Brent, you don't REALLY put strange (implied?) words in my mouth, but that
gives the impression to the innocent byreader that I said anything like
"Did I claim that we had reached a complete inventory??"
No, you only said:
"> It is only your opinion that the inventory is *necessarily* incomplete."
Presumably not YOUR opinion, implying completeness of our (cognitive)
I apologize for a typo: what I wrote 1006 was meant indeed 2006(AD), if this
number has some connotations in our minds. Now if (as you seem to agree) we
increase our cogniotive inventory even to date, it is "necessarily"
" Does the fact that we don't now know everything prove that there are
things we will never know?"
You cannot paste this nonsense onto my neck. However we have limited means
in our mental arsenal - what you may call "material" tools eg. the 'brain'
- which does not imply our capability to collect an unrestricted, limitless
(I almost wrote: infinite)
knowledge-base (=cognitive inventory). Such consideration, however, does
have nothing to do with *proving* what you asked upon the condition you
"Does the fact that a reductionist analysis is incomplete imply that a
wholistic theory is correct?"
Are you asking me, or are you just ironic? So far I did not experience in
your writings logical flaws, I valued your opinion for that. I read in your
sentence an affirmative to the incompleteness of a reductionist analysis, so
we agree. I pointed to this as a flaw that may be deducted from not thinking
Would you be so kind to explain to me what is the 'wholistic theory'? I am
working 'on it' but so far it is only a name - not even an identifiable
"Until 1859 we couldn't explain the origin of species. Should Darwin have
concluded that the problem was insoluble?"
I don't feel like editing good old Chuck,. I did not edit even my
contributing authors when I was editor in chief of Ion Exchange and
Membranes mag. I value DARWIN for his advanced thinking within his era, do
not judge his pre-1859 ideas in our 3rd millennial positions.
I hope I gave a 'civil' response without any aggressivity.
On 12/25/06, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John Mikes wrote:
> On 12/25/06, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[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
> --- Charles Darwin, The Ascent of Man
> > The separately quoted 2nd part of my sentence points to my doubt
> > "physics" (or any other 'science', for that matter) whether they
> > 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*
> Is it? try to compare our (cognitive etc.) inventories of 3000BC,
> 1000AD, 1006AD, and tell me which year did we reach omniscience?
Did I claim that we had reached a complete inventory?? Tell me in which
year did our knowledge cease to increase?
Until 1859 we couldn't explain the origin of species. Should Darwin have
concluded that the problem was insoluble? Does the fact that we don't now
know everything prove that there are things we will never know? Does the
fact that a reductionist analysis is incomplete imply that a wholistic
theory is correct?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at