Re: Summary of seed ideas for my developing TOE - 'The Sentient Centered Theo...
--- Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi John: I do not know if one should use the word Theory but what strikes me is the convergence I see in numerous lines of thought. I see my model as having many features in common with Russell's even though some of the differences may not be subject to complete reconciliation. I also see a place for Bruno's consistent histories, consistent extensions computational hypothesis approach as a sub component of mine. I have been made aware of others that fit the same pattern of convergence towards what appears to me to be a single simple model. The apparent convergence from such different starting places and ensuing seemingly incompatible lines of thought I find remarkable. It makes me believe that the model at the apex of this convergence is the correct one as far as we can ever know it. Hal Ruhl That is all fine, but all those 'convergent' thinking comes from the limited minds of present day humans. If nature is not restricted to our understanding (watch for the word: UNDER) then we have no right to speak about 'everything' (without due identification). Similar to possible (which includes our deemed impossibilities as well, restricted to our feeble imagination). Even imaginable is a restriction. Nature is not limited to that - as I like to think about her. Not even in her 'logic'. With friendly greetings from our perceived universe(?) John M
Re: Summary of seed ideas for my developing TOE - 'The Sentient Centered Theo...
Le 22-sept.-05, à 06:27, Marc Geddes a écrit : What I'd like is a *logical scaffolding* - a *finite* system which is *universal* in scope - or at least applying everywhere in reality where sentient minds can exist and which explains the relationship between Mind and Reality. That for me is a TOE. I don't require that the theory literally explains everything. I agree and I agree with your other statement according to which a TOE must explain the relation between mind and reality (what most physicalist put under the rug). But if there are features of reality not explained by the TOE, we still can expect that the TOE will be able to justify---or meta-justify--- why it cannot explain those features. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Re: Summary of seed ideas for my developing TOE - 'The Sentient Centered Theo...
Bruno: according to your (and Marc's?) definition, is Hal's work a TOEandTON? Or would you include Nothing into the relations of Mind (again: wat is it really?) and reality (same question really!)? (I mean: defined in less than 1000 words G) John M --- Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 22-sept.-05, à 06:27, Marc Geddes a écrit : What I'd like is a *logical scaffolding* - a *finite* system which is *universal* in scope - or at least applying everywhere in reality where sentient minds can exist and which explains the relationship between Mind and Reality.That for me is a TOE. I don't require that the theory literally explains everything. I agree and I agree with your other statement according to which a TOE must explain the relation between mind and reality (what most physicalist put under the rug). But if there are features of reality not explained by the TOE, we still can expect that the TOE will be able to justify---or meta-justify--- why it cannot explain those features. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Re: Summary of seed ideas for my developing TOE - 'The Sentient Centered Theo...
THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside.-Emily DickinsonIn all of the history of humans' exploration of the universe, theperpetual message that keeps coming back to us from the universe isthat the brain is not as wide as the sky.I think that trying to make an "end run" around "everything" and starting with the doctrine that itis, is not a new thing (even to the ancient Greeks), but it contradictsthe evidence.Tom *Given* that we want a metaphysical 'Theory Of Everything' (the name of this mailing list after all!) we must *assume* as a starting point that mind can comprehend reality. Our assumption could be wrong.That's why it's called a *theory* ofeverything ;) Why couldn't the theory be that the mind can comprehend reality, but not all of reality. Wouldn't that be a theory of everything? What if that's the actual truth? We would be doing ourselves a disservice by theorizing otherwise.
Re: Summary of seed ideas for my developing TOE - 'The Sentient Centered Theo...
THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside.-Emily DickinsonIn all of the history of humans' exploration of the universe, theperpetual message that keeps coming back to us from the universe isthat the brain is not as wide as the sky.I think that trying to make an "end run" around "everything" and starting with the doctrine that itis, is not a new thing (even to the ancient Greeks), but it contradictsthe evidence.Tom *Given* that we want a metaphysical 'Theory Of Everything' (the name of this mailing list after all!) we must *assume* as a starting point that mind can comprehend reality. Our assumption could be wrong.That's why it's called a *theory* ofeverything ;) Why couldn't the theory be that the mind can comprehend reality, but not all of reality. Wouldn't that be a theory of everything? What if that's the actual truth? We would be doing ourselves a disservice by theorizing otherwise.And I'm saying (see above) that the evidence is against the assumption that the mind can comprehend everything. The message we get from the universe is that its paradigm is always beyond our minds.
Re: Summary of seed ideas for my developing TOE - 'The Sentient Centered Theo...
On 9/22/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *Given* that we want a metaphysical 'Theory Of Everything' (the name of this mailing list after all!) we must *assume* as a starting point that mind can comprehend reality. Our assumption could be wrong.That's why it's called a *theory* ofeverything ;) Why couldn't the theory be that the mind can comprehend reality, but not all of reality. Wouldn't that be a theory of everything? What if that's the actual truth? We would be doing ourselves a disservice by theorizing otherwise. Well, of course, the question that arises is: what actually *is* a 'theory of everything'? By TOE I don't require that the mind can literally comprehend *all* of reality. Ijust think thatthere's some way to integratemental and physical concepts into afinite unified explanatory framework which *is* comprehensible. So for me, a TOE is a theory which explains the relationshipbetween Mind on the one hand, and Reality on the other. M (Mind) relationship - R (Reality).My theory is attempting to explain that relationship. What I'd likeis a *logical scaffolding* - a *finite* system whichis *universal* in scope -or at least applying everywhere in reality where sentient minds can exist and which explains the relationship between Mind and Reality. That for me isaTOE. I don't require that the theory literally explains everything. -- Please vist my website:http://www.riemannai.orgScience, Sci-Fi and Philosophy---THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,For, put them side by side, The one the other will includeWith ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson'The brain is wider than the sky'http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html
