"...Conversation between those two views may create dragons. " - MB
All too true! Mind's Eye is an excellent example, no? I hope you were using the indefinite 'you' in your admonition to 'see' stuff because I presented 'dragons' knowing that many here would debate against either a relative or an absolute ontological view. In fact, both consubstantially are the case. On Jul 10, 6:41 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
