jamikes wrote:

> George, I agree. Would you include Q-physics as well? How about OM?
> John Mikes
>

I would include any theory which can be expressed as a nice little bundle of
axioms. (Re: Goedel - Marchal is the expert in this subject so I'll defer to him
for the details  - I am still waiting for his explanation of G* but he can take
his time....) I think that Relativity and Quantum Physics are included. But
OM??? Do you mean QM? Quantum Mechanics? I don't believe the Plenitude can be
encapsulated in any finite explanation. No matter what explanation one could
come up with, one could go on to the meta level and ask "Why?"........ or "Why
not?" The monster White Rabbit is staring at us in the face.

George

>
> George wrote:
> > More on dreaming
> >
> >
> > Believing in a cat morphing into a lion
> > Believing in ogres and demons
> > Believing in the tooth fairie
> > Believing in a flat earth
> > Believing in the geocentric system
> > Believing in Newtonian Physics
> >
> > All these are beliefs. We hold these beliefs when we are awake or when we
> > are asleep. Beliefs shape the world we live in. They range from the
> totally
> > absurd, to the almost reasonable. But they are all false.  They all have
> > their own sets of inconsistencies which were may not be readily apparent.
> In
> > fact it took a lot of work to demonstrate the inconsistencies of Newtonian
> > Physics.
> >

Reply via email to