John Mikes wrote:
>
>
> On 12/25/06, *Brent Meeker* <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden
> <mailto: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>
> > <mailto:meekerdb.domain.name.hidden <mailto:meekerdb.domain.name.hidden.org>>> 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")
Sorry. You called it a "totality".
> and which sure is not 'the whole' with 'everything
> included into its boundaries', eo ipso NOT a "whole".
No I am empathically *not* sure - but I agree with Darwin who wrote, "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science".
--- Charles Darwin, The Ascent of Man
>
> 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.
It is only your opinion that the inventory is *necessarily* incomplete.
Brent Meeker
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 - 17:02:20 PST