Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!ihnp4!chinet!grc97!hurst From: hurst@grc97.UUCP (Dave Hurst) Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers,talk.philosophy.misc Subject: Re: Impossibilities (the Law of Fives) Message-ID: <170@grc97.UUCP> Date: Fri, 26-Sep-86 14:42:15 EDT Article-I.D.: grc97.170 Posted: Fri Sep 26 14:42:15 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 30-Sep-86 00:31:36 EDT Organization: Gould R&D - Rolling Meadows, IL Lines: 60 Xref: linus net.sf-lovers:15625 talk.philosophy.misc:105 References: <3279@caip.RUTGERS.EDU> <15634@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <346@unc.unc.UUCP> <15763@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> In article <15763@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, David desJardins writes: > In article <346@unc.unc.UUCP> gallmeis@unc.UUCP (Bill Gallmeister) writes: > > > >2. Man has rules and the universe -- just kind of works. In reality, there > > is no E, or M, or C, and certainly no "squaring". These are > > labels man uses to define our universe. They are only true so > > far as we can see today. > > There is a name for the opposite belief -- that the behavior of the > universe can be understood. It is called 'science.' Understandably, > therefore, those of us who consider ourselves 'scientists' don't go > along with your opinion as expressed above. > > >3. The universe is uncharacterizable in its entirety by Man, because > > we are only Man, and when we characterize a thing, we > > bring our own bias into the matter. > > There is no evidence to support your statement (that the universe is > uncharacterizable), and there is substantial evidence to the contrary > (every successful prediction of science provides such evidence). Please allow me to quote the Law of Fives: All phenomena are directly or indirectly related to the number five, and this relationship can always be demonstrated, given enough ingenuity on the part of the demonstrator. This is the very model of what a true scientific law must always be: a statement about how the human mind relates to the cosmos. We can never make a statement about the cosmos itself--but only about how our senses (or our instruments) detect it, and about how our codes and languages symbolize it. We must remember that scientific inquiry can only build possible models to describe the behavior we have observed. In this sense, we cannot understand the universe, but only the models which we build. We can never make predictions about what the universe will do; we can only make predictions about our models. Sometimes these models accurately reflect what we observe, sometimes they don't. Since these models are human artifacts, they must _necessarily_ reflect our experience of human existance. They are not and can never be complete representations of the universe! This is not to say that the models we build are not useful! On the contrary, they may be very useful, depending on their accuracy. But these models are useful only in that they reflect our experience. The results of scientific inquiry are not Truths of the universe. Rather, they are statements about ourselves and how we perceive the universe. -- email: ...ihnp4!grc97!hurst David Hurst, KSC phone: (312) 640-2044 Gould Research Center flames: /dev/null #include "Who are you?" "I am the new number two." "Who is number one?" "You are, number six." "I am not a number, I am a free man!" "Ahahahahahahahahaha!!