Seeing the world as a whole

[geordief]

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.

 

 

[dimreepr]

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.

[geordief]

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

[dimreepr]

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"...

 

[geordief]

That is off topic (as you admonished me)

[dimreepr]

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.

[geordief]

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.

[dimreepr]

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...

[geordief]

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

[dimreepr]

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...

 

[geordief]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

It's, still, more interesting than this thread...

 

Not sure what your point is . Don't stay if uninterested.

[dimreepr]

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...

[geordief]

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