The Meta Principle? MMs Greatest Strength!

Not me. I think there is a pyramidal structure to knowledge and once we have the apex, it's all downhill from there with nothing much more to do than "mopping up".

At some point, there will be nothing more to learn which is of great importance. There will always be something to think about ... it will just be more and more esoteric.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">At some point, there will be nothing more to learn which is of great importance.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

So you believe in the existence of God(s)?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />Not me. I think there is a pyramidal structure to knowledge and once we have the apex, it's all downhill from there with nothing much more to do than "mopping up".

At some point, there will be nothing more to learn which is of great importance. There will always be something to think about ... it will just be more and more esoteric.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

But what if the Pyramid turns out to be just a piece of an even more complex puzzle. You can never know unless you keep looking. Esoterics, as you put it, will always generate skepticism. The Meta Model is the best practicle theory I have ever read dealing with the subject of skepticism. I am not saying that you are wrong and that knowledge is not contained in such a proper form, however you can never know that with utter certainty. The Meta Principle! I like it.

As for God or Gods as Jan speaks about, she makes a good point. To ever believe that we have reached an apex will require some form of faith. The Meta Principle requires faith to conclude there is nothing more.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">As for God or Gods as Jan speaks about, she makes a good point. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Jan is a typical male name in this part of Europe, but no offense taken. []

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> To ever believe that we have reached an apex will require some form of faith.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If you know everthing there is to know then you have become a God in some sense That is how I looked at it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But what if the Pyramid turns out to be just a piece of an even more complex puzzle.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You can only discover that 1+1=2 ... one time. Apparently, you think (as many do) that there are an infinite number of fundamental principles to be discovered. There aren't ... as the observed structure of what knowledge we already possess ... overwhelmingly illustrates.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">There aren't ... as the observed structure of what knowledge we already possess ... overwhelmingly illustrates.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You have to concede that we haven't scratched the surface of knowledge that could even remotely explain the operational parameters of the universe. Also, if there exists a lowest, upper bound on knowledge then this violates the uncertainty principle: if you know <i>everything</i> than you can perfectly predict <i>all</i> possible outcomes of events in the cosmos. No?