SRH – is this it?

I know I’m not supposed to be thinking about this till after the wedding but the speak is in its 1st draft and I still have 2 weeks to go… hmm not convincing… anyway SRH seems to be based upon this distinction present in the literature to do ith Impredicativity…

If we encode things with the intention of simply describing what already is then indeed this description can represent “all things” and it need only be self-supporting and not self-contradictory to include itself. The coding is really just a grouping of the things like sets.

However if we seek to “construct” something through our encoding – as a Constructivist would – then we have the chicken and egg problem whenever we try to construct our self.

It seems it is the Constructivist problem which lies at the heart of the SRH. Scientists are not simply describing the world as it appears but are seeking a way to construct it. Construction of the world was the role taken previously by God. We may ask who made God, and as a child I wondered whether God was powerful enough to make himself – I figured at least he could step forward in time to when we was made and then like Bill and Ted he only needed to go back in time at some stage to make sure he really had been made. Absurd thinking really – this is God creator of Time and Space! Why does he need to prove anything! Anyway pointless discussion. The point is that Science strays into the SRH whenever it tries to take on the role of creator.

So we will always be left with “descriptions” of the world and our minds remain powerless to tackle (in a constructivist way) the more fascinating question of how it all got here… that is always a religious point.