Bruce and Michael B, (01)
There is a huge difference between the search for universal principles
underlying the universe and an ontology used for language analysis or
for supporting interoperability among computer systems. (02)
> The point would be -- that "the one" is the absolute container of
> everything -- and that this one "absolute" framework supports and
> contains an infinite number of "relative" frameworks within itself.
> And "what it's made of" (supposedly) is also kind of mind-blowingly
> simple -- something like "it's made out of itself". (03)
That sounds a lot like "to Hen" of Pythagoras, Plato, and Plotinus.
See below for a slightly edited note I sent to another forum about
the equation God = Logos = Tao = Dharma. (04)
> The fact that the universe is full of complexity does not mean that
> the underlying laws are also complex." (05)
> Yes. But the underlying laws being not complex does not make the
> complexity go away. (06)
Yes indeed! (07)
In physics, a simple law like F=ma becomes extremely complex when
you apply it to anything useful. Applied physics is a hodge-podge
of special cases, and theoretical physics is definitely not simple. (08)
When talking about foundations of language, I like to quote a child
named Laura, who uttered the following sentences before the age of 3: (09)
> Here’s a seat. It must be mine if it’s a little one.
> I went to the aquarium and saw the fish.
> I want this doll because she’s big.
> When I was a little girl, I could go “geek geek” like that,
> but now I can go “This is a chair.” (010)
Laura could understand and generate language better than any computer
system today. But she had a solid "foundation" for language without
having any theories about logic, ontology, or the universe. (011)
-------- Original Message -------- (013)
Around 500 BC, Heraclitus (Fragment 1) wrote (014)
> all things come to be according to this logos (015)
In the first century AD, John the Evangelist wrote (016)
> In the beginning was the Logos. The Logos was with God.
> And the Logos was God. It was in the beginning with God.
> All things came to be through it, and without it nothing
> came to be that has come to be. (017)
They both used 'panta' (all things) and 'gignomai' (come to be).
Heraclitus did not use the word 'Theos' (God), but John equated
Theos with Logos. Some scholars claim that John was influenced
by Philo of Alexandria, who wrote many volumes (in Greek) to
reconcile the Torah with Greek philosophy. (018)
Other scholars commented on the similarity between Logos as
Heraclitus used it, Dao (or Tao) as Lao Zi used it, and Dharma
as Gautama Buddha used it. Perhaps that was not a coincidence,
because they were approximate contemporaries, and they lived
near the trade routes (Silk Road) from China to Asia Minor. (019)
In his philosophy, Spinoza used the words 'God' (Deus) and
'nature' (Natura) almost interchangeably. When asked whether
he believed in God, Einstein replied, "I believe in the God
of Spinoza". (020)
Einstein's equation of God with the laws of nature had strong
similarities to Logos, Dao, and Dharma. You could add Jung,
who related Logos and Eros as two aspects of the same principle. (021)
Einstein used mathematical theories to formulate his version
of the ultimate laws. Heraclitus, Buddha, and Lao Zi emphasized
the difficulty or impossibility of expressing the ultimate. But
I believe that they were all engaged in a similar search. (022)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (023)