'Why anything?'

Good post, North, and as you intended it, it is provocative. You realize by now that my principal concern is with the ontological status of the self (lower case, of course; upper case Self has to do with my less-relevant-to-this -thread "religious" notions).
I, as you know by now, recognize meanings an d points to life, that we construct or are inspired by--the latter is the most valuable function of art, literature, and philosophy--i.e., the Humanities--for me.
I am an optimist about our future. Our evolutionary potential is virtually unlimited--or at least undetermined--but I suspect that Nietzsche's Ubermench makes reference to it.

what post ? I think your applause is addressed to someone else...

Something is inherently nothing yet in the nothingness yields something...

A culture of bacteria in a Petri dish can be observed by an external observer, yet that observer is not a bacterium in the culture...

I think I was responding to North. It must have been a technical glitch. But for the most part you do merit some applauses. Except for those moments when you annoy me.

A theory of everything does not entail computing everything, although it can present a model that eventually can deal with the structure of reality, which obviously is a very different claim...thus it follows that a calculation can be unattainable because the amount of power needed for the computation is out of grasp and not necessarily because the working model is limited in scope (which might well be but not on the basis of the assumption being made by some folks)...

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

A working model can change, just like thinking. So how does anyone deal with the unattainable?

This raised an interesting point for me. I enjoy philosophical communication best when it is done in a form something like impressionist art.
For the most part, we all have made, or will make the same observations. It is fun sometimes to try and explain or define these observations, but most enjoyable is effectively communicating a mutual observation.
To this extent simplicity is important, all I need to do is trigger the impression in another's mind, I don't have to describe it.
I think there is a real art to be practiced in that.

...of course a working model can change so what ? There are models who stay the same models who are improved and models that radically change or are abandoned...a "correct" model won´t give you any answers although it can provide the means for the right questions...

Thanks Fil...

I disagree

the therefore so called " nothing " was something in the first place

True that...

oh dear...
no...nothing was n´t something...something was something is more like it...

Could you say they are one and the same thing? I don't know...