John Mikes wrote:
On 12/25/06, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
John Mikes wrote:
> Tom Caylor wrote:
> > This looks like Tarski's trick to me. It is an act of faith
> > we take what we say as truth.
> On 12/24/06, *Brent Meeker* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> wrote:
> "When I take what I say to be true based on evidence it is not a
> of faith"
> it is based on your faith in your evidence and its truth. A religious
> person accepts as evidence "God said so" - of course it is based
> faith, and so are physicists evidencing by collapse of wave
> .by calculations on the inflation after the BB, and other kind of
> 'scientists' (believing) in the tenets of their (today's)
> as (in Ptolemy-time) on the flatness of the Earth.
> Tom Caylor wrote:
> >This is unsupported without an ultimate
> > Person who gives the ultimate source of bringing truth into
> > through words.
> "This is pure magic mongering - as though some special "ultimate"
> can bring something into existence by words."
> Unless you have 'faith' in that "ultimate person"<G> - I take Brent's
> side here.
> Critics of reductionism ignore the contrary process of
> synthesis. Physics does not *just* reduce things to atoms, it also
> shows how things are synthesized from atoms and their relations.
> "relations" is a big word (Do you have a good meaning for it?)
Multi-place predicates. Note that some physicists (David Mermin,
Carlo Rovelli) propose that we formulate quantum mechanics as
"relations without relata".
Cute proposal. Paraphrase: Interconnection between 2 nothings? Or:
functions without substrate? Or abstracted: efficiency without effect?
> includes the impredicative - non computable interrelatedness of the
> totality we cannot include into our limited reductionist models.
Just because our models are limited does not justify the conclusion
that there are things that cannot be modelled.
and who's conclusion is that? not mine. Please read carefully:
" we cannot include [the unlimited totality] into our limited
That allows for everything to be (limitedly) modeled.
> can "physics" consider all of it in a 'synthetic' opposite.
All of what? Are you sure there is a "whole"?
Are you sure there is NO [unlimited] impredicative - non
(Turing-emulable), all encompassing interrelatedness? (which I did not
call a "whole")
Sorry. You called it a "totality".
and which sure is not 'the whole' with 'everything
included into its boundaries', eo ipso NOT a "whole".
No I am empathically *not* sure - but I agree with Darwin who wrote, "Ignorance more
frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not
those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be
solved by science".
--- Charles Darwin, The Ascent of Man
The separately quoted 2nd part of my sentence points to my doubt about
"physics" (or any other 'science', for that matter) whether they are
capable in a 'synthetic' effort to encompass ALL interrelations into a
buildup step when many of them still may be undiscovered?. A
reductionist 'synthesis' works on the available inventory and ends up
with an "Aris-Total"-like incompleteness (i.e. that the 'total' is more
than the 'sum' of the parts.). Just as a reductionist analysis is
inventory-related and so incomplete.
It is only your opinion that the inventory is *necessarily* incomplete.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at