--- On Thu, 9/4/08, archytas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  
...
We lack a scientific world-view (Kuhn was miles off
> the mark)
> that accepts mystery (Penrose's Shadows of Mind does
> but fails) and
> the way in which much 'physical' and
> 'spiritual' (at least non-
> material) can influence rigourous explanation and
> mathematics. 
==============
Whatever you mean by "(non-)material" you certainly have 
my RELATIVISTIC_PHENOMENOLOGY in
http://findgeorges.com/
which postulates 
-that science does not explain  mysterious events, but
only coordinates them,
-that no matter how rigorously coordinated, the mystery
of events stays untouched,
-that this mystery is open to meditation, but not to
reflexion,
-that this mystery is right at hand, directly given,
inseparable from our self, constituting its very fabric,
-that it's not the mystery that's mysterious, but the
inexplicable possibility of its abstract coordination,
-that it's asinine to look for the mystery by idiotic
contortions of the abstract, like in the Copenhagen
Interpretation.

It all boils down to my "credo" stemming from Newton's
allegory:

Newton compared a scientist to a child playing with shells 
on the ocean shore.
-Shells represent concepts and theories.
-Ocean represents the unknown Marvelous wherefrom the  
 Shells had emerged and new ones will turn up.

It is absurd to restrict, in keeping with pseudo-science,
the Universe to a few Shells and to deny the Ocean.

But it is equally absurd to infer, in keeping with  
religions and dogmatic pseudo-science, 
the details of the Marvelous, to shut It in a Shell and 
to dissect It as if It were an oyster.

Georges.
==============



      

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to