humans ascertaining universal laws. Philosophically and even on a common sense level, such an assumption is fraught with difficulties. Dragons be here!!! :-)
Dragons only for those who have not ascertained universal laws and thus, cannot understand. This may be the leap from rational to transnational, relative to absolute. Very difficult to discuss with those who have not seen the leap possible or made it themselves. Of course, once you see it as possible, and get the one taste (Ken Wilber) you will be continually called to make the leap until you until you can hear the call and make the leap. Perception is the key. If we view the universe with set laws, our universe will operate in this way for us. If we see the universe as creative, responsive, specific and absolute, it will operate in this way for us. Conversation between those two views may create dragons. On Jul 4, 3:27 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > “But this is only a manifestation of our expanding understanding, is > it not?” – rj > > Not quite Jim. I would say that our understanding has changed, true. > Also, from many perspectives, it can be seen as ‘expanded’. Of course, > I can’t know for sure because as much as I’ve studied the cosmological > views of ancient cultures, few if anyone today knows what their full > thinking on the topic was. > > Also, built into your question is the base assumption that we know > more, as in a more accurate view, than those in the past did. Again, > while it can be viewed this way, personally, I don’t know the full > story here. I am sure that some used to use superstition, a form of > ignorance, to fill in their views. On the other hand, many today do > the same. I would have to assume that you are referring specifically > to generally accepted cosmological views of today. Of course, this > doesn’t exist. There is argumentation among the ‘professionals’ about > much of reality and I’m not talking about simple philosophical > argumentation alone here either. > Overall, I do agree that what we ‘see’ today is different. > > “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?” – rj > > No, this wasn’t my intention Jim. First, the notion of ‘adding matter’ > would/could be an entire paper in itself. Secondly, the universe > doesn’t ‘evolve laws’, does it? Oh, I guess some find a changing > universe and some personify this universe. However, I’ll guess you are > not meaning ‘laws’ in the sense of an analysis and conclusion for > prediction that humans use here. If I’m wrong, please clarify. And as > to ‘tweaking…laws now operative’, you would have to provide a list for > me to know for sure what you are asking. Please understand I’m not > attempting to be oblique. I merely wish to be sure what you are > assuming with your questions so that my responses can address that > directly rather than merely projecting upon your words. > > “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.” – rj > > This is a very large assumption Jim. And, I do appreciate you being > up front with it. > My insights about appearances are not quite of the magnitude to be > able to make such a blanket statement. I do guess that there are > specific ‘laws’. What they are and how they apply to non-humans is > another story. Delving a little deeper, I find that what we observe, > whether static or changing, has been understood by humans in different > realms and at different levels. Again, assuming the current > ‘scientific’ analysis, even this seems to change in jumps. Most who > adhere to the tenets of science are proud that how things are > understood/seen changes all the time. > > “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?” – rj > > Jim, for argumentation only, since you ask, no, not right. Not right > at all. First, an increase in quantity has nothing to do with an > increase in quality, some theories aside. Secondly, you appear to > conflate understand and knowledge so I will waffle until I grasp your > use of terms better. While some arguments against it have been found, > an analogy to what you suggest can be found in one of Zeno’s more > famous paradoxes. You know, the one that says that if an arrow is shot > towards a specific target, at a given point in time, it can be > measured as having gone half way there. Then half again. Then half > again etc. Thus always having at least half of the remaining distance > to travel and never arriving. Yes, I know, not a concrete and lucid > example, but one for fodder. > > Not wishing to end on such a weak argument, I’ll just add that you are > talking about humans ascertaining universal laws. Philosophically and > even on a common sense level, such an assumption is fraught with > difficulties. Dragons be here!!! :-) > > On Jul 4, 9:01 am, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
