From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Nov 29 2004 - 22:02:59 GMT
Scott,
> There is an enormous difference between saying that a particular statement
> is unprovable, and saying that there's no such thing as proof. Would you
> say that because there is one mountain that is over 29000 feet in altitude,
> therefore all mountains are?
Guess we're talking past each other. Do you agree with the following
statement from Ken Wilber (which includes a quote from Scientific
American)?
"The Incompleteness Theorem embodies a rigorous mathematical demonstration
that every encompassing system of logic must have at least one premise
that cannot be proven or verified without contradicting itself. Thus, 'it
is impossible to establish the logical consistency of any complex
deductive system except by assuming principles of reasoning whose own
internal consistency is as open to question as that of the system itself.'
Thus logically, as well as physically, 'objective' verification is not
mark of reality (except in consensual pretense). If all is to be verified,
how do you verify the verifier since he is surely part of the all?
> > I don't see where he views intellect as negative. He enjoys doing
> > metaphysics.
>
> It's treated negatively in relation to DQ, as in the hot stove example, or
> in Ch, 29: "James had condensed this description to a single sentence:
> "There must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality, because
> the former are static and discontinuous while the latter is dynamic and
> flowing." Here James had chosen exactly the same words Phaedrus had used
> for the basic subdivision of the [MOQ]."
>
> Note that James has distinguished concepts from reality, with no objection
> from Phaedrus.
I think Godel's Theorem and Wilber's interpretation of it are relevant to
the issue you raise. Intellect can never describe reality in full because
intellect is part of the reality it tries to describe. Just as we cannot
get outside the present to define it, intellect cannot exclude itself from
its account of reality and still accurately reflect reality. But, that
doesn't make intellect "negative." Its limits are simply a truism, even if
they can't be proven. :-)
Intellect builds walls; DQ is "something that doesn't like a wall," to
borrow from Robert Frost. Both are needed.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 29 2004 - 22:02:20 GMT