Thank you very much for a thoughtful response!

Short of time now.

Apparently we agree to disagree!

A technicality: When you asked me my age, I did not think it relevant; but it was not 30, but the approximation I gave was late 30s.

Another technicality: on alleged "religious" positions: I would like to remind you that what you choose is your choice; when asked to explain how you know if you are being logically consistent; your whole argument of having escaped a religious-type position of your own falls down!

You admitted that you consider yourself to be logically consistent (and I noted that even the judgement of others must be evaluated by you).

So I am reminding you Dr. Dick: you are alone, you and Existence, when it comes to logical consistency. Am I not correct?

Re: opinions and facts: but you did state "the fact that" or whatever; but I agree it was obviously an opinion you were stating.

My point that understanding might profitably be achieved by encompassing wider perspectives remains; it is true of jigsaw puzzles. If you really want to take this "encompass all possibilities" game to its extreme, you don't seem to me to have taken it far enough!

There are better ways to play your own game! I showed that with my "Inter-dimensional DNA" posts; I started at the absolute maximum encompassing of possibility; I started from "Existence".

Also: you seem to adopt a premise "that there could be error" which becomes your conclusion "that you cannot be sure of anything"; but it all looks like a Godel-type category error; you must have 1 unit of surety to be sure of claiming that everything but that claim itself is uncertain! One could just as easily say that you cannot be unsure of anything. Think about that! That issue goes deep to the core of your paper.

Best wishes,

Alan

• I am also poor - yanniru - April 2, 2002 - 15:37 UTC