Big Thoughts

         Why `Philosophy' `Science' (and even `Music') all Fail

           but we weak humans cling to them nevertheless



1)   Philosophy (i.e. Language): Ludwig Wittgenstein of Austria finally
     resolved the most intractable problems of philosophy by proving
     that they couldn't be solved, or even expressed.

     Philosophers had tied themselves in knots trying to put into 
     words the things they felt to be important, but, no matter which
     languages they used, they couldn't do it.

     Ludwig realized that, as human languages are constructs, they
     cannot have an `essence' of their own. Therefore all `essential'
     truths are inexpressible in any human language.


     Well, if any of us had thought about it, that's fairly obvious,
     here's an everyday example:

     An author's `great thought' has to be cramped and mangled merely
     to get it into words. Then, when those words are heard or read
     by another (with a uniquely different brain - like all humans,
     and a different personal background - maybe even a different
     cultural history), the received impression, the end result,
     must differ from the original thought (which never quite made
     it into words anyway).


     Add - same applies to "logic" which is only manipulation of a
     system of human-constructed symbols; system suffers from same
     lack of `essential' truths and is therefore incomplete and
     incapable of any final `proof'.   

  
     **************************************************************



2)   Science (i.e. Mathematics): Similarly Turing and Russell (an 
     early mentor of Wittgenstein's) had tried to analyse the failure
     of attempts to systematize Mathematics - once thought to be 
     `logical' and therefore `universal'.
     
     1931, the Czech-born mathematician Kurt Gödel eventually proved
     that Mathematics is `incomplete' and must always remain so. That
     is, math is a human construct attempting to logically descibe the
     Universe but its terms are merely imposed on parts of reality, 
     they cannot describe - in a provable way - reality itself.

     As Gödel put it, there will be mathematical statements (about 
     physical reality) which may or may not be true, but which are
     unprovable by any mathematical means.

     Well, here we go again, if anybody had really thought about
     it, that was staring us in the face.

     Shake a charm bracelet and watch one charm swing on its chain
     - that's a pendulum, which science can accurately describe;
     but when you hold the bracelet by one charm and shake the whole
     thing - that's at least two pendulums, one hanging from another,
     which science hasn't got a hope of describing.

     Or, take a look at the sun and the moon. The Moon orbits the Earth,
     but science can describe that only by ignoring the Sun; similarly
     science can only describe Earth's orbit around the Sun by ignoring
     the Moon.

     They can't calculate the real orbits. A mere "three body problem"
     is out-of-reach of human science. 

     Scientists have to lie to get even a `pretend' description of
     just a simple part of the Universe. 

     When a human scientist (or anybody else) says anything about
     the real, physical universe, 99% of the time it will be only
     partly "true"; wide, complex generalizations are unprovable, i.e
     not able to be truthfully expressed at all.           

     Like Einstein said:
     "When mathematics tries to talk about reality - it's inaccurate,
      when mathematics is accurate - it's not talking about reality"

     and

     "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything
      that counts can be counted." 

     **************************************************************



3)   Seems no-ones's addressed the (same) problem in Music.

     As in above subjects, `received opinions' about music are mostly
     from posers and `music snobs' - no provable statements.

     Why?

     As above, let's take a look at reality:

     An emotional concept of a composer (if s/he has one) is
     changed merely by attempting to write it down in musical
     notation (limited by the "language").

     Then the artists & their conductor / producer put _their_
     gloss on it. Finally the piece will be interpreted by each
     listener, almost wholly dependent on their mood, culture
     and background, and so uniquely for each individual.

     I.e. this editor `likes' and is even `moved by' a wide range,
     from sentimental blue-grass to thoughtful Mahler (which is also
     `sentimental'). But he's come to realize that the "truth and 
     beauty" of music is internal and unique to each listener.


  [  In fact much music becomes associated with the circumstances   ]
  [  under which it was first heard, as Noel Coward probably meant  ]
  [  when he referred to "the power of cheap music". Then the       ]
  [  composer's intention (not technical ability) is irrelevant !   ]


     **************************************************************

     Cheap note: you could use the a/m statements to `win' an
     argument - 'cos they're each unanswerable.

     But, if you've really absorbed their point, you wouldn't
     bother arguing about such things.

     **************************************************************

     Reference file 

     http://www.perceptions.couk.com/blinded.html#16

     http://www.perceptions.couk.com/metamail.html#herb

     http://www.perceptions.couk.com/uef/wb2.html#ucover

     http://www.perceptions.couk.com/gody.txt

     http://www.perceptions.couk.com/uef/dogmath.txt  

     ----------------------------------------

              FURTHER REFERENCES

  GO - "search perceptions" - in SEARCH-ENGINE


file-ID www.perceptions.couk.com/bigthorts.txt