I'm not but in the absence of true knowledge, I prefer to have no knowledge at all.
But if we are going to be able to find "true knowledge", we have to theorize, day-dream and be creative to find possible solutions/connections/theories which we can confirm/test/dismiss later. Speculation is the driving force of science. Without it, we wouldn't go anywhere.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
But if we are going to be able to find "true knowledge", we have to theorize, day-dream and be creative to find possible solutions/connections/theories which we can confirm/test/dismiss later. Speculation is the driving force of science. Without it, we wouldn't go anywhere.
Peace
Dan
Right, but we don't need to have convictions about the unknown.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Right, but we don't need to have convictions about the unknown.
Maybe, maybe not. History has shown that conviction has been necessary to even get theories to the test. Thus convictions about the unknown may also be necessary, or rather that someone has a conviction of it's correctness. We may of course ignore other people's convictions though.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I'm not but in the absence of true knowledge, I prefer to have no knowledge at all.
Ha ha. Be careful what you wish for........ Ahnimus, you will find as you continue to 'dig deeper' that the application of human reason in its most refined and formalized sense, ie mathematics, is full of paradox and uncertainty. Are you familiar with Godel's theorem? It warns us that the axiomatic method of making logical deductions from a given assumptions can't provide a system which is both provably complete and consistent. There will always be knowledge or truth that can't be reached from a finite collection of axioms. The search for a closed logical system that provides a complete and self-consistent explanation for everything is doomed to fail. SUch a thing might exist abstractly, but I really doubt that we can know its whole form on the basis of rational thought alone. I'm reminded of the 'turtle' story you shared in one of your other threads (Stephen Hawkings tells this same story n his book ,"A Brief History of Time"). I think as long as you insist on explaining knowledge with "rational explanation" of the sort familiar with science, you will always end up with 'turtle trouble'. There will always be mystery at the end of the universe. I do, however, feel there are other forms of understanding which can satisfy the inquiring mind.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Ha ha. Be careful what you wish for........ Ahnimus, you will find as you continue to 'dig deeper' that the application of human reason in its most refined and formalized sense, ie mathematics, is full of paradox and uncertainty. Are you familiar with Godel's theorem? It warns us that the axiomatic method of making logical deductions from a given assumptions can't provide a system which is both provably complete and consistent. There will always be knowledge or truth that can't be reached from a finite collection of axioms. The search for a closed logical system that provides a complete and self-consistent explanation for everything is doomed to fail. SUch a thing might exist abstractly, but I really doubt that we can know its whole form on the basis of rational thought alone. I'm reminded of the 'turtle' story you shared in one of your other threads (Stephen Hawkings tells this same story n his book ,"A Brief History of Time"). I think as long as you insist on explaining knowledge with "rational explanation" of the sort familiar with science, you will always end up with 'turtle trouble'. There will always be mystery at the end of the universe. I do, however, feel there are other forms of understanding which can satisfy the inquiring mind.
I am aware of Gödel's theorom. By certain or true, I'm referring to that which is true within the limits of critical analysis. I don't see Gödel's theorom as being especially applicable to life as we experience it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I am aware of Gödel's theorom. By certain or true, I'm referring to that which is true within the limits of critical analysis. I don't see Gödel's theorom as being especially applicable to life as we experience it.
Why not? To say that is to say 'I don't know how any of these examples concerning mind & brain science or physics is applicable to life as we experience it'. You do realize that all of the examples you provide that pertain to physics would be meaningless without the mathematics backing it? Of course it's applicable. You can't 'keep' the science you like and throw out what does not fit into your personal view of reality.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Why not? To say that is to say 'I don't know how any of these examples concerning mind & brain science or physics is applicable to life as we experience it'. You do realize that all of the examples you provide that pertain to physics would be meaningless without the mathematics backing it? Of course it's applicable. You can't 'keep' the science you like and throw out what does not fit into your personal view of reality.
Gödel's theory gives you the ability to throw out science you don't like and play the Gödel card. But ultimately it takes nothing away from the validity of the science, it's just gives the non-believer and escape route.
If I say Pi is 3.14~ and it is, what stops you from playing Gödel's card and saying I can't possibly know that for certain? Then what does that do for Pi, is Pi still 3.14~ even though Gödel says this is fundamentally flawed? Or is Gödel's theory really applicable?
I understand the weight of Gödel's theory, but I've seen people here, and this recent example, attributing a lot more weight to it than is reasonably attributable.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Gödel's theory gives you the ability to throw out science you don't like and play the Gödel card. But ultimately it takes nothing away from the validity of the science, it's just gives the non-believer and escape route.
If I say Pi is 3.14~ and it is, what stops you from playing Gödel's card and saying I can't possibly know that for certain? Then what does that do for Pi, is Pi still 3.14~ even though Gödel says this is fundamentally flawed? Or is Gödel's theory really applicable?
I understand the weight of Gödel's theory, but I've seen people here, and this recent example, attributing a lot more weight to it than is reasonably attributable.
Godel's theorem is a powerful card, an ace if you will, and it's implications are far reaching and has been noted as such by physicists and mathematicians. Personally, when I first learned about this theorem I thought that it was quite absurd. It's basically saying that no rational system can be proved both consistent and complete. There will aways remain some openness, some mystery, something unexplained. In your quest for 'knowledge' and answers, you will find that another question always present itself. The more you learn, the more you realize how little you really know.
BTW, who, other than myself, has played that card here?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Godel's theorem is a powerful card, an ace if you will, and it's implications are far reaching and has been noted as such by physicists and mathematicians. Personally, when I first learned about this theorem I thought that it was quite absurd. It's basically saying that no rational system can be proved both consistent and complete. There will aways remain some openness, some mystery, something unexplained. In your quest for 'knowledge' and answers, you will find that another question always present itself. The more you learn, the more you realize how little you really know.
BTW, who, other than myself, has played that card here?
But again, we don't see that being as broadly applied as you've tried to do here. We haven't seen the complete collapse of understanding and our current understandings for the large part hold true. I don't see it as an effective tool for understanding. Pi still works as Pi and has many mathmatical applications that hold true. So I don't see Gödel's theory affecting Pi. ☺
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
But ahnimus, it does beg the question whether we can claim full or full-enough knowledge on a subject, even if we have some applications that hold true. Just cause something works, doesnt mean we know exactly how it works. We have theories, but few or none completely certain ones.
Newtonian physics works great even today, but it is not correct or accurate according to the understanding we now have gained about atoms, quantums and the universe.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
But ahnimus, it does beg the question whether we can claim full or full-enough knowledge on a subject, even if we have some applications that hold true. Just cause something works, doesnt mean we know exactly how it works. We have theories, but few or none completely certain ones.
Newtonian physics works great even today, but it is not correct or accurate according to the understanding we now have gained about atoms, quantums and the universe.
Peace
Dan
Maybe you should be applying Gödel's theorum to Quantum Mechanics instead of Newtonian Physics.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Maybe you should be applying Gödel's theorum to Quantum Mechanics instead of Newtonian Physics.
Put another way, for all practical purposes, newtonian physics seem to be working just nicely. His laws still works. However, as scientists delve deeper into how things are pout together and work, the theory doesnt fit anymore. I meant it as an illustration that even if we have applicable findings, that doesnt mean we know exactly how it all fits together.
And if we are going to go with what "scientists" say, you won't find many today that insists that Newton's mechanical universe holds true. There are several things that theory can't explain, that we need some new theory for. And this new theory, if we agree on that in the end, will probably also be discarded at a later point.
The point of the theorem is that it is impossible to have complete knowledge inside a rational framework. Knowledge is possible. The fallacy is to believe at any point that we now have the full truth, or that we will get there someday somehow.
Now I'm off to bed. Seriously.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
But again, we don't see that being as broadly applied as you've tried to do here. We haven't seen the complete collapse of understanding and our current understandings for the large part hold true. I don't see it as an effective tool for understanding. Pi still works as Pi and has many mathmatical applications that hold true. So I don't see Gödel's theory affecting Pi. ☺
Using Pi is poor example and I meant to comment on it before. Pi is an observation of the ratio of the circumference divided by its diameter. It is constant even though it is an irrational, meaning that it doesn't terminate. I'm talking about complex theorems, not simple ratios.
What I'm saying is even if all things could be represented mathematically, there will always lie paradoxical and contradictory results or statements.
Is this a thread about Lucid dreaming? I had a weird dream last night...............
Edit: I dig the smiley
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
But in SS's case, he is applying it to Newtonian Phsyics by implying that Quantum Physics is entirely correct.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Using Pi is poor example and I meant to comment on it before. Pi is an observation of the ratio of the circumference divided by its diameter. It is constant even though it is an irrational, meaning that it doesn't terminate. I'm talking about complex theorems, not simple ratios.
What I'm saying is even if all things could be represented mathematically, there will always lie paradoxical and contradictory results or statements.
Is this a thread about Lucid dreaming? I had a weird dream last night...............
Edit: I dig the smiley
But again, re: will, I do not see how A != A. How does A determine A? It seems like a simple math, it simply doesn't work.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Right, but we don't need to have convictions about the unknown.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Ha ha. Be careful what you wish for........ Ahnimus, you will find as you continue to 'dig deeper' that the application of human reason in its most refined and formalized sense, ie mathematics, is full of paradox and uncertainty. Are you familiar with Godel's theorem? It warns us that the axiomatic method of making logical deductions from a given assumptions can't provide a system which is both provably complete and consistent. There will always be knowledge or truth that can't be reached from a finite collection of axioms. The search for a closed logical system that provides a complete and self-consistent explanation for everything is doomed to fail. SUch a thing might exist abstractly, but I really doubt that we can know its whole form on the basis of rational thought alone. I'm reminded of the 'turtle' story you shared in one of your other threads (Stephen Hawkings tells this same story n his book ,"A Brief History of Time"). I think as long as you insist on explaining knowledge with "rational explanation" of the sort familiar with science, you will always end up with 'turtle trouble'. There will always be mystery at the end of the universe. I do, however, feel there are other forms of understanding which can satisfy the inquiring mind.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I am aware of Gödel's theorom. By certain or true, I'm referring to that which is true within the limits of critical analysis. I don't see Gödel's theorom as being especially applicable to life as we experience it.
Why not? To say that is to say 'I don't know how any of these examples concerning mind & brain science or physics is applicable to life as we experience it'. You do realize that all of the examples you provide that pertain to physics would be meaningless without the mathematics backing it? Of course it's applicable. You can't 'keep' the science you like and throw out what does not fit into your personal view of reality.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Gödel's theory gives you the ability to throw out science you don't like and play the Gödel card. But ultimately it takes nothing away from the validity of the science, it's just gives the non-believer and escape route.
If I say Pi is 3.14~ and it is, what stops you from playing Gödel's card and saying I can't possibly know that for certain? Then what does that do for Pi, is Pi still 3.14~ even though Gödel says this is fundamentally flawed? Or is Gödel's theory really applicable?
I understand the weight of Gödel's theory, but I've seen people here, and this recent example, attributing a lot more weight to it than is reasonably attributable.
Godel's theorem is a powerful card, an ace if you will, and it's implications are far reaching and has been noted as such by physicists and mathematicians. Personally, when I first learned about this theorem I thought that it was quite absurd. It's basically saying that no rational system can be proved both consistent and complete. There will aways remain some openness, some mystery, something unexplained. In your quest for 'knowledge' and answers, you will find that another question always present itself. The more you learn, the more you realize how little you really know.
BTW, who, other than myself, has played that card here?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
But again, we don't see that being as broadly applied as you've tried to do here. We haven't seen the complete collapse of understanding and our current understandings for the large part hold true. I don't see it as an effective tool for understanding. Pi still works as Pi and has many mathmatical applications that hold true. So I don't see Gödel's theory affecting Pi. ☺
Newtonian physics works great even today, but it is not correct or accurate according to the understanding we now have gained about atoms, quantums and the universe.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Maybe you should be applying Gödel's theorum to Quantum Mechanics instead of Newtonian Physics.
Lol! Of course, I should have known!!!;)
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
And if we are going to go with what "scientists" say, you won't find many today that insists that Newton's mechanical universe holds true. There are several things that theory can't explain, that we need some new theory for. And this new theory, if we agree on that in the end, will probably also be discarded at a later point.
The point of the theorem is that it is impossible to have complete knowledge inside a rational framework. Knowledge is possible. The fallacy is to believe at any point that we now have the full truth, or that we will get there someday somehow.
Now I'm off to bed. Seriously.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Using Pi is poor example and I meant to comment on it before. Pi is an observation of the ratio of the circumference divided by its diameter. It is constant even though it is an irrational, meaning that it doesn't terminate. I'm talking about complex theorems, not simple ratios.
What I'm saying is even if all things could be represented mathematically, there will always lie paradoxical and contradictory results or statements.
Is this a thread about Lucid dreaming? I had a weird dream last night...............
Edit: I dig the smiley
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Godel applies to both, since it is based in math.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
But in SS's case, he is applying it to Newtonian Phsyics by implying that Quantum Physics is entirely correct.
But again, re: will, I do not see how A != A. How does A determine A? It seems like a simple math, it simply doesn't work.