Mark, a profound THANKS!

I did not reflect lately to your posts (good for you?) because you seemed to
merge into the topics on hand.
Descartes? a funny story. He was under the thumb of the Inquisition-times
and HAD to write idealistically. My version is not so humble as yours: "I
think, therefore I think I am".
Speaking of "HUMBLE" reminds me of HUBBLE you mentioned.
His ingenious (unconfirmed) idea to simulate the redshift with an (optical)
Doppler infected the minds of all 20th c. scientists into an extensive(?)
cosmology religion.  You even dream up a psych metaphor from it. (I like
it).
Accurately: just as those millions of experiments slanted to prove the
BB-related tale led to  'accurate' scientific  conclusions. Circularity: 'I'
design an experiment within the 'expanding' circumstances and indeed find
that the universe expands.(If not: the experiment was wrong).
 With Hubble invoking magnetic/electric (or whatever) fields(?) to slow down
the alleged (= calculated upon primitive measurements) 'wavelength'
(whatever that is) would have altered not only our cosmic, but also the
other -including philosophical- sciences by now.

'Being' anything? maybe 'becoming' part of a process...
Where? space is just a motion-coordinate in our (explanatory) view as time.
Motion (change) is harder to catch.
I agree with describing the universe numerically: if someone takes such
position, it is a fair description - I just don't know "of what".
(Map vs. the territory).

I think you set your goals too high: I want to speculate as well as I can
within the cognitive inventory we achieved by today, irrespective of "the
TRUTH" which is unattainable. So far.

Less-tenaciously yours

John M


On 2/3/07, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>  John, I share your apparent perplexity. No matter which way up I look at
> the things being discussed on this list, I always end up back in the same
> place [and yes it is always 'here' :-] which is that clearly prior to
> anything else is the fact of existence. I have to take this at too levels:
> 1/   firstly as sloganised by Mr R Descartes: 'I think therefore I am',
> although because I am naturally timid I tend more often to say something
> like: 'I think therefore I cannot escape the idea that if I say I don't
> exist it doesn't seem to sound quite right',
> 2/   the macroscopic corollary of the subjective microcosm just mentioned
> is that it I try to assert that nothing exists that just seems to be plain
> wrong, and if I dwell on the situations I find myself in - beset as I am
> with ceaseless domestic responsibilities and work related bureaucratic
> constraints, the clearest simple intuition about it all is that the universe
> exists whether I know it or not.
>
> In short, being anything at all seems to entail being somewhere now, and
> even though numbers and mathematical operations seem to be wonderfully
> effective at representing many aspects of things going on in the world,
> there seems to be no way of knowing if the universe should be described as
> ultimately numeric in nature.
>
> I must say too, that I am finding this and other consciousness/deep and
> meaningful discussion groups somewhat akin to the astronomer Hubble's view
> of the universe; the threads and discourses seem to be expanding away from
> me at great speed, so that every time I try to follow and respond to
> something, everything seems to have proliferated AND gone just that little
> bit further out of reach!
>
> Regards
> Mark Peaty  CDES
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ <http://www.arach.net.au/%7Empeaty/>
>
> John Mikes wrote:
>
> Bruno:
>
> has anybody ever seen "numbers"? (except for Aunt Milly who dreamed up the
> 5 numbers she saw in her dream - for the lottery).
>
> "Where is the universe" - good question, but:
> Has anybody ever seen "Other" universes?
>
> Have we learned or developed (advanced) NOTHING since Pl & Ar?
>
> It is amazing what learned savant scientists posted over the past days.
> Where are they indeed?
>
> John
>
>
>  On 2/1/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Le 29-janv.-07, à 21:33, 1Z a écrit :
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 24 Jan, 11:42, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> Le 23-janv.-07, à 15:59, 1Z a écrit :
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>> Also, nobody has proved the existence of a primitive physical
> > >>>> universe.
> > >>
> > >>> Or of a PlatoniaCall it Platonia, God, Universe, or Glass-of-Beer,
> > >>> we don' t care. But
> > >> we have to bet on a "reality", if we want some progress.
> > >>
> > >> Now, here is what I do. For each lobian machine
> > >
> > > Where are these machines? Platonia?
> >
> >
> >
> > Where is the universe?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > I prefer to assume what I can see.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Fair enough. I think we can sum up the main difference between
> > Platonists and Aristotelians like that:
> >
> > Aristotelians believe in what they see, measure, etc. But platonists
> > believe that what they see is the shadow of the shadow of the shadow
> > ... of what could *perhaps* ultimately exists.
> >
> > The deeper among the simplest argument for platonism, is the dream
> > argument. Indeed, dreaming can help us to take some distance with the
> > idea that seeing justifies beliefs. Put in another way, I believe in
> > what I understand, and I am agnostic (and thus open minded) about
> > everything else.
> >
> > Now to be sure, I am not convinced that someone has ever  "seen"
> > *primary matter*.
> >
> > Bruno
> >
> >

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to