After All The Stars Go To Sleep__The Universe Awakes__A Final Theory...

After all the stars burn our, and all the black-holes, planets and moons, etc., radiate away to the fundamental substance em-field__Thermodynamics is necessarily required by all the laws of physics, logic and math__to change wave phase-state aether space Hydrodynamics__Through the cyclic mechanics of the Universal nearest absolute zero k cold__Shrinking the fs-em-aether back to re-structured matter...

The Cosmological Complexity Logic of The Prime Mover__Solved...!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_decade...

QTHD__Quantum Thermo-Hydro-Dynamics' Necessity...

The proof is: Any simple ideal gas, such as liquid natural gas, shrinks when the heat is removed__and the aether being such a hyper-fine-structured ideal non-viscous fluidic gas__is also necessarily required to shrink, when all the heat goes out of the Universe__Thus turning the expansion to contraction... But, it's a trillions of trillions of years out to the re-cycle mechanics and back, and the sheer velocities and magnitudes of time/distance volume involved__Should be enough hydrodynamic force, to produce the four fundamental forces to construct another Big-Bang__as Newton's laws come into play on the return trip__Expecially Inertia__Then of course, all the Quantum and Relative Mechanics Laws...

Btw, if a LNG tanker's gas were at room temperature, a ship to carry it, would be 600 thousand feet long__as it's a 600 to 1 gas shrinkage, just by removing the heat from the gas... The largest LNG tankers are 1000 feet long, appx...

A Possible Answer of Universal Mass…

Hi L______, funny you should mention this at this moment, as I awoke this morning thinking on this very subject. To me it's the most foundational question there is, and people the world over have been trying to solve this 'Riddle of The Sphinx' since the dawn of time. What my thoughts wandered to this morning was Einstein, as I was always trying to delve deeper into his mind, to the levels he'd have been thinking, to get as deep as he did, when I realized from being pushed a bit by G___, how I'd respond to answering to the challenge of best explaining my Decay Model. Also by relating A_____'s, N_____'s and P____'s ideas to mine, I just realized it all comes down to interpreting clearly just exactly what E = MC^2 truly means. Energy and Mass are what is stated, but by my defining Energy on N_____'s thread as not an entity, but a by-product of matter in motion, it finally dawned on me that both Energy and Mass in Einstein's formula are simply measurements, and nothing more__E is simply a measurement of M__another measurement. The real substance being measured is never mentioned, so really, the whole formula as stated is just Einstein's subjective 'God' view of 'Self and All' measurement__Totally lacking the entity of foundation of the material measured. Of course, all physicists know he's intended it to measure a certain amount of matter, but by being left open and background independent, it can also oh so easily be applied to the entire Universe of all reality__and herein lies its subjective faults mixed and conflated with any objective reality, the formula is really supposed to be applied to, and very much confusing so much of the world of science, philosophy and psychology...

Now, let's look for the true foundation in E = MC^2. If it's not energy measuring mass, due to both being pure measurement of measurement, what is it? It's no more than the subjective formula of measurement of its own non-entities__Until we enter a Real Entity. The only real entity to enter into the formula is one of the elements of the elemental table, and choose any one of them you wish, but realize Energy and Mass are not even a single element of the elemental table__Therefore, the formula only makes sense when one of the elements of the table of ground are thought to be the Mass in the formula__so we finally chase mass back to its ground of at least one Real Element... Now, take Einstein's formula all the way to the Universal level, which many of us do, by seeing it as the Relativity Measure of all structured matter sped to the speed of light, and either going backwards in time, or dis-appearing through the light cone as total decay of all finiteness__But Now__Realize these are false subjective assessments of the formula, because the formula is only measureing the formula itself, in most minds, as no fundamental ground is even mentioned... Finally bring the formula back to Earth and enter a piece of matter, and ask yourself what that matter truly is...???

The answer can only be known by either using the subjective side of the formula or an objective Real Matter side of it. Let's simply life-span decay all matter to its most fundamental, and that would be a photon, so by realizing a almost infinitely huge number of photons would be required to account for all of finiteness's decay, we also in reverse thinking, would realize a very large number of photons would be required to build any even smallest piece of matter, even a tiny hydrogen atom__Now, and with the help of Ol' Man Einstein himself, we find the Bose-Einstein Condensate__on the return trip of decay, building from photons back to seeable condensed structured matter__So, the M in the formula is the Mass of real Matter, who's absolute fundamental structure is the Photon made of Real Matter__All along__and the newest standard model physicists, scientists and philosophers are finally coming around to realizing the fact that E = MC^2 must be a representation of Real Matter's Mass__to have any meaning at all__as otherwise, it's just a measurement of measurement__Mass and Energy are not Entities__They are both simple measurements of fundamental matters of mass in motion... So now, these many standard model physicists and theorists have finally realized the lil' ol' photon is absolutely required to have Both matter and mass, to build a Real Universe__Even if, a very infinitesimal amount...

Sorry, for the long off-topic post, but Your post just happened to be the first one I opened this morning, and when I saw my name, and the subject addressed, I thought it might fit...

Addendum:

There's no other Engine of the Prime Mover Motion ability, except the final phase changing state of Decay at Limit, to be the Prime Mover of The FS...

It's the simple phase-state change, demanded by wave mechanics, of thermodynamics losing heat, to turn hydrodynamic at extremely low wave frequency, which just happens to be the Universal conditions of such state, when all the stars, black-holes, planets and moons, etc., go to sleep, i.e., decay to the nearest zero k limit...

It's all the simplicity of Quantum Wave Mechanics At Limit__The Re-Cycle Limit of Thermodynamics to Hydrodynamics...

As to infinity, it's required to account for eternity's space__otherwise you have only the infinite regresses, and illogical contradictions of all the laws of thought, logic, math and science...

The Universal Topology Absolutely Requires Infinity, as Finiteness Only Occupies a Small Volume of Infinite Space, But when Space is Seen As EM-Fields’ FS__The Conundrum of Infinity vs. Finiteness Arises, and Is Only Solved by An Eternal Infinity of The FS, Even Though It's Only Provable By Modal Necessity Logic and Intuitionistic Math...

It's only a model guys__And models are mere representations of reality, but mine offers the logic and maths as proofs, of a truly fundamental foundation for the standard models__for the first time in history...

There's no conjecture__Only the necessary and fully derivable logic from the real Universe, and its laws and maths...

Iff there's no infinite field beyond finiteness's decay limit__there's no prime mover possible__and a true void is not allowed by science's necessary logics, maths and proofs__Since; "Field is everywhere"__whereas infinity exists simply by being required by eternity's necessity__plus a Universal Mechanics Necessity of Motion__or there's absolutely no foundation for Motion__So, the choice is Conjectured Eternal Motion__Or a Fully Logically Derived Motion...

The Choice is Yours...

When will the world ever learn, Energy, Mass and Time are mere measurements of FS-Space-Em-Field Matter in Motion__and Nothing More...

FS-Space-Em-Field Matter = A Single Triadic Physical Entity...

P____, there is no beginning of a "No Beginning"... Even in your own ideas, any beginning is a logical contradiction of your own ideas of eternity in infinity. Both your and my logic dictates/necessitates an "Absolute No Beginning"__to be eternal, thus infinite...

My model isn't conjecturing a fundamental motion__It's clearly stating the Absolutely Necessary Universal Wave Mechanics Function at Re-Cycle Limit, which really isn't a Limit of the Universe, but just one of its Phase-State Changes__Necessitated for the eternal Universe to have motion__It isn't created within the entire Universe__It's only a described always existing mechanics, as what's always been the Prime Mover Hydrodynamics of all existence, of the FS, and all structured matter and fields...

Peirce's Definitions of Scientific Truth...

Truth

(see also Real )(if need be, highlight this entire post to read easier, the red and gray elements)

"To say that a thing is Real is merely to say that such predicates as are true of it, or some of them, are true of it regardless of whatever any actual person or persons might think concerning that truth. Unconditionality in that single respect constitutes what we call Reality.[---] I call "truth" the predestinate opinion, by which I ought to have meant that which would ultimately prevail if investigation were carried sufficiently far in that particular direction." ('A Sketch of Logical Critics', EP 2.457-458, 1911)

"Unless truth be recognized as public, - as that of which any person would come to be convinced if he carried his inquiry, his sincere search for immovable belief, far enough, - then there will be nothing to prevent each one of us from adopting an utterly futile belief of his own which all the rest will disbelieve. Each one will set himself up as a little prophet; that is, a little "crank," a half-witted victim of his own narrowness.

But if Truth be something public, it must mean that to the acceptance of which as a basis of conduct any person you please would ultimately come if he pursued his inquiries far enough; - yes, every rational being, however prejudiced he might be at the outset. For Truth has that compulsive nature which Pope well expressed:

The eternal years of God are her's.

But, you will say, I am setting up this very proposition as infallible truth. Not at all; it is a mere definition. I do not say that it is infallibly true that there is any belief to which a person would come if he were to carry his inquiries far enough. I only say that that alone is what I call Truth. I cannot infallibly know that there is any Truth." (Letter to Lady Welby, SS 73, 1908)

"The purpose of every sign is to express "fact," and by being joined with other signs, to approach as nearly as possible to determining an interpretant which would be the perfect Truth, the absolute Truth, and as such (at least, we may use this language) would be the very Universe. Aristotle gropes for a conception of perfection or entelechy, which he never succeeds in making clear. We may adopt the word to mean the very fact, that is, the ideal sign which should be quite perfect, and so identical, - in such identity as a sign may have, with the very matter denoted united with the very form signified by it. The entelechy of the Universe of being, then, the Universe qua fact, will be that Universe in its aspect as a sign, the "Truth" of being. The "Truth," the fact that is not abstracted but complete, is the ultimate interpretant of every sign." ('New Elements', EP 2:304, c. 1904)

"... to believe the absolute truth would be to have such a belief that under no circumstances, such as actually occur, should we find ourselves surprised." ('Reason's Conscience: A Practical Treatise on the Theory of Discovery; Wherein Logic Is Conceived as Semeiotic', MS 693: 166, 1904)

"Every man is fully satisfied that there is such a thing as truth, or he would not ask any question. That truth consists in a conformity to something independent of his thinking it to be so, or of any man's opinion on that subject. But for the man who holds this second opinion, the only reality, there could be, would be conformity to the ultimate result of inquiry. But there would not be any course of inquiry possible except in the sense that it would be easier for him to interpret the phenomenon; and ultimately he would be forced to say that there was no reality at all except that he now at this instant finds a certain way of thinking easier than any other. But that violates the very idea of reality and of truth." (Harvard Lectures on Pragmatism, CP 5.211, 1903)

"Truth is a character which attaches to an abstract proposition, such as a person might utter. It essentially depends upon that proposition's not professing to be exactly true. But we hope that in the progress of science its error will indefinitely diminish, just as the error of 3.14159, the value given for π, will indefinitely diminish as the calculation is carried to more and more places of decimals. What we call π is an ideal limit to which no numerical expression can be perfectly true. If our hope is vain; if in respect to some question - say that of the freedom of the will - no matter how long the discussion goes on, no matter how scientific our methods may become, there never will be a time when we can fully satisfy ourselves either that the question has no meaning, or that one answer or the other explains the facts, then in regard to that question there certainly is no truth. But whether or not there would be perhaps any reality is a question for the metaphysician, not the logician. Even if the metaphysician decides that where there is no truth there is no reality, still the distinction between the character of truth and the character of reality is plain and definable. Truth is that concordance of an abstract statement with the ideal limit towards which endless investigation would tend to bring scientific belief, which concordance the abstract statement may possess by virtue of the confession of its inaccuracy and one-sidedness, and this confession is an essential ingredient of truth. [---] In the above we have considered positive scientific truth. But the same definitions equally hold in the normative sciences. If a moralist describes an ideal as the summum bonum, in the first place, the perfect truth of his statement requires that it should involve the confession that the perfect doctrine can neither be stated nor conceived. If, with that allowance, the future development of man's moral nature will only lead to a firmer satisfaction with the described ideal, the doctrine is true." ('Truth and Falsity and Error', DPP 2 / CP 5.565-566, 1902)

"These characters equally apply to pure mathematics. [---] A proposition is not a statement of perfectly pure mathematics until it is devoid of all definite meaning, and comes to this -- that a property of a certain icon is pointed out and is declared to belong to anything like it, of which instances are given. The perfect truth cannot be stated, except in the sense that it confesses its imperfection. The pure mathematician deals exclusively with hypotheses. Whether or not there is any corresponding real thing, he does not care. [---] But whether there is any reality or not, the truth of the pure mathematical proposition is constituted by the impossibility of ever finding a case in which it fails. This, however, is only possible if we confess the impossibility of precisely defining it." ('Truth and Falsity and Error', DPP 2 / CP 5.567, 1902)

"But even if it were impossible to distinguish between truth and reality, that would not in the least prevent our defining what it is that truth consists in. Truth and falsity are characters confined to propositions. A proposition is a sign which separately indicates its object. Thus, a portrait with the name of the original below it is a proposition. It asserts that if anybody looks at it, he can form a reasonably correct idea of how the original looked. A sign is only a sign in actu by virtue of its receiving an interpretation, that is, by virtue of its determining another sign of the same object. This is as true of mental judgments as it is of external signs. To say that a proposition is true is to say that every interpretation of it is true. [---] Thus, a false proposition is a proposition of which some interpretant represents that, on an occasion which it indicates, a percept will have a certain character, while the immediate perceptual judgment on that occasion is that the percept has not that character. A true proposition is a proposition belief in which would never lead to such disappointment so long as the proposition is not understood otherwise than it was intended." ('Truth and Falsity and Error', DPP 2 / CP 5.569, 1902)

"All the above relates to complex truth, or the truth of propositions. This is divided into many varieties, among which may be mentioned ethical truth, or the conformity of an assertion to the speaker's or writer's belief, otherwise called veracity, and logical truth, that is, the concordance of a proposition with reality, in such way as is above defined.

(2) The word truth has also had great importance in philosophy in widely different senses, in which it is distinguished as simple truth, which is that truth which inheres in other subjects than propositions.

Plato in the Cratylus (385B) maintains that words have truth; and some of the scholastics admitted that an incomplex sign, such as a picture, may have truth.

But truth is also used in senses in which it is not an affection of a sign, but of things as things. Such truth is called transcendental truth. The scholastic maxim was Ens est unum, verum, bonum. Among the senses in which transcendental truth was spoken of was that in which it was said that all science has for its object the investigation of truth, that is to say, of the real characters of things. It was, in other senses, regarded as a subject of metaphysics exclusively. It is sometimes defined so as to be indistinguishable from reality, or real existence. Another common definition is that truth is the conformity, or conformability, of things to reason. Another definition is that truth is the conformity of things to their essential principles.

(3) Truth is also used in logic in a sense in which it inheres only in subjects more complex than propositions. Such is formal truth, which belongs to an argumentation which conforms to logical laws." ('Truth and Falsity and Error', DPP 2 / CP 5.570-573, 1902)

"By a true proposition (if there be any such thing) I mean a proposition which at some time, past or future, emerges into thought, and has the following three characters:

1st, no direct effort of yours, mine, or anybody's, can reverse it permanently, or even permanently prevent its asserting itself;

2nd, no reasoning or discussion can permanently prevent its asserting itself;

3rd, any prediction based on the proposition, as to what ought to present itself in experience under certain conditions, will be fulfilled when those conditions are satisfied.

By a reality, I mean anything represented in a true proposition.

By a positive reality or truth, I mean one to which all three of the above criteria can be applied, - of course imperfectly, since we can never carry them out to the end.

By an ideal reality or truth, I mean one to which the first two criteria can be applied imperfectly, but the third not at all, since the proposition does not imply that any particular state of things will ever appear in experience. Such is a truth of pure mathematics.

By an ultimate reality or truth, I mean one to which the first criterion can be in some measure applied, but which can never be overthrown or rendered clearer by any reasoning, and upon which alone no predictions can be based. Thus, if you are kicked by a horse, the fact of the pain is beyond all discussion and far less can it be shaken or established by any experimentation." (Letter to Georg Cantor, NEM 3:773, 1900)

"The question therefore is, how is true belief (or belief in the real) distinguished from false belief (or belief in fiction). Now, as we have seen in the former paper, the ideas of truth and falsehood, in their full development, appertain exclusively to the experiential method of settling opinion. [---]
On the other hand, all the followers of science are animated by a cheerful hope that the processes of investigation, if only pushed far enough, will give one certain solution to each question to which they apply it. [---] This activity of thought by which we are carried, not where we wish, but to a fore-ordained goal, is like the operation of destiny. No modification of the point of view taken, no selection of other facts for study, no natural bent of mind even, can enable a man to escape the predestinate opinion. This great hope is embodied in the conception of truth and reality. The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real. (' How to Make Our Ideas Clear', CP 5.406-407, 1878)

The 1st Law of Mind__Unity…!!!

The Proof of Abductive Hypothesis...

“The completest proof of a hypothesis is when that which has been hypothetically assumed to exist as a means of accounting for certain phenomena is afterwards actually observed to exist or is proved by descriptive testimony(logic) to have existed.”  William Minto

Hi Tim… I think I have finally brought my inner logical thoughts into somewhat of a balance with my external logical thoughts, and believe me, that’s been one hell-of-a job. I don’t know as I could really tell you who is more responsible for this result, but possibly, along with much of your support and help, a logician-scientist who happened to die young, back in the 1890’s, by the name of William Minto. He’s most the one I’d have to credit with making the history of logic so clear, and in fully relating the inner logical mechanics to the external logical mechanics, the best of anyone I’ve ever read__at least for me to understand. He’s not only clear, but also an almost perfect prose writer of highly technical ideas__and that's truly, quite a feat__Tarski is the only other scientist/mathematician/logician of such scientific prose clarity, as far as I've read. Not only has he offered the simplest proof of inductive/abductive/deductive hypothesis, but also the most grounded links between inner logical proofs to external experimental data and proofs, I’ve ever come across__It’s just his ideas are so fundamental, he’s the only logician-scientist I’d class in league with Charles Sanders Peirce__Which I put far above Einstein, as well I do Kepler…

Anyway, it comes down to the what I may call the ‘super-concept’  being no more than a ‘self-eclectic unity’, by logical necessity__and by this I simply mean that all ‘polyadic(multiple) inference’ reduces to mental unity, by the necessity of the most fundamental ‘laws of thought’, which further corresponds with the fundamental Universe’s necessity of ‘condensations to unity’, as exists in all structured forms of matter, as per our past discussions. I’d say the 1^st induction necessity of any and all inference inductions, is by logical necessity, an ‘induction/s to unity’, as a prerequisite of Nature’s natural fundamental wave actions__amounting to this ‘absolute necessity of unity’ being not only a function of our inner inference motion mechanics, but the greater Universe’s external mechanics of motion, as well…

Let me put it this way, if I may without sounding too bold; Imo this is the ‘#1 Universal Law of Inference & Motion to Unity and All Inference & Universal Motion Mechanics Tends to A Combinatoric Unity__Either Mental or Physical…’ Now, that may seem rather obvious, but the proof of such is not as simple as it may first seem, and this is why Tim, I’ve always stood my ground about the fact that; “If determinism were 100% of the truth, my 30+ year search for inductive logic’s proof would have ended long ago, as this would be a simple matter of known consecutive/sequential causes and effects’__however, the extended sciences show and knows this not to be the case__in full… It’s far more complex to connect the inner logical ‘laws of thought’ with the external ‘physical laws’, than one may first think__and herein lies that great epistemic dilemma, which much of my recent studies may have more recently solved…

Put bluntly; “Internal motion forces correspond to external motion forces, by way of our inference mechanics to science’s quantum Universal mechanics__Mass and gravity are simply the unity mechanics of linear and angular velocity, as there are no other total motions”(this in no way excludes Dave’s motion formulas_Va=Vu+Vr__and wave mechanics_but includes his, as well as all your excellent motion diagrams and gravity ideas). These implied and known fundamental quantum field forces, balance all structured matter forces, simply by way of Kepler’s fundamental 1^st motion law__his easily implied angular momentum of gravity, derived from his initial work. As far as I can see, mass and gravity are equal to the total mechanics of the linear and angular velocities involved__and only needs further and clear proof, by way of deriving from the total implied unity hypothesis. I’m deriving this idea from the known existing Universal entropy, being ½ of the total Universal motion, to a necessary least action unity, and return inverse hydrodynamic cycle to the other ½ of the total Universal motion to re-condensed and structured unity(as per Hawking and Penrose’s newest figures)__which if followed totally through all the possible mathematical cause and effects of presently known radiation facts, hypothesis, and theory mechanics, derives such Universal balance of all forces, to be none other than the three main forces’ effects of producing the fundamental gravity__which equates to an absolute repelling set of the three fundamental forces__not an attractive force, at all. It’s easier to see this fundamental mechanics through the simple analogy of thought’s hypothesized physical mass, acting as an electric current, multiplying mass to energy, by way of thought to muscular energy activity__though this certainly doesn’t explain the mechanics of the whole Universe’s motions, involved__but it does force us to look internally for such scientific answers of these very fundamental forces__where least actions produce greater actions, i.e., thoughts initiating the muscle-power to build the very technological world we live in__and that’s a lotta’ muscle-power from mere noumenal thought__This correspondence mechanics must be thoroughly investigated__as ‘The Laws of Thought’ correspond isomorphically with ‘The Laws of Physics’__and physics can be described by no other scientific method, than the fundamental “Laws of Thought and Logic…”

Logic Is The Science of Sciences…
We know, ‘Logic is concerned with inferences, not intuitive truths’ as stated by J.S. Mill__and that logic is Universally identical to(within) all humans, and without concepts; logic, math and science are impossible, since ‘formal logic’ and the ‘laws of exactitude’ are absolutely necessary__for such purposes of accurate measurements. We also know successful explanations are inferences from the facts, and further that methods of observation and methods of explanation are mental ideas of induction vs./and/or material objects of induction, at the same and different times__so, we must be aware of these two departments of logic, by way of deduction and induction, or ‘formal inference’ and ‘material inference’, or syllogistic logic and scientific logic, or pseudo-idealism/nominalism and realism__as just some of the classifications. Still, a concept must always be a quantity, and the #1 primary law of logic does require eternity as absolutely necessary, or our ground logic is forced into unwanted circular reasonings, contradictions and/or infinite regresses, etc. It’s just an odd circumstance that a chronologically required eternity/infinity would be required to eliminate infinite regresses and circular reasoning in our fundamental logic, but it’s certainly the case, when fully thought out according to the six most fundamenatal ‘laws of thought and/or logic…’

We should infer nothing without a true physical ground or sound reason(also referred to as ‘Truth-Maker Logic’), which is no more than Leibniz’s seventh ‘sufficiency law’ of the other six fundamental laws of thought and/or logic__which gave our modern scientific logics solid ground, in the real physical World and Universe. Any pure logic should be understood to be only the ‘Science of logic’ fully derived from the natural laws of thought as simply, yet fundamentally, thought. Further, every true science must obey these ‘laws of thought and logic’, to be classed as a hard science__where such logic is necessitated to be the ‘formal instrument’ of the mind. Logic is simply ‘the science of the laws of thought as thought’, and also the science of the necessary ‘forms of thought’__(psychological and/or/vs. logical). The universal necessitation of logic is governed by the universal law of logic, sometimes stated as;__’It absolutely must exist’, as our logic is the most fundamental science of ‘the formal laws of thought…’

And finally; The ‘object-matter’ of logic, is what makes logic objective…

“There exists no mind or machine, sufficiently powerful, to process finity and infinity, simultaneously…” me

P.s.
Tim, some of the above is just strung together ideas, to possibly open this area of conversation to the possibilities of actually linking all the mental, physical and Universal facts to measurements and possibly processable with an algorithm, similar to this one I already offered: The Universal Isomorphic Algorithm__UIA = ∑∫∏v -> IC:M Iff / ≡ ∑’s •…(The universal isomorphic algorithm equals the sum of the integral product variables, implying the isomorphic center of mass, if and only if divided identical to the sum’s center…)

This post is far from perfect Tim, but I think it offers the core to what I’ve been driving at; about grounding our ideas in sound measurement, math and sound scientific logic…

See if you can make heads or tails of deriving the most fundamental motions of the Universe from such logical and mathematical necessities of all and any motions possible, being forced to the unities I’ve mentioned, by the very fundamental mechanics of a self-perpetuated Universe…

I know what it means to me, but I don’t know if I can explain it very well…
Regards,

P.s.s.
(going through my older posts and thought I'd re-enter this one...)
Why Science Is Too Narrow-Minded To Understand Itself…

The absolutely necessary volume of a finite Universal decay model, Scientifically gives one the necessary initial volume of the fundamental Universe__Absolutely required to construct the actual structured mass Universe, from its absolutely necessary em-field of FS__and only it does__So that no ‘Naked Ghosts’ are needed… All the present models of the Universe require ‘Naked Ghosts’ to construct their false models of the otherwise real Universe… The real Universe requires the fundamental state volume of a true necessary state Universe__to be many times the volume of the present CMBR volume__therefore requiring the real initial em-mass-field to be far larger than the present theorized/measured CMBR volume… This can all be figured with simple 1^st order arithmetic__and this simple 1^st order arithmetic proves all the present ‘Pseudo-Naked Ghost Models’ impossible of mathematical, structural, physical and or logical reality…

How can I make it any simpler…? The present CMBR volume’s em-mass-field is far too short of containing enough absolute fundamental (FS) substance to construct the volumes of the known structured mass, of galaxies, planets, black-holes and star systems(pre big bang necessity mechanics)__the present structured Universe contains__and is scientifically known to contain… Only a far, far, far larger CMBR volume of FS satisfies the logic of Universal construction__from unstructured em-mass-field substance, to the absolutely known and required structured matter__science presently measures…

Therefore; Science will never make sense of itself__until it realizes the true mathematical volume size, truly required to construct the present and known Universe’s mass__absolutely requires a larger initial volume field of this fundamental substance than it’s presently assumed/figured__to avoid all the ‘Naked Ghosts’ in all present forms of physical Universal models__Except a sensibly figured and true decay model’s absolutely required massive volume numbers__Which it only, can account for the necessary initial em-mass field’s fundamental substance__to successfully construct our real structured Universe__No ‘Naked Boogie-Men’ needed…

Until science extends its scope of understanding beyond the narrow-mindedness of present CMBR volume__It’s a walking blind intellectual cripple of its own narrow-mindedness…!!!
Welcome to a new rational infinity…

A Sound Teleological Scientific Method…

A Scientific Method To Predict A Future… {update}

"To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel

1. 1^st Inductive inferences should be open to all possible thought…(Do not block the way of inquiry. Peirce)

2. Abduction-hypothesis should carefully consider all possible combinations and eliminations of such thought…(all ideas must be run through the thought wringer, until all necessary logically scientific values are distilled completely_hard science only, should be admitted__praxeology, axiology, ie., real physical actions & laws__in the final analyses of abduction toward final deductive/inductive proofs)

3. Deductions should be extremely careful to only properly eliminate the superfluous…(all psyche exaggerations/imaginings, false beliefs/faiths & pseudo-opinions must be completely set aside)

4. All epistemic gaps’ origins can & must be closed…(ie., self-evidently solved, ie., free-will, motion-origin, mind-body illusion, experience-materialism, idealism-realism, matter-spirit, etc., Hans Jonas’ logical material supplies much of this)

5. All ontologies must be finite & origin closed, as it’s all we can hard scientifically know…(ie., self-evidently derived, ie., logic is grounded in fundamental value_worth__logic is measured only by/in/of values_hard scientific ethics & esthetics__historically and scientifically accurate physical objective facts & laws)

6. All mereologies must be complete to available information…(all disparate ideas, generalities & exactitudes must be processed toward a continuity continuum of a knowing unity of Universal facts, by fully objective means__all subjective means and realities must be set temporarily aside__any scientific method demands it, ie., symbolic logics, geometries, algebras & absolute calculuses suffice for hard scientific facts and truths__no extra-logical facts are needed)

7. All final abduction-hypothesis decisions must hinge on total use and differentiations/integrations of all empirical/experiential, rational/logical/mathematical & evidential informations, ideas, models, categories & concepts…(steps 1 through 7, must constantly be repeated, until final effects match initial set antecedent actions’ ‘Goals’)

8. The ‘is/ought’ problem must be eliminated…(a false dichotomy of mis-understood teleology__full knowledge of is available__'Ought' can easily be derived from 'Is', iff clear goals are 1^st stated/asserted & properly set to law__either mentally or physically)

9. Quine’s ‘Two Dogmas’ illusion must be eliminated…(a proper integral path oriented ontological, epistemological, teleological & mereological mechanics accomplishes this)

10. Hans Jonas’ logical work, in conjunction with Kepler’s, Bacon’s, Bolzano's, Whewell’s, Hamilton's, DeMorgan’s, Clifford’s, Bain’s, Peirce’s, Tarski's, & Prior's, etc., solves the above__when properly & thoroughly defined, integrated and understood…

11. A Goal Must 1^st Be Set__To Match & Achieve The Above 10 Points…(The’ Goal’ must be clearly and explicitly set out, to achieve the proper scientific methods & actions)

12. All 1^st Goals’ Actions Should Be Set To Time-Variable Law…(a safe % of institution per year, of such laws, to absolutely guarantee the complete safety and sovereignty of all nations’ futures)

13. A Thorough Knowledge & Complete Understanding of Logical, Mathematical, Intellectual and Physical Histories Is Necessarily Required By All Participants of Such A Momentus Project…(All participants should be educated in more than one discipline, & should have at least one discipline be a real hard science, & have been a practicing member of that hard science field, to which he belongs__along with his intellectual endeavor of choice)

“If the psyhe community doesn’t like the above method, the hard scientific community can willingly re-name ‘hard science’ to ‘Imaginary Science’ to please the weaknesses of psyche interpretations of hard science__just as was done by Lobachevsky & Vasiliev, to keep their heads, in the face of Russia’s severe church scrutiny against 19^th century science.”

“Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency." Ibn al-Haytham

Addendum:
"A Good Person, for The Sake of Good…!!!"
 

Hi Tim__tried to make it short, but it grew again... lol...

 

Btw, great note...

 

You know, sometimes I think you think quite different than I do, then you respond and prove me wrong to myself. What you've written is almost identical to the way I also see the world__Just goes to show you, we never know... I do have a lot of respect for your statment, as reflected per what I titled this note; "A Good Person, for The Sake of Good…!!!" Just last night, after our monthly meeting, I mentioned to one of the members I usually have a few drinks with, when he mentioned being a bit worried about the advance of web technologies, such as social media and its obvious consequences__that, though the web was initially causing a few problems, maybe, as we don't yet even know 'The Arab Spring' outcomes, in the long run, from my own self-civilizing experiences of knowledge increase, may not turn out to be what we think. As I told him, 'Imo, It seems near impossible for web knowledge entering the entire world's collective conscious minds, that the final outcome has to be good, as imo, 'Knowledge acquired, when enough is acquired, can do nothing but give one the desire to act good'__and imo, the many people of today's web-world are eventually going to have taken in much information and turn much of it to new knowledge... I just thought it quite coincidental that you'd also mention a similar concept...

 

I just really have only one question to ask about this idea: "Is there a potential for the universe to be one or the other? Of course, but it obviously isn't but one or the other as a few intrinsic aspects demand even the universe take a side as it can't be both of a simple few things due to the very nature of what those concepts represent."

 

Tim, why would you think, "It need to be either one or the other...?" I don't get it...

 

Here's the same problem, from my perspective... If we observe the aggregate Universe, with all its matter and bio-creatures/structures, we know it to be constructed of at least two distinct systems__the geo-physical, bio-physical and mental-physical, yet, we don't yet even know if the geo-physical or bio-physical is complete, as per our present analysis__then there's the mental-physical, with all its present arguments of whether it even be noumenal or phenominal, and by this I interpret to mean, spirit or object, subjective or objective, etc. Recently, I came across Bain's order of the evolution of logical ideas, and he exposed a problem of interpretation stemming from the order of how deduction, induction and definition were actually evolutionarily discovered. He stated something I very much had to agree with, and that was the fact that; 'This evolution of ideas is backward to the way it should be known to function.' Though evulutionary nature gave us this order, the true order of operation, as to producing clear and true ideas is, or should be__Definition_Induction_Deduction, and of course Abduction thrown in since his days, to act as hypothesis mechanics, along with Induction_Deduction... Now, think about this for a second and see if it makes a difference in how we respond to ideas. If we clearly defined what we were about to talk about first, it would eliminate much confusion, as to the fundamental stances our minds were taking, as per the issues discused. By this I mean as per the way Peirce mentioned__He stated that; 'We should use a dual interpretation system for clarity's sake__One for our personal psychologies_the subjective__And, one for our hard science interpretations_the objective.' Can you see what I'm getting at...? If we did do this, agreeingly so, we could avoid the cross-confoundings between the subjective and objective interpretations, almost completely. When we talk about hard science, especially, it should always be understood as measurable objective objects, we are talking about__even when its the real probability maths used in quantum mechanics, as they still pertain only to real underlying objective facts of real objects, even if these objects simply be mere unstructured fields. Not that you and I are often confounded by this problem, but the fact it does come up once in a while in our exchanges, as per the above mentioned; 'taking sides...'

"Of course, but it obviously isn't but one or the other as a few intrinsic aspects demand even the universe take a side as it can't be both of a simple few things due to the very nature of what those concepts represent." Why not Tim...?
 

As to 'Why not?'__The mind is made up of two sides, one distinctly objectively known and understood as rationality, active will, logicality and or intellect__the other objectively not decisively known, except as our subjective emotions, yet as we objectively see, looking around the world, at real emotionally charged and possibly caused actions__it does also seem to have an active will of its own. Now, this is and has been expressed by many since Kant first objectively extensively mentioned it, but I see no other way for these emotional and intellectual actions to exist, unless the mind did have these two distinct wills__One, we can definitely know to be objective, and the other we can both know to exist non-objectively/non-conceptually and or subjectively__subjective is always considered the unknown, due simply to the fact of having no external proof possible, even though we both may know we have subjective feelings. I just have to agree with the 'two-wills' ideas offered by many, as there seems to be no other explanation for what I clearly see happening around the world, and in my own mind, and our biological agents can easily incorporate more than one will, when one realizes the complexity of our many bio-agents, within our brains. The way this was explained is the fact that the rational intellect's will, can externally observe, describe and define all the World's and Universe's objects, plus through symbolic logics, represent everything objectively taking place in ratio-logic and inner conceptual observations, by placing all the corresponding ideas on paper, or replicating most of the experiments as other such corresponding proofs__but the subjective can never be represented by any ratio-logic or inner conceptual observations, though many of us may be able to perceptually see our emotional ideas, we lack all means of externally accurately representing or proving them to others__thus two distinct schools of thought were born, as far back as the Early Greeks__The noumenal(mental ideas) and the phenomenal(physical facts/objects...)

 

The trouble seems to enter Tim, when we try to limit the mental side of the equation, as per so, so; 'must take a side' as per your above statement. Again; Why...?

 

The problem is that when we make statements, without any means of proving them, we commit one of the subjective fallacies, and I don't think you mean to do that, but I do wonder why you seem to miss such subjective fallacies. It's really no big deal, but it does make it rather difficult to keep objective observations and interpretations on track, as to a logical result. To me, where the confusion comes in is not realizing the 'absolute independence' of the subjective side of the mind, and the objective side of the mind, at least to our scientific observation and measurement abilities. The objective side can't possibly see inside the subjective, at least not to mathematize or accurately measure it, and the subjective side can't possibly see inside the objective, at least not to see its total complexity of already known observations, due to the subjective being our agent of generality of feelings, and feelings can only know themselves, and not that well I may add, as you and I would both readily admit. But what happens when we confound the two sides of the mind in person to person communications...? It's simply far too difficult to figure the meanings intended. As to the subjective side of the mind, it further is an ultimate creation and definition unto itself, only__as the micro-bio-agent evolved itself, in conjunction with its environment, but there may be no way for us to ever know how__and we may have to admit defeat, as to understanding the inanimate to animate geo-bio-chemical-life evolution process... But, I do know I have a 'Live Free-Will', as I ain't dead, and the only way I wouldn't have a free-will, is if I were 'Deterministically Dead'__which one day I will be, but not yet__so you see, I do admit to both free-will and determinism being a fact of reality, over time anyway__but, not just yet, for me anyway... lol

 

Let's look at the entire Universe, as a functioning objective object, having 'motion'__and it's required 'limit on motion'. This can also be seen as an isomorphic mechanical relationship between 'Motion as Free-Will' and 'Motion Limit as Determinism'__Now, I see nothing logically wrong with both being true__Do you...? Imo, it would be logically and mechanically impossible for any unstructured fs-motion field to form any form of structured matter, unless the fundamental motion had its absolutely necessary counterpart of a limiting factor over such motion, even if that be 'motion limiting motion', or whatever__No...? If we hypothetically look at the Universe as a possible 'Thermo-Hydro-Dynamics', where the thermodynamic factor operates on the aggregate as 'Free Motion', then the hydrodynamic factor would act on the aggregate as a 'Motion Limit'__thus explaining much about the entire Universal puzzle, while also somewhat explaining gravity's mechanics, being the 'Mean Motions/Actions' between the two 'Thermodynamic/Hydrodynamic' extremes, at the extremes of mechanical explanations... This same scenario can be brought back to Earth, as a function of our minds, where 'Intellectual Determinism' operates over out 'Emotional Free-Choicel' and our 'Intellectual Free-Determined-Will' to check, or act as a brake on our emotions, and both a brake and free circuit actions on and within our intellects... In my book, that would give us all the mechanics necessary to fundamentally function both a Universe and a Mind__No...? Also, it seems to be the same isomorphic mechanics of the total operations of both__At least as to objective generalities...

A few possble thoughts, to at least look at, Tim... I just see nothing wrong with both 'Free-Motion' and 'Braking-Motion' always existing__together__in fact, I see it as an absolute necessity...(The braking motion can also be seen as 'angular momentum', as such would have the torque necessary to act as the 'braking motion', and possibly even one of gravity's explanations__No...?)

 

Please do answer, 'Why you think it's necessary for a Universe to only function 'One Way'__and not the other__I really am curious...'

Have a good un,

Lloyd

--
The Triadic Maxim___Any Idea; “Arithmetically check all possible effects, against all possible premises, and the combined results will be the total actions of the idea.”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://spot.colorado.edu/~rhanna/Hanna_freedom_teleology_and_rational_causation_kant_yearbook_published_version_june09.pdf

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/paper_hanna_rationality_and_the_ethics_of_logic_Jphil_proofs_apr06.pdf

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  Alpha Concepts…

Tim, good points... You know, way back in the early `90's, when I'd just finished organizing about 5,000 pages of raw notes, I'd written something similar to what this e-mail portends__Here's what I wrote, in so many words__"I'd like my readers to realize I am well aware of the full self-construction of, 'all past authors of note', about their information and knowledge systems__systems of thought, being none other than necessary self-constructions... I further want my readers to know, I am also fully aware of my own self-constructing of my systems of information about the World and Universe__I write nothing, without one eye on self-construction and her laws, though much of my self-construction is, I think, founded on derived principles, sound laws and facts, which can make sound axioms, and not simply asserted/projected axioms__at least as best as I’m capable, though I’m humanly fallible, also. You must judge this last part of the statement, yourself..." My trouble, through the years Tim, is to get other people to understand that when certain researchers have discovered these necessary self-constructing facts, of the world's many great master-minds, is to have others, one is talking to, or dialoguing with, understand the fact that almost all sound facts and information are really self-constructed informations, mixed with a few newly discovered and/or fully derived new facts, informations, principles and laws... Most people I've had direct face to face conversations with, at these deeper levels, seem to want to think their own minds are more intelligent than interpreting mere self-constructions of facts and informations, mostly of others’ constructions__and will usually refute the facts of 'self-constructed informations and knowledge systems' when the subject is brought up, directly to them... Tim, none of us are as smart as we sometimes think we are, which from reading your responses, I think you may be one of the first people, I've ever spoken with, that seems to understand this. Thanks for being such a wise person, with your internal thought processes, Tim...

So far Tim, this is all I have left of what was a really good extended e-mail to ya, on the very ‘Alpha-Fundamentals’ you mentioned... I’m gonna junk this new Win 007 computer. I’ve lost more e-mails and posts just transferring from file to file programs, or between auto-saves, hidden macro-buttons or whatever. My old computer hardly ever lost, I mean completely lost, files__but this new piece of junk sure does. Sometimes, it even completely looses my mouse, and I have to delete the driver and reload it… Anyway, though I can’t ever repeat what I’d written, I’ll make another feeble attempt…

“Such concepts as randomness/determinism, infinite/finite, eternal/temporary, etc. by definition cause our thoughts of the universal system to take a side as it can't be both infinite and finite, eternal and temporary or be absolutely determinate at all resolutions if any degree of randomness be present. It can however build towards determinate interactions to some degree, but even within such macro scale interactions, the very presence of randomness would actually prevent any local absolute determinism as it would never be calculable of just how much randomness might be present at any one time.”

I’m not picking this apart here Tim, but, I’d like to point out a mechanical fact within our fundamental logic concepts, that does have dual meanings, at the deepest levels of a combined psychological and logical definitions and interpretations’ process of levels. I’d just simply point out that “concepts as randomness/determinism, infinite/finite, eternal/temporary, etc. by definition cause our thoughts of the universal system to take a side as it can't be both infinite and finite, eternal and temporary”__Which when considered as the whole Universe, does do exactly what you’ve stated can’t be done, and this is the very ‘Alpha Concept’ we are trying to understand, that makes all other understanding either possible or impossible… I, out of one side of my mind, agree with what you’ve above stated, as per the bolded text__while out of the other side of my mind, dis-agree with it. Let me explain. Yes, our thoughts of the universal system do take sides to make sensible interpretations of the Universe, but at the same time, we must realize that all interpretations are ‘self-constructed systems’ from some previous assumptions, axioms, derivations, laws or whatever facts and beliefs we may possess__We are all sentence constructors, along with concept systems constructors__It’s just what the mind does__sometimes good, sometimes bad. The thing is, the same sentence can be constructed about the ‘Alpha Logic’ to have opposite meanings, and this is a fact known about our ‘Alpha Logics’ since the time of the Greeks__Logic itself is or can be very tautological(inversely recursive), meaning redundantly true in either construction direction, forward or backward, as per the ancient rules of logic, and can only be fully grounded by the triadic logic process of the Aristotlean formal syllogistic logics. Tim, this may seem strange at first seeing it written, but our fundamental logic, within the mind itself, has to have a ‘system construct’ itself, to make it structurally valid. If we were to follow our ‘self-fundamental-logic’(Alpha Logic) to its very mechanical core, we’d find it depends on both its qualitative and quantitative functions/attributes/whatever, as logic can’t exist as just a quantitative function like we may wish it could, as we must have means to scientifically measure the very values of logic itself, even if as simple as positive-negative, true-false, yes-no, 1-0, or whatever__we find that values’ definitions enters into the logic equations, thus not allowing our fundamental logic to be purely quantifiable, without including such quantitative issues also involved__and herein lies the problems of double definitions, unless a sentence structured language processing scheme is 1^st set up, as per how Aristotle 1^st did it. All through the centuries, logicians have tried to leave Aristotle’s fundamental logic system, only to produce bad logics, veering great distances from the mean, between false extremes__whether too logical or too psychological. Even logic must possess a scheme to find the mean between all the false extremes, of all its possible interpretations… Therefore, formal logics must be relied upon, to validate even other less formal systems of logic__and no system of logic is immune to this most fundamental logical necessity__even our most fundamental ‘Alpha Logics’(logica utens…)

Now, getting back to what you wrote again, about; “caus(ing) our thoughts of the universal system to take a side”__I would have to state, not if one is fully aware of fundamental logic’s necessary 1^st formal constructions, to prove any fundamental logical validity. Tim, all valid logics are fundamentally constructed logics, by and for the sheer necessity of having any possible logical validity. Our own natural fundamental logic is far too fallible to be trusted except for non-super-critical/accurate thinkings. As an example, I simply site the fact that; “concepts as randomness/determinism, infinite/finite, eternal/temporary, etc. by definition are  both infinite and finite, eternal and temporary, etc., at the level of the Universal Whole”__thus the fundamental logic to truly describe such mechanics, absolutely must be formally self-constructed, to avoid such dichotomous oxymorons and ambiguities built into all our languages, psychologies and logics__as your initial statement has dual-logical-meanings, built in by the necessity of ‘Total Universal Mechanics…’ So, what it comes down to Tim, is the fact, that to speak scientifically logically and truthfully, one must fully and carefully self-construct his/her logic, with one eye to the known fundamental ‘Laws of Thought’ and the ‘Laws of Logic’ plus ‘The Laws of Physics’__where some have been around since the early Greeks, while still more weren’t completed until the 19^th century, where we find most of these most fundamental improvements to both ‘The Laws of Thought & Logic, plus Physics…’

Tim, I’m simply trying to point out the scientific use of logic, herself, is extremely critical to such explanations. If a scientific thinker, or scientist doesn’t have a complete grasp of logic’s absolute fundamental necessities, it’s near impossible to process the ‘Universal Mechanics’ into truly meaningful explanations__This is the reason I spend so much time researching the shortest routes to the best ratio-logical explanations__as that’s really all I’ve been doing Tim, since the early `80’s__And truly, I haven’t been wasting my time__It’s clearly that difficult, at the purely and soundly scientific level, especially in today’s overly confused, confounded and conflated world… It’s far more complex, than most of the world realizes. There’s nothing simple about grounding logical ‘Alpha Truths’ in sound physical ‘Alpha Realities’__It’s very difficult… Psychology’s got a big noggin, that’s gotta be knocked outta there… History’s march has been nothing but eliminating psychology from logic, without losing all of logic’s ability and validity to appeal to other scientists, and even maybe a few psychologists, along the path..

I’ll explain this better later Tim, as that post I lost still has me a bit off track…
 

The Fundamentals of Necessity...

All I'm saying when speaking of such things Lloyd is that there are those things being satisfied within the macro and micro and the path to me is to understand what such things are whereby we might just find that with the proper paradigm and perspective it is the very same thing being satisfied at all scales due to conservation of c mechanics.

Tim, I agree it is the 'conservation of c mechanics'__that's a given in my book, also, as I do respect the discovered laws of physics, but one must also respect what John Wheeler, Feynman's professor, said about the laws of physics__so, so__"The laws of physics do not create the Universe; The Universe creates the laws of physics..." And herein lies most of science's(as per people's interpretations) problems, as far too many people think it the wrong way around, which extremely affects/effects their most fundamental logical theorizing, though I'm not saying you are one of these, as I don't know. What I am saying, is the mind of anyone's thought mechanics, must start from the most fundamental position of matter-motion-action, before laws, to discover the deepest necessary actions of the facts; absolute fundamentals. Thinking about what makes thinking possible, and what actually makes up 'the logical atom of thought' is what I'm speaking of__as it allows one to see exactly what it truly takes to self-build 'the most fundamental logical atom of pure thought'. Here's a para of Clifford's to somewhat make my point:

"That element of which, as we have seen, even the simplest feeling is a complex, I shall call Mind-stuff. A moving molecule of inorganic matter does not possess mind or consciousness ; but it possesses a small piece of 'mind-stuff'. When molecules are so combined together as to form the film on the under side of a jelly-fish, the elements of 'mind-stuff' which go along with them are so combined as to form the faint beginnings of Sentience. When the molecules are so combined as to form the brain and nervous system of a vertebrate, the corresponding elements of 'mind-stuff' are so combined as to form some kind of consciousness; that is to say, changes in the complex which take place at the same time get so linked together that the repetition of one implies the repetition of the other. When matter takes the complex form of a living human brain, the corresponding 'mind-stuff' takes the form of a human consciousness, having intelligence and volition." Clifford…

Now, I'm not saying this is totally true to the present-day facts, but one must realize this was written back in the middle of the 19th century, and is the central 'thesis argument' that started the entire modern debate between 'objective logical science' and 'subjective psychological consciousness', or 'realism and nominalism', as it now exists. Of course Clifford was the supreme 'materialist physicist intellect' of his day, and backed by many logical minds, and William James__'America's head nominalist psychologist'__bitterly attacked his doctrine 'mind stuff'__yet, which I think is quite remarkable as the initiation of the popularization of quantum mind mechanics, at this early date in history. My point being Tim__It not only takes a lot of mathematical and logical knowledge to fully understand the 'c mechanics' of the Universe__It also takes a lot of philosophical definition and interpretation of the facts, to thoroughly understand the 'c-mechanics...' Tim, in the final analysis, my last post already explained why the deepest fundamentals of necessity exist as they do__and there's no logical or mathematical path beyond the 'absolute calculus', as it makes up the entire 'c-mechanics' maths of the most intricate infinitesimals 'ever possible' to exist__the math, though absolute, was used by Einstein to develop both theories of relativity(absolute math to develop relativity__quite the fact), and has the variable ability to adapt to any equation possible of being created, or any logic possible of being thought__It simply takes interpreting and understanding 'The Absolute Calculus' as designed to function__There's just no deeper path to travel Tim, than 'one divided by/to infinity'__as that's the smallest infinitesimal speck of wave-matter possible of any 'c-mechanics...'

Thus, the geometric asymmetry we see before us is conserving a deeper symmetry or at least attempting to.

As per the last post__This is impossible and possible according to how the logic is worded, as there's just not the lattitude of either physical motion, thought or logic left to the 'logical atom of thought' to allow such speculation into the limits of the possible logic already mentioned, on the one hand, yet your possibility of asymmetry over symmetry also exists. Yet__As my challenge was; You'll have to offer the logical path of your ideas, that refutes all of history's collected knowledge of present maths and logics, to make your speculative point have the validity you wish__and I state again; "I don't think it's possible"__as pertains to the hard scientific logic of the facts... DeMorgan offered many examples of the extra-logical ideas' refutations, in his book; 'A Budget of Paradoxes', back in the 1870's__published after his death by his Sophia... http://www.amazon.com/Budget-Paradoxes-Augustus-Morgan/dp/1602063206

A Budget of Paradoxes, originally published in 1915, is mathematician Augustus De Morgan's most accessible and entertaining work. Well-known for his wit, De Morgan takes aim at those people he calls "paradoxers," which in modern terms would most closely resemble crackpots. Paradoxers, however, are not crazy, necessarily-rather, they hold views wildly outside the accepted sphere. If you believed the world was round when everyone else knew that it was flat, you would be a paradoxer. In this book, De Morgan reviews a number of books from his own library written by such "crackpots" who claim to have solved a great many of the puzzles of mathematics and science, including squaring a circle, creating perpetual motion, and overcoming gravity. Each is thoroughly put in his place in ways both entertaining and informative to readers. Skeptics, students of science, and anyone who likes pondering a puzzle will find this book a delightful read. British mathematician AUGUSTUS DE MORGAN (1806-1871) invented the term mathematical induction. Among his many published works is Trigonometry and Double Algebra (1849).

Let me also state the logical facts of whether our minds are processing 'psychologically generally', or 'logically particularly'__Either my point or your's can be true here__according to whether processing from the Universals to the particulars, or from the particulars to the Universals__as that's just the way the mind works(the two dynamics of mental processing/thinking). But, if we are to stay within science and physics' hard laws and facts, we must process from the particulars to the finite Universals, as psychology is more limited to the generalities of processing from the infinite Universals to the general infinitism of the particulars(often exaggerated imaginations)__which gives the mind the lattitude of easy speculative descriptions and intepretations, but little exacting facts of scientific reality, if you know what I mean... This is why logical philosophy is such a handy background to have, as it allows one to see all these historical arguments, as they've long existed, from both sides of 'the realms...'

There must remain the unsolvable problem of the fundamentals of matter, space and time which allows for the state changes that perhaps cycle such a universal volume as the one we find ourselves within. I'm speaking at the most fundamental level of course.

Almost agreed here, Tim... I still state the fact; "We can figure the decay math dynamics, to at the least, form a decent Universal cycling hypothesis"__at least one far better than the 'Big Pop' or 'Pseudo-Inflation'__whose foolish logics, maths and theories forces one into the ridiculous state of 'High Infinitesimal Mass Points Producing Universes From Pseudo-Nothings...'

It's merely how the volume morphs itself internally whereby we might find existence. Following such a progression through time and space allows for all asymmetries and symmetries which we know of to exist, but just as we often find laws which seem to be homogenous throughout the universe, 'all are plausibly relational' due to an underlying function which is perhaps due to the very quantization aspects I was referring to or something similar.

I think we're stating exactly the same here, Tim... Peirce even was one of the first physicists, mathematicians, logicians to state the relational systems functions most clearly, along with DeMorgan and Clifford, as well as Hamilton and Bain... Their logic and math books, papers and pamphlets are all very clear to these fundamental quantum and infinitesimal facts, which have since been clearly proved true...

I'm not certain how we would have motion at all if an underlying rule was constantly satisfied per a maintained state of symmetry as every measurable aspect we know of is made possible due to the unsatisfied side of the equation and is testament thereof.

That's why I keep mentioning so much about random motion, uncertainty and chance motions. Everybody seems to want an 'Over-Extended Uniformity'__when in point of fact, not realizing the Universe has no need of such 'Exaggerated Uniformity'__and, if 'absolute uniformity' existed, most all motion would be absolutely impossible, and we clearly know this is impossible... Iff one thinks deep enough within one's own logical necessities of pure thought, one will clearly see 'Randomness Easily Produces Uniformeity'(it's simply how we think randomness to uniformity, every day of our lives__the Universe just does it by necessity__simple c-mechanics)__Just think of all the millions, possibly billions, of quantum frequencies entering the brain/mind, just to make up the 'physical/mental structure/s' of a single atom of thinking capacity, then transfer that similar/same thinking capacity process of real wave-matter motion out into the formation 'c-mechanics' of the real 'Structured Universal Formation Mechanics', from such random integrations of trillions of swirling tornadic em-field waves/frequencies of the FS, polarizing and possibly double polarising +__'Absolutely Fundamentally', by the 'Total All Necessary c-Cycling Mechanics'__'Toward A Necessary Universal General Uniformeity...' It's just obvious to me, 'There's no other path Possible...!!!' This is simply fundamental 'Modal Necessity Logic'(primitive primary logic), around since the ancients__'The Absolute Calculus' can prove such, the most possible hypothesis/theory, imo...

Tim, imo, this is all still far simpler than most people think. As I've so often mentioned; "It's more about defining and interpreting what we do not yet know and can't know, that's more important to our thinking, than what we do and can already know..." Imo, we 'must' accept the fact, that we can not know certain pieces of knowledge, and worse still, we far too often try to 'over-know' what we do not yet know, or think we know__and therein lies all the problems of our abductive hypotheses building processes. I can't really give you any short-cuts to knowing what you may not yet know, but I can tell you the most important aspect of knowing the yet unknown, is to know your own deep thinking 'c-mechanics'__as thoroughly as is humanly possible... Such clarity of thinking, imo, at the deep personal thinking level, easily transfers to the most fundamental of 'c-Universal' mechanics, as best as we can know and theorize it__But I do not really look for any ToE, as I think the Universe is oh so much more complex, than such simple-minded theorizing as trying to produce a ToE... This point was well stated here in Post #4 of "East Meets West Logic": http://www.toequest.com/forum/logic-reasoning/4690-east-meets-west-logic.html#post95972

Hope that's some clarity, instead of confusion...

Regards,
Lloyd

Addendum:
A Single TOE For Everyone? Everything For Everyone? Maybe Not...

Everyone seems to be looking for a theory of everything, but what if it's a theory of one thing, everyone really wants? What if a TOE truth is actually just a very simple system, to solve the world's problems, and not some grand scheme describing everything? Everyone may be searching in the wrong direction.

I just got thinking about this a second ago, after reading many posts over the last few days, and realized I could apply my inverse conflexivity ideas to the very TOE. By doing so, the inverse of a TOE is a TOAT, or Theory Of A Thing__just the opposite of Everything.

It seems much more promising to hunt for one simple thing, to possibly solve the world's arguments and problems, than to solve for everything. And by doing so, it just may be the answer to the big everything problem...???

I seem to be headed in that direction, anyway...
..............................................................
"To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel
"Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein
"The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G.
"The tick-tick-tick of the caesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.