tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6828213934573559152024-02-21T17:49:55.799-08:00MacroMicroPhysicsA Formal and Informal Discussion of Physics’ Inference Concepts and Models, From The Point of View of Absolute Motion and Absolute Substance…
Our site is a research site designed for ourselves to share ideas__but anyone may view and possibly benefit from our ongoing investigations into the workings of the Self and Universe...Lloyd Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900009452723717618noreply@blogger.comBlogger101125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-682821393457355915.post-76615837743026849692022-12-11T09:52:00.003-08:002022-12-11T10:19:04.143-08:00<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjO0QI8ewYktNZ885bQEZP25okf5XW4TBB3dNFptj6xWxPgpYG4k3J4L60rdzSFxWyZ2Y8FoySXm80ZzyxkmpYqwjLu7kWhccdhdEuXnDHzr4FDazrsW4s7ZtHFK3mMBQkfJPw0z9IDD5WnGy118i0rPs3CdHNVQavqTCxCWz8L6IjLtvOPWLKw0TVH" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="843" data-original-width="640" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjO0QI8ewYktNZ885bQEZP25okf5XW4TBB3dNFptj6xWxPgpYG4k3J4L60rdzSFxWyZ2Y8FoySXm80ZzyxkmpYqwjLu7kWhccdhdEuXnDHzr4FDazrsW4s7ZtHFK3mMBQkfJPw0z9IDD5WnGy118i0rPs3CdHNVQavqTCxCWz8L6IjLtvOPWLKw0TVH" width="182" /></a></div><br /> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwlsqFXlUavf-vtRpAnzMLnj5cjOcgYbHONVz55uu_yLgkDSa777kQc_GH6qUW5u9JSkWX0PvXbR7wv0QSfIt0Ye9K6KkUvE7sZXK9akYxtco961cZpTiLXoC_4vfjCkQlj7j7JYOOlzo/s1600/scientific_method_2.gif" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwlsqFXlUavf-vtRpAnzMLnj5cjOcgYbHONVz55uu_yLgkDSa777kQc_GH6qUW5u9JSkWX0PvXbR7wv0QSfIt0Ye9K6KkUvE7sZXK9akYxtco961cZpTiLXoC_4vfjCkQlj7j7JYOOlzo/s1600/scientific_method_2.gif" /></a><p></p><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEia7O93NFFdw_fYRjDDVlJjNW1RqmtNwOjqNGpm6yFc0scqQfK7hxhcIm2IW-Fte_RJx7c1BRtYCwze14_VDvdKWqdh84JbpVi7X8o02z5vfek3Qeut8lIBFkQD3FnvAG35UmrtjWNYVVI/s1600/scimeth-2.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEia7O93NFFdw_fYRjDDVlJjNW1RqmtNwOjqNGpm6yFc0scqQfK7hxhcIm2IW-Fte_RJx7c1BRtYCwze14_VDvdKWqdh84JbpVi7X8o02z5vfek3Qeut8lIBFkQD3FnvAG35UmrtjWNYVVI/s320/scimeth-2.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpiibIRwo4lNb237T7Mr-aQKuyQ7a1ATTQ7OjsWx_d9XM8dPXMOLb-o0n7iIUT7LEadGoCVkK8-3HdJaurt28ioDbKEsdEyOz_y49LpQ-bg_DeVJIoCDfjVXi1YVYIlllIUVmg19f0jDo/s1600/ScientificMethod2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="188" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpiibIRwo4lNb237T7Mr-aQKuyQ7a1ATTQ7OjsWx_d9XM8dPXMOLb-o0n7iIUT7LEadGoCVkK8-3HdJaurt28ioDbKEsdEyOz_y49LpQ-bg_DeVJIoCDfjVXi1YVYIlllIUVmg19f0jDo/s320/ScientificMethod2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><strong><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="color: #0070c0; font-size: 18pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">A Scientific Method To Predict <u>A</u> Future… <i>{update}</i><o:p></o:p></span></strong><br /><br /><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: xx-small;">"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</span></i><strong><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p></o:p></i></strong><br /><br /><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong>1. 1<sup>st</sup> Inductive inferences should be open to <u>all</u> possible thought…<em>(Do not block the way of inquiry. Peirce)<o:p></o:p></em></strong></span></span></span><br /><span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br /><strong><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;">2. Abduction-hypothesis should carefully consider all possible combinations and eliminations of such thought…<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(all ideas must be run through the thought wringer, until all necessary logically scientific values are distilled completely_<u>hard science</u> only, should be admitted__praxeology, axiology, ie., real physical actions & laws__in the final analyses of abduction toward final deductive/inductive proofs)</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></strong><br /><span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br /><strong><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;">3. Deductions should be extremely careful to only properly eliminate the superfluous…<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(all psyche exaggerations/imaginings, false beliefs/faiths & pseudo-opinions must be completely set aside)</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></strong><br /><span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br /><strong><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;">4. All epistemic gaps’ origins can & must be closed…<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(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)</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></strong><br /><span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br /><strong><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;">5. All ontologies must be finite & origin closed, as it’s all we can <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><u>hard</u></i> scientifically know…<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(ie., self-evidently derived, ie., logic is grounded in fundamental value_worth__logic is measured only by/in/of values_<u>hard</u> scientific ethics & esthetics__historically and scientifically accurate physical objective facts & laws)</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></strong><br /><span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br /><strong><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;">6. All mereologies must be complete to available information…<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(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)</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></strong><br /><span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br /><strong><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;">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…<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(steps 1 through 7, must constantly be repeated, until final effects match initial set antecedent actions’ <u>‘Goals’</u>)</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></strong><br /><span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br /><strong><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;">8. The ‘is/ought’ problem must be eliminated…<em>(a false dichotomy of mis-understood teleology__full knowledge of is available__'Ought' <u>can</u> easily be derived from 'Is', iff clear goals are </em>1<sup>st </sup><em>stated/asserted & properly set to law__either mentally or physically)<o:p></o:p></em></span></span></span></strong><br /><span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br /><strong><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;">9. Quine’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘Two Dogmas’</i> illusion must be eliminated…<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(a proper integral path oriented ontological, epistemological, teleological & mereological mechanics accomplishes this)</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></strong><br /><span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br /><strong><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;">10. Hans Jonas’ <u>logical</u> 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…<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></strong><br /><span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br /><strong><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;">11. A Goal Must 1<sup>st</sup> Be Set__To Match & Achieve The Above 10 Points…<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(The<u>’ Goal’</u> must be clearly and <u>explicitly</u> set out, to achieve the proper scientific methods & actions)</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></strong><br /><span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br /><strong><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;">12. All 1<sup>st</sup> Goals’ Actions Should Be Set To Time-Variable Law…<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(a safe % of institution per year, of such laws, to absolutely guarantee the complete safety and sovereignty of all nations’ futures)<o:p></o:p></i></span></span></span></strong><br /><span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br /><strong><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;">13. A Thorough Knowledge & Complete Understanding of Logical, Mathematical, Intellectual and Physical Histories Is Necessarily Required By All Participants of Such A Momentus Project…<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(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)<o:p></o:p></i></span></span></span></strong><br /><span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br /><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“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<sup>th</sup> century science.”</i></span></span><br /><br /><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><em>“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</em></span></span></span><br /><br /><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><em><strong>Addendum:</strong></em></span></span></span><br /><em><strong><span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;">"A Good Person, for The Sake of Good…!!!"</span></strong></em><br /><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: x-small;"><strong> </strong></span></span></span><br /><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Hi Tim__tried to make it short, but it grew again... lol...<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Btw, great note...<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">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; <em>"A Good Person, for The Sake of Good…!!!"</em> 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 <em>'The Arab Spring'</em> 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, <em>when enough is acquired</em>, 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...<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">I just really have only one question to ask about this idea: <em>"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."<o:p></o:p></em></span></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Tim, why would you think, <em>"It need to be either one or the other...?" </em>I don't get it...<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">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; <em>'taking sides...'<o:p></o:p></em></span></span></div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: x-small;"></span><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" /><span style="font-size: x-small;"><em>"Of course, but it obviously isn't but one or the other as a few intrinsic aspects <span style="color: #990000;">demand</span> even <span style="color: #990000;">the universe take a side</span> as it <span style="color: #990000;">can't be both</span> of a simple few things due to the very nature of what those concepts represent." </em>Why not Tim...?<o:p></o:p></span></span><br /><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">As to <em>'Why not?'</em>__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 <em>'two-wills'</em> 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<em>(mental ideas)</em> and the phenomenal<em>(physical facts/objects...)<o:p></o:p></em></span></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The trouble seems to enter Tim, when we try to limit the mental side of the equation, as per so, so; <em>'must take a side'</em> as per your above statement. Again; Why...?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">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 <em>'absolute independence'</em> 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 <em>'Live Free-Will'</em>, as I ain't dead, and the only way I wouldn't have a free-will, is if I were <em>'Deterministically Dead'__</em>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<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Let's look at the entire Universe, as a functioning objective object, having <em>'motion'</em>__and it's required <em>'limit on motion'</em>. This can also be seen as an isomorphic mechanical relationship between <em>'Motion as Free-Will'</em> and <em>'Motion Limit as Determinism'</em>__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 <em>'motion limiting motion'</em>, or whatever__No...? If we hypothetically look at the Universe as a possible <em>'Thermo-Hydro-Dynamics'</em>, where the thermodynamic factor operates on the aggregate as <em>'Free Motion',</em> then the hydrodynamic factor would act on the aggregate as a <em>'Motion Limit'</em>__thus explaining much about the entire Universal puzzle, while also somewhat explaining gravity's mechanics, being the <em>'Mean Motions/Actions'</em> between the two <em>'Thermodynamic/Hydrodynamic'</em> extremes, at the extremes of mechanical explanations... This same scenario can be brought back to Earth, as a function of our minds, where <em>'Intellectual Determinism'</em> operates over out <em>'Emotional Free-Choicel'</em> and our <em>'Intellectual Free-Determined-Will'</em> 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...<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br /><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">A few possble thoughts, to at least look at, Tim... I just see nothing wrong with both <em>'Free-Motion'</em> and <em>'Braking-Motion'</em> always existing__together__in fact, I see it as an absolute necessity...<em>(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...?)<o:p></o:p></em></span></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Please do answer, <em>'Why you think it's necessary for a Universe to only function </em>'One Way'<em>__and not the other__I really am curious...'<o:p></o:p></em></span></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br /><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Have a good un,<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Lloyd<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: x-small;"></span><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br /><span style="font-size: x-small;">--<br />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.”<o:p></o:p></span></span><br /><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span><br /><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<o:p></o:p></span><br /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span><br /><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://spot.colorado.edu/~rhanna/Hanna_freedom_teleology_and_rational_causation_kant_yearbook_published_version_june09.pdf"><span style="color: blue;"><strong>http://spot.colorado.edu/~rhanna/Hanna_freedom_teleology_and_rational_causation_kant_yearbook_published_version_june09.pdf</strong></span></a><o:p></o:p></span><br /><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span></strong><br /><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/paper_hanna_rationality_and_the_ethics_of_logic_Jphil_proofs_apr06.pdf"><span style="color: blue;"><strong>http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/paper_hanna_rationality_and_the_ethics_of_logic_Jphil_proofs_apr06.pdf</strong></span></a><strong><o:p></o:p></strong></span><br /><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span></strong><br /><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<o:p></o:p></span><br /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif""><strong>Alpha Concepts…<o:p></o:p></strong></span><br /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span><br /><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"">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, <span face=""Verdana","sans-serif""><em>'all past authors of note'</em></span>, 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 <u><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif""><em>few</em></span></u> 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 <span face=""Verdana","sans-serif""><em>'self-constructed informations and knowledge systems'</em></span> 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...<o:p></o:p></span><br /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span><br /><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"">So far Tim, this is all I have left of what was a really good extended e-mail to ya, on the very <em>‘Alpha-Fundamentals’</em> 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…<o:p></o:p></span><br /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span><br /><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif""><em>“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.”<o:p></o:p></em></span><br /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span><br /><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"">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 “<em>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</em>”__Which when considered as the whole Universe, does do exactly what you’ve stated can’t be done, and this is the very <em>‘Alpha Concept’</em> 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 <em>‘self-constructed systems’</em> 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 <em>‘Alpha Logic’</em> to have opposite meanings, and this is a fact known about our <em>‘Alpha Logics’</em> since the time of the Greeks__Logic itself is or can be very <em>tautological(inversely recursive)</em>, 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 <em>‘system construct’</em> itself,<em> </em>to make it structurally valid. If we were to follow our <em>‘self-fundamental-logic</em>’<em>(Alpha Logic)</em> to its very mechanical core, we’d find it depends on both its <em>qualitative</em> and <em>quantitative</em> functions/attributes/whatever, as logic can’t exist as just a <em>quantitative</em> 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 <em>quantifiable</em>, without including such <em>quantitative</em> issues also involved__and herein lies the problems of double definitions, unless a <em>sentence structured language processing scheme</em> is 1<sup>st</sup> set up, as per how Aristotle 1<sup>st</sup> 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 <em>‘Alpha Logics’(logica utens…)<o:p></o:p></em></span><br /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span><br /><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"">Now, getting back to what you wrote again, about; “<em>caus(ing) our thoughts of the universal system to take a side</em>”__I would have to state, not if one is fully aware of fundamental logic’s necessary 1<sup>st</sup> 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; “<em>concepts as randomness/determinism, infinite/finite, eternal/temporary, etc. by definition are</em><em><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>both infinite and finite, eternal and temporary, etc., at the level of the Universal Whole</em>”__thus the fundamental logic to truly describe such mechanics, absolutely must be <em>formally</em> 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 <em>‘Total Universal Mechanics…</em>’ 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 <em>‘Laws of Thought’</em> and the <em>‘Laws of Logic’</em> plus <em>‘The Laws of Physics’</em>__where some have been around since the early Greeks, while still more weren’t completed until the 19<sup>th</sup> century, where we find most of these most fundamental improvements to both <em>‘The Laws of Thought & Logic, plus Physics…’<o:p></o:p></em></span><br /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span><br /><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"">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 <em>‘Universal Mechanics</em>’ into truly meaningful explanations__This is the reason I spend so much time researching the shortest routes to the best <em>ratio-logical</em> 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 <em>‘Alpha Truths’</em> in sound physical <em>‘Alpha Realities’</em>__It’s very difficult… Psychology’s got a big <em>noggin</em>, that’s <em>gotta</em> be knocked <em>outta</em> 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..<o:p></o:p></span><br /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span><br /><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"">I’ll explain this better later Tim, as that post I lost still has me a bit off track…</span></span></span>Lloyd Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900009452723717618noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-682821393457355915.post-4684718986988421482016-07-18T08:47:00.002-07:002016-07-18T08:47:52.081-07:00PHILOSOPHIC COMMENTS ON THE NEW RESULT: "ABSOLUTIVITY" REPLACING RELATIVITY <i style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #333333; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=45&ved=0CJUCEBYwLA&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2Fphysics%2F9808052&ei=9vFeTNrWLcP7lwfcp-mZCA&usg=AFQjCNEdJZEqgAPqcp5ObkFL60vA_HJHNQ" style="color: #3b7cdc; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">PHILOSOPHIC COMMENTS ON THE NEW RESULT: </a></b></span></i><br style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #333333; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><i style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #333333; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=45&ved=0CJUCEBYwLA&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2Fphysics%2F9808052&ei=9vFeTNrWLcP7lwfcp-mZCA&usg=AFQjCNEdJZEqgAPqcp5ObkFL60vA_HJHNQ" style="color: #3b7cdc; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">"ABSOLUTIVITY" REPLACING RELATIVITY </a></b></span></i><br style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #333333; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #333333; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman", "Times New Roman"; font-size: 13px;"><span style="font-size: large;">Science on the large scale, that is science dealing with the fundamentals of reality and the universe, has always had and still has a major effect on the non-scientific - social - general philosophic thinking of that science’s society and its leaders.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">The beginning of the scientific method and the work of scientists such as Copernicus and Galileo resulted in the new period of "The Age of Reason" and "The Enlightenment" – rationality and empiricism replacing dogma and faith. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">The new developments that Newton introduced led directly to the concept of the "clockwork universe" and the strong belief in laws, order and regularity. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">And, Einstein’s theory of relativity coupled with the 20th Century’s attribution of actual uncertainty or indeterminism to all physical objects, an extension far beyond the original valid Heisenberg Uncertainty of measurement due to the act of measuring changing the object measured, resulted in our contemporary outlook of a probabilistic reality with no certainty, everything relative with no firm truths, upon which we can lay some of the responsibility for the horrors and tragedies of the 20th Century. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">How is that so ? </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">In general, a statement and its contradiction cannot be simultaneously true. Therefore, there are some absolute truths. Thus there is absolute truth, which is the collective body of absolute truths. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Not all statements are absolute truths. Aside from error, which by definition is not true, there is opinion. For example: </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">· Some people state their liking for candy; some their dislike. It is a matter of opinion. </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;">· But, the statement "Some candy has properties that appeal to some people" is an absolute truth. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">The point of view that the questions, "What is truth ?" and "What is real ?" are meaningless questions without answers is not only incorrect but quite negative and harmful in that it suppresses inquiry and progress that could otherwise take place. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Truth is that which conforms to and describes reality. Reality is that which is, not only matter and energy in their various forms but also: feelings and emotions, ideas and cultures, languages and arts, and so forth. </span><br /></span><br />
<div style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #333333; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: large;">Whether we can know, sense, measure, or understand some aspect of reality or not it still, nevertheless, is.</span></span></b></div>
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman", "Times New Roman"; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman", "Times New Roman"; font-size: 13px;"><span style="font-size: large;">Its being does not depend on our consent nor our observation nor our understanding of it, nor even our own being. We are not gods. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">The problem is not whether there is absolute truth or not -- there is. The problem is finding out, coming to know, what the absolute truth is, what is true and what is not. Just what is the "real" reality. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">This problem has beset mankind since the earliest stages of the development of our reasoning. It has resulted in a more or less collective decision to grant equal validity to a number of different versions of the truth in spite of their being mutually contradictory. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Not that individuals, organizations and governments hold the opinion that their own version of the truth is not correct. Rather, they ardently believe in the correctness of their own views. But, their inability to prove their views and their inability to defeat differing or opposing </span></span><span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman", "Times New Roman"; font-size: 13px;"><span style="font-size: large;">views necessitates their getting along in some fashion with those other views and the multiplicity of contradictory views of reality. </span></span><br style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #333333; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #333333; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman", "Times New Roman"; font-size: 13px;"><br /><span style="font-size: large;">That state of affairs has existed for so many human lifetimes that it has essentially implanted in our collective and individual thinking the incorrect belief that there is no absolute truth, that truth is what we say it is -- especially that truth is what we can <u>enforce </u>it to be. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">We have gone from inability to determine the truth to non-belief in its existence and then to belief that truth, and reality, are whatever we choose to believe them to be and can force on our fellows. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">The most significant characteristic of the 20th Century, other than its explosion of technology, has been its adoption of the attitude that truth is different for each person and each case, that it is what each individual perceives it to be -- that there is no objective reality, only the subjective reality as perceived by each individual -- that all is relative. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">The great damage that such thinking does is the license that it gives. It gives license to create, choose, decide upon one's own "reality" and then act accordingly. Such thinking ultimately gives us war, rapine, holocausts. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">But, if there is an absolute reality, objective truth, then, even if we are not able to completely know and understand it, we are subject to it. We are measured and judged by it; we experience the effects and consequences of it whether we agree and approve or not, and we feel compelled to behave accordingly. </span><br /></span><br />
<div style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #333333; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: large;">Thus absolute reality and objective truth, </span></span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", "Times New Roman";"><br /><i><span style="font-size: large;">which indeed exist, </span></i><br /><i><span style="font-size: large;">also are desirable and beneficial. </span></i><br /><i><span style="font-size: large;">They are, in fact, essential to civilized society.</span></i></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman", "Times New Roman"; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman", "Times New Roman"; font-size: 13px;"><span style="font-size: large;">And, that is the beneficial result of Absolutivity replacing Relativity. </span></span>Lloyd Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900009452723717618noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-682821393457355915.post-81067907273815861112015-01-21T10:57:00.001-08:002015-01-21T10:57:31.898-08:00Three New and Important Papers On Space and Time...<span style="background-color: white; color: #292f33; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 26.3636360168457px; letter-spacing: 0.260000020265579px; line-height: 32px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>The ontology of General Relativity, Gustavo E. Romero</b></span><br />
<a href="https://www.academia.edu/9897779/The_Ontology_of_General_Relativity"><b>https://www.academia.edu/9897779/The_Ontology_of_General_Relativity</b></a><br />
<b><br /></b>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #292f33; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 26.3636360168457px; letter-spacing: 0.260000020265579px; line-height: 32px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>Philosophical problems of space-time theories, Gustavo E. Romero</b></span><br />
<b><a href="https://www.academia.edu/9910175/Philosophical_problems_of_space-time_theories">https://www.academia.edu/9910175/Philosophical_problems_of_space-time_theories</a> </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>Present time, Gustavo E. Romero</b></span><br />
<b><a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.4671v1.pdf">http://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.4671v1.pdf</a></b>Lloyd Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900009452723717618noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-682821393457355915.post-50337827913471681082014-12-26T20:33:00.001-08:002014-12-26T20:33:27.063-08:00A Few IFA Proposals - Conventional - Unconventional<h2 class="date-header" style="background-color: white; color: #999999; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8000001907349px; font-weight: normal; margin: 1.5em 0px 0px;">
Friday, December 05, 2003</h2>
<div class="date-posts" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8000001907349px;">
<div class="post-outer">
<div class="post hentry" itemprop="blogPost" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/BlogPosting" style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding-bottom: 1.5em;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="107058347052396639"></a><h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.1em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</h3>
<h3 style="margin: 0px;">
A Few IFA Proposals - Conventional - Unconventional</h3>
<div class="post-header" style="line-height: 1.3em; margin: 0px 0px 0.75em;">
<div class="post-header-line-1" style="line-height: 1.3em; margin: 0px 0px 0.75em;">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-107058347052396639" itemprop="description articleBody" style="line-height: 1.3em; margin: 0px 0px 0.75em;">
Ah yes, Edward. Quite a problem we seem to be in. Since Edward asked this question, I thought I might stick my head out and see how many chop it off. Somehow, I feel they may not since we are all in such a quandry... "What this means is that the seesaw analogy fails: Europe cannot go up while the US goes down: both need to descend together. So the problem here is architectural (any suggestions Lloyd?):"<br /><br />As I stated in one of my posts at: <a href="http://macromouse.blogspot.com/" style="color: #336699;"><strong>MacroMouse</strong></a> and in thorough agreement with you Edward, "We have never been here before." Due to the vast imbalances in global ppp's, wages, debts, trade, wealth, exchange rates, etc., which have evolved since the collapse of the Bretton Woods System in 1971-`73, we face the most serious challenge since,<em>oh who knows when</em>, forever. So what would I do with the international financial architecture? If enough serious minds are willing to admit something needs to be done, then there are definately several answers.<br /><br />The goal, of course, is to rebalance the entire global system. How? Well, many forms of external exchange clearing have been put forth since Plato first advocated it, though none overly appeal to me or many others, as suggested - they reduce too much autonomy. Therefore, I suggest several different forms of conventional exchange clearing and several unconventional forms of internal exchange clearing - which allow a higher degree of local autonomy. I see no other way to otherwise rebalance the massively out of balance system. If we had originally, in 1971, rebuilt the then broken system by making <strong>balanced</strong> floating exchange the law of the land, we wouldn't be here, but we didn't. Just for the record, we could have made a 10% maximum balance band law the IMF would have been mandated to follow when nation's ppp's drifted out of balance, that they should have been mandated to rebalance, even though we had abandoned the pegged system. A rebalancing framework could have and should have been set up at that time, even if it meant loaning, or using a standby agreement until hostilities ended, the money needed by the U.S. to finish the war, etc. It would have been smarter than destroying the entire system as has nearly happened. There were many ways to rebuild a workable system at the time, it was just the acrimony over the war that prevented such a wise course. I mention this for background on what now must be done.<br /><br />I have only recently come across enough information and empirical evolution to possibly offer a few new and different answers. I am no where near ready, but I can set the framework. At the outset, moral hazard must be guarded against most in the workings of any new system. As Alfred Marshall suggested, we could use his <em>units of purchasing power </em>as a solid standard of a new architecture. I suggest a very large basket[20% of GDP] of commodities, production, goods, and services as the new standard for all nations. This large 20% is required because I further suggest using many forms of <a href="http://macromouse.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_macromouse_archive.html#106425450476412013" style="color: #336699;"><strong>derivatives contracts</strong></a> and bond contracts as insurance for the new system of clearing - to satisfy the large financial interests. I suggest this be a minimal financial computer controlled international clearing architecture - politics removed after implementation. To implement, all capital markets must be either closed[short term] or laws of gradual rebalance must be written into the architecture implementation and evolution. This way all nations can maintain their sovereignty and autonomy more than other already advocated systems. If the laws and computer programs are properly written, the world can evolve over a given timeframe to a new global balance of all thus mentioned markets. Rebalancing is a simple accounting trick if enough financing is forthcoming, to do so. It will take much new IMF financing, but the rebalancing will recreate so much new credit productivity, it will pay itself back over time just as the massive public financing of global WWII did.<br /><br />There is also internal exchange clearing, a non-conventional system, that I have written George Monbiot about. There are several of these variations, also, but for now I will enter my e-mail to George:<br />
<blockquote style="margin: 1em 20px;">
Earlier today I came across an article of yours about a meeting, to come up with an alternative to capitalism other than the other failed system - totalitarianism. I'd like to make a suggestion that there is a way to build such an <a href="http://macromouse.blogspot.com/2003_11_01_macromouse_archive.html#106910059241087096" style="color: #336699;"><strong>architecture</strong></a>. BTW, you are my favorite author. The system I am talking about is already here, almost but unrecognized, as yet. On the one side we have what I refer to as Minsky's Heinz `57 capitalisms. On the other we have the Heinz `57 totalitarianisms. None of these are satisfactory. Yet, the answer lies somewhere in<strong>the middle</strong> between the two. BushCo wants to implement an outrageously totally free [for the corporations that is] capitalism. China, on the other hand is moving from totalitarianism toward BushCo's totally free corporate capitalism. If it goes all the way this would be a <strong>big mistake</strong>, as the perfect mixed market capitalism lies in between.<br /><br />What I'm talking about here is the world has a chance to help <a href="http://macromouse.blogspot.com/2003_11_01_macromouse_archive.html#106989330694985084" style="color: #336699;"><strong>China</strong></a> develop the first <strong>perfectly balanced</strong>mixed economy of public and private enterprise. I use this example as the developed nations will not yet listen to common sense. Now, I know from reading your books and articles you can easily grasp this. If <a href="http://macromouse.blogspot.com/2003_12_01_macromouse_archive.html#107048663731652370" style="color: #336699;"><strong>China</strong></a> were to naturally evolve to a state of 20% public enterprise markets and 80% private enterprise markets we would have a chance to witness something truly amazing in economic history, if properly organized at this % mix. As, at this total market mix the 20% public enterprise market could be used to keep inflation/deflation permanently in check throughout the 80% private enterprise market, thus allowing a fiat money system unlimited potential. I mention this about China as it is the only experiment in the world heading toward and most likely to reach this % threshold. It would be a <strong>great loss</strong> to the world if we do not recognize this once in earth's lifetime chance to grant the world a new path. E=1/5X is a formula for <strong>perfect competition</strong> capitalism.<br /><br />The 20% public enterprise mix must be a total % market organization of all production, goods, and services in order to check inflation/deflation throughout the 80% totally free private enterprise side. A tripple entry banking system can be set up to finance. Alfred Marshall, at the turn of the century, mentioned such a similar mix with his <em>units of purchasing power</em>. This is the same thing, so to speak, at a much expanded macro level. If you can actually see this system, which I think you can, you must see the advantages a fiat system would possess when inflation/deflation can be market controlled, it frees the printing press to have free reign to build an unbelievably wealthy, healthy, strong, and viable moral capitalism.<br /><br />If China were to discover this <strong>capitalism key</strong>, the rest of the world would be forced to emulate - gladly as debts and taxes would vanish or could be used productively. They most likely will cross the 1/5X threshold sometime in the near future as they are privatizing at a fast rate - almost 50% already. There is no need for them to cross it in disarray as is the case with many of Europe's social democracies and Russia's failed transition. They only need be shown the simple facts. Please dialogue with me to work out the details. The world needs us George.<br /><br />I wrote three books about this system through the `80's and `90's. Trouble is they are very crude web published material - not enough free time. I am now retired and have the time to finish. My work will be rewritten and republished this winter. My first paper will be 20 to 30 pages long on global credit productivity - a totally new macroeconomic subject.<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-top: 0.75em;">
</div>
</blockquote>
just a start, I have more,<br />everyone, dialogue with me,<br />Lloyd<br /><br /><br /><div style="clear: both; line-height: 1.3em; margin: 0px 0px 0.75em;">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-footer" style="font-size: 11.1999998092651px; line-height: 1.3em; margin: 0px 0px 0.75em;">
<div class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-1" style="line-height: 1.3em; margin: 0px 0px 0.75em;">
<span class="post-author vcard">Posted by <span class="fn" itemprop="author" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span itemprop="name">Lloyd</span> </span></span><span class="post-timestamp">at <a class="timestamp-link" href="http://bonoboathome.blogspot.com/2003/12/few-ifa-proposals-conventional.html" rel="bookmark" style="color: #336699;" title="permanent link"><abbr class="published" itemprop="datePublished" style="border: none;" title="2003-12-05T01:53:00+01:00">1:53 AM</abbr></a></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Lloyd Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900009452723717618noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-682821393457355915.post-41743192080908537372014-08-09T09:38:00.001-07:002014-08-09T09:38:46.017-07:00Metaphysics of Emergence<span style="background-color: white; color: #292f33; font-family: 'Gotham Narrow SSm', sans-serif; font-size: 26.363636016845703px; line-height: 32px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Metaphysics of Emergence A Strange Kind of Being Emerges; Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D. </span><a class="twitter-timeline-link" data-expanded-url="http://holonomic.net/me00a02.pdf" dir="ltr" href="http://t.co/tKmoy5mGc8" rel="nofollow" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #947974; font-family: 'Gotham Narrow SSm', sans-serif; font-size: 26.363636016845703px; line-height: 32px; text-decoration: none; white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;" target="_blank" title="http://holonomic.net/me00a02.pdf"><span class="tco-ellipsis"></span><span class="invisible" style="font-size: 0px; line-height: 0; text-rendering: auto;">http://</span><span class="js-display-url">holonomic.net/me00a02.pdf</span><span class="invisible" style="font-size: 0px; line-height: 0; text-rendering: auto;"></span><span class="tco-ellipsis"><span class="invisible" style="font-size: 0px; line-height: 0; text-rendering: auto;"> </span></span></a>Lloyd Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900009452723717618noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-682821393457355915.post-22142859738013399442014-05-30T22:32:00.000-07:002014-05-30T22:32:29.597-07:00Preliminaries — definitions of concepts of logical truth and necessity:<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">Preliminaries</span></b><b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> — definitions of concepts of
logical truth and necessity</span></b><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">:<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<i>The hierarchy of stable sets, then, consists at least of the empty set, the set of logical necessities, the set
of physical necessities, and the set of all truths. Since any proper subset of
the set of logical truths fails to be logically closed, the set of logical
truths is the smallest nonempty stable set. Marc Lange<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">1. Boltzmann’s continuum hypothesis <i>(necessarily incomplete)(admitted by
Boltzmann)</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">2. Boltzmann’s ergodicity <i>(necessarily incomplete as to exact equilibrium)</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">3. Ramsey’s ergodicity <i>(<b>tends</b> toward equilibrium)<o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">4. Wittgenstein’s foundational logic for
mathematics <i>(as interpreted by Ramsey)(sum
of all propositions possible represents logical infinity as a fundamental
ground of math)(symbolically useful/used as to computer math software)</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">5. Cantor’s <i>w</i>
incompleteness <i>(as per Brower’s
intuitionistic logic)(para-consistent logic)(logic is deeper still)</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">6. Are set-theoretical truths mathematical or
logical <i>(why the most basic set is
logical)(the non-empty stable set)(logical truths form a stable set under CH
and </i></span><i><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-ascii-font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: Verdana; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;">Ø</span></i><i><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">CH counterfactual necessity)(stable sets form a
heiarchy)</span></i><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">7. Physical necessity and/vs. logical necessity
<i>(two definitions of logical necessity</i></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> —<i>classical and ergodic</i></span><i><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">)(where
ergodic applies to non-fixed/non-linear universal logic, i.e., logic of the
universal mechanics, not exact universal logic, i.e., what exists in macro
structures vs. what exists in micro structures of black holes</span></i><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> — <i>as per theory, also QM at super-positioning limit</i></span><i><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">)</span></i><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">8. Godel’s incompleteness of his incompleteness
theorem = <i>hypothesis</i> <i>(new discovery sheds new light on Godel’s
math being short of its full logic knowledge)</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">9. Necessary counterfactuals <i>(i.e., by the necessity of a space-time continuum
being mathematically un-closable, counterfactuals function as physical
necessities for logical necessity, i.e., positive and negative charges of qm
fundamental substance matter, except in the possibilities of theoretical
black-hole super-positioning mechanics, thus allowing the two positions of
logic over math impossibilities)(such a relational logic can’t be written into
numbers, at this level of super-positioning)(maybe in the future, it can be
mathematized; but, this is un-necessary to absolute foundations of logic, where
such logic dictates its own closure by necessity of charge counterfactuals and
the c-laws of physics</i></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> — <i>light, or charge
as light velocity-spin collisions, is its own absolute governor on logic’s
possibilities and necessities</i></span><i><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">)</span></i><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">Summary of the concept of logical truth and necessity:<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">Since the time of Thales, Anaximander and
Heraclitus we’ve been confronted with the fact of how the mind logically
necessarily mechanically functions as to <i>“argument
to exhaustion”</i>, or in modern terminology, <i>“counterfactuals”</i>. What is it about us bio-beings that allows us
such high level of both logical and mathematical interpretation? I mean; Is it
the mind’s eye’s geometric necessary mechanics of scalable intelligence only,
or is there a deeper fundamental mechanical necessity in operation? For the
last 4 or 5 years, I’ve thought it mainly the bio-organic mechanics of the
mind’s eye’s geometric functioning, but I was having trouble grounding such
mechanics, other than highly complex compounding of the many truth and proof
systems available, but I now see another path</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> — that of a more fundamental counterfactually
necessary CH and </span><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-ascii-font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: Verdana; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;">Ø</span><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">CH logic.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">We know the trouble really reared its ugly head
with the logic and mathematical crises of the latter part of the 19<sup>th</sup>
century, when non-linear logic and maths were discovered, placing all fundamental
classical logic and math in jeopardy. And, even with all the work done in math
and logic since, from Piano axioms, Cantor and ZF set theory and its variants
up through Von Neumann, Church-Turing, Godel, Tarski, Cohen, etc., and many
other non-standard analyses since, there’s still been the nagging question of
incompletenesses, in many areas, especially as to absolute foundations;
foundations which could not be fully derived, either from the universal laws,
maths or logics, without using the often fudged axioms. What would or could
replace the questionable axioms? Many of us have surmised it to be some more
basic system of math or logic, not yet discovered, and that is what I’ve
discovered</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> — At least,
as far as I can see</span><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">I just happened to wake up yesterday morning
thinking about <i>“The tensor scalability of
imagination”,</i> i.e., <i>“Empires scale up
and down over time, mainly by law, money and intelligence; and/or, the lack of
intelligence, money and by symmetric and asymmetric law confusions, conflations
and changes”; “Quantifiable truth requires a physical ground, even if only qm
space”; “</i></span><i><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Linguistics’ over-formalization of
non-fundamental formalization, i.e., Chomsky — Psychology can-not be
formalized”; “</span></i><i><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">So
far, the only successful <b>“Universal
Languages”</b> that’s ever been developed are logic and math; and then, there’s
137+ different formal logics and many more maths”; “Philosophy is a formal
methodology of thinking about thinking, as abstraction, conceptualism, logic,
etc., and being formal is thus an objective science”</span></i><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> — When it dawned on me that
what I was looking at was a fundamentally new way of looking at formalizable
foundations in logic and math, from a perspective I’d never considered —
That of; “</span><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">The foundation of all quantifiable logic, math and truth systems is
the fact that a completed continuum hypothesis is <b><i>“Impossible of Proof”</i></b> in
any of these systems, thus acts as the counter-factual fact to found such
physical realities upon</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> — The </span><b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: Verdana; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;">Ø</span></b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> symbol is the foundation symbol of
all truth proof systems, i.e., <b><i>“Factual Incompleteness”</i></b> is the
foundation of all truth systems’ proofs.” </span><b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: Verdana; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;">Ø</span></b><b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">CH </span></b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">extends all the way back to Thales’ counter-factuals, or
arguments to exhaustion. Exhaustion only exists due to the incompleteness of </span><b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: Verdana; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;">Ø</span></b><b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">CH </span></b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">possible. </span><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">Logic, math and truth systems would not
function without </span><b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: Verdana; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;">Ø</span></b><b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">CH </span></b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">incompleteness, as there’d be no logical or physical
counterfactuals to base such systems and thinking upon. </span><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">CH Completeness must
remain incomplete for our knowledge systems to function. The CH is only <b><i>“Ergodic”</i></b></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> — <i>“Tends Toward Equilibrium”</i> — But, </span><b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: Verdana; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;">Ø</span></b><b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">CH</span></b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> complete — by necessity of logic, math and truth
functionality — Otherwise; Counterfactuals could not exist to base any
knowledge system upon. All logic, math and truth systems are true up to <b><i>“Ergodicity”</i></b>;
But, </span><b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: Verdana; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;">Ø</span></b><b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">CH</span></b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> complete… <i>(</i></span><b><i><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: Verdana; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;">Ø</span></i></b><b><i><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></i></b><i><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">meaning “never” here)(CH complete would destroy all possibility
of logic, math and truth functionality)<b>(Realize
this is just an early summary of my yet pregnant ideas, while the concept is
complete in my mind — It’ll take me a while yet to polish and complete it)</b></span></i><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: Verdana; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: Verdana; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;">Ø</span></b><b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">CH </span></b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">and</span><b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></b><b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: Verdana; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;">ØØ</span></b><b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">CH </span></b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">can both be true, as in unified black-holes’ neutron charge
non-existence, and all other natural phenomena of universal charges +’s and –’s
counterfactual necessities outside black-holes and neutron stars — Thus;
Physical necessity is not always logical necessity, allowing for absolute
counterfactual facts and truths. </span><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">The smallest non-empty stable set of pure logic</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> is the ergodic </span><b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: Verdana; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;">Ø</span></b><b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">CH</span></b><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">.</span></b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">E = MC<sup>2</sup>
except at limit</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> — Limit = <i>“Absolute
Hydrodynamic Spin-Time Compression”</i> in black-holes, where opposing charges
neutralize — When all electrons and atomic structure merge into <i>“Super-Super-Positioning”. </i></span><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">No
math exists for the above conditions</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> — Only<b> </b></span><b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: Verdana; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;">Ø</span></b><b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">CH</span></b><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;"> </span></b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">Logic</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> — The sums and products of truths
and counterfactual truths of the propositions involved</span><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">.
These facts alone are the reason logic is the more stable set, over and above
set math.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt; tab-stops: 53.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt; tab-stops: 53.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">If
you follow this at all, give me some honest criticism, as imo, I’m looking at; The
#1 Universal Law of </span><b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: Verdana; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;">Ø</span></b><b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">CH </span></b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Modal Necessity — </span><b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">CH </span></b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Counterfactuals Absolutely Must Exist — Which actually
changes and enhances the entire foundations of logic, and the logical
foundations of math.</span><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT;">P.s.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: CalistoMT; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">Sorry for the mostly note infused prelim and summary. I’ll work it into
a more condensed and presentable paper later. Just wanted to give you some idea
what I’m working on.</span>Lloyd Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900009452723717618noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-682821393457355915.post-57442948687541572872013-12-02T10:17:00.000-08:002013-12-02T10:17:03.149-08:00<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 22px; line-height: 27px;">A Universal Geometry of The Mind’s Eye P=NP Complete __</span><a href="https://t.co/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2Fc8Q592pO15&sig=7fbaf4848853ece128ab1c7eed530007f0320ae8&uid=33740012&iid=6b8051f9f1874cb7bb06a44ff21b5196&nid=151+1270&t=1" style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #0084b4; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 22px; line-height: 27px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">pic.twitter.com/c8Q592pO15</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfD26JT8Zf4T7E7eBz0SbQP6FlPNCCOuyROnNohhUPr2Zs3168shBp8wvcKYnNbCUvjfQ1Ofng6zrIuSx-zx8icIbUAPYCnmX8rlf_jdb5-gLaL-baM6L-Z6DUq2cHdaL73HxKeQatVJo/s1600/UniversalGeometryGraphic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfD26JT8Zf4T7E7eBz0SbQP6FlPNCCOuyROnNohhUPr2Zs3168shBp8wvcKYnNbCUvjfQ1Ofng6zrIuSx-zx8icIbUAPYCnmX8rlf_jdb5-gLaL-baM6L-Z6DUq2cHdaL73HxKeQatVJo/s320/UniversalGeometryGraphic.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />Lloyd Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900009452723717618noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-682821393457355915.post-64473932390880455052013-04-15T05:50:00.003-07:002013-04-15T07:34:35.461-07:00Fundamental Motion In Motion...<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;">The <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“motion and
rest-motion”</i> indiscernibility apex of CM/QM/RM</span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"> </span><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">—</span><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"> <span lang="EN">There exists
no such state, as linear motion is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“eternally”</i>
exchanging motion states, with angular motion and spin states</span></span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"> </span><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">—</span><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN">“Eternally”</span></i></span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"> </span><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">—</span><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"> <span lang="EN">one to the other</span></span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">
</span><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">—</span><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"> <span lang="EN">V<sub><span style="font-size: x-small;">a</span></sub> = V<sub><span style="font-size: x-small;">r</span></sub> </span></span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: Symbol; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-ascii-font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: Verdana; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-char-type: symbol; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;">«</span></span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"> V<sub><span style="font-size: x-small;">u</span></sub>…<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgu26G2KRpUdi3ONdK-IUChmeTyQrjIpJqGIj4Km_K2u6VwuSnW83IqhDpgPN6JDSo7ataTgzhL8OdWfxKKZ5GjUayUWweY6spRCM295mcR9nkKmSNgoHAfoShs3FAp_W4tJTWXcGLtqwE/s1600/MotionPhysics.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgu26G2KRpUdi3ONdK-IUChmeTyQrjIpJqGIj4Km_K2u6VwuSnW83IqhDpgPN6JDSo7ataTgzhL8OdWfxKKZ5GjUayUWweY6spRCM295mcR9nkKmSNgoHAfoShs3FAp_W4tJTWXcGLtqwE/s320/MotionPhysics.jpg" width="259" /></a></div>
</span><br />Lloyd Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900009452723717618noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-682821393457355915.post-76217259776164490932013-04-10T17:03:00.001-07:002013-04-10T17:03:50.072-07:00A Rational MoralityA Rational Morality<br />
<div class="entry">
By, <a href="http://intelligentparty.wordpress.com/"><strong>http://intelligentparty.wordpress.com/</strong></a><br />
<br />
I’ve found on a number of occasions that people who conceive of morality as something handed down from on high don’t understand how there could be any alternative to that view. “If you don’t get your morals from [deity of choice], <em>where do you get them?</em>”The frequency with which this line of questioning appears demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of what sort of a concept morality is and how we can coherently define it. The assumption at the heart of the misunderstanding is that morals must be things in the world—not necessarily that they must be tangible, but that they have an existence independent of the human mind. For a person holding this view, morals are fixed, constant, and external.<br />
(Continued below the fold.)<br />
<span id="more-13"></span><br />
<strong>The Source</strong><br />
This notion of external moral values is equally ludicrous whether the perceived source is a deity or a dictator. Morality is a value-based judgment system, a <em>human-created</em> way of applying conceptual labels to human interaction and decision-making. These labels, the words of moral judgment—good, bad, right, wrong, just, unjust—have no real-world referent, the way ‘pencil’ or ‘babboon’ do. They only exist in the abstract, which is to say that they only exist as products of the human mind, and this is the only way they really make any sort of sense—as linguistic constructions for describing and evaluating human behavior. People intuitively understand this, I think, but they persist in thinking of moral values as something existing independent of human reason (and often not even <em>accessible</em> to human reason).<br />
Nature certainly doesn’t make sense as a source for morality, given that nature (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathetic_fallacy">pathetic fallacy</a> aside) has no particular interest in whether we act “morally” or “immorally.” This is to say that two actions, one “moral” and one “immoral,” may have markedly different consequences, but nature has no real investment in one over the other for the sake of adhering to a moral system. Examined in this light, moral actions are not qualitatively different from immoral actions from any perspective other than a human one. The only distinction between actions, from a natural standpoint, is due to a difference in the direct consequences of those actions. Any attempt to claim the natural world as a source for arbitrarily chosen moral values is bogus, and is most likely an attempt to rationalize a supernaturally-based view of morality.<br />
<strong></strong><br />
<strong>Defining the System</strong><br />
It is important for us to understand why morality exists, what purpose it serves in human discourse. Morality is most readily understood as a system we impose in order to make our lives <strong>easier</strong>—in terms of both individual quality of life and overall utility—and to turn them into something other than ‘kill or be killed.’ In its rational form (as distinct from the sense of ‘public morality,’ where things are arbitrarily chosen as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for no logical reason), it is a product of extrapolating from rational self-interest. The impulse towards morality is <em>not</em>, fundamentally speaking, an impulse towards treating people justly or fairly for its own sake, but rather an impulse towards treating people justly and fairly in the hopes that they will treat us in such a way. An appropriately chosen moral value within such a system is one that strikes the right balance between self and other, in the sense that the negatives of obeying it ourselves are balanced out by the positives of everyone else obeying it. The most obvious example is the widely held moral prohibition against killing for reasons other than self defense. This is an appropriate moral value for us to hold, because we can reasonably (there’s that word again) expect that the desire to not be killed is more or less universal, that the convenience of not worrying about being murdered will outweigh the inconvenience of not being able to slit the throat of someone who pisses us off. That this is often overlooked in moments of passion in no way invalidates it as an ethos—it just means that there are situations in which people will make decisions based on something other than morality.<br />
<br />
<strong>Extrapolation and Universality</strong><br />
You will undoubtedly notice a certain degree of speculation within such a system. This is unavoidable, practically speaking, given the overwhelming numbers of people on the earth; it’s not even remotely feasible that we interview the entirety of the human population, in order to have a truly universal representation of human desires. We must rely on experience and reason to give us a sense of what humans value, and which of these values must/should be considered unimpeachable—life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, etc. As we’ve previously established, reason is the only <a href="http://intelligentparty.wordpress.com/2006/01/16/why-reason/">universal language</a> available to us for discussing and analyzing these issues; emotion is not irrelevant, especially when utility and happiness are so closely linked, but the fact that something makes us feel good doesn’t in and of itself make it a universal good in any sense. And there <em>is</em> a need for morality to come from a universally accessible source, because otherwise it becomes meaningless as a system for human behavior. If, say, concepts of morality were bestowed by Hypothetical Supernatural Entity #1, and Hypothetical Supernatural Entity #1 was only perceptible to a certain subset of the population, then the rest of the population couldn’t be fully participating in the system, in the sense that they wouldn’t have any direct access to these “moral values.” Likewise, there <em>is</em> a need for some sort of universal morality in our increasingly global culture; if ever there was a time when different cultures could function with drastically different moral systems without affecting each other, that time is long since gone.<br />
<br />
<strong>To What End?</strong><br />
The end result of this sort of moral reasoning (post-conventional, under <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_reasoning">Kohlberg’s very useful rubric</a>, which I expect I’ll discuss again at some future point) is less clear than the merits and methods of the process itself. The only coherent theory of morality, it seems to me, is one which falls under the heading of a social contract, given the lack of justification for drawing moral values from external (non-human) sources. We identify, by careful reasoning, certain values which we all implicitly agree to live by, in order that we may enjoy the advantages of civilization over a more animalistic, survival of the fittest system. The logistics of this are troublesome, as is determining the ideal relationship of morality and law, but the point is that we must embrace a rational definition of morality, wherein we recognize that moral frameworks exist only insofar as we create them and impose them on ourselves and, by extension, on others. It should also be recognized that morality is not, from a broad perspective, a necessity; rather, it is a particularly useful system we’ve concocted to keep from killing and raping and stealing from each other (which is to say: to keep from being killed or raped or stolen from). The sooner we recognize the necessarily rational nature of moral judgments and stop trying to assign some absolute “moral” status to <a href="http://www.ozyandmillie.org/2005/om20050822.html">random beliefs and prejudices</a>, the more just and pleasant our world will become, and the less we will abridge the fundamental rights of others.<br />
–<em>Urizen</em></div>
Lloyd Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900009452723717618noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-682821393457355915.post-40259468983965609612012-12-23T07:32:00.001-08:002012-12-23T07:32:28.182-08:00N.A. Vasiliev's "Imaginary" Experimental Modal Logic...<table style="width: 100%px;">
<tbody>
<tr><td><span style="font-family: Arial;"><em><span class="goog_qs-tidbit goog_qs-tidbit-1"><a href="http://www.washacadsci.org/activities-and-events/capsci-abstracts/capital-science-2004/">Evolutionary Thinking in Past Scientific Theories:</a> A Logical Analysis </span></em><span class="goog_qs-tidbit goog_qs-tidbit-1">by Antonino Drago,</span> Dept. Phys. Sci., Univ. “Federico II”, Naples, Italy </span></td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Abstractions lead us to shape ideas, about which our minds argue by means of logic. An evolutionary thinking occurs when these ideas are not linked together by means of mechanistic deductions, but in a creative way. In this sense evolutionary thinking pushes us to shape a broader kind of logic. The phenomenon of a double negated statement whose corresponding positive statement is lacking of scientific evidence (=DNS) will be examined. It represents a failure of the double negation law; this law constitutes the borderline between classical logic and, broadly speaking, non-classical logic (in particular, intuitionistic logic). In fact, several scientific theories born in past times include in an essential way DNSs. In particular, quantum logic can be represented by means of DNSs inside intuitionistic logic. When DNSs pertain in an essential way to a theory, no more – as a comparative analysis upon the several instances shows – a deductive organization of the theory is possible; rather, the theory puts an universal problem by means of a DNS, then some double negated methodological principles (e.g.: “It is impossible a motion without an end”) follow in order to achieve a new scientific method, capable to solve the problem at issue. This arguing evolves through a cyclic pattern, according to the synthetic method as it was improved by L. Carnot. The crucial step in this pattern is an ad absurdum theorem (likely as in thermodynamics S. Carnot’s theorem is). This theorem reaches evidence for a possible conclusion, still enunciated by means of a DNS. Then by a move like Markoff principle this DNS is changed in a positive statement; it can now be put as a new hypothesis from which to develop a full deductive system. This move is illustrated at best in Lobachevsky’s – maybe first – presentation of a non-Euclidean geometry, but can be recognised also in S. Carnot’s thermodynamics, Avogadro’s atomic theory, Einstein’s founding special relativity. <span class="goog_qs-tidbit goog_qs-tidbit-2">This pattern of arguing is examined by means of paraconsistent logic.</span> In correspondence to the use by theoretical scientific research, of respectively paraconsistent logic, intuitionistic logic and classical logic about statements which are potentially principles for a theory, three kinds of principles are recognized; i.e., a guess, a methodological principle, an axiom-principle. These differences are expressed in a lucid way by Einstein again in his celebrated paper on special relativity: “We will raise the conjecture (the substance of which will be hereafter called the “[axiom-]principle of relativity”) to the state of a [methodological] postulate”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><strong><a href="http://www.metalogicon.org/rivista/2003ld/Drago03ld.pdf">LINK:</a></strong></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">In
a previous paper</span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 8pt;"> </span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">I obtained a relevant result regarding
paraconsistent logic. The<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">founder
of paraconsistent logic, N.A. Vasiliev, stated as a characteristic feature of
his logic,<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">three
kinds of sentence, i.e., </span></i><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">"S is
A"</span></i></b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">, </span></i><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">"S is not A"</span></i></b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">, </span></i><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">"S is and is not A"</span></i></b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> ("indifferent judgment").</span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 8pt;"> </span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">I was able to
show that they hold true even when one substitutes </span></i><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">"</span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-size: 16pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: Symbol; mso-highlight: lime;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">¬¬</span></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A</span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">" for "S"
and "--></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">" for "is"</span></i></b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">. One obtains respectively: </span></i><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">"</span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-size: 16pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: Symbol; mso-highlight: lime;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">¬¬</span></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A--></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A </span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">", "</span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-size: 16pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: Symbol; mso-highlight: lime;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">¬¬</span></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A
fails to --></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A</span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">", "</span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-size: 16pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: Symbol; mso-highlight: lime;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">¬¬</span></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A--></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A and </span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-size: 16pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: Symbol; mso-highlight: lime;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">¬¬</span></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A
fails to --></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A</span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">"</span></i></b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">.(substitute necessity [box] for --> everywhere)<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Let
us remark that the three cases represent three different roles played (in) a
sentence in an<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">argument.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">i</span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">) </span></i><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-size: 16pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: Symbol; mso-highlight: lime;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">¬¬</span></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A--></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A</span></i></b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">represents as an affirmative sentence, i.e. a
sentence well-supported by<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">scientific
evidence;<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">ii</span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">) </span></i><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-size: 16pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: Symbol; mso-highlight: lime;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">¬¬</span></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A fails to --></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A</span></i></b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">represents
a logical problem, i.e., it can represent a sentence still<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">insufficiently
supported by scientific evidence;<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">iii</span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">) </span></i><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-size: 16pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: Symbol; mso-highlight: lime;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">¬¬</span></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A--></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A and
</span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-size: 16pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: Symbol; mso-highlight: lime;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">¬¬</span></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A
fails to --></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A</span></i></b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">represents a sentence whose truth and falsity is not
yet decided in scientific terms; this kind of sentence may be considered inside
a theoretical<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">framework
as a guess, whose scientific qualification <s>it</s> is still yet to be
decided. The last kind of sentence qualifies the characteristic sentence of
paraconsistent logic as pertaining to a theory in construction. </span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Antonino</span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> Drago<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-highlight: lime;">Imaginary</span></i></b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-highlight: lime;">(meaning sheet of assertions in imagination)</span></i><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-highlight: lime;"> Experimental Modal Logic:<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-size: 16pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: Symbol; mso-highlight: lime;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">¬¬</span></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A--></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A</span></i></b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt;">(classical linear deduction)<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-size: 16pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: Symbol; mso-highlight: lime;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">¬¬</span></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A
fails to --></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A</span></i></b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt;">(non-classical/non-linear
induction)<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-size: 16pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: Symbol; mso-highlight: lime;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">¬¬</span></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A--></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A and </span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-size: 16pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: Symbol; mso-highlight: lime;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">¬¬</span></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A
fails to --></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A</span></i></b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt;">(non-classical/non-linear
abduction, hypothesis, theory)Antonino Drago on N.A. Vasiliev(my additions in
italics)</span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;">Infinity__ Where all doubts are allowed…<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Let us consider Lobachevskii's
geometry. By substituting <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="background: lime; mso-highlight: lime;">"two straight lines meet"</span></b>
for </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A</span></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="background: lime; mso-highlight: lime;">"It is not true
that two straight lines do not meet"</span></b> for </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-size: 16pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: Symbol; mso-highlight: lime;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">¬¬</span></span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">, i.e. Vasiliev's </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">S</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">, the three<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Vasiliev's above sentences
describe respectively<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">i)
</span></i><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ascii-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: Symbol; mso-highlight: lime;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">¬¬</span></span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%; mso-highlight: lime;">A--></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%; mso-highlight: lime;">A</span></i></b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">, </span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">i.e.
the hyperbolic secant lines, <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">ii</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">) </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-size: 16pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: Symbol; mso-highlight: lime;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">¬¬</span></span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A fails to--></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A</span></i></b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">, </span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">i.e. the
hyperbolic ultra-parallel lines and,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">iii</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">) </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-size: 16pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: Symbol; mso-highlight: lime;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">¬¬</span></span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A--></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A and </span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-size: 16pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: Symbol; mso-highlight: lime;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">¬¬</span></span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A
fails to --></span></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">A</span></i></b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">, </span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">i.e. the
parallel lines - which meet at a point which is located at <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="background: lime; mso-highlight: lime;">infinity</span></b>,
i.e. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="background: lime; mso-highlight: lime;">where all doubts are allowed.</span></b> This last meaning
is presented by<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Lobachevskii himself in his most
relevant writing; there, Lobachevskii refers to the meeting<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">point at infinity by means of the
following words: <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="background: lime; mso-highlight: lime;">"In the uncertainty..."</span></b>,</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 8pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">just the meaning
of<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Vasiliev's third kind of
sentence. That vindicates Vasiliev's reiterated claim, i.e. his logic<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">represents just the
logic of Lobachevskii's geometrical theory.</span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">"Handle two sorts of
negations <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="background: lime; mso-highlight: lime;">(<i>logical </i>and <i>ontological</i>)</span></b>"; as
paraconsistent logic does.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Conclusions<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The three main kinds of logic
correspond to three characteristic ways of organizing a set<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">of scientific data in a
systematic way. Paraconsistent logic is a relevant logic since it represents<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">the logic of the work of a
scientist in his <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="background: lime; mso-highlight: lime;">guessing new hypotheses</span></b> for a given set of
scientific<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">data.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">I would add that the above
exploration of the different roles played by the three kinds of logic has
introduced us to a new kind of study, which can be called </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: lime; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; mso-highlight: lime;">experimental logic</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">; it is based upon <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="background: lime; mso-highlight: lime;">evidence coming from the characteristic features of past scientific
theories</span></b> rather<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">than
the characteristic features of natural languages. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Antonino</span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Drago</span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRoman; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">Vasiliev affirmed, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="background: lime; mso-highlight: lime;">only ''positive'' sensations are
possible</span></b>, by which <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="background: lime; mso-highlight: lime;">we can distinguish only contrary
qualities.</span></b> This is the basis of qualitatively different types of
judgments - affirmative and negative.<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> <span style="background: lime; mso-highlight: lime;">If one imagines a world in which not
only positive but negative sensations are possible, then such a world will indeed
require a different logic, and the introduction of supplementary qualitative
judgments…</span></b></span></td></tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Lloyd Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900009452723717618noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-682821393457355915.post-30032105050534824842012-12-06T07:49:00.002-08:002012-12-06T07:49:45.341-08:00A Few New Ideas From FQXi<div class="community_essay_winners_prizeCategory">
First Prize</div>
<!-- ---------------------------------------------------------------- --><br />
<br />
<div class="community_essay_winners_Entry">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="spekkens"></a><span class="community_essay_winners_Title">The paradigm of kinematics and dynamics must
yield to causal structure</span> <br /><span class="community_essay_winners_Author">Robert Spekkens</span> <br /><br />
<div class="community_essay_winners_Details">
<span class="community_essay_winners_Subtitle">Essay Abstract</span> <br /><span class="community_essay_winners_Text">The distinction between a theory's kinematics
and its dynamics, that is, between the space of physical states it posits and
its law of evolution, is central to the conceptual framework of many physicists.
A change to the kinematics of a theory, however, can be compensated by a change
to its dynamics without empirical consequence, which strongly suggests that
these features of the theory, considered separately, cannot have physical
significance. It must therefore be concluded (with apologies to Minkowski) that
henceforth kinematics by itself, and dynamics by itself, are doomed to fade away
into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an
independent reality. The notion of causal structure seems to provide a good
characterization of this union. </span><br /><br /><span class="community_essay_winners_Subtitle">Author Bio</span> <br /><span class="community_essay_winners_Text">Robert Spekkens is a faculty member at the
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada. His area of
research is the foundations of quantum theory. </span><br /><br /><span class="community_essay_winners_Links"><a href="mhtml:file://C:\Users\User\Desktop\FQXi Community_1.mht!x-usc:http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Spekkens_FQXIEssay310812.pdf" target="PDF">download essay</a> </span></div>
<div class="community_essay_winners_Details">
<span class="community_essay_winners_Links"></span> </div>
<div class="community_essay_winners_Details">
<span class="community_essay_winners_Links"><div class="community_essay_winners_prizeCategory">
Second Prizes</div>
<!-- ---------------------------------------------------------------- --><br />
<div class="community_essay_winners_Entry">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="ellis"></a><span class="community_essay_winners_Title">Recognising Top-Down Causation</span>
<br /><span class="community_essay_winners_Author">George Ellis</span> <br /><br />
<div class="community_essay_winners_Details">
<span class="community_essay_winners_Subtitle">Essay Abstract</span> <br /><span class="community_essay_winners_Text">One of the basic assumptions implicit in the
way physics is usually done is that all causation flows in a bottom up fashion,
from micro to macro scales. However this is wrong in many cases in biology, and
in particular in the way the brain functions. Here I make the case that it is
also wrong in the case of digital computers – the paradigm of mechanistic
algorithmic causation - and in many cases in physics, ranging from the origin of
the arrow of time to the process of quantum state preparation. I consider some
examples from classical physics; from quantum physics; and the case of digital
computers, and then explain why it this possible without contradicting the
causal powers of the underlying micro physics. Understanding the emergence of
genuine complexity out of the underlying physics depends on recognising this
kind of causation. It is a missing ingredient in present day theory; and taking
it into account may help understand such mysteries as the measurement problem in
quantum mechanics: </span><br /><br /><span class="community_essay_winners_Subtitle">Author Bio</span> <br /><span class="community_essay_winners_Text">George Ellis is a relativist and cosmologist
residing in Cape Town, South Africa. His books include On the Large Scale
Structure of Space-Time co-authored with Stephen Hawking. In addition to
contemplating relativistic and philosophical aspects of cosmology, he is now
engaged in trying to understand how complex systems such as you and me can arise
out of the underlying physics. </span><br /><br /><span class="community_essay_winners_Links"><a href="mhtml:file://C:\Users\User\Desktop\FQXi Community_1.mht!x-usc:http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Ellis_FQXI_Essay_Ellis_2012.pdf" target="PDF">download essay</a> </span></div>
<div class="community_essay_winners_Details">
<span class="community_essay_winners_Links"></span> </div>
<div class="community_essay_winners_Details">
<span class="community_essay_winners_Links"><div class="community_essay_winners_prizeCategory">
Third Prizes</div>
<!-- ---------------------------------------------------------------- --><br />
<div class="community_essay_winners_Entry">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="barbour"></a><span class="community_essay_winners_Title">Reductionist Doubts</span> <br /><span class="community_essay_winners_Author">Julian Barbour</span> <br /><br />
<div class="community_essay_winners_Details">
<span class="community_essay_winners_Subtitle">Essay Abstract</span> <br /><span class="community_essay_winners_Text">According to reductionism, every complex
phenomenon can and should be explained in terms of the simplest possible
entities and mechanisms. The parts determine the whole. This approach has been
an outstanding success in science, but this essay will point out ways in which
it could nevertheless be giving us wrong ideas and holding back progress. For
example, it may be impossible to understand key features of the universe such as
its pervasive arrow of time and remarkably high degree of isotropy and
homogeneity unless we study it holistically -- as a true whole. A satisfactory
interpretation of quantum mechanics is also likely to be profoundly holistic,
involving the entire universe. The phenomenon of entanglement already hints at
such a possibility. </span><br /><br /><span class="community_essay_winners_Subtitle">Author Bio</span> <br /><span class="community_essay_winners_Text">After completing a PhD in theoretical
physics, I became an independent researcher to avoid the publish-or-perish
syndrome. For 45 years I have worked on the nature of time, motion, and the
quantum theory of the universe. I am the author of two books: The Discovery of
Dynamics and The End of Time, in which I argue that time is an illusion. Details
of my research work are given at my website platonia.com. Since 2008 I have been
a Visiting Professor at the University of Oxford. </span><br /><br /><span class="community_essay_winners_Links"><a href="mhtml:file://C:\Users\User\Desktop\FQXi Community_1.mht!x-usc:http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Barbour_Reductionism.pdf" target="PDF">download essay</a> </span></div>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
Lloyd Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900009452723717618noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-682821393457355915.post-57977346860966158142012-11-14T12:46:00.001-08:002012-11-14T12:46:41.459-08:00The Universal Isomorphic Algorithm__The Universal Isomorphic Algorithm__UIA = ∑∫∏v --> IC/M Iff / ≡ ∑’s •…(The universal isomorphic algorithm equals the sum of the integral product variables, impling the isomorphic center of mass, if and only if divided identical to the sum’s center…)<em>(Formula requires reworking)</em><br /><br />Thanks, L.A.Gillespie mailto:<a href="http://kondratyev.blogspot.com/lloyd.gillespi@gmail.com"><span style="color: #5588aa;">lloyd.gillespi@gmail.com</span></a> <br /><a href="http://macromouse.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: #5588aa;">Home page – blog</span></a> - & <a href="http://theawakeningoftheamericamind.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: #5588aa;">http://theawakeningoftheamericamind.blogspot.com/</span></a><br /><strong></strong><br />
<strong>A Search For Universal Justice...</strong><br />Wisdom Logic - The Final Stage of Philosophy - A Universal Wisdom of Universal Justice Can Be Taught...<br />The Universal Super-Conscious Soul and Mind...<br />The Many Levels of Perception...<br /><strong>A Newtonian Universal Capitalist Symmetry...</strong><br />
<strong>New Beginnings...</strong>"--- Has anyone considered the real depth of investigation needed to reveal the true root causes of our dire political problems? Are we truly intelligent enough to understand the depth of subject required? What is the overwhelming root force/entity and its evolution to the present quagmire? Does anyone even care?" <br />"--- The neural generation. Could a whole world be wrong? As we economically drift toward WWIII.... How do we talk? The male and female spirit battle is blocking the advance of truth and technical logic. Look outside yourself. There's a whole new world. The problem - "We only understand our own thinking and no one else's and can't or won't learn." Everyone is too insecure to see the truth. The world is too insecure to see through itself to the truth. People - Defending their own thinking - Life - Why talk? - All we're going to do is defend our own thinking! Has this created the poisoned American spirit? Drop subconscious's and go conscious." <br />"---There's a wolf in the system... He was born of your laws. He roams from Maine to California - Alaska to Florida - Hawaii to D.C., and Chicago to New York... He is a hungry wolf. He tears into your hind quarters, clear to the bone, with a vicious set of teeth. He is simply after your wallet. He is the [international] speculation wolf, and he operates legally under your floating exchange law system, to rip the very soul from your nation. He will succeed unless you try to understand how he feeds............"<br />"--- We need a fixed value monetary system. At the present time, we have none. Under floating exchanges, America is simply a powerful ship on an ocean, with no rudder. Old gold, silver, and other known standards will no longer work. They will not work due to the massive increases in communication's speed, the varied endowments of nations' natural resources, and encrypted international speculative opportunities. Therefore, we need a new system. INTERNAL EXCHANGE CLEARING is such a system. It is an entirely new fixed value enhancing - [production standard] - monetary system, to benefit all humankind." <br />"--- The citizen of the ideal state will require a currency for the purpose of every day expenses; This is practically indispensable for workers of all kinds and for such purposes as the payment of wages to wage earners. To meet these requirements, the citizen will possess a currency which will pass for value among themselves, but will not be accepted outside their own boundaries. But a stock of some currency common to the Hellenic world generally i.e., of international currency, will at all times be kept by the state for military expenditures or official missions abroad such as embassies and for any other necessary purposes of state. If a private citizen has occasion to go abroad, he will make his application to the government and go; and upon his return if he has any foreign currency left over in his possession, he will hand it over to the state receiving in exchange the equivalent in local currency." Plato<br />"--- Intelligence wandered into town one day, looking for a friend. After meeting mediocrity and inanity, any town's overwhelming majority, he wondered even if his quest were possible? Already having visited many other towns and cities and finding no luck in meeting a friend, his spirit was growing dim; however, he could not stop, but where was he to look..................?"Lloyd Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900009452723717618noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-682821393457355915.post-88239393042363602172012-07-04T17:15:00.001-07:002012-07-04T17:15:10.979-07:00The Exist__The Photon…<span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="font-size: small;"><div class="quote_container">
<strong>
</strong><div class="bbcode_quote_container">
<strong><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
Exist__The Photon…</span></span><br /></strong><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="font-size: small;">Hi, I’m a photon. You all know me from
seeing visible light. I’m also much, much more. I’m all you absolutely know. I’m
everywhere, and I mean everywhere. I’m omnipotent, omniscient, and
omnipresent__you live inside me, and I live inside you__There’s no escape__I’m
all of the all of everything. I do all good and bad, true and false, positive
and negative, etc., etc., etc… I even lie, steal and cheat__love, care and give
birth to everyone of you, and all your creatures and plants. Really, I’m
miraculous, but I’m also miraculously simple__How else could I do everything
possible…??? Even Star-Trek's Q’s got nothing on me__I’m
perfect…</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="font-size: small;">You awake most mornings to my shining face, glistening on crystal clear
lakes, awakening the morning life in you__Me, lil’ ol' me. You climb a mountain,
take in the view__and you only see the beauty by my attributes of em-waves, of
so many frequencies, I don’t even know how many ways I can be divided and added
to__It’s a long ongoing story__Eternal really. All I know is I form all you see
in the entire Universe__It’s all me, your lil’ ol’ photon. I’m the single
Universal state of all states, and all state changes. I form all the other
particles, within all electrons, positrons, protons and neutrons__in fact, I am
them in toto__Ain’t I something…???</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="font-size: small;">You’ve all been puzzling for millennia
on what makes up the finest structures of the Universe__Well here I am, get a
good look__Watch me shine most every day, lighting up your life__and giving you
every ounce of your life. Follow me through any instrument of your choice to see
all my diverse frequencies, harmonics and motions. In rest state, I’m spinning
so fast it makes even me dizzy, so I continue to radiate away a bit o’ sweat as
rads__It’s a really difficult job, to hold myself so tight, for so many billions
of years__But, I do venture around as rads. I get the bird's eye view of every
trick in the book of nature, and you oughta’ see what I’ve seen__Oh my…!!! I’ve
tricked you for millennia to my identity, which I designed in you, so as to
entertain myself and create all the mysteries in your lives. I knew you’d be a
bit slow in discovering what you live in, and are, just as a fish can not know
he’s living in water__you’ve evidently never learned you're living in me__The
humble and arrogant lil’ ol’ photon__Well, that’s kind of an
under-statement__Since I’m also the infinite all, everywhere to eternity__Btw,
that’s the end of time to you__But, there ain’t really no end__I just recycle
my-self__Round and round the Universal merry-go-round__That’s why it’s
Universal, ya know…!!!</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="font-size: small;">I love beings, and I explode
things__How else would you expect a photon to get his kicks? I got a sense of
humor, just as you, since I built you. Don’t you think it’s about time you
opened your eyes to see me?__I’m quite cute... I’m the solid non-viscous fluidic
state of all states you know, live in, and your entire Universe is made of and
exists in__What more do you want...??? Without me, you ain’t you, and your
Universe ain’t at all. Without you, I’m still me, but truthfully, it’d be a bit
lonely without you, since I’ve got to know you, in all your frailties of
intellect and passions__over the many millennia__you ain’t changed much, down
deep... So, I think I’ll keep you. Well honestly on second thought, I can’t get
rid of you, without your help, because I lack free-will without your miraculous
bio-bodies and brains. Gee, I’d really be lonely without all you inquisitive
creatures…</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="font-size: small;">Will you keep me company__Please…???</span></span><br /><br /><img alt="" border="0" src="http://www-d0.fnal.gov/Run2Physics/WWW/results/final/QCD/Q05A/DirectPhoton.gif" /><img alt="" border="0" src="http://www.hardhack.org.au/files/compton.gif" /><strong><img alt="" border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_EZWNQhIJDqs/SeHMBf7jkzI/AAAAAAAABqw/hN4tm5o78ho/s400/Photon+time++diagram+two.jpg" /></strong></div>
</div>
</span></span>Lloyd Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900009452723717618noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-682821393457355915.post-63423867609932212442012-06-28T12:08:00.003-07:002012-06-28T12:08:33.415-07:00Why Biology Can Not Be Mechanized... <span style="font-size: large;">Mr. Herbert Spencer wishes to explain evolution upon mechanical principles.
This is illogical, for four reasons. First, because the principle of evolution
requires no extraneous cause; since the tendency to growth can be supposed
itself to have grown from an infinitesimal germ accidentally started. Second,
because law ought more than anything else to be supposed a result of evolution.
Third, because exact law obviously never can produce heterogeneity out of
homogeneity; and arbitrary heterogeneity is the feature of the universe the most
manifest and characteristic. Fourth, because the law of the conservation of
energy is equivalent to the proposition that all operations governed by
mechanical laws are reversible; so that an immediate corollar<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">y from it is that growth is not explicable by those laws,
even if they be not violated in the process of growth. In short, Spencer is not
a philosophical evolutionist, but only a half-evolutionist,―or, if you will,
only a semi-Spencerian. Now philosophy r</span>equires thoroughgoing
evolutionism or none. C.S. Peirce</span>Lloyd Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900009452723717618noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-682821393457355915.post-2066421055600006782012-02-15T15:52:00.000-08:002012-02-15T15:52:59.627-08:00Possibility, Necessity, and Contingency...<span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;"><a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/foreknow/#H5"><strong>Possibility, Necessity, and Contingency; from IEP...<o:p></o:p></strong></a></span></span><br />
<br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">To expose the mistakes in the deterministic arguments, we will need some tools of modern logic. Some elementary symbols will help to illuminate the concepts at play in the deterministic arguments. However, all the formulas that will be used, which incorporate these symbols, will also be expressed in English prose.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse: collapse; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;"><tbody>
<tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;"> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt; width: 50.25pt;" width="67"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><strong><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Symbol</span></strong><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt; width: 101.25pt;" width="135"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><strong><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Its meaning</span></strong><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt; width: 357.75pt;" width="477"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><strong><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Explanation</span></strong><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div></td> </tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1;"> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;">P, Q, R, …</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><em><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">propositions</span></em><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: #23262a;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">See </span><a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/#H2"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Verdana;">(see Sec. 2 of Truth)</span></a></span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div></td> </tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 2;"> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><strong><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">~</span></strong><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;">P</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;">it is not the case that P</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;">Example: It is not the case that copper conducts<br />
electricity. (Note: “P” and “<strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">~</span></strong>P” have opposite<br />
truth-values – whichever is true, the other is<br />
false.)</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> </tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 3;"> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: #23262a;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">P </span></span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">⊃</span><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;"> Q</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;">if P, then Q</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;">Example: If she is late, (then) the meeting will be<br />
delayed.</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> </tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 4; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;"> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;">gKP</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;">God knows that P</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;">Example: God knows that the Mississippi River flows<br />
north to south.</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> </tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">Next we need three concepts at the heart of modern <em>modal </em>logic. The symbols are:<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse: collapse; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;"><tbody>
<tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;"> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt; width: 36.75pt;" width="49"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><strong><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Symbol</span></strong><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt; width: 137.25pt;" width="183"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><strong><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Its meaning</span></strong><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt; width: 4.5in;" width="432"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><strong><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Explanation</span></strong><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div></td> </tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1;"> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;">◊P</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;">it is (logically) possible that P</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;">Example: It is (logically) possible that the United<br />
States was defeated in World War II. (Note: Whatever<br />
is not self-contradictory is logically possible.)</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> </tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 2;"> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "MS Mincho"; mso-bidi-font-family: "MS Mincho";">☐</span><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;">P</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;">It is (logically) necessary that P</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;">Example: It is logically necessary that every number has<br />
a double. (Note: If Q is not logically possible, then<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">~</span></strong>Q is logically necessary.)</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> </tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 3; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;"> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">∇</span><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;">P</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;">It is contingent that P</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;">Example: It is contingent that the United States<br />
purchased Alaska from Russia.<br />
(Note: A proposition, Q, is contingent if and only if<br />
◊Q <strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">and</span></strong> ◊<strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">~</span></strong>Q.)</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> </tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">These latter three concepts require further elaboration.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><em><u><span style="color: #23262a;">P is possible</span></u></em><span style="color: #23262a;"> (symbolized “◊P”). A proposition, P, is possible if and only if it is not self-contradictory. All propositions that are true are possibly true. In addition, some false propositions are also possibly true, namely those that are false but are not self-contradictory. Some philosophers like to explicate “P is possible” in this way: “There are some possible circumstances in which P is true”. And some philosophers, adopting the terminology popularized by Leibniz (1646-1716), will substitute “worlds” for “circumstances”, yielding “P is true in some possible worlds”. Examples of possibly true propositions include:<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<ol sizcache="3" sizset="6" start="1" type="1"><li class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #23262a; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">Ottawa, Canada, is north of Washington, DC. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #23262a; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">The Great Salt Lake is saltier than the Dead Sea. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #23262a; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">The Dead Sea is saltier than the Great Salt Lake. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #23262a; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">John Lennon was the first songwriter to travel in a space capsule. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #23262a; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">There are three times as many species of insect as there are species of mollusk. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #23262a; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">2 + 2 = 4 <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #23262a; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">All aunts are female. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #23262a; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">Some pigs can levitate. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ol><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">Understand that prefacing a proposition, P, with “◊” does not ‘make’ P possible. What it does is to create a new, different, proposition, namely ◊P, which, in effect, says that P is possible. If P <em>is</em> possible (for example, suppose “P” stands for “Gold was first discovered in California in 1990″), then (although P is false), ◊P is true. Or, suppose “Q” stands for “2 + 2 = 7″. Then prefacing “Q” with “◊” does not ‘make’ Q possible. It produces a new proposition, “◊Q”, which is false. Q is, and remains, impossible whether or not it is prefaced with “◊”.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">Everything that is actual (or actually true) is possible (that is, possibly true). But if a proposition is actually false, then it is impossible only if it is self-contradictory; otherwise it is a false contingency, and all contingencies, whether true or false, are possible.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">We may ask “What color did Sylvia paint the lawn chair?” We look at the chair and see that she has painted it yellow. Thus it is demonstrable that it is possible that she painted the chair yellow. And its being yellow implies it is false that she painted the chair blue. But the falsity of the proposition that she painted the lawn chair blue in no way precludes that she <em>could have</em> done so. Even though false, it still remains possible that she painted the chair blue.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><em><u><span style="color: #23262a;">P is necessary</span></u></em><span style="color: #23262a;"> (symbolized “</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "MS Mincho"; mso-bidi-font-family: "MS Mincho";">☐</span><span style="color: #23262a;">P”). Necessarily true propositions are those that are true in all possible circumstances (/worlds)—that is, are not false in any. Necessary truth can be defined in terms of possibility, namely P is necessary if and only if its negation (that is, “<strong>~</strong>P”) is impossible. In symbols (where “=<sub>df</sub>” stands for “is by definition”):<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "MS Mincho"; mso-bidi-font-family: "MS Mincho";">☐</span><span style="color: #23262a;">P =<sub>df</sub> <strong>~</strong>◊<strong>~</strong>P<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">Examples of necessarily true propositions:<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<ol sizcache="3" sizset="7" start="1" type="1"><li class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #23262a; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">2 + 2 = 4 <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #23262a; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">All aunts are female. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #23262a; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">Whatever is blue is colored. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #23262a; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">There are either fewer than 20 million stars or there are more than 12 million. (This statement may be unobvious; but if you think about it you may come to see that it cannot be false.) <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #23262a; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">It is false that some triangle has exactly four sides. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ol><br />
<div style="background: white;"><em><u><span style="color: #23262a;">P is contingent</span></u></em><span style="color: #23262a;"> (symbolized “</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">∇</span><span style="color: #23262a;">P”). A proposition, P, is contingent if and only if it is <em>both</em> possibly true <em>and</em>possibly false. Contingent propositions are those that are true in some possible circumstances (/worlds) and are false in some possible circumstances (/worlds). Contingency can be defined in terms of possibility, namely:<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">∇</span><span style="color: #23262a;">P =<sub>df</sub> ◊P & ◊<strong>~</strong>P<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">It is essential to understand that “◊P & ◊<strong>~</strong>P” does not mean “P is true and false in some possible circumstances (worlds)”. No proposition whatsoever is both true and false in the same set of circumstances (law of non-contradiction). To say that a proposition is contingent is to say that it is true in some possible circumstances and is false in some (other!) circumstances.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">Examples:<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<ol sizcache="3" sizset="8" start="1" type="1"><li class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #23262a; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo3; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">The Boston Red Sox won the World Series in 2002. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #23262a; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo3; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">It is false that the Boston Red Sox won the World Series in 2002. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #23262a; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo3; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">Steel-clad ships can float in the ocean. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #23262a; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo3; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">It is false that steel-clad ships can float in the ocean. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ol><br />
<div style="background: white;"><em><u><span style="color: #23262a;">Modal terms and modal status</span></u></em><span style="color: #23262a;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">Terms such as “must”, “has to”, “cannot”, “is necessary”, “is impossible”, “could not be otherwise”, “has to be”, “might”, “could be”, “contingent”, and the like, are known as “modal” terms. All of these are definable in terms of “possibility”.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">Every proposition is either logically possible or logically impossible. And no proposition is both.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">Drawing the net a bit finer, and dividing the class of logically possible propositions into those that are necessarily true and those that are contingent, we have three exclusive categories. Every proposition is exclusively either necessarily true, necessarily false, or contingent. That is, every proposition falls into one of these latter three categories, and no proposition falls into more than one.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">Just as the expression “truth-value” is a generic term encompassing “truth” and “falsity”, the expression “modal status” is a generic term encompassing “contingent”, “necessarily true”, and “necessarily false”.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">Finally, no proposition ever <em>changes</em> its modal status. We will call this principle “<strong>The Principle of the Fixity of Modal Status</strong>“. And for the purposes of assessing the deterministic arguments we note especially: <strong>no contingent proposition ever ‘becomes’ necessary or impossible.</strong><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<h2 style="background: white; margin: 10pt 0in 0pt;"><a href="" name="H6"></a><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">6. The Modal Fallacy<span style="color: #16181a;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></h2><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">From a mathematical point of view, if we arbitrarily pick any two propositions, truth and falsity can be attributed to them in four different combinations, specifically<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<ul sizcache="3" sizset="9" type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #23262a; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo4; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">the first is true, and the second is true <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #23262a; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo4; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">the first is true, and the second is false <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #23262a; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo4; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">the first is false, and the second is true <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #23262a; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo4; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">the first is false, and the second is false <o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">However, it sometimes happens that two propositions will have certain logical relationships between them such as to make one or more of these four combinations impossible. For example, consider the two propositions α and β.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">α: Diane planted only six rosebushes.β: Diane planted fewer than eight rosebushes.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">While each of these propositions, by itself, could be true and could be false, there are – as it turns out – only three, not four, possible <em>combinations</em> of truth and falsity that can be attributed to this particular <em>pair</em> of propositions. On careful thought, we can see that the second combination – that is, the one which attributes truth to α and falsity to β – is impossible. For if α is true (that is, if it is true that Diane has planted only six rosebushes) then β is also true. Put another way: the truth of α guarantees the truth of β. This is to say<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">(1) It is impossible (for α to be true and for β to be false).<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">Unfortunately, ordinary English does not lend itself easily to express the quasi-symbolic sentence (1). In symbols we can express the sentence this way:<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">(1a) <strong>~</strong>◊(α & <strong>~</strong>β)<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">About the best we can do in English is to create the following unidiomatic, extremely clumsy sentence:<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">(1b) The compound sentence, α and not-β, is impossible (that is, is necessarily false).<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><a href="" name="3_note"></a><span style="color: #23262a;">English prose is a poor tool for expressing fine logical distinctions (just as it is an unsuitable tool for expressing fine mathematical distinctions<sup>[<a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/foreknow/#note_3"><span style="color: blue;">3</span></a>]</sup> ). But, as it turns out, the situation is worse than just having to make do with awkward sentences. For it is a curious fact about most natural languages – English, French, Hebrew, etc. – that when we use modal terms in ordinary speech, we often do so in logically misleading ways. Just see how natural it is to try to formulate the preceding point [namely proposition (1)] in this fashion:<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">(2) If α is true, then it is impossible for β to be false.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">Or, in symbols:<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">(2a) α </span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">⊃</span><span style="color: #23262a;"> <strong>~</strong>◊<strong>~</strong>β<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">In ordinary speech, the latter sentence, (2), is natural and idiomatic; the former sentence (1b) is unnatural and unidiomatic. But – and this is the crucial point – the propositions expressed by (1)-(1b) are not equivalent to the propositions expressed by sentences (2)-(2a). The former set, that is (1)-(1b), are all true. The latter, (2)-(2a)are false and commit <strong>the modal fallacy</strong>. The fallacy occurs in its assigning the modality of impossibility, not to the relationship between the truth of α and falsity of β as is done in (1)-(1b), but to the falsity of β alone. Ordinary grammar beguiles us and misleads us. It makes us believe that if α is true, then it is impossible for β to be false. But it <strong><i>is</i></strong> possible for β to be false. β is a <em>contingent</em> proposition. Recall the principle of the fixity of modal status. Even if the falsity of β is guaranteed by the truth of some other proposition [in this case α], β does<strong>not</strong> ‘become’ impossible: it ‘remains’ contingent, and thereby possible.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><a href="" name="4_note"></a><span style="color: #23262a;">Whatever impossibility there is lies in <strong>jointly</strong> asserting α and denying β. (See (1b) above.) The proposition “it is false that β” does not ‘become’ impossible if one asserts α.<sup>[<a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/foreknow/#note_4"><span style="color: blue;">4</span></a>]</sup><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<h3 style="background: white; margin: 10pt 0in 0pt;"><a href="" name="SH6a"></a><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #4f81bd;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">a. The Modal Fallacy in Logical Determinism<span style="color: #16181a;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></h3><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">Some persons have been deceived by the following (fallacious) argument to the effect that there are no contingent propositions:<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">“(By the Law of Non-contradiction), if a proposition is true (/false), then it cannot be false (/true). If a proposition cannot be false (/true), then it is necessarily true (/false). Therefore if a proposition is true (/false), it is necessarily true (/false). That is, there are no contingent propositions. Every proposition is either necessarily true or necessarily false. (If we could see the world from God’s viewpoint, we would see the necessity of everything. Contingency is simply an artifact of ignorance. Contingency disappears with complete knowledge.)”<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">The fallacy arises in the ambiguity of the first premise. If we interpret it close to the English, we get:<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">P </span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">⊃</span><span style="color: #23262a;"> <strong>~</strong>◊<strong>~</strong>P<br />
<strong>~</strong>◊<strong>~</strong>P </span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">⊃</span><span style="color: #23262a;"> </span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "MS Mincho"; mso-bidi-font-family: "MS Mincho";">☐</span><span style="color: #23262a;">P<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;"><span style="color: #23262a;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"> <hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" /> </span></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">∴</span><span style="color: #23262a;"> P </span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">⊃</span><span style="color: #23262a;"> </span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "MS Mincho"; mso-bidi-font-family: "MS Mincho";">☐</span><span style="color: #23262a;"> P<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">However, if we regard the English as misleading, as assigning a necessity to what is simply nothing more than a necessary condition, then we get instead as our premises:<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">~◊(P & ~P) [equivalently: </span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "MS Mincho"; mso-bidi-font-family: "MS Mincho";">☐</span><span style="color: #23262a;">(P </span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">⊃</span><span style="color: #23262a;"> P)]<br />
~◊~P </span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">⊃</span><span style="color: #23262a;"> </span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "MS Mincho"; mso-bidi-font-family: "MS Mincho";">☐</span><span style="color: #23262a;">P<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">From these latter two premises, one <em>cannot</em> validly infer the conclusion:<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">P </span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">⊃</span><span style="color: #23262a;"> </span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "MS Mincho"; mso-bidi-font-family: "MS Mincho";">☐</span><span style="color: #23262a;">P.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">In short, the argument to the effect that there are no contingent propositions is unsound. Its very first premise commits the<br />
modal fallacy.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">The identical error occurs in the argument for logical determinism. Recall (the expanded version of) Aristotle’s sea battle:<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">Two warring admirals, A and B, are preparing their fleets for a decisive sea battle tomorrow. The battle will be fought until one side is victorious. But the “logical laws (or principles)” of the excluded middle (every proposition is either true or false) and of noncontradiction (no proposition is both true and false), require that one of the propositions, “A wins” and “it is false that A wins,” is true and the other is false. Suppose “A wins” is (today) true. Then whatever A does (or fails to do) today will make no difference: A must win; similarly, whatever B does (or fails to do) today will make no difference: the outcome is already settled (that is, A must win). Or again, suppose “A wins” is (today) false. Then no matter what A does today (or fails to do), it will make no difference: A must lose; similarly, no matter what B does (or fails to do), it will make no difference: the outcome is already settled (that is, A must lose). Thus, if every proposition is either true or false (and not both), then planning, or as Aristotle put it “taking trouble,” is futile. The future will be what it will be, irrespective of our planning, intentions, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">If we let “A” stand for “Admiral A wins” and let “B” stand for “Admiral B wins”, the core of this argument can be stated in symbols this way:<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse: collapse; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184; width: 466px;"><tbody>
<tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;"> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt; width: 12pt;" width="16"></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt; width: 35.25pt;" width="47"></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt; width: 62.25pt;" width="83"></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt; width: 192.75pt;" width="257"></td> </tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1;"> <td colspan="2" style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;">A or B</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> <td colspan="2" style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;">[one or the other of these two propositions is true]</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> </tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 2;"> <td colspan="2" style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><strong><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">~◊</span></strong><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;">(A & B)</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> <td colspan="2" style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;">[it is not possible that both A and B are true]</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> </tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 3; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;"> <td colspan="4" style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;"><span style="color: #23262a;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"> <hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" /> </span></span></div></td> </tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse: collapse; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;"><tbody>
<tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;"> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt; width: 30pt;" width="40"> <div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;"><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">∴</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: #23262a;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">A </span></span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">⊃</span><span style="color: #23262a;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"> </span></span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "MS Mincho"; mso-bidi-font-family: "MS Mincho";">☐</span><span style="color: #23262a;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">A<br />
A </span></span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">⊃</span><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;"> <strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">~</span></strong>◊<strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">~</span></strong>A</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 36pt; line-height: 115%;">}</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: #23262a;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">If A is true, then A <em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">must</span></em> be true. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="color: #23262a;">If A is true, then A <em>cannot</em> be false.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
</td> </tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1;"> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: #23262a;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">A </span></span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">⊃</span><span style="color: #23262a;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"> </span></span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "MS Mincho"; mso-bidi-font-family: "MS Mincho";">☐</span><strong><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">~</span></strong><span style="color: #23262a;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">B<br />
A </span></span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">⊃</span><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;"> <strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">~</span></strong>◊B</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 36pt; line-height: 115%;">}</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: #23262a;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">If A is true, then B <em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">must</span></em> be<br />
false. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="color: #23262a;">If A is true, then B <em>cannot</em> be true.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
</td> </tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 2;"> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: #23262a;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">B </span></span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">⊃</span><span style="color: #23262a;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"> </span></span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "MS Mincho"; mso-bidi-font-family: "MS Mincho";">☐</span><span style="color: #23262a;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">B<br />
B </span></span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">⊃</span><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;"> <strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">~</span></strong>◊<strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">~</span></strong>B</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 36pt; line-height: 115%;">}</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: #23262a;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">If B is true, then B <em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">must</span></em> be true. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="color: #23262a;">If B is true, then B <em>cannot</em> be false.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
</td> </tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 3; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;"> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: #23262a;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">B </span></span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">⊃</span><span style="color: #23262a;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"> </span></span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "MS Mincho"; mso-bidi-font-family: "MS Mincho";">☐</span><strong><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">~</span></strong><span style="color: #23262a;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">A<br />
B </span></span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">⊃</span><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;"> <strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">~</span></strong>◊A</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 36pt; line-height: 115%;">}</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0.75pt;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: #23262a;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">If B is true, then A <em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">must</span></em> be<br />
false. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="color: #23262a;">If B is true, then A <em>cannot</em> be true.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
</td> </tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">In this argument, by hypothesis, either A is true or B is true, and since they cannot both be true, the second premise may be accepted as true. But none of the conclusions is true. A is contingent, and B is contingent. Yet the conclusions state that from the assumed truth of either of (the two contingencies) A or B, it follows that A and B are each either necessarily true or necessarily false. Each of these eight conclusions violates the principle of the fixity of modal status. What, then, <em>are</em> the conclusions one may draw validly from the premises? These:<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse: collapse; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 0in 0in; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;"><tbody>
<tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;"> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0in;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "MS Mincho"; mso-bidi-font-family: "MS Mincho";">☐</span><span style="color: #23262a;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">(A </span></span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">⊃</span><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;"> <strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">~</span></strong>B)</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0in;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;">or, equivalently,</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0in;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><strong><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">~◊</span></strong><strong><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">(A & B)</span></strong><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div></td> </tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;"> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0in;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "MS Mincho"; mso-bidi-font-family: "MS Mincho";">☐</span><span style="color: #23262a;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">(B </span></span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">⊃</span><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;"> <strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">~</span></strong>A)</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0in;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: #23262a;">or, equivalently,</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></td> <td style="background-color: transparent; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0in;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><strong><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">~◊</span></strong><strong><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">(B & A)</span></strong><span style="color: #23262a; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div></td> </tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">So long as we remain mindful of the fact that “<strong>~</strong>◊(P & Q)” is logically equivalent to “</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "MS Mincho"; mso-bidi-font-family: "MS Mincho";">☐</span><span style="color: #23262a;">(P </span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">⊃</span><span style="color: #23262a;"> <strong>~</strong>Q)” but is not equivalent to “P </span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">⊃</span><span style="color: #23262a;"> </span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "MS Mincho"; mso-bidi-font-family: "MS Mincho";">☐</span><strong><span style="color: #23262a;">~</span></strong><span style="color: #23262a;">Q”, the argument for logical determinism will be seen to be invalid.<sup> </sup>Our ordinary language treats “it is impossible for both P and Q to be true” as if it were logically equivalent to “if P is true, then Q is necessarily false”. But the profound difference between these two assertions is that the former preserves the principle of the fixity of modal status, the latter violates that principle. The proposition, “Admiral A wins”, is contingent, and if true, then it “remains” true. Indeed this is a trivial logical truth:<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">(i) </span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "MS Mincho"; mso-bidi-font-family: "MS Mincho";">☐</span><span style="color: #23262a;">(P </span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">⊃</span><span style="color: #23262a;"> P) alternatively, <strong>~</strong>◊(P & <strong>~</strong>P)<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">The argument for logical determinism illicitly treats this logical truth as if it were equivalent to the false proposition<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">(ii) P </span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">⊃</span><span style="color: #23262a;"> </span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "MS Mincho"; mso-bidi-font-family: "MS Mincho";">☐</span><span style="color: #23262a;">P alternatively, P </span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">⊃</span><span style="color: #23262a;"> <strong>~</strong>◊<strong>~</strong>P<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">If you do not let yourself be beguiled by the invalid ‘move’ (inference) from (i) to (ii), the argument for logical determinism collapses. The truth of a proposition concerning your future behavior does not make that future behavior necessary. What you choose to do in the future was, is, and will remain contingent, even if a proposition describing that choice is timelessly true.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<h3 style="background: white; margin: 10pt 0in 0pt;"><a href="" name="SH6b"></a><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #4f81bd;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">b. The Modal Fallacy in Epistemic Determinism<span style="color: #16181a;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></h3><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">Let’s recall Maimonides’s argument:<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">… “Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If thou sayest ‘He knows’, then it necessarily follows that [that] man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand he would act, otherwise God’s knowledge would be imperfect.”<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">We can symbolize the core of this argument, using “</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">∴</span><span style="color: #23262a;">” for “it necessarily follows”; and “</span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "MS Mincho"; mso-bidi-font-family: "MS Mincho";">☐</span><span style="color: #23262a;">” for “compelled”; and “D” for the proposition describing what some particular person does tomorrow.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">gKD<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;"><span style="color: #23262a;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"> <hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" /> </span></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">∴</span><span style="color: #23262a;"> </span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "MS Mincho"; mso-bidi-font-family: "MS Mincho";">☐</span><span style="color: #23262a;">D<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">There seems to be (at least) one missing premise. [In the terminology of logicians, the argument is<em>enthymematic</em>.] One tacit assumption of this argument is the necessary truth, “it is not possible both for God to know that D and for D to be false”, or, in symbols, “<strong>~</strong>◊(gKD & <strong>~</strong>D)”. So the argument becomes:<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">gKD<br />
<strong>~</strong>◊(gKD & <strong>~</strong>D)<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;"><span style="color: #23262a;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"> <hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" /> </span></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">∴</span><span style="color: #23262a;"> </span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "MS Mincho"; mso-bidi-font-family: "MS Mincho";">☐</span><span style="color: #23262a;">D<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">But even with this repair, the argument remains invalid. The conclusion does <em>not</em> follow from the two premises. To derive the conclusion, a third premise is needed, and it is easy to see what it is. Most persons, with hardly a moment’s thought, virtually as a reflex action, will tacitly assume that the second premise is logically equivalent to:<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">gKD </span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">⊃</span><span style="color: #23262a;"> </span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "MS Mincho"; mso-bidi-font-family: "MS Mincho";">☐</span><span style="color: #23262a;">D<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">and will tacitly (/unconsciously) add this further premise, so as to yield, finally:<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">gKD<br />
<strong>~</strong>◊(gKD & <strong>~</strong>D)<br />
gKD </span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">⊃</span><span style="color: #23262a;"> </span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "MS Mincho"; mso-bidi-font-family: "MS Mincho";">☐</span><span style="color: #23262a;">D<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;"><span style="color: #23262a;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"> <hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" /> </span></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "Cambria Math","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Cambria Math";">∴</span><span style="color: #23262a;"> </span><span style="color: #23262a; font-family: "MS Mincho"; mso-bidi-font-family: "MS Mincho";">☐</span><span style="color: #23262a;">D<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">But this third premise, we have seen above, is false; it commits the modal fallacy. Without this premise, Maimonides’ argument is <em>invalid</em>; with it, the argument becomes <em>valid</em> but <em>unsound</em> (that is, has a false and essential premise [namely the third one]). Either way, the argument is a logical botch.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div style="background: white;"><span style="color: #23262a;">Once the logical error is detected, and removed, the argument for epistemic determinism simply collapses. If some future action/choice is known prior to its occurrence, that event does not thereby become “necessary”, “compelled”, “forced”, or what have you. Inasmuch as its description was, is, and will remain forever <em>contingent</em>, both it and its negation remain <em>possible</em>. Of course only one of the two was, is, and will remain true; while the other was, is, and will remain false. But truth and falsity, per se, do not determine a proposition’s modality. Whether true or false, each of these propositions was, is, and will remain <em>possible</em>. Knowing – whether by God or a human being – some future event no more forces that event to occur than our learning that dinosaurs lived in (what is now) South Dakota forced those reptiles to take up residence there.<o:p></o:p></span></div>Lloyd Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900009452723717618noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-682821393457355915.post-73619598202547548952012-02-05T08:03:00.000-08:002012-02-05T08:03:59.224-08:00Logic is the science about drawing conclusions…<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Hi, well a short reply grew <em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">monstrous</span></b></em>; again__but maybe there's a silver lining in this big cloud...<em>(this is just a repost to keep the blog active...)<o:p></o:p></em></span></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">Question:</span></strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"> How would a mind process <em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">'the infinite number line'</span></em>, and the infinite energy capacity link of emotions/desires, to solve a scientific problem__unless logic herself, had an infinite capacity to do so...? Logic must somehow see some sort of infinity, to even think about it__No...? In my experience, logic even corrects wayward imaginations and dreams back into reality, but if imaginations and dreams do happen to contain infinite scenes of action__then, how does logic do the correcting back to finite realities__What's that particular <em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">'inference path'</span></em> mechanics...? See the difficulties...? If we don't know this <em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">'inference path mechanics'</span></em>, yet the path does get corrected back to reality_as we certainly know it does__then, does the mind know more about how to do these corrections than us...? Is such auto-pilot <em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">'inference mechanics'</span></em> not <em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">'background-independence'</span></em>, of the highest order...? Is such <em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">'auto-pilot inference mechanics'</span></em> possibly part of our existing <em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">'a priori'</span></em> bio-structured brain self-mechanics...? <em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">'A priori'</span></em> here meaning simply, <em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">'built-in bio-mechanical functions'</span></em> similar to, or the same as, how our heart and lungs function...<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">These are just some of the old skeptic's questions that have been asked for millennia, but they do bring the complexities into clear light, imo...<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Just wade in, and see where you go... I guess that's all I can say, since it is so <strong><i><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">monstrous</span></i></strong> a reply...<b><span style="color: red;"> <o:p></o:p></span></b></span></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Imo, you can't derive a <i>'came to be'</i> from an eternal state mechanics__It's just simply always been... Any <i>'came to be' </i>state is simply what science and physics has falsely been attempting and doing, over the last 100 or near so years, with the big-bang and inflation theories__And, that's why I say, <i>"they are religions"</i>, as all<i> 'came to be's'</i> are <i>'creation myths...' </i>I think you seem to be forgetting our most recent x-ray satellites are presently correspondingly externally filming the internal dynamics of black-holes spewing their internal guts all over space__It doesn't take a great deal of good investigative science to put this picture together, as much of that I revealed in the Universal mechanics of fs-field photons I just sent you. I think we can pretty much extrapolate most of this internal mechanics, presently... We presently still do have some information horizons<i>(incompleteness’s), </i>but they are fast falling__maybe not all of em, but most of em will fall__shortly, imo..."<br />
</span><b><span style="color: red;"><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></span></b><span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Have you thought out the </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'Many Universes'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> model thoroughly__As near as my logically using the entire laws of physics, nature and thought go__Such mechanics would by necessity of the mechanics produce just about exactly what we actually have. I see little difference in the mechanics of one Universe or many... If you think our the possibilities of other </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'Universal Law Systems' </span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">actions being different, one's mind comes up short, as there's only a certain workable mechanics, by these very necessary laws' functions__of fundamental motions' aggregations... Do they arise, or are they integrally existing, and necessarily so__as an aggregate matrix, unit of the exist...]</span></strong></span></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"> </span></b><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">[Ditto__It is...]</span></strong><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"> </span></b><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">[If we have field_everywhere_nothing is impossible_tis eternally outside logic__logic also ceases to function as any possible viable mechanics, any time </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'nothing'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> is considered viable__except as a </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'not something'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> virtual state of reference to validate </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'something'__</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">yet we still know the impossible of </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'the naked nothing'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">.]</span></strong><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"> </span></b><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">[You are probably meaning by 'emerge', to </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'self-construct'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">, I'm not sure__But, I might point out that infinity is an absolutely necessary requirement of logic and the exist, for any Universal and logic mechanics to function__since the opposite is </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'naked finiteness'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> which I've many times shown to be impossible, due to such mechanics necessitating the </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'something from nothing' 'creation myth'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> impossibilities__not even counting contradicting the very necessary requirements of the laws of physics, logic and thought... Also, even for logic to begin to recognize the all known and necessary existence of feelings and emotions, logic must have a rhetorical core of knowing intelligence, above both the 'infinite emotions'__which every finite logician has admitted, since antiquity__but, also for use to even begin to understand others who are using mixed metaphoric and rhetorical states of communication__such as, courts of law, where lawyers have to stick to strict physical evidence, and physical motives__yet, at the same time convince very subjective information processing jurors of the clients innocence, or guilt if the lawyer is the prosecutor__so, logical and rhetorical knowledge of both sides of the mind__</span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'infinite subjective'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> and </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">"finite objective'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> are absolutely necessary__as has always been shown by juridical logicians, for millennia... This same logically necessary </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'inference mechanics'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> of abductive judgment, concepts, theories, hypothesis, models, etc., applies to physics as well as any subject, in the same inference requirement necessities__except possibly setting aside most or all of the </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'infinite subjective'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> as much as necessary or possible__though, it still exists as a necessary part of our grounds of meaning and knowing mechanics__These ideas have been settled, over the last 75 or so years, by many logicians', scientists' and mathematicians' work, as well as the lesser philosophers...]</span></strong></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> <br />
</span></span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">[In that case__where's the initial function of the initial forming...?__as per forming structures from fields, or even forming disorganized fields into organized fields as forms of fields...? As a case__Fields exist in dense and less dense states, and most likely always have...] [And, may I point out right here__Herein lies our </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'background independences'__</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">And, this pertains to both the </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'hyper-small-infinitesimals'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> as well as those </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'hyper-huge-infinities'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> we will never be able to define__but, I have also shown that such states, the smaller or larger, the further away__have less real and possible influence, the more infinitesimal or infinite they become__due to c mechanics necessities... Further </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'background independencies'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> can be the non-isomorphics of the very laws of physics, nature and thought__that are also known to exist... I'm not trying to steer you away from knowledge__I'm trying to point out the mechanics knowledge that exists, in these </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'not knowable'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> states__when one simply thinks our the necessities these </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'not knowable'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> states force on us about the known possibilities, that are left to think about__these ideas simply force us to think more about the </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'logical possibilities left'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">, by eliminating such impossible influences from our theorizings...]</span></strong><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"> </span></b><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">[I don't know, but it seems we may both be trying to convince each other of the same ideas__without knowing it...?]</span></strong><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"> </span></b><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">[Maybe form + function at the same time...?]</span></strong><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"> </span></b><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">[We must be very careful here, to fully understand what is purely virtual abstract theorizing, and the real factual physical motions and forces of functions and forms...]</span></strong><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"> </span></b><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">[To me here, there's no deeper understanding than </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'pure inference mechanics'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">, as this is the only </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'pure mechanics'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> understanding we possess of any physical actions of our Universe... Imo, all our </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'inference mechanics'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> functions and forms must correspond to our views of actual Universal facts__or we've left the field of science and physical laws, required for real and true science... This doesn't mean we can't abstractly use </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'virtual ideas'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> beyond such </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'inference realities'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">__but, in the end we must bring them within scientific intelligence's scope...</span></strong><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">[Imo, you're ignoring a lotta' scientific capacity of discovery without evidence here__We do have much scientific discovery capacity with circumstantial evidence, by aggregating and integrating exactly what is possible of such finished models__and imo, to where none of exactly what is happening at the center of a black hole is of any importance to reality__what-so-ever__as long as we generally know its conclusion and effects. This is where I and many modern thinkers part company with the deductive logicians__as the deductive only logicians are leaving the largest part of science and scientific history out of the equation, from Francis Bacon onwards. Abductive and inductive logic have and do make up by far the larger part of real science__and this is the science I use. By truly looking at the end result__the </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'cosmological ontological eschatology'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">, as I mentioned already__science can logically build the internal mechanics of black holes, in the computer labs, to show these deeper functions__if they be necessary to you. They are not necessary to my theorizing and logic to understand the Universe, as I more use the natural </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'innate a priori inference mechanics'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> as my major guide to science's proofs. If it don't fit my </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'inference mechanics'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">_it ain't science__but that does not stop me from conjecturing the internal mechanics of black holes__as the entire Universe offers exactly zero mysteries to me, where real necessities of function and form are required, to complete my model... The black hole mechanics I've seen is fine with me__as much of it is a known necessity to produce such metals as tungsten and uranium, or many other heavy elements__as our sun, and many bigger suns' science, has done the hydrodynamics of, is incapable of the pressures required to construct such heavy elements__Imo, that leaves the super-high-pressure of the hydrodynamics of black holes as our sound model producers of such heavy elements. Diamonds are not included here, as they grow under even Earth's low hydrodynamic pressures... Just model mechanics, but it satisfies me... The black hole results are far more scientifically important to me, than the deepest internal mechanics' processes__whereas I see that nothing than higher pressures, and the further conjectured actions such actions would produce up to tungsten, then spew it into the Universe for other forming planets, suns, moons and other rock debris to pick up, upon coalescences of...]</span></strong><strong><span style="color: #3333ff; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"> </span></strong><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">[But, if this be true, then why do we see these massive jets of real information exiting black holes__that we absolutely know had to go in, in the first place...?_Unless your wish is some </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'creation-myth black hole...?'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> I don't accept any of these new </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'emergence myths' </span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">as valid science__as they all represent </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'something from nothing' 'creation myths'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">__Again, imo... [I see the same here, as to real matter__on the way in, but </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'matter that goes in, must come out'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">__</span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'Action-reaction law...'</span></b></em><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>[Aren't you forgetting here, there's already a pre-formed uniform model, nature has planted in our minds, of a </span></strong><em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">'general descripted Universe'</span></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">__implanted since birth...? My main point asking those questions was to have you see and understand, we can't possibly process from each other’s private information processing centers__we must have a publicly agreed upon objective model__Named 1st, so's we both are on the same page... I know and agree with probably 99% of your private logical processing mechanics__but I'm yet to get a good picture of your public model__or any possible public model you are working toward. Maybe the same is true to you of my wordings, also__I don't know... It's just I hate to keep confusing these small points, when agreeing to a public model and personal goals of what one is trying to discover, may be able to alleviate the difficulties__That's all...] [I get a kick out of this dialogics that's going on between us. I'm not talking about real models of </span></strong><em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">'Infinity'</span></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">, as how you are evidently thinking about them__I'm simply speaking about the infinities we do absolutely know exists within our finite understandings__We do have infinite realizations of both mathematics and emotions__Neither one is possible of boxing in finiteness__Yet, what seems to be happening when I try to bring those entities we absolutely know are infinite, you somehow get the idea I'm speaking about actual infinities, of different sorts, than I am actually meaning. Let me see if I can straighten this out. Let me list a few pieces of knowledge, I've stated before about both finiteness and infinity__as these ideas are so necessary to wrap one's mind around, that I can't stress enough their importance to scientific and logical thinking...</span></strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">1. Rational finiteness is all we can pertain science and logic to, and have scientific meaning about the geo-universe...</span></strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">2. Rational infinity is a scientifically known reality of our bio-mental-natures...</span></strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">3. Therefore, iff finiteness is scientifically restricted to eliminating rational infinity of our bio-being state__even in casual scientific conversations__it is not true scientific thought, and this is where the skeptics enter, to destroy scientific thought and conversations__so I also always dispute these mistakes of thought...</span></strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">4. Scientific thought must be worded to be true to both geo- and bio-systems, or it's not scientifically true__and this is the area science has made many of its mistakes in...</span></strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">5. The differences between </span></strong><em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">'True Infinity'</span></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> and </span></strong><em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">'Rational Infinity'</span></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> are immense__yet, science uses both, while biology mainly uses only </span></strong><em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">'True Infinity'</span></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">__due to not understanding the mathematical restrictions of </span></strong><em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">'Rational Infinity'</span></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">, which simply means </span></strong><em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">'Extremely Large Numbers Logic...'</span></em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">6. We can't scientifically quantify logic, without setting up the boogie-man of </span></strong><em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">'True Infinity'</span></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> or </span></strong><em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">'Rational Infinity'</span></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">, to quantify finite logic against__As already mentioned, finiteness has no definition until quantified against </span></strong><em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">'True Infinity'</span></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">, which also exists in science, through science's knowledge of </span></strong><em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">'The Unending Number Line'</span></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> and </span></strong><em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">'The Known/Unknown Unending Energy of The Universe'</span></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> and </span></strong><em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">'The Known Infinite Capacity of Emotions To Keep On Giving...'</span></em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">7. </span></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">All the finite wishes in the world can not eliminate these infinite facts' realities, from the world of finiteness, no matter how much scientists wish for it__yet, it sets the </span></strong><em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">'Dynamics of Conflation and Confusion'</span></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> in play in all dialogical conversations__which must be quantified, qualified and clarified, </span></strong><em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">iff</span></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> scientific conversations are to achieve real meaning and substantial knowledge...</span></strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">8. This simply means, </span></strong><em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">'Exactly and Explicitly Known Models of Interpretation and Explanation'</span></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> are absolutely necessary for real scientific conversations to take place, and all the parameters and axioms must be stated clearly and exactly of the ideas, hypotheses, thoughts and models used and expressed__even though I prefer only thoroughly derived axioms, and not postulated axioms...</span></strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">9. In other words, </span></strong><em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">'Scientific Results Necessitate Exact Methodologies of Procedure'</span></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">__Even our simplest of conversations__at these particular levels of thinkings...</span></strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">I don't know if that will help, or not...]</span></strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">[Well, that sounds feasible__but, the problem enters when </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'simple wordings'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> that apply to </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'parts'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> have </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'wholes'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> implications__as my mind normally processes from the </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'largest to the smallest'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> and not from the </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'smallest to the largest'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">__as I think that's the present world's major problem within science__sending them into foolish </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'somethings from nothings'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> theories... I can't even think of a </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'part'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> without an </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'infinite whole field'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> attached, whether I know of a reality of such </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'infinite field'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> or not__as I absolutely know of the </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'infinite number line'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> which has been known since the ancients... How can one throw away the absolute knowledge of an </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'infinite number line'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> that all sound logical quantification is founded on, through '</span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">modal quantification logic'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">__well and hard proven, over the last 60 or so years...? It just can't be done. There is a solution, but you've never liked this solution__You can be exactly accurate in your scientific wordings, to avoid the pitfalls of </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'unintended subjective links'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> within your sentences. I know that's very difficult for someone who may not be schooled in exact scientific linguistics__but, I see no way to avoid the many '</span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">conflations and confusions'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> of different levels of knowledge trying to be used. If I restrict my language to </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'parts'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">, when I don't accept the logical validity of a '</span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">parts formed from finiteness'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> Universe__Such logic would negate my </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'Necessary EM-Field'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> of '</span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">A Highly Possible Infinity'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> Bose-Einstein condensing into rocks, moons, planets, stars, black holes and galaxies, etc.__which if you also look at Dave's entire model, was founded on the </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'Eternally Existing'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> colliding spheres, as well__and </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">iff</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> eternal, then infinite__even though Dave entered the contradiction of finiteness into his genesis model... The simplest main point I've constantly tried to make, is the complexity of our languages, in handling the 'one-many_infinite-finite' self-generating contradictions__when not fully understood as true__as </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'Both at Once...']</span></b></em><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">[Platonic numbers. It's been known since Pythagoras, and many other earlier Assyrian and Indi sources, that the number line is absolutely infinite, as pertains to the </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'Law of Large Numbers'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">__Now scientifically, it's as simple as that__but personally, my thinking goes back to my childhood, and being raised in a constantly bickering academic family__I rejected all the finite nonsense by going outdoors, from the earliest age memorable, and simply looking up at the night sky. I knew by seeing the billions of trillions of bright lights, on the clearest of spring and early summer's clear nights__These academics' known finiteness arguments didn't make any sense to what I could see, on these clearest nights... My wife and I both, just a couple of months ago, witnessed one of these most super-exceptionally clear nights, just as we crossed the Alabama-Florida border a month and a half ago__She'd never seen anything like it, as she'd grown up in the city, where the light makes it impossible to see with such country mountain clarity__but, even I was impressed, as I'd never seen a night as clear as this, so we stopped and stared for a long time. The more and deeper we looked, the more we saw__It was exactly like the deep Hubble pictures, except we were seeing it with our naked eyes. Somebody tries to tell me these visions are absolutely known to be finite__and I just ain't buying it, no more than I did as a kid__then with age, I learned that scientific observation and facts of finiteness, with nothing but mere conjectures__at the least conjectures of mathematical models, that couldn't fully be proven to the exact curvature numbers. But anyway, getting back to why and how I choose to process from the </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'wholes to the parts'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">__It's not only from childhood skeptical rejections of adult views, it's also my own deep investigations of the inadequacies of scientific proofs of finiteness, and then in HS when I first read Newton and Einstein, that I thoroughly rode that </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'single photon'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> with Einstein, to see exactly what he saw__and he also only knew that the </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'single photon'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> may have been produced by the sun, but where did the first particles come from to produce the very first star-sun...? That quests true result lead me back to the em-field, or simple photons__as the most elemental entity of the Universe. It's not a massless non-particle wave, or it couldn't form a picture imprint on film__It's a real particle-wave, with real mass, just as the father of the photon's name, Gilbert Lewis, long ago stated... I can't make it any planer___Fields and photons are absolutely required by all physical logical necessity to have real fundamental mass, or it ain't valid science__and complete scientific validity is all important to scientific logic and truth...</span></strong><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">[I build my ideas about logical content from actual real world and universe properties, i.e., real physical particle waves, that imo, are not absolutely known, to be finite__but just may be infinite, and the bare atom of </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'A Priori Inference Logic Mechanics'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> absolutely necessitates such most fundamental substance to be physically eternal, as such being finite would negate and contradict the laws of physics, especially the 1st law__conservation of energy and matter, of course the law only states </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'conservation of energy'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">, but matter or mass is always implied, by E=MC^2... You've gotta have mass, in that most fundamental energy, or </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">ya don't gut'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> science... And here realize__The eternity I'm referring to, that necessitates infinity, is first the state of logical equivalence required, to quantify logic as having true validity, and next that the </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'Universal Exist'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> must also </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'Inference-Wise'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> be eternal, to exist at all__as no other </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'Modal Quantification Logic'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> is available, as proven by Ruth Barcan, back in the forties... These are just simple logical necessities__for our logic to be absolutely free of contradictions__and I think you can believe me, as you know my extensive studies of logic, for some 66+ years of experience and reading thousands of the world's wisest logicians, rhetoricians and scientists who agree with my research results... When all the contradictions are absolutely eliminated from</span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"> 'pure logic'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">__and that's the state of </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'pure arithmetic logic arguments'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">__All that stands in the end, is the integration of the aggregate logical and biological truths, fundamentally based on real world </span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">'truth-maker'</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> objects and laws, aggregated over time, into my logic database, based in bio-physical memory...</span></strong><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">I probably couldn't begin to explain all the intricacies of complexities of full explication of what I've above written, but maybe you can see somewhat, what I am trying to relay. I think the Universe is simple, and that relaying this simple information between two people__</span></strong><em><b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">is the only complexity</span></b></em><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">__and that's why I've often suggested positive rhetoric, to relay such information__but then again, that's another whole new field of study, to thoroughly know what it truly is, and much of the older schools of rhetoric ended, when womens' sensitivities had to be taken into consideration, when they newly started entering the male dominated colleges and schools of higher learning, back in the 1900's...</span></strong><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Oh, all the complexities of the simplicities...</span></strong><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span><strong>P.s.<o:p></o:p></strong></span></span><br />
<strong><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Here's something you might look at. I don't know if you are familiar with </span><em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">formal</span></em><span> logical and scientific validity or not: anyway, here's the links: <o:p></o:p></span></span></strong><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity"><strong><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity</span></span></strong></a><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive-Nomological"><strong><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive-Nomological</span></span></strong></a><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">The second link refers to the laws of physics, nature and thought having higher validity over even statistics...</span></strong><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> 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.”</span></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><o:p></o:p></span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span>Lloyd Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900009452723717618noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-682821393457355915.post-65914953414281108452011-11-17T07:36:00.000-08:002011-11-17T08:38:44.672-08:00After All The Stars Go To Sleep__The Universe Awakes__A Final Theory...<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">After all the stars burn our, and all the black-holes, planets and moons, etc., radiate away to the fundamental substance em-field__Thermodynamics is necessarily required by all the laws of physics, logic and math__to change wave phase-state aether space Hydrodynamics__Through the cyclic mechanics of the Universal nearest absolute zero k cold__Shrinking the fs-em-aether back to re-structured matter...<o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The Cosmological Complexity Logic of The Prime Mover__Solved...!!!<o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_decade"><strong><span style="color: blue; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_decade</span></strong></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">...<o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">QTHD__Quantum Thermo-Hydro-Dynamics' Necessity...<o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The proof is: Any simple ideal gas, such as liquid natural gas, shrinks when the heat is removed__and the aether being such a hyper-fine-structured ideal non-viscous fluidic gas__is also necessarily required to shrink, when all the heat goes out of the Universe__Thus turning the expansion to contraction... But, it's a trillions of trillions of years out to the re-cycle mechanics and back, and the sheer velocities and magnitudes of time/distance volume involved__Should be enough hydrodynamic force, to produce the four fundamental forces to construct another Big-Bang__as Newton's laws come into play on the return trip__Expecially Inertia__Then of course, all the Quantum and Relative Mechanics Laws...<o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Btw, if a LNG tanker's gas were at room temperature, a ship to carry it, would be 600 thousand feet long__as it's a 600 to 1 gas shrinkage, just by removing the heat from the gas... The largest LNG tankers are 1000 feet long, appx...<o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">A Possible Answer of Universal Mass…<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">Hi L______, funny you should mention this at this moment, as I awoke this morning thinking on this very subject. To me it's the most foundational question there is, and people the world over have been trying to solve this <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">'Riddle of The Sphinx'</i> since the dawn of time. What my thoughts wandered to this morning was Einstein, as I was always trying to delve deeper into his mind, to the levels he'd have been thinking, to get as deep as he did, when I realized from being pushed a bit by G___, how I'd respond to answering to the challenge of best explaining my Decay Model. Also by relating A_____'s, N_____'s and P____'s ideas to mine, </span><span style="color: #c00000; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">I just realized it all comes down to interpreting clearly just exactly what E = MC^2 truly means. Energy and Mass are what is stated, but by my defining Energy on N_____'s thread as not an entity, but a by-product of matter in motion, it finally dawned on me that both Energy and Mass in Einstein's formula are simply measurements, and nothing more__E is simply a measurement of M__another measurement. The real substance being measured is never mentioned, so really, the whole formula as stated is just Einstein's subjective 'God' view of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">'Self and All'</i> measurement__Totally lacking the entity of foundation of the material measured. Of course, all physicists know he's intended it to measure a certain amount of matter, but by being left open and background independent, it can also oh so easily be applied to the entire Universe of all reality__and herein lies its subjective faults mixed and conflated with any objective reality, the formula is really supposed to be applied to, and very much confusing so much of the world of science, philosophy and psychology...<o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Now, let's look for the true foundation in E = MC^2. If it's not energy measuring mass, due to both being pure measurement of measurement, what is it? It's no more than the subjective formula of measurement of its own non-entities__Until we enter a Real Entity. The only real entity to enter into the formula is one of the elements of the elemental table, and choose any one of them you wish, but realize Energy and Mass are not even a single element of the elemental table__Therefore, the formula only makes sense when one of the elements of the table of <strong><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">ground</span></strong> are thought to be the Mass in the formula__so we finally chase mass back to its <strong><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">ground</span></strong> of at least one Real Element... Now, take Einstein's formula all the way to the Universal level, which many of us do, by seeing it as the Relativity Measure of all structured matter sped to the speed of light, and either going backwards in time, or dis-appearing through the light cone as total decay of all finiteness__But Now__Realize these are false subjective assessments of the formula, because the formula is only measureing the formula itself, in most minds, as <strong><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">no fundamental ground</span></strong> is even mentioned... Finally bring the formula back to Earth and enter a piece of matter, and ask yourself what that matter truly is...???<o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The answer can only be known by either using the subjective side of the formula or an objective Real Matter side of it. Let's simply life-span decay all matter to its most fundamental, and that would be a photon, so by realizing a almost infinitely huge number of photons would be required to account for all of finiteness's decay, we also in reverse thinking, would realize a very large number of photons would be required to build any even smallest piece of matter, even a tiny hydrogen atom__Now, and with the help of Ol' Man Einstein himself, we find the Bose-Einstein Condensate__on the return trip of decay, building from photons back to seeable condensed structured matter__So, the M in the formula is the Mass of real Matter, who's absolute fundamental structure is the Photon made of Real Matter__All along__and the newest standard model physicists, scientists and philosophers are finally coming around to realizing the fact that E = MC^2 must be a representation of Real Matter's Mass__to have any meaning at all__as otherwise, it's just a measurement of measurement__Mass and Energy are not Entities__They are both simple measurements of fundamental matters of mass in motion... So now, these many standard model physicists and theorists have finally realized the lil' ol' photon is absolutely required to have <strong><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">Both</span></strong> matter and mass, to build a Real Universe__Even if, a very infinitesimal amount...<o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">Sorry, for the long off-topic post, but Your post just happened to be the first one I opened this morning, and when I saw my name, and the subject addressed, I thought it might fit...</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><o:p><strong>Addendum:</strong></o:p></span><br />
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"> </span></o:p></span><br />
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">There's no other Engine of the Prime Mover Motion ability, except the final phase changing state of Decay at Limit, to be the Prime Mover of The FS...<o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">It's the simple phase-state change, demanded by wave mechanics, of thermodynamics losing heat, to turn hydrodynamic at extremely low wave frequency, which just happens to be the Universal conditions of such state, when all the stars, black-holes, planets and moons, etc., go to sleep, i.e., decay to the nearest zero k limit...<o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">It's all the simplicity of Quantum Wave Mechanics At Limit__The Re-Cycle Limit of Thermodynamics to Hydrodynamics...<o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">As to infinity, it's required to account for eternity's space__otherwise you have only the infinite regresses, and illogical contradictions of all the laws of thought, logic, math and science...<o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The Universal Topology Absolutely Requires Infinity, as Finiteness Only Occupies a Small Volume of Infinite Space, But when Space is Seen As EM-Fields’ FS__The Conundrum of Infinity vs. Finiteness Arises, and Is Only Solved by An Eternal Infinity of The FS, Even Though It's Only Provable By Modal Necessity Logic and Intuitionistic Math...<o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">It's only a model guys__And models are mere representations of reality, but mine offers the logic and maths as proofs, of a truly fundamental foundation for the standard models__for the first time in history...<o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">There's no conjecture__Only the necessary and fully <strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">derivable</span></strong> logic from the real Universe, and its laws and maths...<o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Iff there's no infinite field beyond finiteness's decay limit__there's no prime mover possible__and a true void is not allowed by science's necessary logics, maths and proofs__Since; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">"Field is everywhere"</i>__whereas infinity exists simply by being required by eternity's necessity__plus a Universal Mechanics Necessity of Motion__or there's absolutely no foundation for Motion__So, the choice is Conjectured Eternal Motion__Or a Fully Logically Derived Motion...<o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The Choice is Yours...<o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">When will the world ever learn, Energy, Mass and Time are <strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">mere</span></strong> measurements of <strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">FS-Space-Em-Field Matter</span></strong> in Motion__and Nothing More...<o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">FS-Space-Em-Field Matter = A Single Triadic Physical Entity...</span></strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">P____, there is no beginning of a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">"No Beginning"</i>... Even in your own ideas, any beginning is a logical contradiction of your own ideas of eternity in infinity. Both your and my logic dictates/necessitates an <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">"Absolute No Beginning"</i>__to be eternal, thus infinite...<o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">My model isn't conjecturing a fundamental motion__It's clearly stating the Absolutely Necessary Universal Wave Mechanics Function at Re-Cycle Limit, which really isn't a Limit of the Universe, but just one of its Phase-State Changes__Necessitated for the eternal Universe to have motion__It isn't <strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">created</span></strong> within the entire Universe__It's only a <strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">described always existing mechanics</span></strong>, as what's always been the Prime Mover Hydrodynamics of all existence, of the FS, and all structured matter and fields...<o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"> </span></span>Lloyd Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900009452723717618noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-682821393457355915.post-34717564068675427162011-11-05T11:04:00.000-07:002011-11-05T11:43:30.526-07:00Peirce's Definitions of Scientific Truth...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVLA88IUYKmDOmMfxGTdJI1E2cEaitoYAWS9HZbGupgn6muPkIm88hgHLHXjlFQ_k6AHWOidhtasgsnBG754kNfsewo43Esb6wJebZVygel4UMZmEdH8Ml9jtyUGgncSRsmETTmMIVX0g/s1600/manitowoc%252520crane.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVLA88IUYKmDOmMfxGTdJI1E2cEaitoYAWS9HZbGupgn6muPkIm88hgHLHXjlFQ_k6AHWOidhtasgsnBG754kNfsewo43Esb6wJebZVygel4UMZmEdH8Ml9jtyUGgncSRsmETTmMIVX0g/s320/manitowoc%252520crane.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhC_Vuo_qIcs4pfIZcuHZuprL0KDmRbdSFnxojaWfo1Pd9Q4Uhal008rTm1CZSg93_BcVBOfCwVBB8S3VCCkZXmcJWMlCooxnka5s1VHyWL59vy8L7QB6XgnY_U0UvdNi1GJ49NTtV5OM/s1600/PeirceInquiry.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="198" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhC_Vuo_qIcs4pfIZcuHZuprL0KDmRbdSFnxojaWfo1Pd9Q4Uhal008rTm1CZSg93_BcVBOfCwVBB8S3VCCkZXmcJWMlCooxnka5s1VHyWL59vy8L7QB6XgnY_U0UvdNi1GJ49NTtV5OM/s320/PeirceInquiry.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<span class="Header"><strong><span style="font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light; font-size: large;">Truth</span></strong></span> <br />
<div class="SubHeader">(see also <a href="http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/real.html">Real</a> )<em>(if need be, highlight this entire post to read easier, the red and gray elements)</em></div><br />
<div class="Text">"To say that a thing is <i>Real</i> is merely to say that such predicates as are true of it, or some of them, are true of it regardless of whatever any actual person or persons might think concerning that <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span>. Unconditionality in that single respect constitutes what we call Reality.[---] <span style="background-color: #e9e9eb;">I call "<span style="color: #660000;">truth</span>" the predestinate opinion, by which I ought to have meant that which <i>would</i> ultimately prevail if investigation were carried sufficiently far in that particular direction.</span>" ('A Sketch of Logical Critics', EP 2.457-458, 1911) </div><br />
<div class="Text">"Unless <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span> be recognized as <i>public</i>, - as <span style="background-color: #e9e9eb;">that of which any person would come to be convinced if he carried his inquiry, his sincere search for immovable belief, far enough</span>, - then there will be nothing to prevent each one of us from adopting an utterly futile belief of his own which all the rest will disbelieve. Each one will set himself up as a little prophet; that is, a little "crank," a half-witted victim of his own narrowness.</div><div class="Text">But if <span style="color: #660000;">Truth</span> be something public, it must mean that to the acceptance of which as a basis of conduct any person you please would ultimately come if he pursued his inquiries far enough; - yes, every rational being, however prejudiced he might be at the outset. For <span style="color: #660000;">Truth</span> has that compulsive nature which Pope well expressed:<br />
<br />
<small>The eternal years of God are her's.</small><br />
<br />
But, you will say, I am setting up this very proposition as infallible truth. Not at all; it is a mere definition. I do not say that it is infallibly <span style="color: #660000;">true</span> that there is any belief to which a person would come if he were to carry his inquiries far enough. I only say that that alone is what I call <span style="color: #660000;">Truth</span>. I cannot infallibly know that there is any <span style="color: #660000;">Truth</span>." (Letter to Lady Welby, SS 73, 1908)</div><br />
<div class="Text">"The purpose of every sign is to express "fact," and by being joined with other signs, to approach as nearly as possible to determining an interpretant which would be the <i>perfect <span style="color: #660000;">Truth</span></i>, the absolute <span style="color: #660000;">Truth</span>, and as such (at least, we may use this language) would be the very Universe. Aristotle gropes for a conception of perfection or <i>entelechy</i>, which he never succeeds in making clear. We may adopt the word to mean the very fact, that is, the ideal sign which should be quite perfect, and so identical, - in such identity as a sign may have, with the very matter denoted united with the very form signified by it. The entelechy of the Universe of being, then, the Universe <i>qua</i> fact, will be that Universe in its aspect as a sign, the "<span style="color: #660000;">Truth</span>" of being. <span style="background-color: #e9e9eb;">The "<span style="color: #660000;">Truth</span>," the fact that is not abstracted but complete, is the ultimate interpretant of every sign.</span>" ('New Elements', EP 2:304, c. 1904)</div><br />
<div class="Text">"... to believe the absolute <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span> would be to have such a belief that under no circumstances, such as actually occur, should we find ourselves surprised." ('Reason's Conscience: A Practical Treatise on the Theory of Discovery; Wherein Logic Is Conceived as Semeiotic', MS 693: 166, 1904)</div><br />
<div class="Text">"<span style="background-color: #e9e9eb;">Every man is fully satisfied that there is such a thing as <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span>, or he would not ask any question. <i>That</i> <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span> consists in a conformity to something <i>independent of his thinking it to be so</i>, or of any man's opinion on that subject.</span> But for the man who holds this second opinion, the only reality, there could be, would be conformity to the ultimate result of inquiry. But there would not be any course of inquiry possible except in the sense that it would be easier for him to interpret the phenomenon; and ultimately he would be forced to say that there was no reality at all except that he now at this instant finds a certain way of thinking easier than any other. But that violates the very idea of reality and of <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span>." (Harvard Lectures on Pragmatism, CP 5.211, 1903) </div><br />
<div class="Text">"<span style="color: #660000;">Truth</span> is a character which attaches to an abstract proposition, such as a person might utter. It essentially depends upon that proposition's not professing to be exactly true. But we hope that in the progress of science its error will indefinitely diminish, just as the error of 3.14159, the value given for π, will indefinitely diminish as the calculation is carried to more and more places of decimals. What we call π is an ideal limit to which no numerical expression can be perfectly true. If our hope is vain; if in respect to some question - say that of the freedom of the will - no matter how long the discussion goes on, no matter how scientific our methods may become, there never will be a time when we can fully satisfy ourselves either that the question has no meaning, or that one answer or the other explains the facts, then in regard to that question there certainly is no <span style="color: #660000;"><i>truth</i></span>. But whether or not there would be perhaps any <i>reality</i> is a question for the metaphysician, not the logician. Even if the metaphysician decides that where there is no truth there is no reality, still the distinction between the character of truth and the character of reality is plain and definable. <span style="background-color: #e9e9eb;"><span style="color: #660000;">Truth</span> is that concordance of an abstract statement with the ideal limit towards which endless investigation would tend to bring scientific belief, which concordance the abstract statement may possess by virtue of the confession of its inaccuracy and one-sidedness, and this confession is an essential ingredient of <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span>.</span> [---] In the above we have considered positive scientific <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span>. But the same definitions equally hold in the normative sciences. If a moralist describes an ideal as the <i>summum bonum</i>, in the first place, the perfect <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span> of his statement requires that it should involve the confession that the perfect doctrine can neither be stated nor conceived. If, with that allowance, the future development of man's moral nature will only lead to a firmer satisfaction with the described ideal, the doctrine is true." ('Truth and Falsity and Error', DPP 2 / CP 5.565-566, 1902) </div><br />
<div class="Text">"These characters equally apply to pure mathematics. [---] A proposition is not a statement of perfectly pure mathematics until it is devoid of all definite meaning, and comes to this -- that a property of a certain icon is pointed out and is declared to belong to anything like it, of which instances are given. The perfect <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span> cannot be stated, except in the sense that it confesses its imperfection. The pure mathematician deals exclusively with hypotheses. Whether or not there is any corresponding real thing, he does not care. [---] But whether there is any reality or not, <span style="background-color: #e9e9eb;">the <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span> of the pure mathematical proposition is constituted by the impossibility of ever finding a case in which it fails.</span> This, however, is only possible if we confess the impossibility of precisely defining it." ('Truth and Falsity and Error', DPP 2 / CP 5.567, 1902) </div><br />
<div class="Text">"But even if it were impossible to distinguish between <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span> and reality, that would not in the least prevent our defining what it is that <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span> consists in. <span style="color: #660000;">Truth</span> and falsity are characters confined to propositions. A proposition is a sign which separately indicates its object. Thus, a portrait with the name of the original below it is a proposition. It asserts that if anybody looks at it, he can form a reasonably correct idea of how the original looked. A sign is only a sign <i>in actu</i> by virtue of its receiving an interpretation, that is, by virtue of its determining another sign of the same object. This is as true of mental judgments as it is of external signs. <span style="background-color: #e9e9eb;">To say that a proposition is true is to say that every interpretation of it is true.</span> [---] Thus, <span style="background-color: #e9e9eb;">a false proposition is a proposition of which some interpretant represents that, on an occasion which it indicates, a percept will have a certain character, while the immediate perceptual judgment on that occasion is that the percept has not that character. A true proposition is a proposition belief in which would never lead to such disappointment so long as the proposition is not understood otherwise than it was intended.</span>" ('Truth and Falsity and Error', DPP 2 / CP 5.569, 1902) </div><br />
<div class="Text">"All the above relates to <i>complex <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span></i>, or the <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span> of propositions. This is divided into many varieties, among which may be mentioned <i>ethical <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span></i>, or the conformity of an assertion to the speaker's or writer's belief, otherwise called <i>veracity</i>, and <i>logical <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span></i>, that is, the concordance of a proposition with reality, in such way as is above defined.</div><div class="Text">(2) The word <i><span style="color: #660000;">truth</span></i> has also had great importance in philosophy in widely different senses, in which it is distinguished as <i>simple <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span></i>, which is that <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span> which inheres in other subjects than propositions. </div><div class="Text">Plato in the <i>Cratylus</i> (385B) maintains that words have <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span>; and some of the scholastics admitted that an incomplex sign, such as a picture, may have <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span>.</div><div class="Text">But <i><span style="color: #660000;">truth</span></i> is also used in senses in which it is not an affection of a sign, but of things as things. Such <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span> is called <i>transcendental <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span></i>. The scholastic maxim was <i>Ens est unum, verum, bonum</i>. Among the senses in which transcendental <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span> was spoken of was that in which it was said that all science has for its object the investigation of <i><span style="color: #660000;">truth</span></i>, that is to say, of the real characters of things. It was, in other senses, regarded as a subject of metaphysics exclusively. It is sometimes defined so as to be indistinguishable from reality, or real existence. Another common definition is that <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span> is the conformity, or conformability, of things to reason. Another definition is that <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span> is the conformity of things to their essential principles. </div><div class="Text">(3) <i><span style="color: #660000;">Truth</span></i> is also used in logic in a sense in which it inheres only in subjects more complex than propositions. Such is <i>formal <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span></i>, which belongs to an argumentation which conforms to logical laws." ('Truth and Falsity and Error', DPP 2 / CP 5.570-573, 1902) </div><br />
<div class="Text">"By a <span style="color: #660000;"><i>true</i></span> proposition (if there be any such thing) I mean a proposition which at some time, past or future, emerges into thought, and has the following three characters:</div><div class="Text">1st, no direct effort of yours, mine, or anybody's, can reverse it permanently, or even permanently prevent its asserting itself;</div><div class="Text">2nd, no reasoning or discussion can permanently prevent its asserting itself;</div><div class="Text">3rd, any prediction based on the proposition, as to what ought to present itself in experience under certain conditions, will be fulfilled when those conditions are satisfied.</div><div class="Text">By a <i>reality</i>, I mean anything represented in a <span style="color: #660000;">true</span> proposition.</div><div class="Text">By a <i>positive</i> reality or <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span>, I mean one to which all three of the above criteria can be applied, - of course imperfectly, since we can never carry them out to the end.</div><div class="Text">By an <i>ideal</i> reality or <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span>, I mean one to which the first two criteria can be applied imperfectly, but the third not at all, since the proposition does not imply that any particular state of things will ever appear in experience. Such is a truth of pure mathematics.</div><div class="Text">By an <i>ultimate</i> reality or <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span>, I mean one to which the first criterion can be in some measure applied, but which can never be overthrown or rendered clearer by any reasoning, and upon which alone no predictions can be based. Thus, if you are kicked by a horse, the fact of the pain is beyond all discussion and far less can it be shaken or established by any experimentation." (Letter to Georg Cantor, NEM 3:773, 1900) </div><br />
<div class="Text">"The question therefore is, how is true belief (or belief in the real) distinguished from false belief (or belief in fiction). Now, as we have seen in the former paper, the ideas of <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span> and falsehood, in their full development, appertain exclusively to the experiential method of settling opinion. [---]<br />
On the other hand, all the followers of science are animated by a cheerful hope that the processes of investigation, if only pushed far enough, will give one certain solution to each question to which they apply it. [---] This activity of thought by which we are carried, not where we wish, but to a fore-ordained goal, is like the operation of destiny. No modification of the point of view taken, no selection of other facts for study, no natural bent of mind even, can enable a man to escape the predestinate opinion. This great hope is embodied in the conception of <span style="color: #660000;">truth</span> and reality. <span style="background-color: #e9e9eb;">The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real.</span> (' How to Make Our Ideas Clear', CP 5.406-407, 1878) </div>Lloyd Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900009452723717618noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-682821393457355915.post-66344961765298419242011-10-01T12:02:00.000-07:002011-10-15T11:20:08.705-07:00The 1st Law of Mind__Unity…!!!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioXhuLUo3ixCLgFQSDwk6V1q1E-giS-t3q4pTkvrwW0j7ikrkXyz7vyLucKVhM67oWvk2WrqPLHeCoMzW6sGSJXAMIiGRyMu8pSWHXlf5DSfw_B-Ur46Wf6gnhw8iKi7DUgj-IMR9zn-s/s1600/Peirce+Reasoning+Model.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioXhuLUo3ixCLgFQSDwk6V1q1E-giS-t3q4pTkvrwW0j7ikrkXyz7vyLucKVhM67oWvk2WrqPLHeCoMzW6sGSJXAMIiGRyMu8pSWHXlf5DSfw_B-Ur46Wf6gnhw8iKi7DUgj-IMR9zn-s/s320/Peirce+Reasoning+Model.png" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;"><strong><span class="sc1"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Proof of Abductive Hypothesis...</i></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p></o:p></i></strong></span></span><br />
<strong> </strong><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“The completest proof of a hypothesis is when that which has been hypothetically assumed to exist as a means of accounting for certain phenomena is afterwards actually observed to exist or is proved by <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">descriptive testimony(logic)</b> to have existed.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>William Minto</i><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><o:p></o:p></span></strong></span><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Hi Tim… I think I have finally brought my inner logical thoughts into somewhat of a balance with my external logical thoughts, and believe me, that’s been one hell-of-a job. I don’t know as I could really tell you who is more responsible for this result, but possibly, along with much of your support and help, a logician-scientist who happened to die young, back in the 1890’s, by the name of William Minto. He’s most the one I’d have to credit with making the history of logic so clear, and in fully relating the inner logical mechanics to the external logical mechanics, the best of anyone I’ve ever read__at least for me to understand. He’s not only clear, but also an almost perfect prose writer of highly technical ideas__and that's truly, quite a feat__Tarski is the only other scientist/mathematician/logician of such scientific prose clarity, as far as I've read. Not only has he offered the simplest proof of inductive/abductive/deductive hypothesis, but also the most grounded links between inner logical proofs to external experimental data and proofs, I’ve ever come across__It’s just his ideas are so fundamental, he’s the only logician-scientist I’d class in league with Charles Sanders Peirce__Which I put far above Einstein, as well I do Kepler…<o:p></o:p></span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Anyway, it comes down to the what I may call the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘super-concept’ </i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>being no more than a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘self-eclectic unity</i>’, by logical necessity__and by this I simply mean that all <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘polyadic(multiple) inference’</i> reduces to mental unity, by the necessity of the most fundamental <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘laws of thought’</i>, which further corresponds with the fundamental Universe’s necessity of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘condensations to unity</i>’, as exists in all structured forms of matter, as per our past discussions. I’d say the 1<sup>st</sup> induction necessity of any and all inference inductions, is by logical necessity, an <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘induction/s to unity’</i>, as a prerequisite of Nature’s natural fundamental wave actions__amounting to this <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘absolute necessity of unity’</i> being not only a function of our inner inference motion mechanics, but the greater Universe’s external mechanics of motion, as well</span></strong><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">…<o:p></o:p></span></strong></span><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Let me put it this way, if I may without sounding too bold; Imo this is the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘#1 Universal Law of Inference & Motion to Unity and All Inference & Universal Motion Mechanics Tends to A Combinatoric Unity__Either Mental or Physical…’ </i>Now, that may seem rather obvious, but the proof of such is not as simple as it may first seem, and this is why Tim, I’ve always stood my ground about the fact that; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“If determinism were 100% of the truth, my 30+ year search for inductive logic’s proof would have ended long ago, as this would be a simple matter of known consecutive/sequential causes and effects</i>’__however, the extended sciences show and knows this not to be the case__in full… It’s far more complex to connect the inner logical <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘laws of thought’</i> with the external <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘physical laws’</i>, than one may first think__and herein lies that great epistemic dilemma, which much of my recent studies may have more recently solved…<o:p></o:p></span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Put bluntly; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“Internal motion forces correspond to external motion forces, by way of our inference mechanics to science’s quantum Universal mechanics__Mass and gravity are simply the unity mechanics of linear and angular velocity, as there are no other total motions”(this in no way excludes Dave’s motion formulas_Va=Vu+Vr__and wave mechanics_but includes his, as well as all your excellent motion diagrams and gravity ideas).</i> These implied and known fundamental quantum field forces, balance all structured matter forces, simply by way of Kepler’s fundamental 1<sup>st</sup> motion law__his easily implied angular momentum of gravity, derived from his initial work. As far as I can see, mass and gravity are equal to the total mechanics of the linear and angular velocities involved__and only needs further and clear proof, by way of deriving from the total implied unity hypothesis. I’m deriving this idea from the known existing Universal entropy, being ½ of the total Universal motion, to a necessary least action unity, and return inverse hydrodynamic cycle to the other ½ of the total Universal motion to re-condensed and structured unity<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(as per Hawking and Penrose’s newest figures)</i>__which if followed totally through all the possible mathematical cause and effects of presently known radiation facts, hypothesis, and theory mechanics, derives such Universal balance of all forces, to be none other than the </span></strong><strong><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">three</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> main forces’ effects of producing the fundamental gravity__which equates to an absolute </span></strong><strong><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">repelling</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> set of the </span></strong><strong><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">three</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> fundamental forces__not an attractive force, at all. It’s easier to see this fundamental mechanics through the simple analogy of t</span></strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">hought’s hypothesized physical mass, acting as an electric current, multiplying mass to energy, by way of thought to muscular energy activity__though this certainly doesn’t explain the mechanics of the whole Universe’s motions, involved__but it does force us to look internally for such scientific answers of these very fundamental forces__where least actions produce greater actions, i.e., thoughts initiating the muscle-power to build the very technological world we live in__and that’s a lotta’ muscle-power from mere noumenal thought__This correspondence mechanics must be thoroughly investigated__as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘The Laws of Thought’</i> correspond isomorphically with <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘The Laws of Physics’</i>__and physics can be described by no other scientific method, than the fundamental <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“Laws of Thought and Logic…”</i><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: x-small; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">Logic Is The Science of Sciences…</span></strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">We know, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘Logic is concerned with inferences, not intuitive truths’</i> as stated by J.S. Mill__and that logic is Universally identical to<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(within)</i> all humans, and without concepts; logic, math and science are impossible, since <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘formal logic</i>’ and the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘laws of exactitude</i>’ are absolutely necessary__for such purposes of accurate measurements. We also know successful explanations are inferences from the facts, and further that methods of observation and methods of explanation are mental <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ideas</i> of induction vs./and/or material <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">objects </i>of induction, at the same and different times__so, we must be aware of these two departments of logic, by way of deduction and induction, or <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘formal inference</i>’ and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘material inference</i>’, or syllogistic logic and scientific logic, or pseudo-idealism/nominalism and realism__as just some of the classifications. Still, a <u>concept</u> must always be a quantity, and the #1 primary law of logic does require eternity as absolutely necessary, or our ground logic is forced into unwanted circular reasonings, contradictions and/or infinite regresses, etc. It’s just an odd circumstance that a chronologically required eternity/infinity would be required to eliminate infinite regresses and circular reasoning in our fundamental logic, but it’s certainly the case, when fully thought out according to the six most fundamenatal <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘laws of thought and/or logic…’</i> <o:p></o:p></span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">We should infer </span></strong><strong><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">nothing</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> without a true physical ground or sound reason<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(also referred to as ‘Truth-Maker Logic’)</i>, which is no more than Leibniz’s seventh ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sufficiency law’ </i>of the other six fundamental laws of thought and/or logic__which gave our modern scientific logics solid ground, in the real physical World and Universe. Any pure logic should be understood to be only the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘Science of logic’</i> fully derived from the natural laws of thought as simply, yet fundamentally, thought</span></strong><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">. </span></strong><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Further, every true science must obey these <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘laws of thought and logic</i>’, to be classed as a hard science__where such logic is necessitated to be the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘formal instrument</i>’ of the mind. Logic is simply <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘the science of the laws of thought as thought</i>’, and also the science of the necessary <em>‘forms of thought’</em>__<em>(psychological and/or/vs. logical).</em> The universal necessitation of logic is governed by the universal law of logic, sometimes stated as;__<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">’It absolutely must exist’</i>, as our logic is the most fundamental science of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘the formal laws of thought…’</i><o:p></o:p></span></strong></span><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">And finally; The <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘object-matter</i>’ of logic, is what makes logic objective…<o:p></o:p></span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">“There exists no mind or machine, sufficiently powerful, to process finity and infinity, simultaneously…” me<o:p></o:p></span></span></i></strong><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">P.s.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">Tim, some of the above is just strung together ideas, to possibly open this area of conversation to the possibilities of actually linking all the mental, physical and Universal facts to measurements and possibly processable with an algorithm, similar to this one I already offered: </span><strong><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">The Universal Isomorphic Algorithm__UIA = ∑∫∏v -> IC:M Iff / ≡ ∑’s •…</span></strong><em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">(The universal isomorphic algorithm equals the sum of the integral product variables, implying the isomorphic center of mass, if and only if divided identical to the sum’s center…)</span></em><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">This post is far from perfect Tim, but I think it offers the core to what I’ve been driving at; about grounding our ideas in sound measurement, math and sound scientific logic… <o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">See if you can make heads or tails of deriving the most fundamental motions of the Universe from such logical and mathematical necessities of all and any motions possible, being forced to the unities I’ve mentioned, by the very fundamental mechanics of a self-perpetuated Universe…<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">I know what it means to me, but I don’t know if I can explain it very well…<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: x-small; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: RO;">Regards,</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;">P.s.s.</span><br />
<em>(going through my older posts and thought I'd re-enter this one...)</em><br />
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong>Why Science Is Too Narrow-Minded To Understand Itself…<o:p></o:p></strong></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The absolutely necessary volume of a finite Universal decay model, Scientifically gives one the necessary initial volume of the fundamental Universe__Absolutely required to construct the actual structured mass Universe, from its absolutely necessary em-field of FS__and only it does__So that no <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘Naked Ghosts’</i> are needed… All the present models of the Universe require <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘Naked Ghosts’ </i>to construct their false models of the otherwise real Universe… The real Universe requires the fundamental state volume of a true necessary state Universe__to be many times the volume of the present CMBR volume__therefore requiring the real initial em-mass-field to be far larger than the present theorized/measured CMBR volume… This can all be figured with simple 1<sup>st</sup> order arithmetic__and this simple 1<sup>st</sup> order arithmetic proves all the present <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘Pseudo-Naked Ghost Models’</i> impossible of mathematical, structural, physical and or logical reality…<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">How can I make it any simpler…? The present CMBR volume’s em-mass-field is far too short of containing enough absolute fundamental <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(FS) </i>substance to construct the volumes of the known structured mass, of galaxies, planets, black-holes and star systems<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(pre big bang necessity mechanics)</i>__the present structured Universe contains__and is scientifically known to contain… Only a far, far, far larger CMBR volume of FS satisfies the logic of Universal construction__from unstructured em-mass-field substance, to the absolutely known and required structured matter__science presently measures…<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Therefore; Science will never make sense of itself__until it realizes the true mathematical volume size, truly required to construct the present and known Universe’s mass__absolutely requires a larger initial volume field of this fundamental substance than it’s presently assumed/figured__to avoid all the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘Naked Ghosts’</i> in all present forms of physical Universal models__Except a sensibly figured and true decay model’s absolutely required massive volume numbers__Which it only, can account for the necessary initial em-mass field’s fundamental substance__to successfully construct our real structured Universe__No <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘Naked Boogie-Men’</i> needed…<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Until science extends its scope of understanding beyond the narrow-mindedness of present CMBR volume__It’s a walking blind intellectual cripple of its own narrow-mindedness…!!!<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> <span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: RO;">Welcome to a new rational infinity…</span></span>Lloyd Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900009452723717618noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-682821393457355915.post-69237783526821101182011-09-20T06:47:00.001-07:002022-12-11T09:49:04.020-08:00A Sound Teleological Scientific Method…<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwlsqFXlUavf-vtRpAnzMLnj5cjOcgYbHONVz55uu_yLgkDSa777kQc_GH6qUW5u9JSkWX0PvXbR7wv0QSfIt0Ye9K6KkUvE7sZXK9akYxtco961cZpTiLXoC_4vfjCkQlj7j7JYOOlzo/s1600/scientific_method_2.gif" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwlsqFXlUavf-vtRpAnzMLnj5cjOcgYbHONVz55uu_yLgkDSa777kQc_GH6qUW5u9JSkWX0PvXbR7wv0QSfIt0Ye9K6KkUvE7sZXK9akYxtco961cZpTiLXoC_4vfjCkQlj7j7JYOOlzo/s1600/scientific_method_2.gif" /></a></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEia7O93NFFdw_fYRjDDVlJjNW1RqmtNwOjqNGpm6yFc0scqQfK7hxhcIm2IW-Fte_RJx7c1BRtYCwze14_VDvdKWqdh84JbpVi7X8o02z5vfek3Qeut8lIBFkQD3FnvAG35UmrtjWNYVVI/s1600/scimeth-2.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEia7O93NFFdw_fYRjDDVlJjNW1RqmtNwOjqNGpm6yFc0scqQfK7hxhcIm2IW-Fte_RJx7c1BRtYCwze14_VDvdKWqdh84JbpVi7X8o02z5vfek3Qeut8lIBFkQD3FnvAG35UmrtjWNYVVI/s320/scimeth-2.png" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpiibIRwo4lNb237T7Mr-aQKuyQ7a1ATTQ7OjsWx_d9XM8dPXMOLb-o0n7iIUT7LEadGoCVkK8-3HdJaurt28ioDbKEsdEyOz_y49LpQ-bg_DeVJIoCDfjVXi1YVYIlllIUVmg19f0jDo/s1600/ScientificMethod2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="188" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpiibIRwo4lNb237T7Mr-aQKuyQ7a1ATTQ7OjsWx_d9XM8dPXMOLb-o0n7iIUT7LEadGoCVkK8-3HdJaurt28ioDbKEsdEyOz_y49LpQ-bg_DeVJIoCDfjVXi1YVYIlllIUVmg19f0jDo/s320/ScientificMethod2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<strong><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="color: #0070c0; font-size: 18pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">A Scientific Method To Predict <u>A</u> Future… <i>{update}</i><o:p></o:p></span></strong><br />
<br />
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: xx-small;">"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</span></i><strong><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></strong><br />
<br />
<span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong>1. 1<sup>st</sup> Inductive inferences should be open to <u>all</u> possible thought…<em>(Do not block the way of inquiry. Peirce)<o:p></o:p></em></strong></span></span></span><br />
<span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<strong><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;">2. Abduction-hypothesis should carefully consider all possible combinations and eliminations of such thought…<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(all ideas must be run through the thought wringer, until all necessary logically scientific values are distilled completely_<u>hard science</u> only, should be admitted__praxeology, axiology, ie., real physical actions & laws__in the final analyses of abduction toward final deductive/inductive proofs)</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></strong><br />
<span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<strong><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;">3. Deductions should be extremely careful to only properly eliminate the superfluous…<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(all psyche exaggerations/imaginings, false beliefs/faiths & pseudo-opinions must be completely set aside)</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></strong><br />
<span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<strong><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;">4. All epistemic gaps’ origins can & must be closed…<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(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)</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></strong><br />
<span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<strong><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;">5. All ontologies must be finite & origin closed, as it’s all we can <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><u>hard</u></i> scientifically know…<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(ie., self-evidently derived, ie., logic is grounded in fundamental value_worth__logic is measured only by/in/of values_<u>hard</u> scientific ethics & esthetics__historically and scientifically accurate physical objective facts & laws)</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></strong><br />
<span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<strong><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;">6. All mereologies must be complete to available information…<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(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)</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></strong><br />
<span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<strong><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;">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…<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(steps 1 through 7, must constantly be repeated, until final effects match initial set antecedent actions’ <u>‘Goals’</u>)</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></strong><br />
<span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<strong><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;">8. The ‘is/ought’ problem must be eliminated…<em>(a false dichotomy of mis-understood teleology__full knowledge of is available__'Ought' <u>can</u> easily be derived from 'Is', iff clear goals are </em>1<sup>st </sup><em>stated/asserted & properly set to law__either mentally or physically)<o:p></o:p></em></span></span></span></strong><br />
<span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<strong><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;">9. Quine’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘Two Dogmas’</i> illusion must be eliminated…<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(a proper integral path oriented ontological, epistemological, teleological & mereological mechanics accomplishes this)</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></strong><br />
<span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<strong><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;">10. Hans Jonas’ <u>logical</u> 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…<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></strong><br />
<span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<strong><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;">11. A Goal Must 1<sup>st</sup> Be Set__To Match & Achieve The Above 10 Points…<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(The<u>’ Goal’</u> must be clearly and <u>explicitly</u> set out, to achieve the proper scientific methods & actions)</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></strong><br />
<span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<strong><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;">12. All 1<sup>st</sup> Goals’ Actions Should Be Set To Time-Variable Law…<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(a safe % of institution per year, of such laws, to absolutely guarantee the complete safety and sovereignty of all nations’ futures)<o:p></o:p></i></span></span></span></strong><br />
<span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<strong><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;">13. A Thorough Knowledge & Complete Understanding of Logical, Mathematical, Intellectual and Physical Histories Is Necessarily Required By All Participants of Such A Momentus Project…<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(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)<o:p></o:p></i></span></span></span></strong><br />
<span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">“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<sup>th</sup> century science.”</span></i></span></span><br />
<br />
<span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><em>“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</em></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><em><strong>Addendum:</strong></em></span></span></span><br />
<em><strong><span face="Verdana, sans-serif" style="font-size: x-small;">"A Good Person, for The Sake of Good…!!!"</span></strong></em><br />
<span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: x-small;"><strong> </strong></span></span></span><br />
<span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span face="Verdana, sans-serif"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Hi Tim__tried to make it short, but it grew again... lol...<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Btw, great note...<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">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; <em>"A Good Person, for The Sake of Good…!!!"</em> 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 <em>'The Arab Spring'</em> 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, <em>when enough is acquired</em>, 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...<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">I just really have only one question to ask about this idea: <em>"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." <o:p></o:p></em></span></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Tim, why would you think, <em>"It need to be either one or the other...?" </em>I don't get it...<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">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; <em>'taking sides...'<o:p></o:p></em></span></span></div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: x-small;"> </span><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" /><span style="font-size: x-small;"> <em>"Of course, but it obviously isn't but one or the other as a few intrinsic aspects <span style="color: #990000;">demand</span> even <span style="color: #990000;">the universe take a side</span> as it <span style="color: #990000;">can't be both</span> of a simple few things due to the very nature of what those concepts represent." </em>Why not Tim...?<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">As to <em>'Why not?'</em>__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 <em>'two-wills'</em> 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<em>(mental ideas)</em> and the phenomenal<em>(physical facts/objects...)<o:p></o:p></em></span></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The trouble seems to enter Tim, when we try to limit the mental side of the equation, as per so, so; <em>'must take a side'</em> as per your above statement. Again; Why...?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">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 <em>'absolute independence'</em> 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 <em>'Live Free-Will'</em>, as I ain't dead, and the only way I wouldn't have a free-will, is if I were <em>'Deterministically Dead'__</em>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<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Let's look at the entire Universe, as a functioning objective object, having <em>'motion'</em>__and it's required <em>'limit on motion'</em>. This can also be seen as an isomorphic mechanical relationship between <em>'Motion as Free-Will'</em> and <em>'Motion Limit as Determinism'</em>__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 <em>'motion limiting motion'</em>, or whatever__No...? If we hypothetically look at the Universe as a possible <em>'Thermo-Hydro-Dynamics'</em>, where the thermodynamic factor operates on the aggregate as <em>'Free Motion',</em> then the hydrodynamic factor would act on the aggregate as a <em>'Motion Limit'</em>__thus explaining much about the entire Universal puzzle, while also somewhat explaining gravity's mechanics, being the <em>'Mean Motions/Actions'</em> between the two <em>'Thermodynamic/Hydrodynamic'</em> extremes, at the extremes of mechanical explanations... This same scenario can be brought back to Earth, as a function of our minds, where <em>'Intellectual Determinism'</em> operates over out <em>'Emotional Free-Choicel'</em> and our <em>'Intellectual Free-Determined-Will'</em> 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...<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">A few possble thoughts, to at least look at, Tim... I just see nothing wrong with both <em>'Free-Motion'</em> and <em>'Braking-Motion'</em> always existing__together__in fact, I see it as an absolute necessity...<em>(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...?)<o:p></o:p></em></span></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Please do answer, <em>'Why you think it's necessary for a Universe to only function </em>'One Way'<em>__and not the other__I really am curious...'<o:p></o:p></em></span></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Have a good un,<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Lloyd<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: x-small;"> </span><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> -- <br />
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.”<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://spot.colorado.edu/~rhanna/Hanna_freedom_teleology_and_rational_causation_kant_yearbook_published_version_june09.pdf"><span style="color: blue;"><strong>http://spot.colorado.edu/~rhanna/Hanna_freedom_teleology_and_rational_causation_kant_yearbook_published_version_june09.pdf</strong></span></a><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<strong> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></strong><br />
<span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/paper_hanna_rationality_and_the_ethics_of_logic_Jphil_proofs_apr06.pdf"><span style="color: blue;"><strong>http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/paper_hanna_rationality_and_the_ethics_of_logic_Jphil_proofs_apr06.pdf</strong></span></a><strong> <o:p></o:p></strong></span><br />
<strong> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></strong><br />
<span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma;">+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span> <span face=""Verdana","sans-serif""><strong>Alpha Concepts…<o:p></o:p></strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"">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, <span face=""Verdana","sans-serif""><em>'all past authors of note'</em></span>, 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 <u><span face=""Verdana","sans-serif""><em>few</em></span></u> 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 <span face=""Verdana","sans-serif""><em>'self-constructed informations and knowledge systems'</em></span> 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...<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"">So far Tim, this is all I have left of what was a really good extended e-mail to ya, on the very <em>‘Alpha-Fundamentals’</em> 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…<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<span face=""Verdana","sans-serif""><em>“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.”<o:p></o:p></em></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"">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 “<em>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</em>”__Which when considered as the whole Universe, does do exactly what you’ve stated can’t be done, and this is the very <em>‘Alpha Concept’</em> 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 <em>‘self-constructed systems’</em> 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 <em>‘Alpha Logic’</em> to have opposite meanings, and this is a fact known about our <em>‘Alpha Logics’</em> since the time of the Greeks__Logic itself is or can be very <em>tautological(inversely recursive)</em>, 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 <em>‘system construct’</em> itself,<em> </em>to make it structurally valid. If we were to follow our <em>‘self-fundamental-logic</em>’<em>(Alpha Logic)</em> to its very mechanical core, we’d find it depends on both its <em>qualitative</em> and <em>quantitative</em> functions/attributes/whatever, as logic can’t exist as just a <em>quantitative</em> 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 <em>quantifiable</em>, without including such <em>quantitative</em> issues also involved__and herein lies the problems of double definitions, unless a <em>sentence structured language processing scheme</em> is 1<sup>st</sup> set up, as per how Aristotle 1<sup>st</sup> 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 <em>‘Alpha Logics’(logica utens…)<o:p></o:p></em></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"">Now, getting back to what you wrote again, about; “<em>caus(ing) our thoughts of the universal system to take a side</em>”__I would have to state, not if one is fully aware of fundamental logic’s necessary 1<sup>st</sup> 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; “<em>concepts as randomness/determinism, infinite/finite, eternal/temporary, etc. by definition are</em><em><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>both infinite and finite, eternal and temporary, etc., at the level of the Universal Whole</em>”__thus the fundamental logic to truly describe such mechanics, absolutely must be <em>formally</em> 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 <em>‘Total Universal Mechanics…</em>’ 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 <em>‘Laws of Thought’</em> and the <em>‘Laws of Logic’</em> plus <em>‘The Laws of Physics’</em>__where some have been around since the early Greeks, while still more weren’t completed until the 19<sup>th</sup> century, where we find most of these most fundamental improvements to both <em>‘The Laws of Thought & Logic, plus Physics…’<o:p></o:p></em></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"">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 <em>‘Universal Mechanics</em>’ into truly meaningful explanations__This is the reason I spend so much time researching the shortest routes to the best <em>ratio-logical</em> 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 <em>‘Alpha Truths’</em> in sound physical <em>‘Alpha Realities’</em>__It’s very difficult… Psychology’s got a big <em>noggin</em>, that’s <em>gotta</em> be knocked <em>outta</em> 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..<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<span face=""Verdana","sans-serif"">I’ll explain this better later Tim, as that post I lost still has me a bit off track…<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></span></span></span>Lloyd Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900009452723717618noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-682821393457355915.post-82429132598778607572011-09-17T08:16:00.000-07:002011-09-18T05:13:30.258-07:00The Fundamentals of Necessity...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7QmKUo8pL_nYM-YEH4dyYuMyhBMgutkUBCAfA-1Qo7SGaEPi5Mke1Qm7KphA_F7UDyBwWvsj73XGJ1Bfn6sfG7sYU2hLRhZvczwBFBt129FCvMj_30JHK-TMuc0wYlN_sgtr9t3tGtyQ/s1600/LogicFallacies.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="381" width="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7QmKUo8pL_nYM-YEH4dyYuMyhBMgutkUBCAfA-1Qo7SGaEPi5Mke1Qm7KphA_F7UDyBwWvsj73XGJ1Bfn6sfG7sYU2hLRhZvczwBFBt129FCvMj_30JHK-TMuc0wYlN_sgtr9t3tGtyQ/s400/LogicFallacies.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>Tim, I agree it is the <i>'conservation of c mechanics'</i>__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__<i><b>"The laws of physics do not create the Universe; The Universe creates the laws of physics..."</b></i> And herein lies most of science's<i>(as per people's interpretations)</i> 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 <i>'the logical atom of thought'</i> is what I'm speaking of__as it allows one to see exactly what it truly takes to self-build <i>'the most fundamental logical atom of pure thought'.</i> Here's a para of Clifford's to somewhat make my point:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"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 <b>'mind-stuff'.</b> 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…</blockquote>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 <i>'thesis argument'</i> that started the entire modern debate between <i>'objective logical science'</i> and <i>'subjective psychological consciousness'</i>, or <i>'realism and nominalism'</i>, as it now exists. Of course Clifford was the supreme <i>'materialist physicist intellect'</i> of his day, and backed by many logical minds, and William James__<i>'America's head nominalist psychologist'</i>__bitterly attacked his doctrine <i><b>'mind stuff'</b></i>__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 <i>'c mechanics'</i> of the Universe__It also takes a lot of philosophical definition and interpretation of the facts, to thoroughly understand the <i>'c-mechanics...'</i> 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 <i>'absolute calculus'</i>, as it makes up the entire <i>'c-mechanics'</i> maths of the most intricate infinitesimals <i>'ever possible'</i> to exist__the math, though absolute, was used by Einstein to develop both theories of relativity<i>(absolute math to develop relativity__quite the fact)</i>, 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 <i>'The Absolute Calculus'<b></b></i> as designed to function__There's just no deeper path to travel Tim, than <i>'one divided by/to infinity'</i>__as that's the smallest infinitesimal speck of wave-matter possible of any <i>'c-mechanics...'</i><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Thus, the geometric asymmetry we see before us is conserving a deeper symmetry or at least attempting to.</blockquote>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 <i>'logical atom of thought'</i> 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>"I don't think it's possible"</i>__as pertains to the hard scientific logic of the facts... DeMorgan offered many examples of the extra-logical ideas' refutations, in his book; <i>'A Budget of Paradoxes'</i>, back in the 1870's__published after his death by his Sophia... <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Budget-Paradoxes-Augustus-Morgan/dp/1602063206"><b>http://www.amazon.com/Budget-Paradoxes-Augustus-Morgan/dp/1602063206</b></a><br />
<blockquote><i>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).</i></blockquote><br />
Let me also state the logical facts of whether our minds are processing <i>'psychologically generally'</i>, or <i>'logically particularly'</i>__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<i>(the two dynamics of mental processing/thinking)</i>. 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<i>(often exaggerated imaginations)</i>__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 <i>'the realms...'</i><br />
<br />
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>Almost agreed here, Tim... I still state the fact; <i>"We can figure the decay math dynamics, to at the least, form a decent Universal cycling hypothesis"</i>__at least one far better than the <i>'Big Pop'</i> or <i>'Pseudo-Inflation'</i>__whose foolish logics, maths and theories forces one into the ridiculous state of <i>'High Infinitesimal Mass Points Producing Universes From Pseudo-Nothings...'</i><br />
<br />
<blockquote>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, <b>'all are plausibly relational'</b> due to an underlying function which is perhaps due to the very quantization aspects I was referring to or something similar.</blockquote>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...<br />
<br />
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>That's why I keep mentioning so much about random motion, uncertainty and chance motions. Everybody seems to want an <i>'Over-Extended Uniformity'</i>__when in point of fact, not realizing the Universe has no need of such <i>'Exaggerated Uniformity'</i>__and, if <i>'absolute uniformity'</i> 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 <i>'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)</i>__Just think of all the millions, possibly billions, of quantum frequencies entering the brain/mind, just to make up the <i>'physical/mental structure/s'</i> of a single atom of thinking capacity, then transfer that similar/same thinking capacity process of real wave-matter motion out into the formation <i>'c-mechanics'</i> of the real <i>'Structured Universal Formation Mechanics'</i>, from such random integrations of trillions of swirling tornadic em-field waves/frequencies of the FS, polarizing and possibly double polarising +__<i>'Absolutely Fundamentally'</i>, by the <b><i>'Total All Necessary c-Cycling Mechanics'</i></b>__<b>'Toward A Necessary Universal <i>General</i> Uniformeity...'</b> It's just obvious to me, <i>'There's no other path Possible...!!!'</i> This is simply fundamental <i>'Modal Necessity Logic'(primitive primary logic)</i>, around since the ancients__<i><b>'The Absolute Calculus'</b></i> can prove such, the most possible hypothesis/theory, imo...<br />
<br />
Tim, imo, this is all still far simpler than most people think. As I've so often mentioned; <i>"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..."</i> Imo, we <b>'must'</b> accept the fact, that we can not know certain pieces of knowledge, and worse still, we far too often try to <b>'over-know'</b> 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 <i>'c-mechanics'</i>__as thoroughly as is humanly possible... Such clarity of thinking, imo, at the deep personal thinking level, easily transfers to the most fundamental of <i>'c-Universal'</i> 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 <i>"East Meets West Logic":</i> <a href="http://www.toequest.com/forum/logic-reasoning/4690-east-meets-west-logic.html#post95972">http://www.toequest.com/forum/logic-reasoning/4690-east-meets-west-logic.html#post95972</a><br />
<br />
Hope that's some clarity, instead of confusion...<br />
<br />
Regards,<br />
Lloyd<br />
<br />
<b>Addendum:</b><br />
A Single TOE For Everyone? Everything For Everyone? Maybe Not...<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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...???<br />
<br />
I seem to be headed in that direction, anyway... <br />
..............................................................<br />
"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<br />
"Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein<br />
"The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G.<br />
"The tick-tick-tick of the caesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.Lloyd Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900009452723717618noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-682821393457355915.post-17603386241323213572011-09-17T02:57:00.000-07:002011-09-17T03:45:27.949-07:00All 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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Best I can do on a sleepy mind which has been on vacation.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-682821393457355915.post-82169036124340594882011-09-16T07:50:00.000-07:002011-09-16T09:07:02.083-07:00Why Fundamental Asymmetries Necessarily Exist…<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><div class="fullImageLink" id="file"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Markovkate_01.svg"><img alt="File:Markovkate 01.svg" height="563" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Markovkate_01.svg/563px-Markovkate_01.svg.png" width="563" /></a></div></span><br />
<span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">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...<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">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<i>(as it's scratch we are usually theorizing from, in these areas)</i>__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: <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1. If you start any math with perfect symmetries, such symmetries can <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">only</i></b> produce more symmetries...<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2. Only asymmetries are possible of producing both symmetries and still other asymmetries...<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3. Simple example: 1+1=2_a symmetry... Only -1+1=0_an asymmetry... Yet, -1+-1=+2_a symmetry...<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">4. No matter how you set these fundamental charges up, only a fundamental -1+-1=+2 will create that first positive symmetry<i>(two negatives produce a positive example)</i>, of a required combinatoric Universal permutation math, applied to Bose-Einstein Photonic Condensation__From An Absolute Fundamental Field...<i>(thus the requirement of my 9 fundamental degrees of freedom)</i><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">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...<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">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 <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Never</i></b> build asymmetries...<i>(and herein lies the deep motion catch, to wrap one's mind around...)(this is probably better understood through Markov Chains... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain"><b><span style="color: blue;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain</span></b></a> )</i><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">7. +1+1 only makes +2... 1+2 only makes a +3 charge, i.e., no negative asymmetric change possible from positive integers...<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">8. Only the asymmetric negatively charged numbers<i>(photons or poles of photons)</i> produce the required negative charges, to build any of the known to exist asymmetries...<i>(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...?)</i><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">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 <b><i>'absolute fundamental negative asymmetry'</i></b>__no matter whether produced by colliding wave-particles or mathematical permutations, Markov Chains and/or any possible combinatorics...<i>(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...)</i><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">'Absolute Asymmetry Is An Absolute Fundamental Necessity of FS-Motion'</span></i><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">__By default of its fundamental necessity, which can not be divided or derived as any sort of smaller infinitesimal action of Reality__Possible... <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Absolute divisions/differentiations within <i>'The Absolute Calculus' </i></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor"><b><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor</span></b></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> prevents any other possibilities...<i>(Tim, imo people/scientists/logicians/mathematicians/physicists/whoever, just haven't looked deep enough into FS-Motions absolute necessities of fundamental <b><u>actions...</u></b>)</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Tim, if you look at permutation math explanations, even here </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation"><b><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation</span></b></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> 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...<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If you'll notice Tim, in the entire above Wiki article, there's no mention of the <i>'fundamental triadic necessity method'</i> 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 <i>'cross-product of triadic systems of proofs is valid'</i>__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...<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">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 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">search</i>, I come up with far too many links, until I better collate the notes into subject categories...<i>(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...)</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Tim, see if you can give me a <i>'mathematically changed system'</i>, that can be produced by only <b><i>symmetries, which produce asymmetries</i></b>__without such fundamental motions, already containing such fundamental asymmetries, to do so...<i>(I don't think it possible...!!!)</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">That's my challenge to ya...</span><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></div><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Markov"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Markov</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></span></b><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorio_Ricci-Curbastro"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorio_Ricci-Curbastro</span></a></span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pafnuty_Chebyshev"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pafnuty_Chebyshev</span></a><o:p></o:p></b></div><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: RO;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tullio_Levi-Civita"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tullio_Levi-Civita</span></a></span></b><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kingdon_Clifford"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kingdon_Clifford</span></strong></a><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Bain"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Bain</span></strong></a><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rowan_Hamilton"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rowan_Hamilton</span></strong></a><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_De_Morgan"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_De_Morgan</span></strong></a><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce</span></strong></a><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">P.s.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">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...</span>Lloyd Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900009452723717618noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-682821393457355915.post-11572733426037382372011-09-05T14:56:00.000-07:002011-09-14T09:35:17.533-07:00The Importance of Hypothesis To Reality Correspondence…<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><strong>Kepler's Conservation of Angular Momentum__1609...</strong></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhd2NN8buPDPPg5CUN71QOfmgFfCGQwsrAlK2mEb9PpMmDEWxhkRC2afq2f6hLjeZcb3FYiUr5B62GB_tcogAz0kmXPNQWbgoOZUL8x6CclNgga-MwnQN2aCb7ZpbrQ9zmdP84YRv1C77A/s1600/220px-Kepler-second-law.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhd2NN8buPDPPg5CUN71QOfmgFfCGQwsrAlK2mEb9PpMmDEWxhkRC2afq2f6hLjeZcb3FYiUr5B62GB_tcogAz0kmXPNQWbgoOZUL8x6CclNgga-MwnQN2aCb7ZpbrQ9zmdP84YRv1C77A/s1600/220px-Kepler-second-law.gif" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">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...</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><strong>Kepler's Scientific Method...</strong></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgy8ME9V4XR2_JudiDTE_pHnsvXQGWoqtAlf5u_7Lq-MsL6ljq2BUokl3LcwhyC3Z0_ZoDQVI_CNdk2P3Rk1OdjdSSQykpyjvbYqGlDTOKmixBl76uYuKiAC7RUYb-HamBjFFOVfMQk00c/s1600/Kepler.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="167" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgy8ME9V4XR2_JudiDTE_pHnsvXQGWoqtAlf5u_7Lq-MsL6ljq2BUokl3LcwhyC3Z0_ZoDQVI_CNdk2P3Rk1OdjdSSQykpyjvbYqGlDTOKmixBl76uYuKiAC7RUYb-HamBjFFOVfMQk00c/s320/Kepler.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><em>(Click to enlarge...)</em><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: red; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">The Uniformeity of Continuum Mechanics…</span></span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: red; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">Gravity is proportionally co-ordinate to angular momentum__at all levels__CM </span><span style="color: red; font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-hansi-font-family: Verdana; mso-symbol-font-family: Wingdings;"><span style="mso-char-type: symbol; mso-symbol-font-family: Wingdings;">à</span></span><span style="color: red; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"> RM </span><span style="color: red; font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-hansi-font-family: Verdana; mso-symbol-font-family: Wingdings;"><span style="mso-char-type: symbol; mso-symbol-font-family: Wingdings;">à</span></span><span style="color: red; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"> QM…</span></strong><br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion"><strong>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion</strong></a><br />
<br />
<strong>Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky</strong> (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language" title="Russian language"><span style="color: #0645ad;">Russian</span></a>: <span xml:lang="ru" xml:lang="ru">Никола́й Ива́нович Лобаче́вский</span>) (December 1, 1792 – February 24, 1856 (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar" title="Gregorian calendar"><span style="color: #0645ad;">N.S.</span></a>); November 20, 1792 – February 12, 1856 (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_calendar" title="Julian calendar"><span style="color: #0645ad;">O.S.</span></a>)) was a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia" title="Russia"><span style="color: #0645ad;">Russian</span></a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematician" title="Mathematician"><span style="color: #0645ad;">mathematician</span></a> and <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometer" title="Geometer"><span style="color: #0645ad;">geometer</span></a>, renowned primarily for his pioneering works on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_geometry" title="Hyperbolic geometry"><span style="color: #0645ad;">hyperbolic geometry</span></a>, otherwise known as <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobachevskian_geometry" title="Lobachevskian geometry"><span style="color: #0645ad;">Lobachevskian geometry</span></a>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kingdon_Clifford" title="William Kingdon Clifford"><span style="color: #0645ad;">William Kingdon Clifford</span></a> called Lobachevsky the "Copernicus of Geometry" due to the revolutionary character of his work.Lloyd Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900009452723717618noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-682821393457355915.post-66132794025684003032011-09-03T07:37:00.000-07:002011-09-03T07:59:27.081-07:00Chance & The Necessity of Free-Will...<h2><span style="font-size: x-small;"><em>(Hi Tim, check out Boethius, from the 6th century__a major logician-mathematician-physicist of antiquity...)</em></span></h2><h2><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_225" name="Page_225">BOOK V.</a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_225" name="Page_225"></a></h2><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_225" name="Page_225"><h3>I.</h3>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.'<br />
<br />
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 </a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_226" name="Page_226">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.'</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_226" name="Page_226">'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.'</a><br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_227" name="Page_227">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.'</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_227" name="Page_227">'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?'<br />
'Our good Aristotle,' says she, 'has defined it concisely in his "Physics," and closely in accordance with the truth.'</a><br />
<br />
'How, pray?' said I.<br />
<br />
'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 <a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_228" name="Page_228">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 <em>intended</em> that the money should be found, but, as I said, it<em>happened</em> 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.'</a><br />
<h3>SONG I.<br />
Chance.</h3><div class="poem"><div class="stanza">In the rugged Persian highlands,<br />
<span class="i2">Where the masters of the bow</span><br />
Skill to feign a flight, and, fleeing,<br />
<span class="i2">Hurl their darts and pierce the foe;</span><br />
There the Tigris and Euphrates<br />
<span class="i2">At one source </span><a class="fnanchor" href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14328/14328-h/14328-h.htm#Footnote_O_15"><span style="font-size: x-small;">[O]</span></a> their waters blend, </div></div><div class="poem"><div class="stanza">Soon to draw apart, and plainward<br />
<span class="i2">Each its separate way to wend.</span><br />
When once more their waters mingle<br />
<span class="i2">In a channel deep and wide,</span><br />
All the flotsam comes together<br />
<span class="i2">That is borne upon the tide:</span><br />
Ships, and trunks of trees, uprooted<br />
<span class="i2">In the torrent's wild career,</span><br />
Meet, as 'mid the swirling waters<br />
<span class="i2">Chance their random way may steer.</span><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_230" name="Page_230">Yet the shelving of the channel</a><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_230" name="Page_230"><span class="i2">And the flowing water's force</span></a><br />
Guides each movement, and determines<br />
<span class="i2">Every floating fragment's course.</span><br />
Thus, where'er the drift of hazard<br />
<span class="i2">Seems most unrestrained to flow,</span><br />
Chance herself is reined and bitted,<br />
<span class="i2">And the curb of law doth know.</span></div><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_230" name="Page_230"></a></div><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_230" name="Page_230"></a><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_230" name="Page_230"><div class="footnotes"><div class="center">FOOTNOTES:</div><div class="footnote"></div></div></a><br />
<div class="footnotes"><div class="footnote"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Footnote_O_15" name="Footnote_O_15"></a><a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14328/14328-h/14328-h.htm#FNanchor_O_15"><span class="label">[O]</span></a> This is not, of course, literally true, though the Tigris and Euphrates rise in the same mountain district.</div></div><h3><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_231" name="Page_231">II.</a></h3><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_231" name="Page_231">'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?'<br />
</a><br />
'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 accomplish<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_232" name="Page_232">ing 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:</a><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_232" name="Page_232"></a><br />
<div class="blockquot">'"All things surveying, all things overhearing."' </div><h3>S<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_233" name="Page_233">ONG II.<br />
The True Sun.</a></h3><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_233" name="Page_233"></a><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_233" name="Page_233"><div class="poem"><div class="stanza">Homer with mellifluous tongue<br />
Phœbus' glorious light hath sung,<br />
<span class="i2">Hymning high his praise;</span><br />
<span class="i2">Yet <em>his</em> feeble rays</span><br />
Ocean's hollows may not brighten,<br />
Nor earth's central gloom enlighten.</div><div class="stanza">But the might of Him, who skilled<br />
This great universe to build,<br />
<span class="i2">Is not thus confined;</span><br />
<span class="i2">Not earth's solid rind,</span><br />
Nor night's blackest canopy,<br />
Baffle His all-seeing eye.</div><div class="stanza">All that is, hath been, shall be,<br />
In one glance's compass, <br />
He<span class="i2">Limitless descries;</span><br />
<span class="i2">And, save His, no eyes</span><br />
All the world survey—no, none!<br />
<em>Him</em>, then, truly name the Sun.</div></div></a><div class="poem"><div class="stanza"></div></div><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_234" name="Page_234">III.</a><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_234" name="Page_234">Then said I: 'But now I am once more perplexed by a problem yet more difficult.'<br />
</a><br />
'And what is that?' said she; 'yet, in truth, I can guess what it is that troubles you.'<br />
<br />
'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 <a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_235" name="Page_235">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.</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_235" name="Page_235">'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 <em>therefore</em> 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 </a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_236" name="Page_236">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,</a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="FNanchor_P_16" name="FNanchor_P_16"></a><a class="fnanchor" href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14328/14328-h/14328-h.htm#Footnote_P_16"><span style="font-size: x-small;">[P]</span></a> 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 fore<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_237" name="Page_237">seen 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 <em>know</em> that anything is, that thing<em>necessarily</em> is, so when I know that anything will be, it will<em>necessarily</em> be. It follows, then, that things foreknown come to pass inevitably.</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_237" name="Page_237">'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.</a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_238" name="Page_238"> 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?</a><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_238" name="Page_238"></a><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_238" name="Page_238"><div class="poem"><div class="stanza"><span class="i2">'"Whate'er I say</span>Shall either come to pass—or not."</div></div><div class="noindent"><br />
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 </div></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_239" name="Page_239">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. </a><br />
<br />
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 re<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_240" name="Page_240">ferred 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.'</a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_241" name="Page_241"></a><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_241" name="Page_241"></a><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_241" name="Page_241"><div class="footnotes"><div class="center">FOOTNOTES:</div><div class="footnote"></div></div></a><div class="footnotes"><div class="footnote"><a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14328/14328-h/14328-h.htm#FNanchor_P_16"><span class="label">[P]</span></a> <em>I.e.</em>, the necessity of the truth of the statement from the fact.</div></div><h3>SONG III.<br />
Truth's Paradoxes.</h3><div class="poem"><div class="stanza">Why does a strange discordance break<br />
<span class="i2">The ordered scheme's fair harmony?</span><br />
Hath God decreed 'twixt truth and truth<br />
<span class="i2">There may such lasting warfare be,</span><br />
That truths, each severally plain,<br />
We strive to reconcile in vain?</div><div class="stanza">Or is the discord not in truth,<br />
<span class="i2">Since truth is self consistent ever?</span><br />
But, close in fleshly wrappings held,<br />
<span class="i2">The blinded mind of man can never</span><br />
Discern—so faint her taper shines—<br />
The subtle chain that all combines?</div><div class="stanza">Ah! then why burns man's restless mind<br />
<span class="i2">Truth's hidden portals to unclose?</span><br />
Knows he already what he seeks?<br />
<span class="i2">Why toil to seek it, if he knows?</span><br />
Yet, haply if he knoweth not,<br />
Why blindly seek he knows not what?<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="FNanchor_Q_17" name="FNanchor_Q_17"></a><a class="fnanchor" href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14328/14328-h/14328-h.htm#Footnote_Q_17"><span style="font-size: x-small;">[Q]</span></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_242" name="Page_242"></a><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_242" name="Page_242"></a></div><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_242" name="Page_242"></a></div><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_242" name="Page_242"><div class="poem"><div class="stanza">Who for a good he knows not sighs?<br />
<span class="i2">Who can an unknown end pursue?</span><br />
How find? <br />
How e'en when haply found<br />
<span class="i2">Hail that strange form he never knew?</span><br />
Or is it that man's inmost soul<br />
Once knew each part and knew the whole?</div><div class="stanza">Now, though by fleshly vapours dimmed,<br />
<span class="i2">Not all forgot her visions past;</span><br />
For while the several parts are lost,<br />
<span class="i2">To the one whole she cleaveth fast;</span><br />
Whence he who yearns the truth to find<br />
Is neither sound of sight nor blind.</div><div class="stanza">For neither does he know in full,<br />
<span class="i2">Nor is he reft of knowledge quite;</span><br />
But, holding still to what is left,<br />
<span class="i2">He gropes in the uncertain light,</span><br />
And by the part that still survives<br />
To win back all he bravely strives.</div></div></a><div class="poem"><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_242" name="Page_242"></a></div><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_242" name="Page_242"><div class="footnotes"><div class="center">FOOTNOTES:</div><div class="footnote"></div></div></a><a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14328/14328-h/14328-h.htm#FNanchor_Q_17"><span class="label">[Q]</span></a> Compare Plato, 'Meno,' 80; Jowett, vol. ii., pp. 39, 40.<br />
<h3><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_243" name="Page_243">IV.</a></h3><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_243" name="Page_243">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.</a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_244" name="Page_244"> 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 in<em>this</em> case?'</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_244" name="Page_244">'Certainly not.'<br />
</a><br />
'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 <a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_245" name="Page_245">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?'</a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_246" name="Page_246"></a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_246" name="Page_246">'No; certainly not. There would be no efficacy in skill if all motions took place perforce.'<br />
</a><br />
'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 <em>free</em>. 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 <a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_247" name="Page_247">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.</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_247" name="Page_247">'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 </a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_248" name="Page_248">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 </a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_249" name="Page_249">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 <em>thing</em> 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.'</a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_250" name="Page_250"></a><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" id="Page_250" name="Page_250"></a>Lloyd Gillespiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900009452723717618noreply@blogger.com0