The Importance of Mental Development/Thought Structuring in Scientific Theorizing

As you know Lloyd, I’ve long seen the limits of science along with the philosophical nature of our theorizing. That’s why I named my old thread “Philosophysics of a Fundamental Substance”. I see no way to measure at such limits as direct measurement isn’t the key to verification at the absolute scales. Given your high level of education in the areas of logic, science and most anything else we’ve come across, I would assume that you would see the importance of such theorizing concerning this quote you made: “Socrates, Plato and Aristotle got one thing right__’All is first represented to the mind by intellectual thought__All…!!!”

If we were in the field of particle physics or some other experimental science, I would have to agree with setting the limits you discuss, as I very well see the distinctions you are making. However, our discussions and ideas are theoretical physics, whereby as per the quote above, our instrument of exploration is the mind/brain itself. The same reasons you state for discontinuing the discrete/continuous exploration, I’ve often stated in reference to an external void or eternal and infinite field extension as I see no way of ever proving such and feel that the information we seek can be extrapolated without such further theorizing. From my views however, the same cannot be said for the discrete/continuous theorizing as we are more so shaping our instrument of exploration (ie. our mind) with these concepts than we are declaring any truths of nature. The brain is a dynamic system and such exercises into the limits of science, logic, philosophy, etc, are the methods by which such a dynamic system of processing is shaped and molded in real time. It’s no difference than the many manhours spent assembling the Large Hadron Collider in hopes that the many parts, bolts, transducers, magnets, coils, etc are all in such an order that mankind might reach ever further into the complexities of nature to perhaps bring about a little more familiarity with that which we would otherwise remain unfamiliar with. Our minds are our instruments and our thoughts are the medium by which we probe such complexities hoping to arrive at theories which are an analog to the functions of nature itself.

There is a distinction between discrete processing and continuous processing as with digital and analog signal processing, and such differences could possibly determine how the hypothetical mental transducers, magnets, coils, etc are aligned within our thoughts whereby we might probe past the limits of such solid state machines to the point where observation of a small area at the shortest of distances and times or interaction thereof isn’t the important aspect and yields no importance to possibly even verify or deny such dynamics, but rather we perhaps might get a glimpse of the larger picture as a whole of just how information itself is processed in the form of motion dynamics or currents which result in the very flow of energy, mass, momentum, etc, at the ever larger scales and further distances outwardly. It has been stated that Einstein himself has been credited with changing the game in many ways (though I’m sure we could find other older instances) as his famous equation of E=mc² was derived through his theorizing and later directly experimentally verified rather than the more common method of the time whereby experimentation and observation led to such an equation. I’m of the opinion that there are connections within nature to such a degree that if aligned correctly, the mind and its theorizing can take precedence over the instruments of science, yet the yin to such yang is that we do need such instruments and experiments to verify the correctness of such exploration. As with all truth, there’s only one path which leads to absolute truth, while there are numerous others which lead to the nowhere that is the fallacies of imagination.

So, as you can see, the balance here to me is to purposely bypass all physical scientific limits into the realm of philosophy (as I’ve always stated I’m more of a philosopher than theoretical physicist/scientist by far as I would never consider myself such) to the point that my actual thought processes perhaps align with some exploitable aspect of how physical information is processed as we both have discussed the universe in terms of information theory. As suggested before, I’m uncertain that an instrument or direct measure is even important at such resolutions as it is the whole which is important here rather than any instrument which might transduce a modulated signal which we might someday ascribe to such short distances to suggest what is going on near the Planck limits. There are so many signal processing aspects involved with the detection, processing and output of such instruments that interpretation of events is highly debatable even within the instruments of science as seen with the particle colliders and the many levels of technology needed to transduce and modulate a signal from such short distances back up to the more familiar output methods which scientist use to suggest what they are witnessing.

I feel that per the inference mechanics of abduction, induction and deduction, it is important to sometimes go to such mental extremes whereby first establishing the parameters of thought itself, at which point the focus is brought back up to the verifiable and provable scales, which might allow for the verification of truth itself concerning the nature of our universe. If such mental exploration were to yield a base level train of thought which built back up to an insight which were found to be provable, and thus experimentally accomplished, then we would have found the unification of science, philosophy and logic as all being aspects of traveling the path to absolute universal truth. My point here is that we can discuss such things as decay mechanics, which I see as the real point of interest here by way of its experimental value concerning state transitions from structured to unstructured and vice versa, but the insight into such complex mechanics full of possible wrong turns perhaps must come by way of having previously traveled further along the road of truth and navigated back from such depths to now have a working logic and thought process which might then be used to exploit the aspects we are searching for that may someday lead to verification by way of the scientific methodology. I realize how far in the woods I’ve gone, but I assure you that it is not without purpose and caution as I well know just how easy it is to get lost here. I just need you to realize that such explorations are just as much an exercise of the mind and processes of thought as they are or ever will be those of physical experimental exploration. I’m merely trying to exploit a system of thought or find direction within my logical processes by probing such depths whereby hopefully allowing for the mental connections of information needed to perhaps someday allow for a better understanding of those resolutions at which the universe better presents itself for direct observation rather than basing my sanity or the lack thereof upon those resolutions and scales at which I feel it never will, being as I see the tangible aspects of nature needed for such observations, measures and experiments as arising from the absolute realm which is more so only the diluted state of substance whereby being better suited for mental and perhaps mathematical exploration. Such theories are similar to String Theory, where most would point out its unobservable nature which has become a complex mathematical construct which they feel is analogous to nature itself. To date it has failed to produce any experimental evidence to my knowledge and many assume it never will. I use it as a prime example because it is a representation of where such theories can lead by simply following the math and such. However, if we were wrong and it began producing insights into the universe at some point in the future which were verified by experiment, then by our very scientific methodology, we would have to begin to acknowledge its possible importance and truth concerning such scales which can’t be directly observed. The same can be said if we were to establish some form of logic or reasoning by such exploration which ultimately established the path by which we found physical confirmation. At the level we’ve brought the mechanical aspects to concerning decay mechanics and state transitions, I can’t speak for you, but I don’t know that I will progress there without having taken my thoughts to the furthest depths first and arrived back to apply what I’ve learned there about how the universe processes information itself as such interactions are ultimately operating within such absolute parameters. For better or worse, this is where my thoughts currently stand.