Le 22-sept.-05, à 18:12, John M a écrit :
according to your (and Marc's?) definition,
is Hal's work a "TOEandTON"?
The problem, for me, is with the "T" (both in TOE and TON).
I cannot judge. Hal's talk is still too much vague for me.
I appreciate and perhaps share soime intuitions, though.I certainly
appreciate the role of logical incompleteness.
Or would you include Nothing into the relations of
Mind (again: wat is it really?) and reality (same
(I mean: defined in less than 1000 words <G>)
Let me try.
There are many notion of nothingness. Now remember that if comp is
assumed, the whole of physics emerges from machine's dreams
(computation from personal point of views), or, just from the
mathematical relations among numbers (cf computer science can be
embedded in arithmetical truth: this includes discourse bearing on
vaster domains than arithmetic).
So there is no more *primitive* physical nothingness than *primitive*
So yes, I would include "Nothing" into the relations of mind and
reality. Note that both mind and reality are mathematical. Physical
reality is just an *observable* part of mathematical reality, and it
appears as the intrinsic-al border of the mindscape (where mind can be
defined (assuming comp) by all what machine can prove and guess about
--- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Le 22-sept.-05, à 06:27, Marc Geddes a écrit :
What I'd like is a *logical scaffolding* - a
*finite* system which is
*universal* in scope - or at least applying
everywhere in reality
where sentient minds can exist and which explains
between Mind and Reality. That for me
is a TOE. I don't require
that the theory literally explains everything.
I agree and I agree with your other statement
according to which a TOE
must explain the relation between mind and reality
physicalist put under the rug).
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
why it cannot explain those features.