"Searles O'Dubhain"
wrote in message
news:vbCdnbiTyJwA6CzVnZ2dnUVZ_rjinZ2d@comcast.com...>
> "Tom"
comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ApednTkCRc_GIy3VnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@comcast.com...>>
>> "Searles O'Dubhain"
wrote in message
>> news:2vKdnR1Yot5KOC3VnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@comcast.com...>>>
>>>
>>> I wasn't attempting to be clever nor was I contradicting myself. I was
>>> merely relating something that should be a kind of 'moment of truth' for
>>> any magician or truth seeker. There comes a time when one realizes there
>>> is an Unlimited as well as a Limited.
>>
>> But Searles, that's utterly obvious. Whatever led you the believe that
>> *anyone* was ever unaware of this?
>>
>> Consider a sphere. It's surface is both unbounded and finite. Every
>> child can see that.
>
> One good practice is to actually see the sphere Tom. By this I mean to see
> it from every angle at once (both inside and outside). The obvious is not
> so obvious.
It is physically impossible for you to see a sphere from every angle at
once. It is possible to imagine that one might do this, however. The
problem there is that what you imagine does not necessarily correspond to
the world outside your imagination. One of the biggest problems
metaphysicians face is their tendency to exclude any contradictions between
the world itself and their imagined model of it.
>>> To say there is only what is and what isn't is very limited.
>>
>> The statement is. The condition is not.
>
> N is more powerful than 2.
You're going to have to explain this more fully or I'll simply reject it as
a non sequitur.
>>> A flow chart is connected by lines and logic yet it is not even a
>>> program or unique in itself. Reality can exist within reality until it
>>> is nothing in the ultimate of diminishing or increasing. This doesn't
>>> mean that the flowchart is the program or the only reality model that
>>> exists or doesn't.
>>
>> You can build any kind of model you want. The trick is to build one that
>> acts like that which it is supposed to model sufficiently for operations
>> performed on the model to accurately predict what will happen with the
>> thing it models. As above, so below, so to speak.
>
> If it is built in part then it produces partial results, which is great
> engineering wise but sucks when one is looking for what is often missed
> even in the *real* thing.
That's the sort of statement I'd expect from someone who thinks that we
can't know anything unless we know everything. This completely denies the
value of learning.
> If certain conditions exist then sampling and partial techniques can
> produce accurate results (like Nyquist). Having a model of the universe
> that contains the universe within it is fractally perfect as you've said
> above. Having a model that includes everything is the only way to
> understand *what is* since it is the model itself and not the original (as
> I've attempted to imply).
Yep, it appears that you *do* believe that any learning is pointless unless
you can learn everything at once.
> One has to wrap one's mind around things that are bigger than the brain.
Nothing in the mind is bigger than the brain. Mind is just one function of
the brain. Any assertion that mind exists outside of the brain remains
unsupported by anything other than the flimsiest of anecdotal evidence.
> Learning to walk is like that so we shouldn't be surprised to discover
> that learning is everywhere like that..
Learning to walk is not accomplished by waiting until you already know
everything about the world before you'll even try.
