On 12/25/06, Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
>
> John Mikes wrote:
> > Tom Caylor wrote:
> > > This looks like Tarski's trick to me. It is an act of faith any time
> > > we take what we say as truth.
> > On 12/24/06, *Brent Meeker* < meekerdb.domain.name.hidden
> > <mailto:meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>> wrote:
> > "When I take what I say to be true based on evidence it is not a matter
> > of faith"
> > JM:
> > it is based on your faith in your evidence and its truth. A religious
> > person accepts as evidence "God said so" - of course it is based on HIS
> > faith, and so are physicists evidencing by collapse of wave function,
> > .by calculations on the inflation after the BB, and other kind of
> > 'scientists' (believing) in the tenets of their (today's) science, just
> > as (in Ptolemy-time) on the flatness of the Earth.
> >
> > Tom Caylor wrote:
> > >This is unsupported without an ultimate
> > > Person who gives the ultimate source of bringing truth into existence
> > > through words.
> > BM:
> > "This is pure magic mongering - as though some special "ultimate" person
> > can bring something into existence by words."
> > JM:
> > Unless you have 'faith' in that "ultimate person"<G> - I take Brent's
> > side here.
> > *
> > BM:
> > Critics of reductionism ignore the contrary process of
> > synthesis. Physics does not *just* reduce things to atoms, it also
> > shows how things are synthesized from atoms and their relations.
> > JM:
> > "relations" is a big word (Do you have a good meaning for it?)
>
> Multi-place predicates. Note that some physicists (David Mermin, Carlo
> Rovelli) propose that we formulate quantum mechanics as "relations without
> relata".
JM:
Cute proposal. Paraphrase: Interconnection between 2 nothings? Or:
functions without substrate? Or abstracted: efficiency without effect?
>IMO it
> > includes the impredicative - non computable interrelatedness of the
> > totality we cannot include into our limited reductionist models.
>
> Just because our models are limited does not justify the conclusion that
> there are things that cannot be modelled.
JM:
and who's conclusion is that? not mine. Please read carefully:
" we cannot include [the unlimited totality] into our limited
reductionist models."
That allows for everything to be (limitedly) modeled.
> Nor
> > can "physics" consider all of it in a 'synthetic' opposite.
>
> All of what? Are you sure there is a "whole"?
JM:
Are you sure there is NO [unlimited] impredicative - non (Turing-emulable),
all encompassing interrelatedness? (which I did not call a "whole") and
which sure is not 'the whole' with 'everything included into its
boundaries', eo ipso NOT a "whole".
The separately quoted 2nd part of my sentence points to my doubt about
"physics" (or any other 'science', for that matter) whether they are capable
in a 'synthetic' effort to encompass ALL interrelations into a buildup step
when many of them still may be undiscovered?. A reductionist 'synthesis'
works on the available inventory and ends up with an "Aris-Total"-like
incompleteness (i.e. that the 'total' is more than the 'sum' of the parts.).
Just as a reductionist analysis is inventory-related and so incomplete.
> I consider
> > Stathis's words on his "chemistry" as his domain-concept of relations
> > between people etc., otherwise I would have argued (on my turf) about
> > chemistry's "occurrence" vs our figment how to depict and explain into
> > patterns (even drawn into 2D formulation upon the atomic illusions in
> > chem. science) the figment we have about certain primitively observed
> > phenomena. All in the sense of "physical" edifice-evidence we have
> > ""FAITH"" in.
>
> I cant' discern any meaning in that.
JM:
so noted. Stathis P, to whom this par refers to maybe can. If you kindly
specify elements you would like to read more about, I will happily oblige
(if I can).
Brent Meeker
John Mikes
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon Dec 25 2006 - 16:40:22 PST