Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #670747

Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 04/13/2026 08:38 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> Am Sonntag000012, 12.04.2026 um 19:29 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am Samstag000011, 11.04.2026 um 19:52 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>>>>> On 4/11/2026 3:33 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/11/2026 05:23 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/11/2026 8:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 04/10/2026 10:41 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Natural and science make an oxymoron, sorry.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Science is "natural" like numbers are "natural",
>>>>>>>> since for "first principles" and "final cause"
>>>>>>>> that according to "science" that those are "science",
>>>>>>>> and here, "logic".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your arm waving won't help, natural and
>>>>>>> science make an oxymoron.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it's not natural, then it's synthetic.
>>>>>> The only reason people think science is synthetic
>>>>>> is because they were told some vague reasoning
>>>>>> about paradoxes and the limitations of sense,
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't monkeys have any science?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They have, but not yet have invented the printing press.
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>
>>> Well, how did the monkies come up with the Complete Works of Shakespeare
>>> then?
>>
>> Monkeys cannot speak very well.
>>
>> But some gorillas have learned to 'speak' with hand signs.
>>
>> But that is difficult to print, anyhow.
>>
>> Possibly you could teach a gorilla to use a printing press, but I have
>> doubts about their possibility to write, if the gorilla cannot speak.
>>
>> But maybe a system based on pictograms could be a way to allow the apes
>> to express their emotions, transfer that to some printable form and
>> subsequently squeeze it on paper.
>>
>> TH
>>
>> ...
>
> You obvisoluly never heard of...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
>
>
> look at the picture of a monkey who cannot speak but can type...
>
>
>
>

Also cigarettes and perhaps a pipe. It's a usual four-panel
cartoon, monkeys at desks typing, monkey at desk typing,
monkey stops typing and stares into space, last panel monkey
has reading glasses, a cigarette, scratching his head and
a thought ballon "How should I phrase this?"

_Thought_, is a mental process. It's beyond the planaria or
flatworm or drosophilia or even the zebra fish, the ommatidium
of a bee, it's more than stimulus and response, since it refers
to an abstract realm, its contents are more than physical, they're
environmental, and the sum of their influences.

So, no two monkeys are alike.

Then, the idea that it scratches its head in thought, then
that it has a cigarette which is a sort of RAM doubler of
the brain, has that these habits or affectations leave it
to the enter the state of _thought_, to enter and leave
the state of thought.

So, when the thought is relevant to an event, it's either
a familiar event or an unfamiliar event. The familiar events
either do or don't falsify held theories, and unfamiliar events
either do or don't introduce new theories, and do or don't
falsify old theories. They either do or don't. Then, memory
and recall, or lack thereof, also are plainly involved, about
the state of the "conscious" or the "consciousness", the
conscious and deliberate reasoning over matters of perceived
fact about expectations or estimations of theory, or hypothesis.

Entering or leaving the state of thought then makes either
reference or reinforcement or recreation of relevance to
a given task, then whether that's thought or recall,
or experiment (for example from the purposeful or the desperate).

So, there may be an "infinite monkey hypothesis" that a monkey
has a theory and is doing science.

In the old days, or, long old days, it used to be a question
besides whether non-humans "thought" whether they even "felt",
there were mad beasts and gentle beasts yet not angry beasts
or happy beasts. Then, at some point in time it was recognized
that non-humans of the, higher life form at least have feelings
and may have thoughts and then as with regards to whether they
have souls and thus represent life like human life, it's generally
given that beasts have feelings and thoughts, and to some degree
some spark of soul.


Then, the idea of souls and beasts also generally includes the
idea of animals or animalcules being independent creatures,
i.e. that a simulacrum is not even a beast. Then, the idea
that there's basically an independent reality (and not,
"living in a simulation" say), then is for that "machine
consciousness" is an own sort of account, then that the
reasoning about the rhetoric of consciousness readily arrives
at pondering the questions.

Then there's a usual account of Searle's or "the Chinese Room",
here that "inference is as inference does".


So, anyways, here there's an entire theory consider where,
for example, to begin, instead of the law of excluded middle
there's a principle of inverse, which can contemplate and
deliberate upon the law of principle of excluded middle,
and there's a principle of _thorough_ reason, so that
conflicting or confusing inductive empirical accounts
are ignore-able as they simply are simply ignorant,
besides the plain stipulation and model of their logical fact.

Then there's "ex falso nihilum" instead of "ex falso quodlibet",
though there's a simple model of mistakes as examples of errors,
the discovery of which is one aspect of "learning", the, "un-learning".

Thusly, quasi-modal logic and material implication are put in
a box and have no say about the truth tables themselves,
only for convenient scratch-pads of tallies.


Then, if you read, for example, the recent account with RF and GG
about the "dually-self-infraconsistent" the "paraconsistent dialetheic
ur-element", then that basically is a few lines added to Hegel's
monumental Wissenschaft der Logik ("Science of Logic"), giving
"Being" and "Nothing", and, Aristotle won't be made a fool, and
also the theory this "theatheory" gives Euclid's geometry.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-06 10:10 -0700
  Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-06 10:47 -0700
    Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-07 09:29 -0700
      Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-07 11:08 -0700
        Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-04-08 18:32 -0700
      Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-07 19:28 -0700
        Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-08 07:20 -0700
      Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-08 12:53 -0700
        Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-09 10:50 -0700
        Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-10 18:01 -0700
          Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-10 18:15 -0700
            Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-04-11 07:41 +0200
              Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-10 23:37 -0700
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-11 00:15 -0700
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-04-11 14:23 +0200
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-11 06:33 -0700
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-11 07:00 -0700
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-04-11 19:52 +0200
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-11 17:16 -0700
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-11 22:15 -0700
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-04-12 07:36 +0200
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-12 00:03 -0700
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-04-12 11:14 +0200
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-12 02:22 -0700
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-04-12 13:59 +0200
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-12 09:38 -0700
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-04-12 18:46 +0200
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-12 10:04 -0700
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-04-12 21:33 +0200
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-12 11:31 +0200
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-12 10:29 -0700
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-13 09:46 +0200
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-13 08:38 -0700
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-13 12:59 -0700
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-13 13:06 -0700
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-17 08:59 +0200
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-04-17 08:56 +0200
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 08:08 -0700
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science x3 <x@x.net> - 2026-04-17 15:31 -0700
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 17:34 -0700
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-18 09:58 +0200
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-18 07:29 -0700
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-18 01:29 -0700
          Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-13 13:55 -0700
            Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-20 14:06 -0700
              Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-20 19:22 -0700
            Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-05-02 21:46 -0700
              Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 09:06 -0700
            Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-05-07 10:17 -0700

csiph-web