dis-satisfactory not satisfactory.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:56 PM, B Soroud <bsor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the point is... even if science did support some rudimentary conception of
> a gnostic cosmology.....
>
> whereof teleology...
>
> it is my claim that if you study Buddhism or Vedanta or Neo-Platonism or
> Kaballah or whatever.... they are all ultimately satisfactory and
> incoherent.
>
> So there is no superstructure that is satisfactory and coherent and that
> really really makes sense and makes sense of things that any science can
> support or subsume.
>
> We are lost in the land of paradoxes, mysteries, antinomies, neither/nor's
> and absurdities.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous <
> bsor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bruno, is it possible that there is no "fundamental reality" or
>> "primary reality"... and even if there was, and it was non-
>> observational or non-experiential.... why would it matter to us?
>>
>> It seems to me that reality or knowledge always implies a blind
>> dualism that reflects the way in which "we" ("I") experience phenomena
>> (subject/object, knower/known distinction-absurdity)
>>
>> we are always looking in front or ahead. We are always looking at.
>>
>> -It- is always -away-.
>>
>> If reality is the Other and we are derived from the Other and this
>> Other is transcendent or "fundamental".... then what of this "Other"
>> and what is its relation to us, or what is our relation to it.... does
>> it have any subjectivity and do we have any ultimicity in relation to
>> it.
>>
>> It seems like any reality is assumed to not be us and we are assumed
>> to be related to it... therefore it is separate and either conceived
>> of as blind and inferior to us, our super conscious and superior to
>> us.
>>
>> and why are we seemingly superior to this other...
>>
>> Unless you assume we are the One.... then I would tell you that the
>> One is absurd.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 28, 9:38 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> > On 27 Jun 2011, at 21:51, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > On 26.06.2011 22:33 meekerdb said the following:
>> > >> On 6/26/2011 12:58 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
>> > >>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Bruno Marchal<marc...@ulb.ac.be>
>> >
>> > > ...
>> >
>> > >> The idea that our theories are approaching some metaphysical truth is
>> > >> essentially just the same as assuming there is some more
>> > >> comprehensive and coherent theory. I note that Hawking and Mlodinow
>> > >> recently suggested that we might accept a kind of patch-work set of
>> > >> theories of the world, rather than insisting on a single coherent
>> > >> theory.
>> >
>> > > Could you please give references to such a statement? In my view,
>> > > this is exactly the way to implement efficiently some simulation of
>> > > the world. It is unnecessary for example to simulate atoms until
>> > > some observer will start researching them.
>> >
>> > Ah ah, ... but so you can guess that it would be more easy for
>> > arithmetic too, in that case. That (a need for patch-work theories in
>> > physics) could happen if the partially sharable numbers' 'dreams'
>> > don't glue well enough.
>> > But we don't know that. It is 'just' an open problem in the frame of
>> > comp. Arithmetical evidences and empirical evidence is that the dreams
>> > glue pretty well, I would say.
>> > I think Hawking and Mlodinov are assuming that the fundamental
>> > reality is physical. The fact that the physical needs patch-work set
>> > of theories does not entail that the big picture needs that too, as
>> > comp (uda) and "formal arithmetical comp" (auda) illustrate precisely.
>> > The fact that physicists can arrive to such extremities illustrates
>> > perhaps an inadequacy of the metaphysics of Aristotle.
>> >
>> > Bruno
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > --
>> > > 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
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>> > > .
>> > > For more options, visit this group athttp://
>> groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
>> > > .
>> >
>> > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>> --
>> 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
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
