On 30 Dec 2013, at 23:32, John Mikes wrote:

Dear Edgar: allow me not to copy your post the 8th time, just marking the #s of your par-s into my short remarks.

#1
As long as we don't "know" ALL of the (external?) complexity-stuff we cannot claim 'knowledge' of any 'reality',


An (ideal, sober) scientist will *never* claim knowledge of any reality. The very idea that there is a reality satisfying his/her belief is already asking for an act of faith, which is the "religious" part of any exploration.




only quote the so far received part and that, too, as adjusted into our contemporary mental ways. Compare such stuff of today with a similar 'analysis' 3000 years ago... Is 'today' different in the continuing course of past to future? (cf: #5)

#2
I would not mix the (final?) theoretical conclusion with our practical ways of today. We live and so did our forefathers '3000 years ago' (or whenever).

#3
I would not mix the 'final (theoretical?) conclusion' about the entire world into a contemporary human-mind product (our logic).

#4
You (I?) cannot compare the today available portion - and that transformed into human belief - with the entirety of the infinite complexity so I would not mention "truth". Again: compare your contemporary 'truth' concepts with a similar stance - say - of 3000 years ago. Did Ishtarians have the same 'truth'?

#5
Right you are. What was 'true' for UGGH the caveman is different from what you described as 'true' for today. Do you think that 5000 years into the future - if humanity survives that long - our descendants will find the SAME truth as we may identify today?

In science, we do not find "truth" in a sense that we can justify. We can only propose "belief", and with some luck, we can see them refute in the life time. Now, we *can* believe that UGGH find the fire to be hot, and the night to be dark, and that 17 is prime, if we give him/her the definition.




And one more thing: (last par) I would not be so firm that 'our' internal model of reality is representing the 'external' reality at all. We just don't know about that 'external' stuff and our present internal ideas about it are our human fabrications.

They always will be, in the terrestrial plane. It is "universal numbers" fabrication and selection. Even with non-comp, humans are particular case of universal numbers. What you say can be generalized on them. With comp we are not "more", in computability power, than universal numbers, and so their limitation apply to us.



I do not believe it is time to think of a "Final" Theory.

Why? If we don't think about a "final theory" and build it, it will never been refuted, and we will never learn on the "final" thing. I think we can always thing of a "final" theory. What we can never do it is to know it is final. But this we will never know, at least in normal state of consciousness but probably in all state of consciousness in which communication can make sense.
What would be like a better time to think of a "final theory"?

Bruno





John Mikes


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 6:39 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:
All,

In response to the discussion of the possibility of a "Final Theory" I'm starting a new topic on the Nature of Truth since this is an important and separate issue from previous discussions.


1, it is impossible to directly know the external fundamental reality, we know external reality only filtered through the structures of our own minds. What we really know is only our own mental model of external reality which is provably very very different than actual external reality.

2, However we can easily prove that we do know external fundamental reality to an extent sufficient for us to function reasonably effectively within it. If we didn't have some actual true knowledge of external reality we could not even function within it and thus could not exist. So our very existence in actual reality demonstrates we do have some true knowledge of it. (This true knowledge consists of snippets of logical structure rather than the physical world we believe it to be.)

3. External reality is a consistent logical structure. It is computed, and for it to be computed it must follow consistent logical rules.

4. Therefore the only real test of truth is its internal logical consistency over the entire scope of knowledge. We can not directly compare our knowledge to the external world because it is filtered through the structures of our own senses and minds, but we do know that our knowledge is truth to the extent it is internally self- consistent over maximum scope.

5. In fact this is the actual working basis of scientific method, forensics, our successful functioning in daily life and in all human endeavors that seek truth. Namely is the body of knowledge in question internally consistent. If it is not then something is UNtrue.

This is the Consistency Theory of Knowledge. Consistency over maximum scope IS truth, the only truth possible to know.

There is and can be no direct knowledge of truth, there is only consistency.

This applies to all types of truth, from the logical structures in daily life moment to moment, as well as to knowledge of a "Final Theory".


There is however one important exception. Our mental model of reality is part of the actual external reality, and we do have direct knowledge of that. The truth of that is the thing itself. But its truth is an internal mental model of external reality, not the external reality it pretends to be.

Edgar

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to