Re: Summary of seed ideas for my developing TOE - 'The Sentient Centered Theo...
Hi John: At 04:23 PM 10/5/2005, you wrote: > 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 I tried to express a degree of locality in my comments when I used "me", "believe", and "we". in my last sentence: 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. > As to the founding idea of this thread I naturally do not believe - based on my model - that any single item on my list such as a component of mathematics or of cognition has any higher degree of essentiality [a more primitive position] in the pattern of understanding we seek than any other item on the list. This would include the item of "empty" associated with the founding definition of the All, Nothing pair. Rather it is this definition that has a distinction from all other definitions. Yours Hal Ruhl
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...
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 At 04:56 PM 10/1/2005, you wrote: Marc, Tom, and others who care: if TOE is hard to identify, even harder to select, and the hardest to make it reasonable, why "TOE"? because some reputable old professors started it? Reminds me of the cobbler-apprentiss who dared to announce that the king has no cloths on. John Mikes
Re: Summary of seed ideas for my developing TOE - 'The Sentient Centered Theo...
Marc, Tom, and others who care: if TOE is hard to identify, even harder to select, and the hardest to make it reasonable, why "TOE"? because some reputable old professors started it? Reminds me of the cobbler-apprentiss who dared to announce that the king has no cloths on. John Mikes --- Marc Geddes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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* of everything ;) > > 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. I just think that there's some way to > integrate mental and physical > concepts into a finite unified explanatory framework > which *is* > comprehensible. So for me, a TOE is a theory which > explains the relationship > between 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 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. > -- > > Please vist my website: > http://www.riemannai.org > > Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy > > --- > > 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 Dickinson > > 'The brain is wider than the sky' > http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html >
Re: Summary of seed ideas for my developing TOE - 'The Sentient Centered Theo...
Le 22-sept.-05, à 18:12, John M a écrit : Bruno: according to your (and Marc's?) definition, is Hal's work a "TOEandTON"? The problem, for me, is with the "T" (both in TOE and TON). I cannot judge. Hal's talk is still too much vague for me. I appreciate and perhaps share soime intuitions, though.I certainly appreciate the role of logical incompleteness. 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 ) Let me try. There are many notion of nothingness. Now remember that if comp is assumed, the whole of physics emerges from machine's dreams (computation from personal point of views), or, just from the mathematical relations among numbers (cf computer science can be embedded in arithmetical truth: this includes discourse bearing on vaster domains than arithmetic). So there is no more *primitive* physical nothingness than *primitive* physical plenitude. So yes, I would include "Nothing" into the relations of mind and reality. Note that both mind and reality are mathematical. Physical reality is just an *observable* part of mathematical reality, and it appears as the intrinsic-al border of the mindscape (where mind can be defined (assuming comp) by all what machine can prove and guess about themselves. Bruno 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/ 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 ) 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...
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...
Le 22-sept.-05, à 06:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : 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. Yes. And if we are consistent machine (or: as far as we are consistent machine) the same lesson comes from arithmetic. We can theorize on arithmetic, and we can know (and prove) that the complete arithmetical reality is beyond our grasp. Note that if we were more powerfull in our provability abilities, although arithmetical truth could be in our grasp, Godel's result could still be applied, and some other mathematical realities (for exemple: set theoretical truth) would still be provably beyond our grasp. From Pythagorus to Godel, there are many "impossibility result" which can be applied to us once we make some hypotheses on us. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
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* of everything ;) 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. I just think that there's some way to integrate mental and physical concepts into a finite unified explanatory framework which *is* comprehensible. So for me, a TOE is a theory which explains the relationship between 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 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. -- 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
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* of everything ;) 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...
> 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* of everything ;) 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.
