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…