[Benedict Broere]

Well Michael,

I look forward to it.
But you seem to be the only one out here, that doesn't disqualify a proposition immediately when some thought about a fundamental creativity is expressed. And this while my thesis stands also (on scientific data) without assuming this.

Also it seems very much that if for instance Edward Witten should turn out with a complete stringtheory as a proposal for TOE, it in fact wouldn't explain everything, because of the emergent proporties that appear on every new level of complexity in this universe. While when he does give a stringtheory - that probably will be some sort of 'Table of the Elements', a geometrical-mathematical form in which all the particles-waves are unified - still the question would remain: what makes this mathematics possible?

With this latter something else is interesting to add. This weekend I have been reading Nigel Calders "Magic Universe. A grand Tour of Modern Science." Lots of interesting stories on frontier science in physics, biology, artificial intelligence, etcetera. But also interesting is to see he refers to Freeman Dyson who is speaking about a universe that seems to have known the arrival of us humans, and to Martin Rees who is speaking about a 'biophilic Universe', a universe hospitable to life. It makes Calder write: "Human beings turn out to be just pieces of the Universe, as surely as sunbeams, Halley's Comet or the Horsehead Nebula." To me this completely affirms my assumption I make with aos, that human culture and worldview has to be considered as completely part of the system physics, chemistry, biology, etcetera, is trying to describe.

Aos is born out of a different approach to the information we see expressed in this universe. With it on scientific grounds the notion is rejected that 'everything' can be explained out of the behaviour of particles-waves. To then zoom in on the information itself and it's probable possibility and general organisation.