Qhentin wrote:
"...It sounds like a bit like 'we can't know what is the ultimate real
(truth ?) at all',..."

 - - - RIGHT - - -

We have a *partial* info of the - what could be called - *reality,* even
that in our own interpretation (fitting our mental capabilities) what I call
(after Colin Hales' mini-solipsism) a "perceived reality"  - still NOT  the
(real?)  TRUTH. Not even a 'perceived one'. (Whose truth?)

Your defeatist pessimism in the 2nd par is true, but don't give up:
with that ignorance what we proudly call knowledge we came a long road from
the blue-green algae. Or from what some may call Big Bang.
I love your poetic PS-line, except for basing it on *time* - an attribute of
*our* -* who is that *-  (ignorant? ha ha) scientific worldview-figment in
this  universe.


On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Quentin Anciaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi,
> 2008/8/20 John Mikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Brent wrote:
> > "...But if one can reconstruct "the rest of the world" from these simpler
> > domains, so much the better that they are simple...."
> >
> > Paraphrased (facetiously): you have a painting of a landscape with
> > mountains, river, people, animals, sky and plants. Call that 'the
> totality'
> > and select the animals as your model (disregarding the rest) even you
> > continue by Occam - reject the non-4-legged ones, to make it (even)
> simpler.
> > ((All you have is some beasts in a frame))
> > Now try to "reconstruct" the 'rest of the total' ONLY from those remnant
> > 'model-elements' dreaming up (?) mountains, sunshine, river etc. from
> > nowhere, not even from your nonexisting fantasy, or even(2!) as you say:
> > from the Occam-simple, i.e. as you say: from those few 4-legged animals,
> -
> > to make it even simpler.
> > Good luck.
> > You must be a 'creator', or a 'cheater', having at least seen the total
> to
> > do so. You cannot build up unknown complexity from its simple parts  -
>  you
> > are restricted to the (reduced?) inventory you have - in a synthesis,
> (while
> > in the analysis you can restrict yourself to a choice of it. )
> >
> > John
> >
> It sounds like a bit like 'we can't know what is the ultimate real
> (truth ?) at all', and can only have a restricted/erroneous view on it
> because the real is not the views we have on it... our real models
> are, the real itself isn't. It's not the model and cannot be equate to
> it. But we can only apprehend reality through a model/representation
> we have in our mind.
> Then it is not even false to say  'we can't know in an absolute sense
> what is the ultimate real', but whatever the real real is, if this
> real real thing is not modelisable nor thinkable (in an absolute
> sense), then there is no sense of wondering or speaking of it, we
> can't know what can't be known by definition.
> Quentin
> --
> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
> >

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 

Reply via email to