Re: Theories that explain everything explain nothing
Exatly. The title say all: Theories that explain everything, explain nothing and this is so obvious that all the rest is redundant. 2015-05-14 1:15 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au: As an aside to recent discussions, it is interesting to point out that physics has some of the problems associated with over-confidence in ideas coming from pure intuition too. http://aeon.co/magazine/science/has-cosmology-run-into-a-creative-crisis This article by Ross Anderson in Aeon Magazine surveys some of the recent history of press announcements by leading cosmologists. Believing too strongly in your own pet theory can be a dangerous pastime. Bruce -- 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/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Theories that explain everything explain nothing
On 18 May 2015, at 09:54, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Exatly. The title say all: Theories that explain everything, explain nothing and this is so obvious that all the rest is redundant. Explain is too much fuzzy. In physics people would be happy to unify the quantum and relativity, by a simple formula, and at the time of newton, Laplace, people where not that wrong to assume that F = ma = GMM'/r^2 explains everything as it explained and unify the astronomy of the time, which is a lot. But OK, like the greeks intutited, the idea is to find the first basic unifying principle, and got an explanation of the why, the how, and why it hurts, and may be how to reduce harm, etc. Once you understand that no machine's soul can prove the existence of some ONE, I identify the fundamental science with theology, as it needs an initial act of faith: to believe in something above the impressions. Theology is born science, and it is only superstition and greed which made us forget that. It is the *search* of truth. With comp, we know already that we have to be skeptical in front of those claiming to know it. Bruno 2015-05-14 1:15 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au: As an aside to recent discussions, it is interesting to point out that physics has some of the problems associated with over- confidence in ideas coming from pure intuition too. http://aeon.co/magazine/science/has-cosmology-run-into-a-creative-crisis This article by Ross Anderson in Aeon Magazine surveys some of the recent history of press announcements by leading cosmologists. Believing too strongly in your own pet theory can be a dangerous pastime. Bruce -- 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/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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/d/optout. 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/d/optout.
Re: Theories that explain everything explain nothing
On 16 May 2015 at 11:35, Colin Hales col.ha...@gmail.com wrote: You've done it again. There could be 1000 mathematical abstractions (not simple) that, as a depiction of reality, may reveal a process called scientific observation. Comp *assumes* that the conscious observer is a type of computation. Originally it assumes that this computation issoftware running inside the brain. (Later it finds that this assumption leads to an apparent contradiction.) This is a reasonable assumption used by a large number of other scientists. It seems like a very simple, straightforward starting point for an attempt to create a theory of consciousness. So what are the other 999 ways in which a conscious observer could be defined? -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Theories that explain everything explain nothing
On 16 May 2015, at 01:35, Colin Hales wrote: You've done it again. ? There could be 1000 mathematical abstractions (not simple) that, as a depiction of reality, may reveal a process called scientific observation. You think that abstraction is an instance of scientific observation. ? I say that this entire comp argument is about confusing the two things. All you ever do is write ^*^$^%#$12324op][][][][ descriptions and endlessly discuss that confusion. 0) Reality. 1) Descriptions of how it appears (observations) 2) Descriptions of what it is made of (including how observation works). No, this is precisely not confused. Roughly reality is the truth of p, description of how it appears is given by []p t (with p restricted to sigma_1 proposition). And nothing is made of something, as we lost the Aristotelian sort of substances. What you endlessly reiterate is one of a 1000 item 2). I don't think so. You might have missed the basic ideas. In order to talk to you I have to make the same mistakes as you and I won't do that. Look. I am so over this. Just forget I ever said anything. Too late. I proceed deductively. It is a question of saying what it is that don't understand, as it seems that you are using the hypothesis of computationalism (or are you postulating actual infinities or non computable process in the brain?) Bruno On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 15 May 2015, at 00:44, colin hales wrote: Your suggestion presupposes a limit to reach that we don't necessarily have to assume. Theories of everything but the scientific observer (what tends to be called a TOE historically) In the aristotelian picture. In the beginning it meant only unification of the known force and objects. In this list, we take into account consciousness and the first person points of view. and Theories of everything including the scientific observer.( what I am suggesting as a real TOE) Like Comp and Everett already. Arithmetic or any universal system (in the CT sense) allows that, and much more, by the closure for the diagonalization. Can be different categories of scientific account. The arithmetical hypostases. The same sigma_1 reality, viewed by 8 points of viewed, multiplied by aleph_0, if not aleph_1 in the first- person delay-amnesia limit. Find the way that this can be the case and you have solved the problem. You have begun, only. Comp makes it mathematical, and it is not simple. Confuse the two and become part of the problem. Fail to realize there are two theory categories and you are also part of the problem. This dual-'theory' state is a Comp-agnostic position and forms a place from which arguments about COMP get clarity. The magic of COMP being true occurs when the two kinds are identities. Under what conditions might that be? Hmm... You seem to intuit, or understood the key things: - that the universal numbers can prove p - []p, for the p in the sigma_1 reality, - but that they cannot yet identify p and []p, because the other side: []p - p is still what they can only pray for, or work for. Rhetorical question intended to provoke a bit of thought. The first post which I can understand! G1 proves p - []p G1* \ G1 proves []p - p. Best, Bruno Cheers Colin From: John Mikes Sent: 15/05/2015 7:32 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Theories that explain everything explain nothing Colin: wouldn't it fit to call TOE - Theory of Everything WE KNOW ABOUT? or: Everything in our reach? I mentioned my agnostic views. Greetings John Mikes On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 8:40 PM, colin hales col.ha...@gmail.com wrote: emoji_u1f60a.png Perhaps better All posited (so far) scientific TOE are actually wrongly named. They would be correctly named: Theories predicting how the universe appears to an assumed scientific observer inside it Or maybe Theories of everything except the scientific observer By Scientific observer I mean consciousness... What scientific observation uses/is. From here you might ask yourself what a scientist would be doing if they _were_ explaining the scientific observer (consciousness). For whatever that is, it's not a member of the set of the kind of science outcomes in which these so-called TOE sit, smugly claiming everything while actually failing without realizing. Cheers Colin From: Bruce Kellett Sent: 14/05/2015 9:15 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Theories that explain everything explain nothing As an aside to recent discussions, it is interesting to point out that physics has some of the problems associated with over-confidence in ideas coming from pure intuition too. http://aeon.co/magazine/science/has-cosmology-run-into-a-creative-crisis This article by Ross Anderson in Aeon Magazine surveys some of the recent history
Re: Theories that explain everything explain nothing
Thanks, Colin. I just wonder why scientific observer? Your parenthetic Observer ( i.e. consciousness, IMO a respondent to relations) has nothing to do with (our) 'science' based on today's levels of knwoledge. I appreciate your excempting 'ourselves' (the human observer) from a TOE. Cheers John On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 8:40 PM, colin hales col.ha...@gmail.com wrote: [image: ] Perhaps better All posited (so far) scientific TOE are actually wrongly named. They would be correctly named: Theories predicting how the universe appears to an assumed scientific observer inside it Or maybe Theories of everything except the scientific observer By Scientific observer I mean consciousness... What scientific observation uses/is. From here you might ask yourself what a scientist would be doing if they _were_ explaining the scientific observer (consciousness). For whatever that is, it's not a member of the set of the kind of science outcomes in which these so-called TOE sit, smugly claiming everything while actually failing without realizing. Cheers Colin -- From: Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au Sent: 14/05/2015 9:15 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Theories that explain everything explain nothing As an aside to recent discussions, it is interesting to point out that physics has some of the problems associated with over-confidence in ideas coming from pure intuition too. http://aeon.co/magazine/science/has-cosmology-run-into-a-creative-crisis This article by Ross Anderson in Aeon Magazine surveys some of the recent history of press announcements by leading cosmologists. Believing too strongly in your own pet theory can be a dangerous pastime. Bruce -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Theories that explain everything explain nothing
On Wed, May 13, 2015 colin hales col.ha...@gmail.com wrote: Theories of everything except the scientific observer The only reason I think Everett's Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is the best one is that unlike the competition Everett doesn't have to explain what a observation or a observer or consciousness is because none of that has anything to do with it. By Scientific observer I mean consciousness In science you explain A in terms of B and explain B in terms of C and so on, but do you think the chain of explain this questions goes on forever or does it eventually terminate with a brute fact? If it does terminate I think a likely place for it to do so is consciousness is the way data feels like when it is being processed, and after that there is nothing more that can be usefully said about it. John K Clark -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Theories that explain everything explain nothing
You've done it again. There could be 1000 mathematical abstractions (not simple) that, as a depiction of reality, may reveal a process called scientific observation. You think that abstraction is an instance of scientific observation. I say that this entire comp argument is about confusing the two things. All you ever do is write ^*^$^%#$12324op][][][][ descriptions and endlessly discuss that confusion. 0) Reality. 1) Descriptions of how it appears (observations) 2) Descriptions of what it is made of (including how observation works). What you endlessly reiterate is one of a 1000 item 2). In order to talk to you I have to make the same mistakes as you and I won't do that. Look. I am so over this. Just forget I ever said anything. On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 15 May 2015, at 00:44, colin hales wrote: Your suggestion presupposes a limit to reach that we don't necessarily have to assume. Theories of everything but the scientific observer (what tends to be called a TOE historically) In the aristotelian picture. In the beginning it meant only unification of the known force and objects. In this list, we take into account consciousness and the first person points of view. and Theories of everything including the scientific observer.( what I am suggesting as a real TOE) Like Comp and Everett already. Arithmetic or any universal system (in the CT sense) allows that, and much more, by the closure for the diagonalization. Can be different categories of scientific account. The arithmetical hypostases. The same sigma_1 reality, viewed by 8 points of viewed, multiplied by aleph_0, if not aleph_1 in the first-person delay-amnesia limit. Find the way that this can be the case and you have solved the problem. You have begun, only. Comp makes it mathematical, and it is not simple. Confuse the two and become part of the problem. Fail to realize there are two theory categories and you are also part of the problem. This dual-'theory' state is a Comp-agnostic position and forms a place from which arguments about COMP get clarity. The magic of COMP being true occurs when the two kinds are identities. Under what conditions might that be? Hmm... You seem to intuit, or understood the key things: - that the universal numbers can prove p - []p, for the p in the sigma_1 reality, - but that they cannot yet identify p and []p, because the other side: []p - p is still what they can only pray for, or work for. Rhetorical question intended to provoke a bit of thought. The first post which I can understand! G1 proves p - []p G1* \ G1 proves []p - p. Best, Bruno Cheers Colin -- From: John Mikes jami...@gmail.com Sent: 15/05/2015 7:32 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Theories that explain everything explain nothing Colin: wouldn't it fit to call TOE - Theory of Everything WE KNOW ABOUT? or: Everything in our reach? I mentioned my agnostic views. Greetings John Mikes On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 8:40 PM, colin hales col.ha...@gmail.com wrote: emoji_u1f60a.png Perhaps better All posited (so far) scientific TOE are actually wrongly named. They would be correctly named: Theories predicting how the universe appears to an assumed scientific observer inside it Or maybe Theories of everything except the scientific observer By Scientific observer I mean consciousness... What scientific observation uses/is. From here you might ask yourself what a scientist would be doing if they _were_ explaining the scientific observer (consciousness). For whatever that is, it's not a member of the set of the kind of science outcomes in which these so-called TOE sit, smugly claiming everything while actually failing without realizing. Cheers Colin -- From: Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au Sent: 14/05/2015 9:15 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Theories that explain everything explain nothing As an aside to recent discussions, it is interesting to point out that physics has some of the problems associated with over-confidence in ideas coming from pure intuition too. http://aeon.co/magazine/science/has-cosmology-run-into-a-creative-crisis This article by Ross Anderson in Aeon Magazine surveys some of the recent history of press announcements by leading cosmologists. Believing too strongly in your own pet theory can be a dangerous pastime. Bruce -- 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
Re: Theories that explain everything explain nothing
On 14 May 2015, at 23:32, John Mikes wrote: Colin: wouldn't it fit to call TOE - Theory of Everything WE KNOW ABOUT? or: Everything in our reach? I mentioned my agnostic views. Everything in our reach would be []p, and its many intensional variants. You need to bet on the reach, and that there is something to reach, which you never know. As far as I can understand Colin, he confuses p and p. Consciousness has a relation with both the first person, and the observers. By definition, the mystical tries to intuit what is beyond the reach. He is *that* curious. Then some theories can give pictures, which can be true or false, and some can be tested, and if refuted, we can progress, *toward* the truth beyond the reach. Bruno Greetings John Mikes On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 8:40 PM, colin hales col.ha...@gmail.com wrote: emoji_u1f60a.png Perhaps better All posited (so far) scientific TOE are actually wrongly named. They would be correctly named: Theories predicting how the universe appears to an assumed scientific observer inside it Or maybe Theories of everything except the scientific observer By Scientific observer I mean consciousness... What scientific observation uses/is. From here you might ask yourself what a scientist would be doing if they _were_ explaining the scientific observer (consciousness). For whatever that is, it's not a member of the set of the kind of science outcomes in which these so-called TOE sit, smugly claiming everything while actually failing without realizing. Cheers Colin From: Bruce Kellett Sent: 14/05/2015 9:15 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Theories that explain everything explain nothing As an aside to recent discussions, it is interesting to point out that physics has some of the problems associated with over-confidence in ideas coming from pure intuition too. http://aeon.co/magazine/science/has-cosmology-run-into-a-creative-crisis This article by Ross Anderson in Aeon Magazine surveys some of the recent history of press announcements by leading cosmologists. Believing too strongly in your own pet theory can be a dangerous pastime. Bruce -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. 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/d/optout.
Re: Theories that explain everything explain nothing
On 15 May 2015, at 00:44, colin hales wrote: Your suggestion presupposes a limit to reach that we don't necessarily have to assume. Theories of everything but the scientific observer (what tends to be called a TOE historically) In the aristotelian picture. In the beginning it meant only unification of the known force and objects. In this list, we take into account consciousness and the first person points of view. and Theories of everything including the scientific observer.( what I am suggesting as a real TOE) Like Comp and Everett already. Arithmetic or any universal system (in the CT sense) allows that, and much more, by the closure for the diagonalization. Can be different categories of scientific account. The arithmetical hypostases. The same sigma_1 reality, viewed by 8 points of viewed, multiplied by aleph_0, if not aleph_1 in the first- person delay-amnesia limit. Find the way that this can be the case and you have solved the problem. You have begun, only. Comp makes it mathematical, and it is not simple. Confuse the two and become part of the problem. Fail to realize there are two theory categories and you are also part of the problem. This dual-'theory' state is a Comp-agnostic position and forms a place from which arguments about COMP get clarity. The magic of COMP being true occurs when the two kinds are identities. Under what conditions might that be? Hmm... You seem to intuit, or understood the key things: - that the universal numbers can prove p - []p, for the p in the sigma_1 reality, - but that they cannot yet identify p and []p, because the other side: []p - p is still what they can only pray for, or work for. Rhetorical question intended to provoke a bit of thought. The first post which I can understand! G1 proves p - []p G1* \ G1 proves []p - p. Best, Bruno Cheers Colin From: John Mikes Sent: 15/05/2015 7:32 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Theories that explain everything explain nothing Colin: wouldn't it fit to call TOE - Theory of Everything WE KNOW ABOUT? or: Everything in our reach? I mentioned my agnostic views. Greetings John Mikes On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 8:40 PM, colin hales col.ha...@gmail.com wrote: emoji_u1f60a.png Perhaps better All posited (so far) scientific TOE are actually wrongly named. They would be correctly named: Theories predicting how the universe appears to an assumed scientific observer inside it Or maybe Theories of everything except the scientific observer By Scientific observer I mean consciousness... What scientific observation uses/is. From here you might ask yourself what a scientist would be doing if they _were_ explaining the scientific observer (consciousness). For whatever that is, it's not a member of the set of the kind of science outcomes in which these so-called TOE sit, smugly claiming everything while actually failing without realizing. Cheers Colin From: Bruce Kellett Sent: 14/05/2015 9:15 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Theories that explain everything explain nothing As an aside to recent discussions, it is interesting to point out that physics has some of the problems associated with over-confidence in ideas coming from pure intuition too. http://aeon.co/magazine/science/has-cosmology-run-into-a-creative-crisis This article by Ross Anderson in Aeon Magazine surveys some of the recent history of press announcements by leading cosmologists. Believing too strongly in your own pet theory can be a dangerous pastime. Bruce -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed
Re: Theories that explain everything explain nothing
Colin: wouldn't it fit to call TOE - Theory of Everything WE KNOW ABOUT? or: Everything in our reach? I mentioned my agnostic views. Greetings John Mikes On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 8:40 PM, colin hales col.ha...@gmail.com wrote: [image: ] Perhaps better All posited (so far) scientific TOE are actually wrongly named. They would be correctly named: Theories predicting how the universe appears to an assumed scientific observer inside it Or maybe Theories of everything except the scientific observer By Scientific observer I mean consciousness... What scientific observation uses/is. From here you might ask yourself what a scientist would be doing if they _were_ explaining the scientific observer (consciousness). For whatever that is, it's not a member of the set of the kind of science outcomes in which these so-called TOE sit, smugly claiming everything while actually failing without realizing. Cheers Colin -- From: Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au Sent: 14/05/2015 9:15 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Theories that explain everything explain nothing As an aside to recent discussions, it is interesting to point out that physics has some of the problems associated with over-confidence in ideas coming from pure intuition too. http://aeon.co/magazine/science/has-cosmology-run-into-a-creative-crisis This article by Ross Anderson in Aeon Magazine surveys some of the recent history of press announcements by leading cosmologists. Believing too strongly in your own pet theory can be a dangerous pastime. Bruce -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Theories that explain everything explain nothing
:-) Theories of everything except the scientific observer TOEETSO yuck. Theory of appearances only . TAO Theory of Appearances TOA. (homophone!) I have a TAO of doubt that TOEs are TOE. cheers colin On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 7:39 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Now you just need a cool acronym. :-) On 15 May 2015 at 09:32, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Colin: wouldn't it fit to call TOE - Theory of Everything WE KNOW ABOUT? or: Everything in our reach? I mentioned my agnostic views. Greetings John Mikes On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 8:40 PM, colin hales col.ha...@gmail.com wrote: [image: ] Perhaps better All posited (so far) scientific TOE are actually wrongly named. They would be correctly named: Theories predicting how the universe appears to an assumed scientific observer inside it Or maybe Theories of everything except the scientific observer By Scientific observer I mean consciousness... What scientific observation uses/is. From here you might ask yourself what a scientist would be doing if they _were_ explaining the scientific observer (consciousness). For whatever that is, it's not a member of the set of the kind of science outcomes in which these so-called TOE sit, smugly claiming everything while actually failing without realizing. Cheers Colin -- From: Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au Sent: 14/05/2015 9:15 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Theories that explain everything explain nothing As an aside to recent discussions, it is interesting to point out that physics has some of the problems associated with over-confidence in ideas coming from pure intuition too. http://aeon.co/magazine/science/has-cosmology-run-into-a-creative-crisis This article by Ross Anderson in Aeon Magazine surveys some of the recent history of press announcements by leading cosmologists. Believing too strongly in your own pet theory can be a dangerous pastime. Bruce -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Theories that explain everything explain nothing
Now you just need a cool acronym. :-) On 15 May 2015 at 09:32, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Colin: wouldn't it fit to call TOE - Theory of Everything WE KNOW ABOUT? or: Everything in our reach? I mentioned my agnostic views. Greetings John Mikes On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 8:40 PM, colin hales col.ha...@gmail.com wrote: [image: ] Perhaps better All posited (so far) scientific TOE are actually wrongly named. They would be correctly named: Theories predicting how the universe appears to an assumed scientific observer inside it Or maybe Theories of everything except the scientific observer By Scientific observer I mean consciousness... What scientific observation uses/is. From here you might ask yourself what a scientist would be doing if they _were_ explaining the scientific observer (consciousness). For whatever that is, it's not a member of the set of the kind of science outcomes in which these so-called TOE sit, smugly claiming everything while actually failing without realizing. Cheers Colin -- From: Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au Sent: 14/05/2015 9:15 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Theories that explain everything explain nothing As an aside to recent discussions, it is interesting to point out that physics has some of the problems associated with over-confidence in ideas coming from pure intuition too. http://aeon.co/magazine/science/has-cosmology-run-into-a-creative-crisis This article by Ross Anderson in Aeon Magazine surveys some of the recent history of press announcements by leading cosmologists. Believing too strongly in your own pet theory can be a dangerous pastime. Bruce -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
RE: Theories that explain everything explain nothing
Your suggestion presupposes a limit to reach that we don't necessarily have to assume. Theories of everything but the scientific observer (what tends to be called a TOE historically) and Theories of everything including the scientific observer.( what I am suggesting as a real TOE) Can be different categories of scientific account. Find the way that this can be the case and you have solved the problem. Confuse the two and become part of the problem. Fail to realize there are two theory categories and you are also part of the problem. This dual-'theory' state is a Comp-agnostic position and forms a place from which arguments about COMP get clarity. The magic of COMP being true occurs when the two kinds are identities. Under what conditions might that be? Rhetorical question intended to provoke a bit of thought. Cheers Colin -Original Message- From: John Mikes jami...@gmail.com Sent: 15/05/2015 7:32 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Theories that explain everything explain nothing Colin: wouldn't it fit to call TOE - Theory of Everything WE KNOW ABOUT? or: Everything in our reach? I mentioned my agnostic views. Greetings John Mikes On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 8:40 PM, colin hales col.ha...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps better All posited (so far) scientific TOE are actually wrongly named. They would be correctly named: Theories predicting how the universe appears to an assumed scientific observer inside it Or maybe Theories of everything except the scientific observer By Scientific observer I mean consciousness... What scientific observation uses/is. From here you might ask yourself what a scientist would be doing if they _were_ explaining the scientific observer (consciousness). For whatever that is, it's not a member of the set of the kind of science outcomes in which these so-called TOE sit, smugly claiming everything while actually failing without realizing. Cheers Colin From: Bruce Kellett Sent: 14/05/2015 9:15 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Theories that explain everything explain nothing As an aside to recent discussions, it is interesting to point out that physics has some of the problems associated with over-confidence in ideas coming from pure intuition too. http://aeon.co/magazine/science/has-cosmology-run-into-a-creative-crisis This article by Ross Anderson in Aeon Magazine surveys some of the recent history of press announcements by leading cosmologists. Believing too strongly in your own pet theory can be a dangerous pastime. Bruce -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
RE: Theories that explain everything explain nothing
Perhaps better All posited (so far) scientific TOE are actually wrongly named. They would be correctly named: Theories predicting how the universe appears to an assumed scientific observer inside it Or maybe Theories of everything except the scientific observer By Scientific observer I mean consciousness... What scientific observation uses/is. From here you might ask yourself what a scientist would be doing if they _were_ explaining the scientific observer (consciousness). For whatever that is, it's not a member of the set of the kind of science outcomes in which these so-called TOE sit, smugly claiming everything while actually failing without realizing. Cheers Colin -Original Message- From: Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au Sent: 14/05/2015 9:15 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Theories that explain everything explain nothing As an aside to recent discussions, it is interesting to point out that physics has some of the problems associated with over-confidence in ideas coming from pure intuition too. http://aeon.co/magazine/science/has-cosmology-run-into-a-creative-crisis This article by Ross Anderson in Aeon Magazine surveys some of the recent history of press announcements by leading cosmologists. Believing too strongly in your own pet theory can be a dangerous pastime. Bruce -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
