--- 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 > >
