On 12/25/06, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
>
>
> JM:
> 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".
Thanx, makes a difference. I consider a "whole" identified (maybe it is my
feeble English). Is it an essential point:
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.
Is it? try to compare our (cognitive etc.) inventories of 3000BC, 1000AD,
1006AD, and tell me which year did we reach omniscience?
John
Brent Meeker
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" 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/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
