On Sep 25, 2011, at 11:58 AM, John Mikes <[email protected]> wrote:
Jason:
two 'naive' replies to your (excellent in it's riet) post: - I
interject in bold Italics
John M
Thank you.
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Jason Resch <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:09 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]>
wrote:
"A theory that can explain anything, fails to explain at all."
A few people on this list have repeated this sentiment, but I wonder
if it is really so. If there were an oracle that could provide an
explanation for any question asked of it, should we conclude this
oracle fails to explain anything at all? If not, then what is the
difference between a theory that could explain anything and an
oracle that could explain anything?
ANYTHING includes the opposite as well. If the 'theory' explains
'everything and its opposite(s) equally - it is of no use. That's
plain common sense.
I agree if the theory had contradictions it would be an invalid
theory. But it seems what you mean by "explain" is shorthand for
"explain the existence of". If a thing does not exist is it really a
thing, and if not, does it require an explaination? Perhaps the only
explanation such a "thing" deserves is why it does not exist.
Physicists spend their lives searching for a physical TOE that could
in principal explain anything that happens in this universe. Is
their search in vain because this TOE would explain nothing at all?
What kind of 'TOE' would have searched physicitst BEFORE Galvani,
Pasteur, Copernicus, or M. Curie? Epistemology serves the increase
of our knowledge.
Would YOU (today) call our knowledge a 'TOE'?
No. And even given a unification if the forces we would still have
many mathematical questions unanswered, we would still ask "why these
laws?", and still wonder about higher level phenomena like sociology
and economics.
so why are you upset that TODAY'S "TOE" does not include those
learnables that will emerge in the future only? - Do you claim
omniscience as of today?
No, I offered it only as an example of a theory which could in theory
answer any physical question.
A final thought, are theories that propose the existence of
everything, really theories that can explain anything?
As an agnostic in sciences (our capacity of knowledge) I cannot
believe that humans EVER will know EVERYTHING.
I agree with this.
Your hypothetical TOE will include the explanation of 'elements'
that are controversial with a negative explanation.
Of course NOT in our present (human) imagination (conventional
sciences).
Sorry for my mental modesty <G>.
Thanks.
Jason
Jason
John
--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
--
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
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
