On 12/25/06, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
... > > > JM: > Are you sure there is NO [unlimited] impredicative - non > (Turing-emulable), all encompassing interrelatedness? (which I did not > call a "whole") Sorry. You called it a "totality".
Thanx, makes a difference. I consider a "whole" identified (maybe it is my feeble English). Is it an essential point:
and which sure is not 'the whole' with 'everything > included into its boundaries', eo ipso NOT a "whole". No I am empathically *not* sure - but I agree with Darwin who wrote, "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science". --- Charles Darwin, The Ascent of Man > > 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. It is only your opinion that the inventory is *necessarily* incomplete.
Is it? try to compare our (cognitive etc.) inventories of 3000BC, 1000AD, 1006AD, and tell me which year did we reach omniscience? John Brent Meeker
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---