OT: Crazy Programming

[Patrick]

"Huaiyu Zhu" <hzhu at mars.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrnaeekef.3ck.hzhu at mars.localdomain...
> Patrick <postmisc at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >To my mind, it is a perfectly logical conclusion that if the final
recipient
> >has some limitations (eg. the assumption that all things "REAL" must be
> >entirely or partly perceptible), then the delivery systems indeed cannot
> >help.
>
> Care to outline that logic?

I'm relieved that you said "outline" instead of "defend" ;-)

Philosophy is not my forte, so please forgive the naivete of these remarks.
You are dealing with a novice here. (And to cap it off, it's Sunday night
and I've been drinking all afternoon). So here goes ...

I meant : if one of the "recipient's" limitations is a tendency to seek in
the wrong direction, as Christopher seemed to imply, then even highly
advanced "delivery systems" will be unable to help. For instance, we will
not find Pi through a powerful telescope, or even through the world's best
hearing aid.

I wonder though: is Pi entirely imaginary? Does its lack of substance
necessarily place it in a domain that is beyond any definition of "real"? I
have no idea what philosophers think about this, but could not Pi be
considered both real and imaginary? Although Pi is not a real _thing_, it is
a real _relationship_. And should "things" own the exclusive right to
"reality"?

Beyond Pi, what about the laws of physics themselves? Are scientific laws
"real"? What kind of instrument could possibly detect the law itself (not
merely manifestations of the law)?

If any of this makes any sense, ie. if scientific laws and relationships
(like Pi) are granted any form of "reality", then so might Platonic "Forms"
have a "reality" of sorts that is not, by nature, perceptible (or only seen
"through a glass darkly"). And if that were the case, to look for them "out
there" with the best scientific instruments would be something of  a wild
goose chase. I suspect this is what Christopher meant, but I'm sorry if I've
got it wrong.

Regardless of whether there's any merit in the above (and believe me, it
will not hurt my feelings if you tear it to pieces ;-)), it also seems
possible to me that certain (unknown) errors are hardwired into human
perception, and that unless those errors are somehow recognised,
sophisticated instruments may only amplify them. If our ignorance of our
ignorance is fundamental enough, we may be building the same error into our
instruments. (Speculative possibility which I have no particular reason to
either believe, or to want to believe, but it seems far from inconceivable
to me).

Regards,
Patrick.