On 12/25/06, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John Mikes wrote: > Tom Caylor wrote: > > This looks like Tarski's trick to me. It is an act of faith any time > > we take what we say as truth. > On 12/24/06, *Brent Meeker* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > "When I take what I say to be true based on evidence it is not a matter > of faith" > JM: > it is based on your faith in your evidence and its truth. A religious > person accepts as evidence "God said so" - of course it is based on HIS > faith, and so are physicists evidencing by collapse of wave function, > .by calculations on the inflation after the BB, and other kind of > 'scientists' (believing) in the tenets of their (today's) science, just > as (in Ptolemy-time) on the flatness of the Earth. > > Tom Caylor wrote: > >This is unsupported without an ultimate > > Person who gives the ultimate source of bringing truth into existence > > through words. > BM: > "This is pure magic mongering - as though some special "ultimate" person > can bring something into existence by words." > JM: > Unless you have 'faith' in that "ultimate person"<G> - I take Brent's > side here. > * > BM: > Critics of reductionism ignore the contrary process of > synthesis. Physics does not *just* reduce things to atoms, it also > shows how things are synthesized from atoms and their relations. > JM: > "relations" is a big word (Do you have a good meaning for it?) Multi-place predicates. Note that some physicists (David Mermin, Carlo Rovelli) propose that we formulate quantum mechanics as "relations without relata".
JM: Cute proposal. Paraphrase: Interconnection between 2 nothings? Or: functions without substrate? Or abstracted: efficiency without effect?
IMO it > includes the impredicative - non computable interrelatedness of the > totality we cannot include into our limited reductionist models. Just because our models are limited does not justify the conclusion that there are things that cannot be modelled.
JM: and who's conclusion is that? not mine. Please read carefully: " we cannot include [the unlimited totality] into our limited reductionist models." That allows for everything to be (limitedly) modeled.
Nor > can "physics" consider all of it in a 'synthetic' opposite. All of what? Are you sure there is a "whole"?
JM: Are you sure there is NO [unlimited] impredicative - non (Turing-emulable), all encompassing interrelatedness? (which I did not call a "whole") and which sure is not 'the whole' with 'everything included into its boundaries', eo ipso NOT a "whole". The separately quoted 2nd part of my sentence points to my doubt about "physics" (or any other 'science', for that matter) whether they are capable in a 'synthetic' effort to encompass ALL interrelations into a buildup step when many of them still may be undiscovered?. A reductionist 'synthesis' works on the available inventory and ends up with an "Aris-Total"-like incompleteness (i.e. that the 'total' is more than the 'sum' of the parts.). Just as a reductionist analysis is inventory-related and so incomplete.
I consider
> Stathis's words on his "chemistry" as his domain-concept of relations > between people etc., otherwise I would have argued (on my turf) about > chemistry's "occurrence" vs our figment how to depict and explain into > patterns (even drawn into 2D formulation upon the atomic illusions in > chem. science) the figment we have about certain primitively observed > phenomena. All in the sense of "physical" edifice-evidence we have > ""FAITH"" in. I cant' discern any meaning in that.
JM: so noted. Stathis P, to whom this par refers to maybe can. If you kindly specify elements you would like to read more about, I will happily oblige (if I can). Brent Meeker John Mikes
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
