Fwd: Re: Let There Be Something

From: John M <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 08:18:52 -0800 (PST)

--- John M <jamikes.domain.name.hidden> wrote:

> Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 08:17:12 -0800 (PST)
> From: John M <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
> Subject: Re: Let There Be Something
> To: Norman Samish <ncsamish.domain.name.hidden>,
> everything-list.domain.name.hidden
>
>
>
> --- Norman Samish <ncsamish.domain.name.hidden> 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
>
>
Received on Sun Oct 30 2005 - 11:21:39 PST