to know anything truly is all consuming 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 of everything is 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 we know, I cringe. No, I do not think that we will ever know > ‘everything about everything’. . . 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 of everything is 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 knowing everything > > 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 we know > > everything, like hitting a wall. > > I'd appreciate your reaction to the central thesis of my post - > > will we ever know everything about everything? 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
