XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.supp   
   rt.schizophrenia   
   From: fedora@fea.st   
      
   On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 06:32:17 -0700, one  wrote:   
      
   >Noah wrote:   
   >> one wrote:   
   >>> Noah wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>The rule of the universe is that all matter descends to total   
   >>>>disorder.  Entropy must decrease.   
   >>>   
   >>>Lots of presumptions in those two statements.   
   >>   
   >>Verifiable presumptions, based on mathematics and observation.   
   >   
   >Usually, entropy increases, naturally, given: a type of system.   
   >   
   >Entropy must decrease, if.   
      
   There can be temporary diversions, but ultimately, it must go to zero.   
      
   >If order is to be maintained and chaos is to blame, then   
   >entropy must be contained, or else, all is lost.   
   >   
   >Godel might have proved, a system can't prove its own self.   
   >How his proof isn't a paradox could be a quibble.   
      
   That's cute.  Let's see if we can be a little more precise:   
      
   First note that these are theories, not proofs.   
      
   >Gödel’s two incompleteness theorems are among the most   
   >important results in modern logic, and have deep   
   >implications for various issues. They concern the   
   >limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories.   
   >The first incompleteness theorem states that in any   
   >consistent formal system F within which a certain amount   
   >of arithmetic can be carried out, there are statements of the   
   >language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F   
      
   1+1=2.   
   Cannot be proven for all 1's and 2's since there are infinite of them.   
   So the theory states, but it is a theory since it has not been proven.   
      
   >According to the second incompleteness theorem, such a formal   
   >system cannot prove that the system itself is consistent   
   >(assuming it is indeed consistent). These results have had a   
   >great impact on the philosophy of mathematics and logic.   
   >There have been attempts to apply the results also in other   
   >areas of philosophy such as the philosophy of mind, but these   
   >attempted applications are more controversial.   
      
      
   >How his proof isn't a paradox could be a quibble.   
      
   So there is no paradox or quibble, but you are being cute.   
      
   It is interesting to note that the theories seem to work well for   
   philosophies of math and logic, but not so much for philosophy of   
   mind.   
      
   >To presuppose, the universe,   
   >can be what goes without saying.   
   >   
   >To divide, the universe, to say,   
   >energy is or matter is, one may.   
   >   
   >As if energy and matter are not equal.   
   >As if they are not, the universe, fully filled.   
   >   
   >Space, time, spacetime, gravity. Geometry,   
   >mechanics, Newtonian, classic. Einstein's theories   
   >of relativity encounter problems as maps. Levels vary.   
   >   
   >>  It is   
   >>true, humans might have a better approximation in 100 years or so. But   
   >>this is the best we have now.   
   >   
   >The best for the west, for the east, north and south.   
   >What is the best suggests the worst exists.   
   >   
   >Taoist philosophy has some sayings as wells.   
   >When everyone knows what a thing is, not-that-thing is.   
   >   
   >As long as better is, worse will be.   
   >Better and better might be thought.   
   >As being how to be, know doubt.   
   >   
   >With civilization arrives tribbles. Smog, like a dragon.   
   >Congestion, as in traffic. Too many people, crowded.   
   >   
   >Better and better, for what species. You were saying.   
   >   
   >... snip ...   
   >   
   >>>>To assume there is no reason (it simply is a process doing itself)   
   >>>>simply because you don't know the reason is hubris.   
   >>>   
   >>>To assume a reason exists prior to existence   
   >>>can be to hitch up a horse, which is, unnatural.   
   >>   
   >>Right, assume nothing, admit you do not know.   
   >   
   >Being right here, right now, leaves me left.   
   >As a leaf of a tree, the Tree of Life, leaving.   
   >Forms of trees are the trees. Forms change.   
   >   
   >As a drop in a bucket of water is water.   
   >An ocean of water. A river. A stream   
   >of thought flowing without going   
   >any where in particular. To be   
   >and not to be without question.   
   >   
   >With reason and without reason,   
   >beyond both, the two emerge from   
   >a one that is neither.   
   >   
   >Given a point, a point of view, a pov, aye,   
   >you are the reason. Each one is the reason.   
   >   
   >How does one know. Epistemology grows.   
   >To assume there is a reason or not a reason   
   >can be to assume, presume, to carve, basically.   
   >   
   >Paradigms vary.   
   >   
   >... snip ...   
   >   
   >>>>  To assume other realities is   
   >>>>not useful simply because I am ignorant concerning what is really   
   >>>>going on.   
   >>>   
   >>>Assuming a really, really is, going on.   
   >>   
   >>Assume neither.  But it remains possible that there is a real real   
   >>going on.  So, it doesn't help to assume otherwise.   
   >   
   >A great feature of philosophy for me is   
   >how without use one can be.   
   >   
   >Taoist philosophy, how to be in the Zone.   
   >How to go where no one is, ore cans be.   
   >   
   >Prior to one is said to be Tao.   
   >Is there one. Are there many.   
   >   
   >Tao walked. Tao talked.   
   >Going without going.   
   >Round after round.   
   >   
   >- square pegs too! Thanks! Cheers!   
   --   
   Noah Sombrero   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)