Hmm I see. Actually I wanted to make it as assumption-free as possible! I guess the phrasing of the sentence wasn't right. Let me see...
My assumption are 1) this n-dimensional world (time+physical dimensions, ...) exists. 2)world isn't a complete system. (complete system = it can not and -will not be able to- describe itself completely)
Hmmm... Assumptions can only be demonstrated "wrong" by backtracing from an unexpected or undesired conclusion. You reach the conclusion, find that wasn't the conclusion you were trying to get, and then back up, step by step, to see which bit led you in the unexpected direction
( ... )
1) Actually by physical dimensions I meant the 3 dimensions everyone thinks about. And I wrote world as N-dimension because I don't rule out other possible dimensions that we might add later on.
2) "the world" = matter + energy + natural, scientific, and logical rules that govern the two. Rules like two "electrons dispel each others", or "if [statement1 AND if_statement1_then_statement2] then statement2" , or "if a kid tips a full glass water will spill"...
And I assume that these matter+energy+natural and logical and scientific rules (in other words: "the world"), can not explain (I mean "model") themselves completely...
I was wondering if you fully understand the assumptions... If yes, then we can go on to the conclusion part.
I really like dafydd's clear way of thinking. He (she?) forced Narges to clarify her assumptions. Otherwise it could have been just an exercise in cool-looking rhetoric, on her part. :) Now, Narges, is your fundamental question this (if I understand you correctly): Ok, there are interactions between matter, etc., let's say, gravitational force. It does exist. But the existence of gravitation (that we can measure OR feel, whatever works) does not explain WHY there should be gravitation at all. WHY there should be the "world"?
Hmmm I think so. Yes. You explained it much better. Another example rule would be "if_X_then_Y + X => Y" but why there should this rule exist at all...
Good questions! WHY the hell the rules of universe should be exactly like they are? Why can't they be totally different? Why couldn't be there gravitation at all? It's possible to imagine another Universe, a parallel one, that has different rules of interaction of the matter, and, actually, even the totally different matter at all, unrecognizable to us. Different life forms! Cool!!! Isaac Asimov! Have you read him? :)
I suppose Asimov has tried to bring these parallel world into imagination right? I only know him for his science/fiction stories and astronomical short books. But I don't think he has tried answering the fundamental question, in a philosophical manor. am I right?
Comments 43
And, I'll give you this, in return:
Rene Descartes goes to a restaurant and is shown to a table. The waiter approaches to ask, "May I get you a drink?"
M. Descartes says, "I think not."
And promptly disappears...
Reply
My assumption are 1) this n-dimensional world (time+physical dimensions, ...) exists. 2)world isn't a complete system. (complete system = it can not and -will not be able to- describe itself completely)
Are these assumptions wrong?
Reply
Reply
1) Actually by physical dimensions I meant the 3 dimensions everyone thinks about. And I wrote world as N-dimension because I don't rule out other possible dimensions that we might add later on.
2) "the world" = matter + energy + natural, scientific, and logical rules that govern the two.
Rules like two "electrons dispel each others", or "if [statement1 AND if_statement1_then_statement2] then statement2" , or "if a kid tips a full glass water will spill"...
And I assume that these matter+energy+natural and logical and scientific rules (in other words: "the world"), can not explain (I mean "model") themselves completely...
I was wondering if you fully understand the assumptions... If yes, then we can go on to the conclusion part.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Now, Narges, is your fundamental question this (if I understand you correctly): Ok, there are interactions between matter, etc., let's say, gravitational force. It does exist. But the existence of gravitation (that we can measure OR feel, whatever works) does not explain WHY there should be gravitation at all. WHY there should be the "world"?
Reply
Another example rule would be "if_X_then_Y + X => Y" but why there should this rule exist at all...
Reply
Reply
Reply
http://www.bootshotsalejp.com/ アグ
http://www.agujp.com/ ugg オーストラリア
http://www.bootsshinsaku.com/ ugg オーストラリア
UGG ミニ
ムートンブーツUGG
ugg キッズ
ugg ムートンブーツ[url=http://www.agubutsu.com/#lhnfqdxlq]UGG 楽天[/url ( ... )
Reply
Canada Goose Jackets Outlet
North Face Denali
The Norh Face
Canada Goose Jacketshttp://www.bootslammy.com/ Ugg Boots Nederland ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment