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.

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. Thus, the geometric asymmetry we see before us is conserving a deeper symmetry or at least attempting to. I have no problem with asymmetry existing because from my perspective the constant conservation of substance from structured to unstructured states by way of rad decay, absorption and such along with the opposing motion states which produce the surface interactions which establish charge and such are all evidence that symmetry is never maintained. There seem to be those things which are required to be satisfied and those actions which arise when such isn't satisfied.

It takes two opposing dynamics which can never be satisfied completely to make perpetual existence as anything less would resolve itself through time. 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.

The progression of the universal system through time establishes one fundamental substance taking on all of the various forms of structured and unstructured states while its transitional actions back and forth between such account for all of the forces we measure and find in nature. 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'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. When I speak of such things I'm only implying that there is a motion related entropy which the system strives for at all resolutions which we translate as being distinct actions depending on the scales at which we observe it, as seen when volumes begin to clump together in ever more massive volumes.

Best I can do on a sleepy mind which has been on vacation.

Why Fundamental Asymmetries Necessarily Exist…

Hi Tim, and in answer to your desires for the Universe to have a fundamental absolute symmetry__just let me show you why this is impossible with absolutely simple math, and its simply extended permutations through even simpler addition, and the fundamental rules of addition or combinatorics, as the same...

Take any absolute fundamental you choose, time, motion, matter, FS, energy, charge__and use any method you choose to convert such fundamentals to real mathematical representations, as per 1, 2, 3, __ positive & negative __ true & false, 1’s & 0’s, etc. It matters not how you work out the permutations, you must first work out the most fundamental logic of the permutations, and that is to logically consider what exactly is required to build these fundamental permutations or combinatorics from absolute scratch(as it's scratch we are usually theorizing from, in these areas)__as per applies to symmetries and asymmetries. The easiest to see is most likely the positive and negative charges, of say the fundamental em forces of the most fundamental photon mechanics, i.e., it's polarization and double polarization potentials, as was actually proved by Huygens, over 300+ years ago. Iff you have only absolute symmetry as your most fundamental logic and physical action, your method can never produce the asymmetries__we absolutely know makes up just about half of the Universe, as the negative and irregular forces__we plainly see. In order for such asymmetries to exist, which we know they do, they must be just as fundamental as the symmetries, or they can't possibly exist__Due to this absolute fundamental dynamics:

1. If you start any math with perfect symmetries, such symmetries can only produce more symmetries...

2. Only asymmetries are possible of producing both symmetries and still other asymmetries...
3. Simple example: 1+1=2_a symmetry... Only -1+1=0_an asymmetry... Yet, -1+-1=+2_a symmetry...
4. No matter how you set these fundamental charges up, only a fundamental -1+-1=+2 will create that first positive symmetry(two negatives produce a positive example), of a required combinatoric Universal permutation math, applied to Bose-Einstein Photonic Condensation__From An Absolute Fundamental Field...(thus the requirement of my 9 fundamental degrees of freedom)
5.The Absolute Fundamental Asymmetric and Symmetric Charges Are Necessitated to Primordially Exist, To Exist At All__Which we know, in the end result, they do...
6. No absolutely fundamental permutations exist, except as asymmetries/symmetries building symmetries/asymmetries, at the same time asymmetries are building more asymmetries, as it's the asymmetries which are responsible for either building All symmetries and asymmetries, due to the mechanical fact__symmetries can Never build asymmetries...(and herein lies the deep motion catch, to wrap one's mind around...)(this is probably better understood through Markov Chains... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain )
7. +1+1 only makes +2... 1+2 only makes a +3 charge, i.e., no negative asymmetric change possible from positive integers...
8. Only the asymmetric negatively charged numbers(photons or poles of photons) produce the required negative charges, to build any of the known to exist asymmetries...(asymmetries seem to be built into the fundamental photons, or FS-Field as such...)(Really, they'd have to be, wouldn't they Tim...?)(Seems as though that would be a basic necessity of any quantized field__No...?)
9. Combine the most fundamental permutations any way you wish, you can't possibly produce a fundamental asymmetry__unless your permutation maths and particle-waves include an 'absolute fundamental negative asymmetry'__no matter whether produced by colliding wave-particles or mathematical permutations, Markov Chains and/or any possible combinatorics...(you just can't get negatives outta positives, no matter how hard you try, but you can get positives outta two negatives__just mathematical, fs-motion and charge facts...)

'Absolute Asymmetry Is An Absolute Fundamental Necessity of FS-Motion'__By default of its fundamental necessity, which can not be divided or derived as any sort of smaller infinitesimal action of Reality__Possible...

Absolute divisions/differentiations within 'The Absolute Calculus' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor prevents any other possibilities...(Tim, imo people/scientists/logicians/mathematicians/physicists/whoever, just haven't looked deep enough into FS-Motions absolute necessities of fundamental actions...)

Tim, if you look at permutation math explanations, even here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation on Wiki, you'll see they've truly left out this most fundamental necessity, and probably due to a defunct logic, of not realizing, logic requires triadic proofs of all its actions, or it's simply invalid psychology, even as applied to the logic of math...

If you'll notice Tim, in the entire above Wiki article, there's no mention of the 'fundamental triadic necessity method' of the fundamental proofs needed... Logics and maths trying to prove themselves, within themselves, was proved by both Godel and Tarski to be impossible, back in the `30's, and the last half of the 20'th century, was spent trying to develop just such sound proofs, verifications and validities of fundamental logics. As far as my studies go, only the 'cross-product of triadic systems of proofs is valid'__to accomplish this very tickleish job__otherwise, you're left defending the impossibility of the purely psychological ego, which ain't valid in any logic and/or math systems' proofs, as it's simply a circular logic pertaining only to itself__a dis-allowed ego-logic, where any hard science is concerned...

The above 9 points have been worked out much better and more thoroughly by other mathematicians/logicians than myself, but I don't happen to have the information at my fingertips, as I take so many notes, it's too hard to find until I better organize my most recent notes, over the last 6 months__that's over 2000 pages long... Every time I try to use search, I come up with far too many links, until I better collate the notes into subject categories...(that's why category logic is oh so needed, but when I'm just research reading, I can't take the time to properly collate, on the fly, or I'd never finish my research... Btw, my research is finally coming to an end, and I'll be collating my notes over the winter__I've only about 10,000 pages of em... Last time I had about 50,000 pages of em__That took three years, to just collate...)

Tim, see if you can give me a 'mathematically changed system', that can be produced by only symmetries, which produce asymmetries__without such fundamental motions, already containing such fundamental asymmetries, to do so...(I don't think it possible...!!!)

That's my challenge to ya... 

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorio_Ricci-Curbastro

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tullio_Levi-Civita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kingdon_Clifford
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Bain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rowan_Hamilton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_De_Morgan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce
P.s.
DeMorgan, Hamilton, Bain, Peirce and Clifford are excellent souces of the logic I draw from, as they be the founding fathers of the physics' logics and maths, more widely used in standard model physics, than all the others put together__and include the above logic discussions, at these most fundamental necessity levels...

The Importance of Hypothesis To Reality Correspondence…

Kepler's Conservation of Angular Momentum__1609...

Illustration of Kepler's second law. The planet moves faster near the Sun, so the same area is swept out in a given time as at larger distances, where the planet moves more slowly. The green arrow represents the planet's velocity, and the purple arrows represents the force on the planet...

Kepler's Scientific Method...

(Click to enlarge...)

The Uniformeity of Continuum Mechanics…

Gravity is proportionally co-ordinate to angular momentum__at all levels__CM à RM à QM…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion

Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky (Russian: Никола́й Ива́нович Лобаче́вский) (December 1, 1792 – February 24, 1856 (N.S.); November 20, 1792 – February 12, 1856 (O.S.)) was a Russian mathematician and geometer, renowned primarily for his pioneering works on hyperbolic geometry, otherwise known as Lobachevskian geometry. William Kingdon Clifford called Lobachevsky the "Copernicus of Geometry" due to the revolutionary character of his work.

Chance & The Necessity of Free-Will...

(Hi Tim, check out Boethius, from the 6th century__a major logician-mathematician-physicist of antiquity...)

BOOK V.

I.

She ceased, and was about to pass on in her discourse to the exposition of other matters, when I break in and say: 'Excellent is thine exhortation, and such as well beseemeth thy high authority; but I am even now experiencing one of the many difficulties which, as thou saidst but now, beset the question of providence. I want to know whether thou deemest that there is any such thing as chance at all, and, if so, what it is.'

Then she made answer: 'I am anxious to fulfil my promise completely, and open to thee a way of return to thy native land. As for these matters, though very useful to know, they are yet a little removed from the path of our design, and I fear lest digressions should fatigue thee, and thou shouldst find thyself unequal to completing the direct journey to our goal.'

'Have no fear for that,' said I. 'It is rest to me to learn, where learning brings delight so exquisite, especially when thy argument has been built up on all sides with undoubted conviction, and no place is left for uncertainty in what follows.'

She made answer: 'I will accede to thy request;' and forthwith she thus began: 'If chance be defined as a result produced by random movement without any link of causal connection, I roundly affirm that there is no such thing as chance at all, and consider the word to be altogether without meaning, except as a symbol of the thing designated. What place can be left for random action, when God constraineth all things to order? For "ex nihilo nihil" is sound doctrine which none of the ancients gainsaid, although they used it of material substance, not of the efficient principle; this they laid down as a kind of basis for all their reasonings concerning nature. Now, if a thing arise without causes, it will appear to have arisen from nothing. But if this cannot be, neither is it possible for there to be chance in accordance with the definition just given.'

'Well,' said I, 'is there, then, nothing which can properly be called chance or accident, or is there something to which these names are appropriate, though its nature is dark to the vulgar?'
'Our good Aristotle,' says she, 'has defined it concisely in his "Physics," and closely in accordance with the truth.'

'How, pray?' said I.

'Thus,' says she: 'Whenever something is done for the sake of a particular end, and for certain reasons some other result than that designed ensues, this is called chance; for instance, if a man is digging the earth for tillage, and finds a mass of buried gold. Now, such a find is regarded as accidental; yet it is not "ex nihilo," for it has its proper causes, the unforeseen and unexpected concurrence of which has brought the chance about. For had not the cultivator been digging, had not the man who hid the money buried it in that precise spot, the gold would not have been found. These, then, are the reasons why the find is a chance one, in that it results from causes which met together and concurred, not from any intention on the part of the discoverer. Since neither he who buried the gold nor he who worked in the field intended that the money should be found, but, as I said, ithappened by coincidence that one dug where the other buried the treasure. We may, then, define chance as being an unexpected result flowing from a concurrence of causes where the several factors had some definite end. But the meeting and concurrence of these causes arises from that inevitable chain of order which, flowing from the fountain-head of Providence, disposes all things in their due time and place.'

SONG I.
Chance.

In the rugged Persian highlands,
Where the masters of the bow
Skill to feign a flight, and, fleeing,
Hurl their darts and pierce the foe;
There the Tigris and Euphrates
At one source [O] their waters blend,

Soon to draw apart, and plainward
Each its separate way to wend.
When once more their waters mingle
In a channel deep and wide,
All the flotsam comes together
That is borne upon the tide:
Ships, and trunks of trees, uprooted
In the torrent's wild career,
Meet, as 'mid the swirling waters
Chance their random way may steer.
Yet the shelving of the channel
And the flowing water's force
Guides each movement, and determines
Every floating fragment's course.
Thus, where'er the drift of hazard
Seems most unrestrained to flow,
Chance herself is reined and bitted,
And the curb of law doth know.

FOOTNOTES:

[O] This is not, of course, literally true, though the Tigris and Euphrates rise in the same mountain district.

II.

'I am following needfully,' said I, 'and I agree that it is as thou sayest. But in this series of linked causes is there any freedom left to our will, or does the chain of fate bind also the very motions of our souls?'

'There is freedom,' said she; 'nor, indeed, can any creature be rational, unless he be endowed with free will. For that which hath the natural use of reason has the faculty of discriminative judgment, and of itself distinguishes what is to be shunned or desired. Now, everyone seeks what he judges desirable, and avoids what he thinks should be shunned. Wherefore, beings endowed with reason possess also the faculty of free choice and refusal. But I suppose this faculty not equal alike in all. The higher Divine essences possess a clear-sighted judgment, an uncorrupt will, and an effective power of accomplishing their wishes. Human souls must needs be comparatively free while they abide in the contemplation of the Divine mind, less free when they pass into bodily form, and still less, again, when they are enwrapped in earthly members. But when they are given over to vices, and fall from the possession of their proper reason, then indeed their condition is utter slavery. For when they let their gaze fall from the light of highest truth to the lower world where darkness reigns, soon ignorance blinds their vision; they are disturbed by baneful affections, by yielding and assenting to which they help to promote the slavery in which they are involved, and are in a manner led captive by reason of their very liberty. Yet He who seeth all things from eternity beholdeth these things with the eyes of His providence, and assigneth to each what is predestined for it by its merits:

'"All things surveying, all things overhearing."'

SONG II.
The True Sun.

Homer with mellifluous tongue
Phœbus' glorious light hath sung,
Hymning high his praise;
Yet his feeble rays
Ocean's hollows may not brighten,
Nor earth's central gloom enlighten.

But the might of Him, who skilled
This great universe to build,
Is not thus confined;
Not earth's solid rind,
Nor night's blackest canopy,
Baffle His all-seeing eye.

All that is, hath been, shall be,
In one glance's compass,
HeLimitless descries;
And, save His, no eyes
All the world survey—no, none!
Him, then, truly name the Sun.

III.
Then said I: 'But now I am once more perplexed by a problem yet more difficult.'

'And what is that?' said she; 'yet, in truth, I can guess what it is that troubles you.'

'It seems,' said I, 'too much of a paradox and a contradiction that God should know all things, and yet there should be free will. For if God foresees everything, and can in no wise be deceived, that which providence foresees to be about to happen must necessarily come to pass. Wherefore, if from eternity He foreknows not only what men will do, but also their designs and purposes, there can be no freedom of the will, seeing that nothing can be done, nor can any sort of purpose be entertained, save such as a Divine providence, incapable of being deceived, has perceived beforehand. For if the issues can be turned aside to some other end than that foreseen by providence, there will not then be any sure foreknowledge of the future, but uncertain conjecture instead, and to think this of God I deem impiety.

'Moreover, I do not approve the reasoning by which some think to solve this puzzle. For they say that it is not because God has foreseen the coming of an event that therefore it is sure to come to pass, but, conversely, because something is about to come to pass, it cannot be hidden from Divine providence; and accordingly the necessity passes to the opposite side, and it is not that what is foreseen must necessarily come to pass, but that what is about to come to pass must necessarily be foreseen. But this is just as if the matter in debate were, which is cause and which effect—whether foreknowledge of the future cause of the necessity, or the necessity of the future of the foreknowledge. But we need not be at the pains of demonstrating that, whatsoever be the order of the causal sequence, the occurrence of things foreseen is necessary, even though the foreknowledge of future events does not in itself impose upon them the necessity of their occurrence. For example, if a man be seated, the supposition of his being seated is necessarily true; and, conversely, if the supposition of his being seated is true, because he is really seated, he must necessarily be sitting. So, in either case, there is some necessity involved—in this latter case, the necessity of the fact; in the former, of the truth of the statement. But in both cases the sitter is not therefore seated because the opinion is true, but rather the opinion is true because antecedently he was sitting as a matter of fact. Thus, though the cause of the truth of the opinion comes from the other side,[P] yet there is a necessity on both sides alike. We can obviously reason similarly in the case of providence and the future. Even if future events are foreseen because they are about to happen, and do not come to pass because they are foreseen, still, all the same, there is a necessity, both that they should be foreseen by God as about to come to pass, and that when they are foreseen they should happen, and this is sufficient for the destruction of free will. However, it is preposterous to speak of the occurrence of events in time as the cause of eternal foreknowledge. And yet if we believe that God foresees future events because they are about to come to pass, what is it but to think that the occurrence of events is the cause of His supreme providence? Further, just as when I know that anything is, that thingnecessarily is, so when I know that anything will be, it willnecessarily be. It follows, then, that things foreknown come to pass inevitably.

'Lastly, to think of a thing as being in any way other than what it is, is not only not knowledge, but it is false opinion widely different from the truth of knowledge. Consequently, if anything is about to be, and yet its occurrence is not certain and necessary, how can anyone foreknow that it will occur? For just as knowledge itself is free from all admixture of falsity, so any conception drawn from knowledge cannot be other than as it is conceived. For this, indeed, is the cause why knowledge is free from falsehood, because of necessity each thing must correspond exactly with the knowledge which grasps its nature. In what way, then, are we to suppose that God foreknows these uncertainties as about to come to pass? For if He thinks of events which possibly may not happen at all as inevitably destined to come to pass, He is deceived; and this it is not only impious to believe, but even so much as to express in words. If, on the other hand, He sees them in the future as they are in such a sense as to know that they may equally come to pass or not, what sort of foreknowledge is this which comprehends nothing certain nor fixed? What better is this than the absurd vaticination of Teiresias?

'"Whate'er I sayShall either come to pass—or not."

In that case, too, in what would Divine providence surpass human opinion if it holds for uncertain things the occurrence of which is uncertain, even as men do? But if at that perfectly sure Fountain-head of all things no shadow of uncertainty can

possibly be found, then the occurrence of those things which He has surely foreknown as coming is certain. Wherefore there can be no freedom in human actions and designs; but the Divine mind, which foresees all things without possibility of mistake, ties and binds them down to one only issue. But this admission once made, what an upset of human affairs manifestly ensues! Vainly are rewards and punishments proposed for the good and bad, since no free and voluntary motion of the will has deserved either one or the other; nay, the punishment of the wicked and the reward of the righteous, which is now esteemed the perfection of justice, will seem the most flagrant injustice, since men are determined either way not by their own proper volition, but by the necessity of what must surely be.

And therefore neither virtue nor vice is anything, but rather good and ill desert are confounded together without distinction. Moreover, seeing that the whole course of events is deduced from providence, and nothing is left free to human design, it comes to pass that our vices also are referred to the Author of all good—a thought than which none more abominable can possibly be conceived. Again, no ground is left for hope or prayer, since how can we hope for blessings, or pray for mercy, when every object of desire depends upon the links of an unalterable chain of causation? Gone, then, is the one means of intercourse between God and man—the communion of hope and prayer—if it be true that we ever earn the inestimable recompense of the Divine favour at the price of a due humility; for this is the one way whereby men seem able to hold communion with God, and are joined to that unapproachable light by the very act of supplication, even before they obtain their petitions. Then, since these things can scarcely be believed to have any efficacy, if the necessity of future events be admitted, what means will there be whereby we may be brought near and cleave to Him who is the supreme Head of all? Wherefore it needs must be that the human race, even as thou didst erstwhile declare in song, parted and dissevered from its Source, should fall to ruin.'

FOOTNOTES:

[P] I.e., the necessity of the truth of the statement from the fact.

SONG III.
Truth's Paradoxes.

Why does a strange discordance break
The ordered scheme's fair harmony?
Hath God decreed 'twixt truth and truth
There may such lasting warfare be,
That truths, each severally plain,
We strive to reconcile in vain?

Or is the discord not in truth,
Since truth is self consistent ever?
But, close in fleshly wrappings held,
The blinded mind of man can never
Discern—so faint her taper shines—
The subtle chain that all combines?

Ah! then why burns man's restless mind
Truth's hidden portals to unclose?
Knows he already what he seeks?
Why toil to seek it, if he knows?
Yet, haply if he knoweth not,
Why blindly seek he knows not what?[Q]

Who for a good he knows not sighs?
Who can an unknown end pursue?
How find?
How e'en when haply found
Hail that strange form he never knew?
Or is it that man's inmost soul
Once knew each part and knew the whole?

Now, though by fleshly vapours dimmed,
Not all forgot her visions past;
For while the several parts are lost,
To the one whole she cleaveth fast;
Whence he who yearns the truth to find
Is neither sound of sight nor blind.

For neither does he know in full,
Nor is he reft of knowledge quite;
But, holding still to what is left,
He gropes in the uncertain light,
And by the part that still survives
To win back all he bravely strives.

FOOTNOTES:

[Q] Compare Plato, 'Meno,' 80; Jowett, vol. ii., pp. 39, 40.

IV.

Then said she: 'This debate about providence is an old one, and is vigorously discussed by Cicero in his "Divination"; thou also hast long and earnestly pondered the problem, yet no one has had diligence and perseverance enough to find a solution. And the reason of this obscurity is that the movement of human reasoning cannot cope with the simplicity of the Divine foreknowledge; for if a conception of its nature could in any wise be framed, no shadow of uncertainty would remain. With a view of making this at last clear and plain, I will begin by considering the arguments by which thou art swayed. First, I inquire into the reasons why thou art dissatisfied with the solution proposed, which is to the effect that, seeing the fact of foreknowledge is not thought the cause of the necessity of future events, foreknowledge is not to be deemed any hindrance to the freedom of the will. Now, surely the sole ground on which thou arguest the necessity of the future is that things which are foreknown cannot fail to come to pass. But if, as thou wert ready to acknowledge just now, the fact of foreknowledge imposes no necessity on things future, what reason is there for supposing the results of voluntary action constrained to a fixed issue? Suppose, for the sake of argument, and to see what follows, we assume that there is no foreknowledge. Are willed actions, then, tied down to any necessity inthis case?'

'Certainly not.'

'Let us assume foreknowledge again, but without its involving any actual necessity; the freedom of the will, I imagine, will remain in complete integrity. But thou wilt say that, even although the foreknowledge is not the necessity of the future event's occurrence, yet it is a sign that it will necessarily happen. Granted; but in this case it is plain that, even if there had been no foreknowledge, the issues would have been inevitably certain. For a sign only indicates something which is, does not bring to pass that of which it is the sign. We require to show beforehand that all things, without exception, happen of necessity in order that a preconception may be a sign of this necessity. Otherwise, if there is no such universal necessity, neither can any preconception be a sign of a necessity which exists not. Manifestly, too, a proof established on firm grounds of reason must be drawn not from signs and loose general arguments, but from suitable and necessary causes. But how can it be that things foreseen should ever fail to come to pass? Why, this is to suppose us to believe that the events which providence foresees to be coming were not about to happen, instead of our supposing that, although they should come to pass, yet there was no necessity involved in their own nature compelling their occurrence. Take an illustration that will help to convey my meaning. There are many things which we see taking place before our eyes—the movements of charioteers, for instance, in guiding and turning their cars, and so on. Now, is any one of these movements compelled by any necessity?'

'No; certainly not. There would be no efficacy in skill if all motions took place perforce.'

'Then, things which in taking place are free from any necessity as to their being in the present must also, before they take place, be about to happen without necessity. Wherefore there are things which will come to pass, the occurrence of which is perfectly free from necessity. At all events, I imagine that no one will deny that things now taking place were about to come to pass before they were actually happening. Such things, however much foreknown, are in their occurrence free. For even as knowledge of things present imports no necessity into things that are taking place, so foreknowledge of the future imports none into things that are about to come. But this, thou wilt say, is the very point in dispute—whether any foreknowing is possible of things whose occurrence is not necessary. For here there seems to thee a contradiction, and, if they are foreseen, their necessity follows; whereas if there is no necessity, they can by no means be foreknown; and thou thinkest that nothing can be grasped as known unless it is certain, but if things whose occurrence is uncertain are foreknown as certain, this is the very mist of opinion, not the truth of knowledge. For to think of things otherwise than as they are, thou believest to be incompatible with the soundness of knowledge.

'Now, the cause of the mistake is this—that men think that all knowledge is cognized purely by the nature and efficacy of the thing known. Whereas the case is the very reverse: all that is known is grasped not conformably to its own efficacy, but rather conformably to the faculty of the knower. An example will make this clear: the roundness of a body is recognised in one way by sight, in another by touch. Sight looks upon it from a distance as a whole by a simultaneous reflection of rays; touch grasps the roundness piecemeal, by contact and attachment to the surface, and by actual movement round the periphery itself. Man himself, likewise, is viewed in one way by Sense, in another by Imagination, in another way, again, by Thought, in another by pure Intelligence. Sense judges figure clothed in material substance, Imagination figure alone without matter. Thought transcends this again, and by its contemplation of universals considers the type itself which is contained in the individual. The eye of Intelligence is yet more exalted; for overpassing the sphere of the universal, it will behold absolute form itself by the pure force of the mind's vision. Wherein the main point to be considered is this: the higher faculty of comprehension embraces the lower, while the lower cannot rise to the higher. For Sense has no efficacy beyond matter, nor can Imagination behold universal ideas, nor Thought embrace pure form; but Intelligence, looking down, as it were, from its higher standpoint in its intuition of form, discriminates also the several elements which underlie it; but it comprehends them in the same way as it comprehends that form itself, which could be cognized by no other than itself. For it cognizes the universal of Thought, the figure of Imagination, and the matter of Sense, without employing Thought, Imagination, or Sense, but surveying all things, so to speak, under the aspect of pure form by a single flash of intuition. Thought also, in considering the universal, embraces images and sense-impressions without resorting to Imagination or Sense. For it is Thought which has thus defined the universal from its conceptual point of view: "Man is a two-legged animal endowed with reason." This is indeed a universal notion, yet no one is ignorant that the thing is imaginable and presentable to Sense, because Thought considers it not by Imagination or Sense, but by means of rational conception. Imagination, too, though its faculty of viewing and forming representations is founded upon the senses, nevertheless surveys sense-impressions without calling in Sense, not in the way of Sense-perception, but of Imagination. See'st thou, then, how all things in cognizing use rather their own faculty than the faculty of the things which they cognize? Nor is this strange; for since every judgment is the act of the judge, it is necessary that each should accomplish its task by its own, not by another's power.'