OM - you said - what has been included in the ‘physical universe’ has changed over time. Yes, I agree. But this is only a manifestation of our expanding understanding, is it not? You do not mean that the physical universe is adding matter, evolving laws relating to matter, or even tweaking those laws now operative, do you? If the physical universe (whether expanding, contracting or static) is set, it seems to me that the laws applicable to it, and operative in it, are set too. Thus, as we come to understand more and more, we increase our knowledge of the set universe until, at some point, we understand all those laws. Right? Jim
On Jul 3, 4:22 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > “OM - no, I do not take any of your comments as personal. I see them > as challenging what I proposed, which is the hope I had when I posted > them. Thanks. “ – RJ > > Thank you Jim…beliefs can be tenacious. > > “ … the beleif that there is an ultimate theory ofeverythingis not > mine.” – RJ > > Oh, I understood that Jim. > When I responded earlier “… And, yes, this has been pursued ‘forever’. > However, what has been included in the ‘physical universe’ has changed > over time. So, this notion can be applied to numerous different > levels.” I was including Albert and many other human beings. I wished > to add the less provincial view that what we ‘know’ about the universe > today is not only different from the past, but different from the > future too. In this way, Einstein can be seen within the context of > his pursuit of equations that would ‘explain’ the universe. While > equations can be seen as analogies, they are not that which is being > directly apprehended. So, when you now add that “…It must have been > and be the belief of all those, like Einstein, who chose to devote a > major part of their life to pursuing it….”, what I believe is that > Albert was only talking about a description of how ‘matter’ is…nothing > more. I also believe that his pursuit was along a spiritual one. > > As to your ‘WHAM’ theory, the notion of change happening in jumps is > not new either. In fact, I would subscribe to it, along with a few > others. However, whenever I see the term ‘everything’ associated with > what weknow, I cringe. No, I do not think that we willeverknow > ‘everythingabouteverything’. . . at least not in the context you > appear to be asking the question. > > On Jul 3, 12:54 pm, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > OM - no, I do not take any of your comments as personal. I see them as > > challenging what I proposed, which is the hope I had when I posted > > them. Thanks. > > Now for some specific observations. First the beleif that there > > is an ultimate theory ofeverythingis not mine. It must have been and > > be the belief of all those, like Einstein, who chose to devote a major > > part of their life to pursuing it. > > And about my suggestion that as we approach knowingeverything > > the rate of knowledge increase should gradually decrease - it is just > > and only that, a suggestion. It well may be that we gain knowledge at > > a faster and faster rate until - WHAM - we discover that weknow > >everything, like hitting a wall. > > I'd appreciate your reaction to the central thesis of my post - > > will weeverknoweverythingabouteverything? What do you think? Jim > > > On Jun 27, 5:47 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > “…And as we come toknowthem here faster and faster, at some point it > > > would seem that we willknoweverythingabouteverything…” – RJ > > > > Yes, Jim, this is a common belief. > > > > “…the ultimate theory ofeverything.” – RJ > > > > And, yes, this has been pursued ‘forever’. However, what has been > > > included in the ‘physical universe’ has changed over time. So, this > > > notion can be applied to numerous different levels. > > > > “…If knowingeverythingwere obviously not possible, surely this group > > > would never have begun pursuing that ultimate theory…” – RJ > > > > Well, while an apparently plausible belief Jim, again, it is not based > > > upon anything but that, belief. > > > > “…As we approach knowingeverythingthe rate of knowledge growth will > > > gradually slow. So by monitoring this rate of growth we should be able > > > to predict when we willknoweverything. Right?” – RJ > > > > Surely this is rhetorical. If not, what would such a belief be based > > > upon? > > > And, EVEN if it were accurate, at the beginning of your post you said > > > “..we (mankind) is coming toknow, in a scientific sense, more and > > > more about more and more, and faster and faster…”. So, based upon your > > > first observation, IF any conclusion can be gained, even accepting > > > blindly your last supposition, one would have to conclude that we will > > > neverknoweverything. And, again, even IF we could, the indicators > > > are that such a point in time is far far away. > > > > Please do not take any of the above as personal criticism. I merely am > > > looking at the logic used. > > > > On Jun 27, 1:20 pm, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Looking back over recent decades it seems clear that we (mankind) is > > > > coming toknow, in a scientific sense, more and more about more and > > > > more, and faster and faster. Will thereevercome a time when we will > > > >knoweverythingabouteverything? > > > > I’ve asked a number of people this question, and all say “no.” > > > > But it > > > > seems to me that the correct answer is “yes.” Why? > > > > First, I’m talking about knowing all the scientific laws > > > > governing > > > > the physical universe – nothing more, nothing less. The physical > > > > universe is immense, but finite. Science has long assumed that the > > > > laws governing our small bit of it are universal; they apply > > > > everywhere in the universe just as they apply here. Given then that > > > > the physical universe is finite, it would seem that the laws governing > > > > it are also finite. And as we come toknowthem here faster and > > > > faster, at some point it would seem that we willknoweverythingabout > > > >everything. > > > > This also seems to me to be consistent with what Einstein and > > > > others > > > > have long sought – the ultimate theory ofeverything. (This effort is > > > > well described by Brian Greene in his book The Elegant Universe.) If > > > > knowingeverythingwere obviously not possible, surely this group > > > > would never have begun pursuing that ultimate theory. > > > > How might we tell when we are approaching the point where weknow > > > >everything? I expect the growth of knowledge is gaussian. As we > > > > approach knowingeverythingthe rate of knowledge growth will > > > > gradually slow. So by monitoring this rate of growth we should be able > > > > to predict when we willknoweverything. Right?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" 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/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
