The Beyond Science Measurement Problems...

I guess my point is Tim, that when the reality of the dialogue reaches the limits of science’s ability to distinguish between mind/ego and reality, we are at the limits of what science, math, rationality, measurement and logic are capable of, and in philosophy, we call this epistemology__in science, it would be Planck time and measurement limits__which can be further broken down into supervenience and meta-semiotics__or simply put, thoughts about all these thoughts at science’s maximum limits of interpretation and meaning capabilities. Tim, long ago I came to realize mathematics was capable of wildly exceeding science’s real ability of measuring such mathematics, and more recently realized that all of science’s best efforts, of even using the greater accuracies of the entire Universe as measuring instrument, was only capable of reaching half way to even the Planck scale of measurement lengths, i.e., about 10^-18cm, where Planck scale goes down to 10^-33cm, using this particular aspect of the Planck scale, and even theory only expects scientific proof to exist at 10^-31cm, yet doesn’t expect to be able to reach such levels of measurement accuracy, even in this entire century. Then when it comes to Planck time and volumes, the figures are still further out of reach__so this is why I’ve more or less been discouraging your direction of discrete measurement attempts__as they are far beyond our abilities of achieving, in any time soon. Yes, theoretically we can speak of such ideas__but without scientific proof abilities, there’s no way to test our egos against the real scientific World and Universe__so imo, such attempts are futile__Like the ‘Borg’ said; “Resistance is futile”.

Tim, it’s just if we attempt measurement discreteness theorizings in such areas, beyond our science capabilities, we are committing the same crimes against science and logic the Church committed for centuries__therefore, I suggest we stay within what science is now capable of__“We don’t know.” “We can’t know.” “We won’t know, for a long time to come, as such is pure projection and speculation”__at measurement limits. This is the point where you realize that philosophy is needed to express what science is incapable of expressing, and this is not to say that philosophy can express more thoroughly what science can not__But, simply to show what both or neither science or/and philosophy ‘can not’ understand. Tim, we learn as much about truth systems by knowing what ‘we do not know’ and ‘what we can not know’, as we do by what ‘we do and can know…’ This is why I’ve always brought up the ‘One/Many’ problem, and further related it to ‘incompletenesses’, and such other similar expressed ideas as ‘supervenience’, ‘super-positionings’ and ‘superfluids’, etc. Tim, though the mind and ego knows it can mathematically and rationally measure beyond the 10^-18cm level__What good is it to measure such ‘Ghost Ideas…???’ It’s like the ‘Ghost of subjective psychology’, when all thought is truly objectively intellectual, even all thought about our deepest positive and negative feelings, which are just as easily represented by the differences between absolute mathematical fairness, and unfairness__It’s in the end all mathematical and logical objective representation, within our objective ‘intellects’ of thought__The only place ‘thought’ exists, since no feeling can be experienced except as an intellectual thought__1st… The old eclectics, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle got one thing right__’All is first represented to the mind by intellectual thought__All…!!!’

So Tim, since the measurement of our intellectual physical world of CM, QM and RM is beyond our intellectual scientific measurement abilities__Our only choice of such measurement is philosophy, when it comes to deciding between discrete and non-discrete… Science can not go where philosophy can go, as relates to this, but that’s hard for most scientists and logicians to recognize__and why can philosophy go beyond science, at this level of measurement impossibility...? Because; ‘Only philosophy has developed such languages to handle such problems’__where science ends and philosophy begins… This doesn’t mean, we leave the world of science__it simply means we fully recognize the many short-comings of science and technology, and express these incompleteness problems honestly, and admit that just maybe philosophy is necessary__after all__to express the yet uncompleted Universe of Total Knowledge… As you know, I’ve often stated; “It’s more important to know what you do not know, and can not know, than to know what you do know…” This is still true…

Tim, we simply can not measure, where you wish discreteness to go__There exists no evidence, for such ideas… There’s only the comparison between discrete and non-discrete theories, lacking all possibility of physical evidence__Though your point of realizing further into these dynamics is well taken…