Re: Let There Be Something

From: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:51:23 -0500

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" <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
To: "Norman Samish" <ncsamish.domain.name.hidden>; <everything-list.domain.name.hidden.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
Received on Sun Oct 30 2005 - 11:53:11 PST