Good post Mike The nested structure of that set contains an element which should not be there, or else needs to be described.
IMO science simply does not care and looks wrongly for a final/total/ unified approach. Religion explains yes, but uses the dogma for that, and invents all kind of superpowers and literature (sorry the believers, I cannot follow) Math is the closest I think because at least is able to say it and shows its shape and relationships And there are other forms as well, like arts, pseudo sciences (I like Alchemy), etc I like to think all disciplines point there, which is.....? I dont think the answers will find an object, like the final particle or God (please out there dont say God is not an object, it certainly is the object of all religions), instead I think the answer will be an address. This is an address in the sense of a unique location in certain space, not the thing, but the address. On 14 set, 12:53, michael atovigba <[email protected]> wrote: > This is just the Cantor's conjectures and the power set in play. A > universal set containing an element that contains the universal set. > > Mike Atovigba > > On 9/12/10, [email protected] > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > ============================================================================= > > Today's Topic Summary > > ============================================================================= > > > Group: [email protected] > > Url:http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/topics > > > - Evolution / Consciousness and Quantum of Light. [5 Updates] > > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/t/3d257186d5c0fca7 > > > ============================================================================= > > Topic: Evolution / Consciousness and Quantum of Light. > > Url:http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/t/3d257186d5c0fca7 > > ============================================================================= > > > ---------- 1 of 5 ---------- > > From: aruzinsky <[email protected]> > > Date: Sep 11 09:09AM -0700 > > Url:http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/ad19807e900c113b > > > It would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove or disprove the > > hypothesis that we are living in a computer simulation. To point out > > the obvious, that computer would have to be governed by different laws > > of physics than the simulation. Possibly, that computer is part of a > > universe, including an operator/programmer, governed by different laws > > than this one. The computer operator/programmer could, at whim, do > > just about anything with that simulation, including making an > > appearance as an avatar to tell the inhabitants that that they are > > inside a computer simulation. Gee, I wonder how such a communication > > might be misinterpreted by an anthropocentric populous? And, then > > the question is, how does that programmer know that he is not living > > inside a computer simulation? > > > Rent the video, The Thirteenth Floor, > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Floor > > . > > > ---------- 2 of 5 ---------- > > From: aruzinsky <[email protected]> > > Date: Sep 11 02:39PM -0700 > > Url:http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/e5514b972d3403ef > > > That should be "populace," you dumb F. > > > ---------- 3 of 5 ---------- > > From: awori achoka <[email protected]> > > Date: Sep 12 12:56PM +0300 > > Url:http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/ad5a7a14188a16fb > > > This brings in the issue of knowledge as an end--or should I say an > > infinity. > > > On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 7:09 PM, aruzinsky > > > -- > > > nubiaafrika.blogspot.com > > > ---------- 4 of 5 ---------- > > From: einseele <[email protected]> > > Date: Sep 12 06:27AM -0700 > > Url:http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/6a8edd57a7199e0d > > > I agree with this here > > And also want to add that this idea is a classic of all times hard to > > trace back. Even if the point is the same, I like to read it as the > > Chuang-Tsu's butterfly: > > > "Once I, Chuang Tzu, dreamed I was a butterfly and was happy as a > > butterfly. I was conscious that I was quite pleased with myself, but I > > did not know that I was Tzu. Suddenly I awoke, and there was I, > > visibly Tzu. I do not know whether it was Tzu dreaming that he was a > > butterfly or the butterfly dreaming that he was Tzu. Between Tzu and > > the butterfly there must be some distinction. [But one may be the > > other.] This is called the transformation of things." > > > Somehow everything is made of the same. Science, religion, and all > > knowledge's forms try to discover how something becomes another, like > > alchemy pairing dust-gold. > > > Lately Steven Hawking posted a sort of proof of non existent God > > needed to create the "something" out of the "nothing". In other words > > there is no need of God for something to come out of nothing. > > > This of course triggered the religious authority counterpart response > > pointing the necessary opposite demonstration. > > > But you do not hear about the linguistic problem involved. > > > "Nothing" only exist in language, and even there has substance, making > > it a double object. All equivalent, null, empty, zero, etc, have their > > own double side. > > > If "nothing" only lives in language, then it is true that at the > > beginning there was only the Word. Though this true can only be false. > > > To play with words is interesting and lead you to linguistic issues. > > > Now, to bring these to the Universe's creation is no sense IMO > > > ---------- 5 of 5 ---------- > > From: aruzinsky <[email protected]> > > Date: Sep 12 08:36AM -0700 > > Url:http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/2794e279569b3abd > > > I think there are many advantages to modeling reality as a simulation > > on a hypothetically perfect computer . For example, science becomes, > > "Reverse engineer reality.", and we would no longer be burdened with > > verbose blather such chazin's. > > > -- > > 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. -- 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.
