07 Jul 08
Andrew Hamilton, if something is incomprehensible in it's entirety, that does not necessarily mean that some small part of it isn't. If it does then maybe your right but if not then assuming that we must live in a comprehensible universe is not always true. And then you can't draw the conclusion that we shouldn't be surprised that we live in a comprehensible universe.
Someone once told me you can't prove your original idea is right with a build upon that same idea.
And also being incomprehensible or not is subjective, something is incomprehensible to humans but maybe not to mice. Or even worse vice versa.
07 Jul 08
Originally posted by Tera…And also being incomprehensible or not is subjective, something is incomprehensible to humans but maybe not to mice. Or even worse vice versa.
Andrew Hamilton, if something is incomprehensible in it's entirety, that does not necessarily mean that some small part of it isn't. If it does then maybe your right but if not then assuming that we must live in a comprehensible universe is not always true. And then you can't draw the conclusion that we shouldn't be surprised that we live in a comprehensible un ...[text shortened]... e, something is incomprehensible to humans but maybe not to mice. Or even worse vice versa.
I think I understand what you are getting at here and I agree: what is “incomprehensible” is rather subjective and, as a result, what I said was a bit “fuzzy”.
…Someone once told me you can't prove your original idea is right with a build upon that same idea….
Again, understand what you are getting at here and I agree: the above comment is just another way of saying that all circular arguments are logically flawed.
…if something is incomprehensible in it's entirety, that does not necessarily mean that some small part of it isn't. ….
You confuse me here. Either I am misunderstanding what you say here or you have misunderstood something I said. In everyday English, if I said that:
“something has some property X in it’s entirety”
(where X could be, for example, the property of being “incomprehensible” whatever you mean from that word which I agree is a bit subjective)
-in everyday English I normally take that to mean every part of that something has that property X -so, therefore, if that proposition was true, it cannot be that some “part” of that something could not have that property X -right? unless you mean something else by “in it’s entirety”?
or -unless what you meant by that statement was:
“if something is NOT comprehensible in it's entirety, that does not necessarily mean that some small part of it is comprehensible” ?
In which case I would agree with that above statement -and I never suggested otherwise!
07 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseHi Don,
Hi SVW, long time no type! I have a problem with the 'bounded universe' thing. The more we probe into the universe and back in time, we start seeing hints that there was in fact another universe that ours popped out of, starting out in that uberverse as a black hole and in our universe, it became a white hole, which is not exactly the right way to say it, b ...[text shortened]... ain started on the phones, what it started out as is not the same as what it seems to be here.
My usage of the term "bounded" was not in the sense of topology, but as a tool to separate out the invocation of "God" who is by definition above the plane of existence. My "bounded" and Davies bounded "laws of nature" plea is for us to find out why math ... and indeed ALL "constants of nature" ... works without invoking God -- or any other "force" -- from outside the universe. That the "Universe" may be "many-parted" is of no consequence in this sense. If we are to make rational sense of it, then Math must NOT reach outside the normal range of "universeness" for it's reason for being.
All I know is that there seems to be time and space -- matter and energy -- though energy is more elusive as I get older. 😉 I know that "life" and "intelligence" exist. Without reversion to solipsistic weirdness, it is a simple matter of observation to see that mind exists in many, many forms.
I guess the biggest mystery is whether PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL-ELECTRICAL-mind-memory-induced-consciousness is anything MORE than that ... or is it ENOUGH?
If it is more, then more of what? If it is enough, then enough said.
If this sounds like gobledy-gook, it is because it mostly is. I have no idea WHY I remember Mrs. Sorensen as being my favorite teacher ever -- in fifth grade back in Idaho in the fifties. I just know that she was "kind" and "cared about me" and I... loved her. Is any of that real? LOL It for damn sure is real to me, and about as big a chunk of physics/time/energy as I need to prove that the universe is truly an amazing thing.
08 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton ...I meant as you latter example, and I guess you meant the first so we are talking about two different things. 🙂
And I agree with your first example as well of course, it's a matter of language and interpretation I guess.
My English is far from flawless. Thanks for clearing that up anyway.