Le 24-sept.-05, à 18:14, John M a écrit :
> Dear Logician <G>:
> I copy from your post below:
>> But if there are features of reality not explained
>> by the TOE, we still
>> can expect that the TOE will be able to justify---or
>> "meta-justify"---
>> why it cannot explain those features.
> *
> 'Everything' includes segments galore we have no idea
> about (so far undisputed statement).
This is already debatable. If the 3-everything are just numbers, there
is a sense in saying we know them all, even if we cannot know
personally each number, and totally ignore some interesting subsets of
the natural numbers.
The first person plenitude is bigger. So big that no first person can
even just name the whole of it.
> We really cannot
> go into any analysis of unknown features, I think.
Actually I was talking on knowable feature that we cannot explain.
There are a lot of things we can know without being able to explain.
Even the "sky" or the "sun" could belong to that. Consciousness is more
typical.
> Do you simply mean a 'generalitiy' that SUCH (unkown)
> features "cannot be explained"? (saying: what we don't
> know we don't know, or something similar?)
> I may expect better from you (ha ha).
From me? or from the lobian machine.
>
> (Unless, of course, we think that it is not OUR TOE,
> but the infinite comp's = the entire (and thinking)
> WORLD, or whatever you call it, and it is ITS TOE, not
> ours - in which case I am out.)
What do you mean by "our" TOE ?
And what do you mean by "our" ?
Could you perhaps elaborate on your last two paragraphs?
Not so clear for me.
>
> Have a nice weekend
Have a nice weekstart :-)
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Mon Sep 26 2005 - 10:21:41 PDT