"...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
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Quentin Anciaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
> > 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)
> > ((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
> > do so. You cannot build up unknown complexity from its simple parts -
> > are restricted to the (reduced?) inventory you have - in a synthesis,
> > 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.
> 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