The Background Debate Response

Alright, first understand that my concepts, ideas and ultimately overall paradigm is itself due to the process of abduction Lloyd, the very process which you promote as critical in our ability to learn. That in itself DOES NOT make it correct but it does explain the fact that there will inevitably be gaps in the math, logic, and overall scientific pool it is projected from. Much of your argument against my mechanics reminds me of Greg’s argument against determinism which I explained a while back and justified it as a plausible argument. He simply argued the aspect of how Dave and myself could promote a deterministic system whereby the universe displayed no internal uncertainty within its interactions with itself if by our own methods of exploration, measure and observation we would never be able to resolve every little detail about such interactions and mechanics to verify that such were actually deterministic being left with only the probabilistic methods of Quantum Mechanics. Thus, being as the universal interactions would forever remain uncertain to us, then we must leave our theorizing at such a level whereby despite what might lie beneath the surface, the surface established by intellectual processes will forever remain the most intimate we will ever be with nature. This may not be the extent of your argument, but I interpret a similar logic within it.

My simple logic is that the universe is a fluid system which our intellect is trying to explain by way of science and mathematics. If we take the absolute observer position and view it from a broad macro perspective, then RM works fine at determining how structured systems move within the unstructured medium of space, clocks change their frequency, rulers contract, etc. However, if we zoom in and view it at the shortest of distances, then QM works within its realm whereby having overcome the inability to resolve every little detail by employing a probabilistic and statistical type approach where need be. How such small scale interactions relate to such macro interactions thus physically accomplishing such is where I see the rift between the two methodologies. Even if we apply an FS to fill the gaps of understanding within the Standard Model, whether continuous or discrete, it effectively becomes the background to every structured system which emerges from its interactions. Dave and yourself seem to choose to leave the theorizing at the continuous fluid dynamic substance resolution which is still a background to structuralization, but has no further attempts to establish absolute space and time. Thus, all measurements, observations and calculations are relative to other aspects of the system whereby the system becomes confined by relational mechanics to establish any truth, which leads my mind back to this quote of yours;

“but one can't use math to refute math__Tarski proved in the `30's, along with Church, Turing and Godel that 'no system can be used within itself, to prove its own validity or non-validity'__that also means, you…”

Though I may stand at risk of taking your statement slightly out of context, isn’t such a relational background independent model subject to having to internally prove all of its validity by such means as using the aspects it establishes such as math, science, logic, etc, within itself to establish its own validity? It determines the spatial and temporal position of one system off of the spatial and temporal position of all other systems in such a relational/relative fashion that it seemingly requires no external background yet many of the aspects required to accomplish such mechanics will still be subject to some background dependent aspects in some form or fashion. Ultimately, we have to philosophically cut the questioning off somewhere unless we are to eternally bring the questions to ever more fundamental levels as Austin used to attempt with his questioning of why the exact volume, why such a workable substance, etc, etc. At some point we accept a background and build from there which in our case is either a continuous FS from which structured systems interact with unstructured systems or we take that background as not being the fundamental absolute scale, thus we establish some form of PSF type mechanics whereby the FS is merely a continuous type frame of reference established upon thus moving within an absolute frame of reference thus structural aspects along with the spatial and temporal positioning of systems aren’t founded upon their relational aspects to each other, but are rather founded upon their relation to the absolute frame of reference. Btw, I’m not sure that I was using math to refute math in that quote you were debating. I was simply suggesting that macro systems are functioning as a product of micro interactions as described earlier. Thus, any macro math is a product or extension of the math which represents what is going on at the micro scales. Without the micro interactions we wouldn’t have the macro outcomes we witness. The values we are searching for at the macro resolution allow for a resolved deterministic type approach while any math which is to represent what is going on at the shortest of micro distances is doomed to be a probabilistic type approach when considering the temporal and spatial scales at which interactions take place within such micro resolutions. This is why Dave used to say that QM was objective while RM was subjective.

Either way, I’m not supporting such an absolute reference frame as with a PSF in the sense that I am retarded and think that every little detail will someday be resolved whereby we might imply absolute determinism. I’m simply inferring from my abduction pool a paradigm which sets my mental processing into a mode which no other paradigm has thus far, whereby I’m forced to translate scientific aspects into mere interactions at the most fundamental resolution. If I thought it would never be beneficial then I wouldn’t bother, but I feel that there is some exploitable aspect of the interactions taking place at such scales and distances which we might come to understand in perhaps a probabilistic manner whereby furthering our very understanding of the interactions of our universe. Viewing the many aspects of science as being translated into mere information processing aspects might find itself as beneficial to understanding. If this isn’t the case, whereby the further reduction to such realms isn’t beneficial to our understanding in the future, then I agree that such theorizing is irrelevant and useless and we must stop our theorizing at the resolution at which our intellect can distinguish theory from truth by way of the information we can extract and verify. If you see this resolution as currently being the continuous FS, then I agree and understand, but I must explore the implications of a further discrete realm to see if there’s any extractable information there which may help my understanding. I have no problem continuing our discussion at the FS resolution and in terms of continuity if you like, because I’m merely trying to explain my position here.

P.S. At the deepest of philosophical and scientific levels, how would we establish at what resolution the only absolutely continuous substance in existence actually moved within itself? How does motion act upon such a substance? Liquids such as water might best represent the dynamics trying to be expressed as much of Dave's concepts were in terms of wave mechanics, but the resolution at which motion acts upon water can be differentiated by the molecules thus also atoms which make it up. They act as bearings in a sense to allow motion to exhibit wave dynamics. A truly continuous fundamental substance would have no such internal division whereby differentiating/defining how it moves. Even in the simplest of chiral waves propagating through the substance, what is being manipulated to exhibit such forms of wave mechanics if not the very aspect of embedded attributes of absolute space and time? This could be considered an over complication on my part, but in the spirit of philosophical exploration I feel it a valid concept to question. This is the type of thinking which led my mind to explore in the sense of a background dependent model whereby such wave mechanics are merely displaying information about an underlying resolution and motion can be differentiated at such a resolution whereby such chiral concepts are merely a sequencing of a deeper discrete process. I don't supply this thinking it resolves the argument, but rather to further explore my reasoning.