if they 'have', we would sense it and in that case those worlds and happenings would enter what we may call: our world and observational domains. However in case of 'that' infinity I don't see Normans 'second thought' of the requirement of any god. Before infinity? a category mistake of human pretension. If we cannot understand, we should not explain. Not by fairy tales, not by mathematical formulae. I would not go beyond such limitations in my speculation about my speculation. John Mikes
RE: Let There Be Something
Hi John: At 12:02 PM 10/30/2005, you wrote: Stathis, let me address first Tom C's objection addressing the nothing (from which nothing can come out) - and I wonder how Hal will feel about this: All we can talk about as N O TH I N G is that it does not contain anything we know about. It would make Tom's absolute no-no if we were omniscient gods, what we are not. OUR nothing may be loaded with things we do not know about, sense, observe, include into Hal's list. From those 'indonnu's there may be a healthy causation for a world within our grasp. Now about your objection: Actually many divisions of the list might work. All that is required to launch evolving Somethings is that one side of the division be incomplete and the other inconsistent. This is easy to demonstrate for the Nothing:All pair since the Nothing contains no possible further divisions of the list so can not respond to any meaningful question and I show there is at least 1. In general I suspect the divisions that will work must be finite:infinite pairs. So on your point re the Nothing I think you may be correct. Yours Hal Ruhl
Re: Let There Be Something
Norman Samish writes: If the multiverse concept, as I understand it, is true, then anything that can exist does exist, and anything that can happen has happened and will continue to happen, ad infinitum. The sequence of events that we observe has been played in the past, and will be played in the future, over and over again. How strange and pointless it all seems. ~~ I'll grant you it may be strange, but how is it any more pointless than anything that can happen (or a subset thereof) happening only once, or a finite number of times? --Stathis Papaioannou ~~ That's a good question, forcing me to realize that I have an irrational fuzzy feeling that there should be a point to it all that I can understand, and that a sequence of events should occur only once. Implicit in these feelings is the assumption that there is some kind of God which designed the multiverse for some reason, and keeps track of all events. I suppose my early first cause training is at work. I think now that the premises of the First Cause argument are unproven. The same objection to the quest for a first cause applies to the quest for ultimate meaning: you can always ask, if the meaning (or cause, or purpose) of x is y, what's the meaning (or cause, or purpose) of y? If you assert that y is special because it is the ultimate meaning (or cause, or purpose), then why not make the same assertion of x? --Stathis Papaioannou _ SEEK: Over 80,000 jobs across all industries at Australia's #1 job site. http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail
Re: Let There Be Something
Then in making that assertion it follows surely that we (x) are all God (y) and God has no particular attributes that we do not possess, being in some sense equivalent. God would then be equivalent to Life. Stathis may have unwittingly proven the existence of the big G Kim Jones On 31/10/2005, at 12:19 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: to the quest for a first cause applies to the quest for ultimate meaning: you can always ask, if the meaning (or cause, or purpose) of x is y, what's the meaning (or cause, or purpose) of y? If you assert that y is special because it is the ultimate meaning (or cause, or purpose), then why not make the same assertion of x? --Stathis Papaioannou email 1: [EMAIL PROTECTED] email 2: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
