On 5/24/2010 6:08 AM, John Mikes wrote:
Stathis,
you seemed bored: you jumped into assigning a bit more to my text than
it really contained:
_/"...saying that we can know nothing about it at all..."/
_
what I did not say. I spoke about a 'hypothetical' functioning of the
world (read the/ 'imagining*_"it")_*/
and it refers to how we explain 'it' (i.e. whatever we 'got' -
explaining rightly or wrongly).
Bruno assumes that we are digitalizable machines - eo ipso numbers are
'in' for him. A religious devotee assumes that we are God's creations
- with all pertinent explanations and combinations.
I assume "we don't know".
The 'system' what conventional sciences developed over the past
millennia is not so perfect, in spite of all the technology we
developed. There are faults (due to imperfections). paradoxes and -
"mind boggling". We reached such a complicated (complex?) level that
nobody dares to start from anew in looking into all the facets
believed to be "true".
That would be a futile way to proceed. There are too many facts and
"looking into them" requires assuming other facts and theories. So the
usual procedure is to hypothesize a new theory and see if it (a) agrees
with all the 'known' facts and (b) predicts some new fact. If it
disagrees with some 'known' fact then we can look into that fact to see
if maybe it isn't as factual as we thought. If it predicts something
new that is found to be a fact, this counts very strongly for the new
theory since we think it unlikely that such a prediction could pan out
by chance. I'd say that's the scheme Bruno is following, it's just
difficult to infer some new facts from his theory that can be tested.
Brent
Theories are sacrosanct, the network is all encompassing and we still
do not know a lot of the basics. We assume them. And build on that.
John M
On 5/24/10, *Stathis Papaioannou* <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 24 May 2010 01:12, John Mikes <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Stathis,
> I hate to go into a 'fault-finding' trip, but what gives you the
idea that
> "the universe works" in any way WE, stupid consequences THINK OF
in any
> fashion?
> The universe (???) or anything we translate into universes in
our limited
> minds - MAY work in its own unrestricted ways and we - with our
minuscule
> knowledge, even that distorted into our (personally different)
minds, -
> imagine that hypothetical working into whatever we please.
> Then, pray, why not imagining it in ways we feel comfortable with?
> End of Sunday sermon
The universe is not obliged to be understandable to us or to conform
to our idea of what it should be like. But that is not the same as
saying that we can know nothing about it at all, or that we can
imagine it in any way we like. That would destroy any endeavour.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:everything-list%[email protected]>.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" 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/everything-list?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" 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/everything-list?hl=en.
