geordief Posted August 24, 2020 Share Posted August 24, 2020 This may (or may not be ) be an an unspoken aim of both philosophy and science . But I it may be clear that this is impossible in both areas of thought. It has occurred to me (without much foundation or consideration ,admittedly) that this negative "finding " could perhaps be used as a basic assumption in science. I wonder ,if it was taken up as a basic assumption whether any concrete findings would follow on from it... Does the fact that we cannot abstract ourselves from the world we are in ,even as a thought experiment tell us something about the physical nature of the world we are part of ? Do physical consequences follow from this fundamental state of things or is it really just a standalone condition that just "is"? In my mind ,one concrete consequence might be the inadmissibility of a god like creator but I don't want to discuss that here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted August 24, 2020 Share Posted August 24, 2020 5 minutes ago, geordief said: This may (or may not be ) be an an unspoken aim of both philosophy and science . But I it may be clear that this is impossible in both areas of thought. It has occurred to me (without much foundation or consideration ,admittedly) that this negative "finding " could perhaps be used as a basic assumption in science. I wonder ,if it was taken up as a basic assumption whether any concrete findings would follow on from it... Does the fact that we cannot abstract ourselves from the world we are in ,even as a thought experiment tell us something about the physical nature of the world we are part of ? Do physical consequences follow from this fundamental state of things or is it really just a standalone condition that just "is"? Can you clarify your question? Are you talking about "the big picture"? 8 minutes ago, geordief said: In my mind ,one concrete consequence might be the inadmissibility of a god like creator but I don't want to discuss that here. Then don't bring it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordief Posted August 24, 2020 Author Share Posted August 24, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Can you clarify your question? Are you talking about "the big picture" In philosophy yes, in science I mean saying (or seeing) anything at all which encompasses the physical world in its actual or hypothesized entirety. I don't think we can even imagine a thought experiment along those lines The contrary position seems to me to be "baked in" Edited August 24, 2020 by geordief Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted August 24, 2020 Share Posted August 24, 2020 2 minutes ago, geordief said: In philosophy yes, in science I mean saying (or seeing) anything at all which encompasses the physical world in its actual or hypothesized entirety. I don't think we can even imagine a thought experiment along those lines The contrary position seems to me to be "baked in" Well, in 'God-speak' "It's all part of God's plan"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordief Posted August 24, 2020 Author Share Posted August 24, 2020 That is off topic (as you admonished me) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted August 24, 2020 Share Posted August 24, 2020 7 minutes ago, geordief said: That is off topic (as you admonished me) My attempt at humour 😇, but the message is the same. Both philosophically and scientifically, there's no way to know the future/big-picture, we can estimate what will happen tomorrow, with a good degree of accuracy, but there's only so many tomorrow's where that turns out to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordief Posted August 24, 2020 Author Share Posted August 24, 2020 The future is different from the " big picture." We do have a supposed "theory of everything" which I think is tongue in cheek. But I think some people may pine after a mathematical formula that would encapsulate everything that could be known. That would also be ruled out ,to my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted August 24, 2020 Share Posted August 24, 2020 40 minutes ago, geordief said: The future is different from the " big picture." We do have a supposed "theory of everything" which I think is tongue in cheek. But I think some people may pine after a mathematical formula that would encapsulate everything that could be known. That would also be ruled out ,to my mind. So we agree, it's a pointless question??? Unless we include a deity... 😇 Gaia for instance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordief Posted August 24, 2020 Author Share Posted August 24, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, dimreepr said: So we agree, it's a pointless question??? Unless we include a deity... 😇 Gaia for instance... Possibly pointless ,but I was hoping for a response. I had in mind the recent mention of "the boundary of a boundary is zero" and,if I understood correctly that it could be used to show something important mathematically in General Relativity. So ,idly speculating I wondered whether this truism might be used in a similar way to unexpectedly show something of consequence. Not sure where the Gaia hypothesis stands these days. Does Penrose have any input to it ?(I understood that he, as the originator of the idea had stood down some of his initial positions on the subject and I wasn't aware it had any scientific standing) A Edited August 24, 2020 by geordief Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted August 24, 2020 Share Posted August 24, 2020 1 minute ago, geordief said: Possibly pointless ,but I was hoping for a response. I'm pretty sure I gave you one... 5 minutes ago, geordief said: I had in mind the recent mention of "the boundary of a boundary is zero" and,if I understood correctly that it could be used to show something important mathematically in General Relativity. That's a good idea for a topic, but please explain the relevance to this one? 8 minutes ago, geordief said: So ,idly speculating I wondered whether this truism might be used in a similar way to unexpectedly show something of consequence. I can only imagine that "this truism" is some sort of axiom 13 minutes ago, geordief said: Not sure where the Gaia hypothesis stands these days. It's, still, more interesting than this thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordief Posted August 24, 2020 Author Share Posted August 24, 2020 2 minutes ago, dimreepr said: It's, still, more interesting than this thread... Not sure what your point is . Don't stay if uninterested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted August 24, 2020 Share Posted August 24, 2020 1 minute ago, geordief said: Not sure what your point is . I'm interested in knowing what your point is... 4 minutes ago, geordief said: Don't stay if uninterested. Ohhh, I'm interested... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordief Posted August 24, 2020 Author Share Posted August 24, 2020 5 minutes ago, dimreepr said: I'm interested in knowing what your point is... My "point" was the question I tried to lay out in the OP. If we accept my truism (yes "axiom" was the word I was trying to recall ) might anything of consequence follow from it or is it a "standalone condition that just is"? I couldn't create a thread about the boundary of a boundary being zero as I don't understand the concept well as yet.(whereas I do think I understand the concept of being unable to view the universe from the outside which seems related at least superficially to the intrinsic nature of the geometry involved in General Relativity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now