On 12/25/06, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?
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