Above and Below The Surface.....The Inner Relationship Of Temporal and Spatial Values

added p.s. and p.s.s. below after post.......

That's not a headache to me ole buddy. I think I follow you for the most part as with the old post you provided being one of the more clear moments I tried to express the asymmetry actually conserving a more fundamental symmetry. I can understand the representation and translate the symbols, but the main thing you'll have to help me with is understanding how to apply it and what type of information it will extract. For instance, does it have the ability to form quantitative calculations because the way I understand it so far is through the isomorphic relationships of the various systems it is intended to represent.

The universal center of mass is the barycenter product of the various galactic centers of mass, which are barycenters of their constituent black holes, solar systems etc. which further break down all the way to the atomic levels. The coupling forces of each of the constituent systems concentrate their mass values to form point center representations whereby their composite mass acts at the next larger scale to further concentrate it's mass value. If the universe was to cycle to a contraction aspect, the universal composite barycenter would be the dynamic point to which all systems condensed towards. This is part of some of the aspects that I interpret as having to be considered from your representation. Also needing to consider the actual transitional phases through time and space working from these center masses whereby all of the quantitative dimensions eg energy, momentum, velocity, frequency, wavelength, etc, of the various systems which establish the characteristics of such systems are conserved in an isomorphic manner whereby their very distribution determines the identification of the system being observed. The key to understanding such is by way of realizing that seemingly unrelated and non-interchangable properties are actually interchangeable when considering the transition through time and space, and not just space or just time as most dimensions of a system and the equations thereof attempt to define. For instance, Einstein established that energy and mass are interchangable at the constant value of cc, and Planck used his value to equate energy to frequency, yet such values as velocity are also interchangable with various other internal system values if one considers not just the ever present state of a system which most of science's focus is on, but also the ever present cost to remain in such a state. I would argue with Newton here, an object in motion might stay in motion, but such motion is far from free. Velocity is the quantitative value of a system maintaining a stable state for any duration. To relate to Pierce here, remaining in the present moment in any one state is a required value of the sum of all other system values. Rearrange or morph the values or Va of a system and a different system is formed with some of it's quantities surfacing in the everpresent realm whose values are readily available to measure, while other quantities are conserved to those temporally hidden values which only show up as an aspect of a rate of change or velocity contributor.

I guess what I'm getting at is that some values of a system can be considered as intrinsically linked to spatial aspects, while others can be considered as linked to temporal aspects. Thus being as the spatial dimensions are more available to us, those values upon it's surface are better understood, while those hidden by temporal aspects below the surface have allowed the relational aspect of all values to remain hidden from our perception until we consider that moving through time isn't any more free of effort than moving through space or distance. Yet, how we move through both simultaneously is resolved by how we distribute the internal motion or Va of a system. And as suggested before, some changes of a system are to the extent that the system perhaps hasn't enough time to morph itself to remain functioning as a group, thus not meeting a parameter whereby quantities of substance are moved as a result whereby balance is maintained by imbalanced phenomena. Which if veiwed from the reversible aspect, sheds light on not only decay, but also construction.

I see all this clearly. Even if I'm off a little on some aspects, I know the logic is sound, but considering what I'm saying here and if your representation is addressing all of this, then at it's current composition, is it only addressing the relationship of such things, or does it allow such a means of perhaps extracting quantitative values of those things being conserved? Does it allow further applications, or merely bring others to this level of understanding the relationship of such things? Or am I a little off the mark?

P.S. The best way I can make an analogy is to consider that we can imagine as some already do, the present as being refreshed at a constant interval. It doesn't matter if it's steady or exact, because there is no external reference, thus just as we can't tell how long we've been a sleep, if one interval is different than another, there's no way of knowing, but all points are refreshed simultaneously. Now if we have a photon, the distance it must be moved every time the system flashes/refreshes is much greater than that of a macro object. However, the time or bandwidth it takes to constantly reconstruct a massive system is much greater than the photon. Thus, the difference of the distance being moved every cycle of the photon is equal and innerchangeable to the greater complexity of the massive system, whereby unrelated values are found to conserve to each other by way of their relationship to space and time and the simple cost of being preserved in the everpresent present moment.

P.S.S. Once we zoom inside the massive objects, their subatomic structures actually cover the same distance per hypothetical refreshing as does the one bit photon, such distance is merely confined to a localized region ie angular motion rather than extended through space thus accomplishing the accuracies of the linear distance variance discussed above.

Ok__Let me give you a geo-head-ache...

The Universal Isomorphic Algorithm__UIA = ∑∫∏v -> IC:M Iff / ≡ ∑’s •…(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…)

"If one knows the logic’s inference path, one can do the math…" me

How's that for 'smart-ars'...? It's a geo-formula, and it's fully universal__and this is also what I interpreted your newest mirror analogy into__but it's actually from an older economic concept I developed, back in the mid-`80's__by grouping all 231 global nations into one concept, within the borders of a fictitious model of America__as I was having trouble wrapping my logical conceptual mind around all the foreign exchange mechanics of the world, outside America's borders, and its known mechanical influences and controls upon America, and America's lesser controls upon all these other nations... The point is Tim, I hadn't realized I'd already stumbled upon a 'Universal Algorithm' I'd been looking for, for years, until you posted the other day about the mirror analogy__and of course mirror analogies triggered my mind into its memory analogies of your mirror analogies' relationships__as I see the mind thoroughly inter-connected in all its inference processing mechanics__clear back into our earliest memory states, and intelligence concepts of__Simply trained memory states, to me anyway...

Anyway, the point is more that a 'Universal Formula' was even discoverable at all, and that such a formula was sitting in me lil' ol' brain since the mid-`80's, as a logical concept, I'd never realized could be written as a symbolic mathematical algorithm, though possibly a little bit complex algebra/calculus. Don't take the formula as fully formed just yet, as I simply wrote it as I followed the logical inference path, from your mirror analogies, to my older economic group integration analogies. The key in the formula is the 'Isomorphic Variables' of group unifications of concepts, whether they be our 'Structured Matter Concepts' of macro physics, our 'Unstructured Matter Concepts' of FS-Fields to any smaller infinitesimal fields, or my 'Foreign Exchange Integration Concepts'__the main factor is the realization of a 'Variable Mechanics' being able to be mathematized at all__at least one of this magnitude of 'Universal Import...' Tim, as far as I can see, this formula has the capacity to take Dave's Va = Vr + Vu formula, and fill in all the 'Necessary Variables' Mechanics Maths' to actually solve for all the force and mass unknowns__we are certainly looking for, imo... Also, by going back over many of your other analogies and graphics__I can probably reduce the algorithm's present complexity, even more. I've just simply not thought about algorithmically mathematizing all this material, as we've proceded__as my brain only kicks in fully, when it's gathered enough information, to satisfy my insatiable thirst__Just the way I am... :-)

You see, I've actually been looking for this algorithm for my economics proofs for some thirty years, without ever realizing it sat directly within the logic I'd already discovered years ago__but just didn't have the translation knowledge back then, to turn 1st order logic into 1st order math__which I've since learned preliminarily how to do, at the smallest and largest levels__at least as to its general operations' rules, which I think is all we need to start with... Any missing pieces we can work out along the way, but I only discovered this a few days ago, after you posted the mirrors' analogy, to trigger my memory to my own older analogies__so I've really been working on the economic end of the proofs, which of course involve so much of the mental gymnastics of recent posts, as economics is so psychologically dependent__if you hadn't noticed of recent, over the U.S. Debt downgrade, etc. Investors are all nervous nut-cases__and economists can't work totally in hard logics and maths, and imo, neither can physicists__though they may think they can__as the real world of others' actions is always going to upset the best functioning apple carts. Anyway, the formula allows for all these 'variables', even the psychological ones, to be factored into the total mechanics of this new 'Universal Algorithm...'

It's funny such a formula of such humongous economic complexity, could actually interpret into a first order arithmetic and logic, so simple, in its overall performance__a child could see its effectiveness, though you probably ain't following me yet__I think you will, as I later procede...

(Here's some of my relational notes about the above... This stuff's all preliminary Tim, as it's too new to completely work out yet, but I know it works, as the economic logic, I've been using for years, works__and that's of course what the algorithm is founded on__but, being Universal__it functions for physics, as well... Btw, I first discovered my first economic algorithm, E = 1/5X, while searching into physics' maths__thus solving for this highly complex integration of money mechanics, which this algorithmic logic and math turns into__and so the circle goes, round and round... Tim, I gotta' be free, in my thinking, in order for my mind to be creative, even though it may be difficult for you to follow__sometimes... It all fits into one 'puzzle-picture...')

"Where's the demarcation line, between important and unimportant quantum infinitesimals...?"

Mathematical Logic__The Highest Best Ordered Logic…!!!
The Mathematical Ordering of Fully Functioning Inference Logic…
FOP’L(first order proof logic)__Why the laws of thought are absolutely necessary…
The naked mind must respect the laws of thought, or truth, math and logic are impossible…
Mathematics dictionary…
Background Logic & Foreground Memory…
Time Conservation__Events Preserve Progressions…
Conservation of Logic__Only Logic Conserves Truth…
Logic Is Conservation of Truth Mechanics…
Logic To Prove Necessary Action…
Combinatoric Conjunctive Logic…
Integral Group Compactifications…
Imaginary Time Reversal Logic…
Self-Intelligence Calculation Space…
Working Memory Concept Space…
Isomorphic Groupoid Arithmetic/Algebra…
Time & Economic Split-Ends…
Intellectual Privilege & Priority of Objective Intellect, Over Subjective Feelings…
The Absolute Necessity of Our Knowledge of The External World…
The Unification of Science & Philosophy…
The ‘Conservation of Time’ integrations of math progressions, over events…
Combinatoric Conjunctive Time Logic…
The Combinatoric Time Matrix…
The Time-Distance Distinction…???
The Time Dimension of Distance__The Bandwidth Necessity Expands As Values Approach c, And When The Bus Compacts To Limit__or Structured Systems Broaden Out As They Reach Field Velocities, Then Decay Back Into Fundamental FS-Field, By Decompaction Necessity…
Explanation & Explication Can Not Do, Without Logic & Arithmetic…
QM’s Theoretical Measurement Scale…!!!
Logic Is Mathematics…
No logic exists without formal logic…
Concept Inference Mechanics Avoids The Pseudo-Linguistic Problems…
Truth__The world is the way it is, as it is at this moment, or at any other moment__as it can be no other way. The world exists as it exists…
The Concepts-Meanings Distinction…
The Isomorphics of All Small Fields Add-Up, To The Large Field Total__The Addition to Continuum Necessity…
The Logically Scientific Background of All Knowledge…
Logic Is The Default State of Path Necessity…
Information Quantification & Validity...
The Fundamental EM-Hydrodynamic Scalar Wave, of State Changes At Limit__i.e., When Low Density Fermions Decay To Photons…
If it ain’t scientific, it ain’t provably true…

UIA = ∑∫∏v -> IC:M Iff / ≡ ∑’s •…(Formula sums to the center of all sums, while differentiating all its time fixed, and variable parts__Seems to be a universal algorithm of possibly all universal formulas…?)
__...

Chew on that a bit...

Later Tim

P.s.
Just looking back over our older posts Tim, and I found this post of your's, which also relates to my post and formula: May help add clarity:

There seem to be many relationships which satisfy the instantaneous current state of a system Lloyd, but this tells us little about how a system got where it is, and the steps taken to get there with further state changes and such which would be the unified calculus type relationship of change over time by way of distributing composite 'e' through its many constituent values of v m a f λ, etc, as Va is conserved. When all values have to be satisfied in some conserved manner, we can better understand the effects of rad decay and the atomic clock relationship of QM to RM. This is the asymmetry conserving a deeper unified symmetry which I've mentioned. This is how Dave referenced Va I think. When each system achieves absolute motion, it must satisfy the conservation relationships of the many internal values. An autonomous system is reduced to its specific distribution of Va=e whereby each system has the same ingredients, but the ratios by which they are mixed together determine the characteristics of the system being observed. It's conservation in every direction thus homogenous mechanics. Consider what would happen to the constituent electrons and such if we were to slow or speed up a large composite body if they must further internally conserve the Va of their systems. Studying the composite conservation from Va of the larger body internally into the individualized systems as with our past discussions of Jupiter's effects and such opens up many avenues of exploration if we can work these mechanics out properly.

Bio Headache

I'm not contradicting myself Lloyd and I still see some misinterpretation within your response but i'm kinda tired of beating a dead horse. We simply aren't aligned in our language enough just yet to relate at that level of the logic of logic, thought of thought, etc. It's a pain of ass to attempt it just yet because the conversation turns on a simple word or mostly where I don't follow through with a very precise meaning. Let me just say, I have no problem with your inference mechanics, self awareness or whatever. My exploration was merely in reference to how to get our own thoughts to penetrate past all composite states of thinking, where logic, perception, thought, etc. might have a more fundamental aspect and such concepts as the potential for there being an algorithm to finding laws of science (as with one of your past links) might be addressed. I'm too tired to try to explain such an approach and don't have it fully worked out in my thoughts anyways.

Basically, and I know you'll find fault here as well, yes I percieve the world by way of my thoughts, and yes I can percieve how to logically sort information and such within my own mind, but for me to consider for example such things as an artificial way to process information whereby potentially exploiting other means of scientific discovery and such, I am lead to seek such answers at a deeper relational information level than that of my own composite thought processes. Before you go off on a rant, I'm not promoting artificial intelligence or implying that computers will ever be what we are. I'm just exploring a potential relationship of all things at the most fundamental levels, the interface of bio and geo systems. If logic, philosophy, inference mechanics, etc, is the important layers in your opinion that's fine. I see there importance, but I'm wanting to dig deeper into the very fabric of nature itself, if possible.

I read all your posts by the way, but can't remember every little detail to what we discuss, and for someone who suggested finding ways of communicating to the masses, some of your use of language goes over my head. I read encyclopedias growing up for the fun of it cause I liked flipping through the pages and learning about everything, as it was the best collection of knowledge I had. However, I never had a desire to read a damn dictionary. So, consider my language skills classified as being somewhere between country bumkin and red neck with the few sophisticated words I might put in a post having seldom been spoken out of my mouth cause my beer drinking friends wouldn't know what the hell I was saying. Believe me. I've tried it from time to time just for kicks. Thus, then and therefore, there is a good chance I might not have caught what you were saying, or did catch it and forgot. If you see me going over something you've explored believe me that I'm not trying to take credit as I try to reference your ideas from my own but we have been at this for a long time now and handled more shit than a sewer line, so it is understandable that we have such issues.

If it's all the same to you, I'd like to discuss geo nature for a while cause all this thinking about myself is giving me a headache. Lol. It's frustrating to me to mix the two and give a good post which you credit me for in part, then we go through several posts arguing over the other stuff. I'd rather speak on where we agree for a while and the disagreements might work themselves out. I'm also fluent in 'smart ass' as you can see. Lmao

The Innate Tri-Focal Perspective...

Hey, let me build an innate brain mechanics for ya... I see a lotta mistakes you make, and I've seen many make the same mistakes__but, mostly__I've never known why most people make these mistakes, except mayby the academics__as they just seem to brainwash themselves away from their own natural understandings of themselves, and their fundamental brain mechanics... Others, I just don't know__as mine's always been the same, since I was a kid__I see my inner mental and memory worlds' concepts__and I see much of the mechanics that self-operates them. Maybe I'm weird, who knows...???

Let me clarify this quote that you seem to be stuck on.

"The more we learn about it, the more we simply and inevitably learn about ourselves. We don't have to be able to see within if we simply identify with that which is taking place externally. Thus, we have effectively defeated the barrier of layers or so I would think."

The point of much of that post is that yes, we draw our intelligence internally from within our mental process in terms of thought structuring, logic, and such whereby our link to nature will always be filtered by our intellect as that's the only means of us experiencing nature. However, this only seems to work on external aspects as when we are very young it is more obvious that we learn much more from impersonating our external souroundings as we begin to walk and talk than we learn from any internal aspects because we haven't yet built the layers of information required to sort back towards how it is that we are doing such things at all.

Tim, don't you notice in this paragraph, that you first say "...we draw our intelligence internally from within our mental process in terms of thought structuring, logic, and such..."__then in the same paragraph, you say; "...this only seems to work on external aspects..."__yet, you don't seem to notice your own self-contradictions. Tim, one's logic can't be consistent if first it's internal, then next it's external, about the same person's intelligence mechanics__logic, which you mentioned, don't allow it... We couldn't have any logic, logical validity or truth, if it did__this is just basic logic... Tim, I think your mistake is not realizing we have a lifetime stored memory of concepts, of many subject areas, that we tap by internal means of intellect, perception, cognition or whatever you may wish to call it, which in turn accesses these internal memory pictures__to create new logic and ideas, from old logic and ideas__as old concepts have plenty of old logic and ideas in them. I know I've had such self-created somewhat holographic memory concepts, ever since I was a child. I can't see how any child could have evolved without such memory concepts, of what burns one's fingers, how much height can this body withstand upon a fall, how big an animal does it take to eat me, on and on__Which are our naturally self-created__by our internal mental processes__yes, originally from our outside world, way back when__but the fact remains__we memory store these self-survival concepts, all our lives. We self-created em Tim, for our own benefit, just as we learned the concepts of the foods we like, and the temperature we like to keep our bodies, or the sexual process concepts we devise to attract a lady__External forces or such don't do this personal creating of concepts__We do...!!! Now, if you can't see that internal mechanics, packed on top of our external visions, experiences and feelings__I pitty you__but, the way you speak so easily honest, I know you see these same paths. Only certain stupid books and people try and convince us we see otherwise__Na Da...!!!

Tim, simply "impersonating our external souroundings" isn't all there is to it__There's a personal feeling, seeing, hearing, smelling tasting and touching brain of high intelligence__behind that simple external mechanics... Yes, we do impersonate our surroundings, but that's only one lil' bit o' it... The greater part is us learning how to use our internal mechanics of natural logic, natural math, natural fears and confidences, and all such related mechanics of the five innate senses... That is no simple mechanics we learn, Tim__and it's our quantum manipulation of such concepts, that takes up over 90% of our waking hours of thought__so, I think you really oughta' start taking a look at what's the more important aspects of living personally in tune with the largest number of people__as that's what you are gonna' carry with you, into the grave__not your external visions, of a world that's scientifically known to be unseeable__as to its whole, at any given moment, or even over an entire lifetime__but, we can know ourselves, and function much more fully, by understanding that mechanics__of innate intellectual mechanics... Now, maybe you don't think you want to__but, let me tell ya__I've learned far more about quantum mechanics, after learning this innate mechanics, than all the hundreds of volumes of physics texts, I've devoured... Just letting you know__We quantum mechanically process innate-functioning concepts__or we have zero intelligence, and that's either of the external world, internal objective world, or the internal subjective world__or all three at once, if you're a mind to...

Cheer up__It gets worse... :-)

Nature eventually provides the road back to ourselves.

We can also purposely dig our way back to ouselves, if we've a mind to... I did, but it was one hell of a battle...

The problem is that when we get to the point of turning our focus on ourselves, the methods which benifited us thus far become useless with going past the inner barrier of the underlying constituent functions which govern composite thought processes.

Whatever you are talking about here, Tim__I don't take that pessimistic a point of view about the path away from, or back to oneself. I find no inner barrier to the underlying constituent functions which govern my composite thought processes, except those sub-atomic ones I don't need to know, as I can more strongly manipulate the quantum level of concepts__I simply use the laws of concept mechanics, or put simply, I re-arrange the concepts, first by trial and error__and by doing so long enough__I learned to develop a very successful scientific method, for handling my innate concept mechanics' systems... I did this from the `70's on into the mid-`80's, and yes it was a lotta' work, but very rewarding. The method was simple mathematical and measurement exaggerations, which I later narrowed to the facts... I've used the same method ever since, but I'd discovered the secret was to use these extreme exaggerations, and many of em__then re-process em enough times that the picture of concepts eventually falls into place__then I re-check the mechanics with reverse or inverse maths__First group and conjunct, then de-group and disjunct... I learned to work from the end of my problems, back to the beginning, though__this is probably opposite from you. I had to though, as my wife's mind works backwards__and I mean that literally, as her and her sisters reversed their mind mechanics, early on, for self-survival in a bad end of town... Since I wanted to live in her world, I had to force my mind to understand a counterfactual world, of a very small minority group of female thinkers__been worth it though__she's logically brilliant...

Tim, there are no "underlying constituent functions which govern composite thought processes" we do not already have access to__iff we wish__It's all simple seeing within one's own mind, to its core mechanics of memory concepts, intellect, judgment, will, etc... There's nothing hidden, if you're willing to look deep enough... I read thousands of books and never truly learned any more than looking in, when I was five years old__I'm not one damn bit different, right now__no matter how much external information/knowledge I know... It's really all about knowing where to find it, when you need it, or want it... Most of it's automatically stored in memory anyway, naturally by nature's autonomous wave mechanics__but we can fully internally mechanically manipulate that__as we will, by our simple concept mechanics, and our natural inference mechanics__self-acting over the top of the natural mechanics...

It seems a system can produce no information about itself at those levels without referencing another system.

Tim, have you not yet understood, the bio-system has the only self-referencing system__the external Universe totally lacks...? This self-referencing system not only sees its many memory concepts, it also sees its own geometric shaping of concepts like triangles, squares and circles, etc., which it can zoom in and out on, just by thinking, or throw any number of concept images around, reshape em, or whatnot__which is no more than self-manipulating the innate mechanics of concepts... You know you do it, so why do you deny it...? All potential intelligence, or potential intelligence increase is innate, Tim__whether you wish to admit it or not__All the 'best' scientists have always admitted it... Internal measurement is just as important, and really more so, than external measurement__as science is 'measurement', in its simplest definition...

This is perhaps because information has no context unless within a relational aspect as with either a background dependence or independence.

No, information as knowledge of self-mechanics is known by all children, and I just happen to remember it very clearly, Tim... We see concepts, Tim... We manipulate concepts, Tim... The brain is grounded to its body, Tim... It's a bio-quantum-chemical-geological system__All in one, Tim... Your skull is welcoming you home, Tim...

Think of the mirror analogy, those various systems had to reference each other to establish any relevance of time or distance.

Woah Tim, mirror systems don't reference each other__we the observers are the only reference systems of your mirror analogy__The Geo-Universe just simply__'Is...!!!

Yes, both reference frames functioned just fine per internal length contraction mechanics but to establish a time aspect, they had to reference the photon clock, which in turn led them to realize that their distance aspect was relational and relative.

Ditto, as per above, Tim... 'We' be the only referencers... Ya can't treat the Universe(outside bio-brains) as though it's alive, and expect a scientific mind to accept such abuse of language and concepts...

The processes of the mind function just fine in terms of processing thoughts and we can look within to better understand how such is accomplished, but to truly pass the barrier whereby we might establish how such works at a more fundamental level, we simply need an external reference so that the extractable information there has a background or relational aspect whereby it finds it's place within the universal mechanics.

Not true, again Tim... There's always more than one way to skin a cat. You're most likely referring to the wave-particle interactions, which have no background 'known' to our minds, except our innate knowledge of logic and math, which probabilistically and statistically shows the FS-Field to be the case__the background independent field, imo, since we've nothing else to ground it to__It's really an incommensurable unknown, in many aspects, such at to; 'Is it finite or infinite...???' Other than that, the mind knows its own constitution, within a body it's internally and externally learned about since birth. When one grounds their mind, first in the body, life becomes much less complicated__It's simple necessary mechanics, as you can't get to that external Universe until you ground the quantum world__'first'__in the body__then, and only then, the body reaches out and touches the real World and Universe... Science has presently got it backwards, Tim... Turn it around, and all becomes clear... This is simply one of the historical time evolution problems__but, quite a major one, as it drastically affects/effects all global economics__just as well it does physics...

Speaking of the clock reference, notice how every oscillation device we have is actually functioning by tying in to another reference frames' wave mechanics whether working from mechanical stored energy, atomic interactions, astronomical observations or electrical, they are always our link to a steady oscillation coming from a higher velocity reference source.

You know Tim, I'd think you didn't actually read a thing I post, if I didn't know better. Do you really know just how many times I've mentioned just this same concept, in different words and concepts...??? You have to make up your mind, just how much you wish your ideas linked to the whole, or to the parts__then, and only then, you can procede properly, with science...

They simply modulate the frequency to our frames' reference of the slower moving hands of a clock. We simply need the interface of fields to establish meaning yet we lose sight of how we are linked to such.

The interface of the fields to establish meaning__we need not lose sight of__as to how we are linked to em__is by way of fully understanding inference and concept mechanics, related to memory, intellect, judgment, will, experiences, the '6' senses and the external world__That's all rationality and logic__'Within Mathematics' Memory Concepts...'

Bio Bifocals

added thought: our recognition of energy and forces are how we interpret informational processes from the discrete absolute perspective. That's what I was getting at there. Still matter in motion as with wave mechanics and such, but relational to information aspects. You'll also notice below how I relate the external mirror analogy to the self sustained aspects of a system vs. those aspects which require a seperate reference frame. This very aspect of using the mirror analogy is loosely similar to what I mean about furthering our internal knowledge by means of observing external geo interactions. some aspects of a system are intrinsic to the system eg length contraction of the geo and internal logic of the bio, while others require a reference eg temporal reference of the geo and fundamental bio apsects referenced to geo interactions. It's confusing I know, but necessary to discuss. I see more out of context misunderstandings between us, but none worth distracting where I think the conversation needs to focus.

I just got to work and thought I'd go ahead and clarify a few things in case you were still wandering around the Internet universe this evening. We both seem to be taking aspects out of context Lloyd, which is understandable. Let me clarify this quote that you seem to be stuck on.

"The more we learn about it, the more we simply and inevitably learn about ourselves. We don't have to be able to see within if we simply identify with that which is taking place externally. Thus, we have effectively defeated the barrier of layers or so I would think."

The point of much of that post is that yes, we draw our intelligence internally from within our mental process in terms of thought structuring, logic, and such whereby our link to nature will always be filtered by our intellect as that's the only means of us experiencing nature. However, this only seems to work on external aspects as when we are very young it is more obvious that we learn much more from impersonating our external souroundings as we begin to walk and talk than we learn from any internal aspects because we haven't yet built the layers of information required to sort back towards how it is that we are doing such things at all. Nature eventually provides the road back to ourselves. The problem is that when we get to the point of turning our focus on ourselves, the methods which benifited us thus far become useless with going past the inner barrier of the underlying constituent functions which govern composite thought processes. It seems a system can produce no information about itself at those levels without referencing another system. This is perhaps because information has no context unless within a relational aspect as with either a background dependence or independence.

Think of the mirror analogy, those various systems had to reference each other to establish any relevance of time or distance. Yes, both reference frames functioned just fine per internal length contraction mechanics but to establish a time aspect, they had to reference the photon clock, which in turn led them to realize that their distance aspect was relational and relative. The processes of the mind function just fine in terms of processing thoughts and we can look within to better understand how such is accomplished, but to truly pass the barrier whereby we might establish how such works at a more fundamental level, we simply need an external reference so that the extractable information there has a background or relational aspect whereby it finds it's place within the universal mechanics.

Speaking of the clock reference, notice how every oscillation device we have is actually functioning by tying in to another reference frames wave mechanics whether working from mechanical stored energy, atomic interactions, astronomical observations or electrical, they are always our link to a steady oscillation coming from a higher velocity reference source. They simply modulate the frequency to our frames reference of the slower moving hands of a clock. We simply need the interface of fields to establish meaning yet we lose sight of how we are linked to such.

The Duck That Quacks Backwards__Conservation of Triadic Time Mechanics__Frequency_Amplitude_Wave Lengths...

Hi Tim, very very funny, ol' pal. I think this is your best explication of your position so far. I can finally see the depth of your points about distance, dimensions and the time dynamics of, by way of frequency, amplitude and wave-length/bandwidth mechanics__excellent post, but I've first gotta deal with some of these silly mental points, as they are quite funny to me...

I read this partial paragraph of your last post to my wife, and was about to post to you, when you wrote this most recent post. Anyway, she also saw the inconsistencies in what you stated here:

The more we learn about it, the more we simply and inevitably learn about ourselves. We don't have to be able to see within if we simply identify with that which is taking place externally. Thus, we have effectively defeated the barrier of layers or so I would think.

Tim, my wife suggested asking you; "How do you learn, without looking in to your own memory...?" You see Tim, it's your use of 'blanket statement' words and ideas that chase me to showing you the importance of how our thought mechanics works__and that's meaning; 'Works according to the mechanics of the external world, yet is multiplied internally by physical memory storage mechanics, which is dynamically updatable'__whereas, the external data/information is not updatable__it's fixed as fully structured systems information, repeating over and over just about identically, every time a new star is born, etc., on and on... Stars have no capacity to update their information databases, as do humans, which also have the ability to 'Create' totally new knowledge realizations of such systems, including themselves... No external system can do this. You keep trying to over-concentrate on the external mechanics, as though it's all that exists__it's not__and yet you are constantly using your own 'internal thought and intelliegence mechanics', while denying the extra-bio capacity to re-arrange information systems, into entirely new information systems__which external systems have no capacity to do the same, even though the external systems are actually building the internal systems__the internal bio-systems become autonomous thinkers, once constructed__or no new information creation would even or ever be possible__which you keep forgetting or avoiding... These facts ain't avoidable, Tim...

Here's another statement, that made me laugh;

I simply refuse to put thought as a fundamental system Lloyd, no matter how much our egos might suggest it. To me it must be explained by the most fundamental of interactions which underly the entire rest of the inanimate universe.

Tim, what are you using 100% of the time__marbles, ducks, frogs...? Thought is all you have to use__'Inner Thought...' I really got a kick outta' this line... Tim, thought is not a fundamental system, and I've never said it was__I've said just the opposite__Yet, thought just happens to be the most important system of evolution__plain and simple__or you know nothing... Egos don't suggest anything about thought being fundamental, in my book, and I clearly stated; 'The World and Universe Are The Fundamental-Substance Maths and Logics of All Particles, and Particle-Wave Structures...' The Universe and World Itself, Are Combinatoric Math and Logic, Before 'Sh*thead Man', Ever Came Along... So Dave's comment about math being fallacious, though some math is, is BS... Tim, the human mind has nothing else to found the brain/mind on, except sound math, logic and the measurement of the experiments of__or you have nothing but the stupid 'Ego...' We don't need the 'Duck Quacking Backwards...' Tell me something; 'How am I gonna' get you to realize you got an intelligent brain...?' :-)? Just kidding, as you did produce one excellent post, even though you used no 'thought'__Now, there's a trick I'd like to know... Lmsfao...

Now let me point out a few more places where your mental cart is possibly sniffing far too much of the horse's ars'...

I won't make the same mistake by trying to place intelligence at the center of the universe.

Tim, again__What are you using to think with, if not intelligence...? If intelligence isn't the center of your personal universe__What is...? And no, this doesn't mean intelligence is sitting somewhere in the center of the real 'Totally Ignorant Universe', that by particle-field over-population, forces its mechanics to micro indeterminacy and macro determinacy__yet still, it's motion did force it to be mathematically combinatoric and logically organized along the way__That you can't deny, with the most central core intelligence, you possess... Do you see how little sense, that statement actually states...? Tim, each sentence we all speak is either a logical representation, or it's simply not__and when it's not, we construe meanings we had no intention of construing...

Intelligence and bio nature appears to have taken many eons to accomplish as it is the newest system or rather most recent layer in existence to be added to this complex universe. There's no evidence that it supercedes the same interactions which built the atoms, stars, galaxies, planets, bodies and brains required to allow for it's existence.

Tim, it isn't a point of superceding the interactions, the point is it supercedes the intelligence of interactions__as the interactions had 'zero' pre-biotic intelligence... You just seem to have a big problem of granting bio-beings the intelligence it's absolutely impossible for the geo-universe to have... What da ya want__Intelligent rocks...? :-) You're crossing up interactions and intelligence__two distinct subjects... Yes, intelligence requires quantum interactions, but the two independent subjects can be conflated, or you simply produce confusions... The Universe Is A "Stupid" Rock__"We Are Intelligent..."__"Only We Are__The Brilliant Bio-Bugs..."

There's only evidence that such fundamental interactions which constructed those various layers of existence simply reach a state where information is allowed to begin being structured differently. You point out the great complexity of the mind as proof of it's distinction from geo nature. I just see such mental complexity as proof that we don't fully understand the much greater complexity of geo nature whereby such things as imagination, structuring of ideas, free will, etc, can arise or perhaps as I suggest, how such complexity arises from mere parameters whereby the parameters aren't necessarily complex, but the outcomes through eons of factoring such parameters becomes that way.

I think you better dig your thinker outta' your ars' and simply realize it ain't gonna discredit your posts' excellent scientific ideas__to admit you are more intelligent than the 'Extremely Stupid Universe...' Tim, don't think I'm just 'picki-anny-ing' your post to death__as I'm actually attempting to make the very important point to you, of how intelligently evolved the Universe has become__But 'only' through 'Human Intelligence and Proper Inference Mechanics' Knowledge...' Otherwise, the Universe would just necessarily exist__'Lacking All Description...' You'll find these trivia points have far more importance to your science, than you thus far realize__at least from what I can tell of what you've written, as pertains to your trivializing of personal rational and logical intelligence... You know, the East did this very same thing centuries ago, Tim__Their scientists developed away from their earlier hard science, math and sound logic interpretations, into their more recent history of soft science interpretations, due to accusing math and logic of being the devil, and replacing their thinking with 'false intuitions' of their bogus 'intuitive egos...' You don't wanna' make that same mistake, over again...

I also find it easier to communicate the workings of the brain to an external reference than trying to develop the many laguage skills required to explain it in any other terms to people who may not speak my language.

Tim, think about this; "Where do you find the 'external reference' of concepts, or group and integration/separation of concepts...?" Just as Einstein stated in my last post to you; "Physical concepts and the laws of nature are "free creations of the human mind." Concepts also exist only in the brain/mind, Tim... You got no 'thinker' without memory state concepts... You can try and describe it with inter-actions all you wish__It's still the universally known word__ 'Concept...' See why the 'Universal Language' is so handy...? 'Interactions' don't replace the more easily understood word__'Concept'__All 'Concepts' Are Innate Self-Mechanical Processes__Period...!!!

If I were to search for free will, I'd simply look for where it emerged by such processes rather than seeking an intrinsic aspect of nature which accounted for it to be a separate function of a universe which otherwise had none.

Tim, if you'd stop mis-interpreting what I and others stated, you'd get further ahead. I said nothing about it being a function in the way you are interpreting my words. Tim, if you'd simply thoroughly read the last post entirely, especially the Addendum section, you'd clearly see the Universe of QM's indeterminate actions fully accounts for free-will inter-actions__that's what I've all along said__though bio-nature is certainly an extended thought function of what the geo-universe is doing, in the fact only the bio-universe has the soft-structured matter to allow the QM-Free-Will function, and any fundamental thought, to even exist. You oughta' get your concepts straight__"geo over there__bio over here... Lmsfao..." Or do you see soft-matter brains, outside of bio-skulls...? That's twice, lmsfao...

To me, there's enough uncertainty per QM in the things we will never know and can't measure which might accomadate such a concept, but this still doesn't rule out a simple overall concept of how the universe might function in terms of information rather than forces, matter, energy, etc.

Come on Tim, now you are over-stepping the bounds of real world science__Information 'Rather' than forces, matter, energy, etc...? Describe information without forces of particle-wave-mechanics, please...??? What to 'phuck' does information mean, without particle-wave-mechanics of a FS...? How would a brain even think information, without particle-wave-mechanics__Ghosts...???

Determinism is also debatable in many ways even with a discrete system if motion is quantized to spacetime, because the system would be on idle even If it weren't processing.

What about an isomorphic continuum mechanics possibility, of particles passing into field continuities, and 'condensating' back to real wave-particles... Though we can't measure such interactions, this is the core of QM's initial mechanics' theories, just as those mentioned by Dirac, in that last post of mine...

Every little motion doesn't have to be causal and constructive. I really see no way to accomplish a 100% efficent process which doesn't have wastful interactions.

And this is exactly the mechanics that allows the randomness, or indeterminacy of free-will to exist, as just about all those guys argued, in my last post's links. Furthermore those links represent over 140 philosophers and 100 scientists, with their free-will reasons and facts... What is the only thing you wanna' read, your own 'intuitive ego...?' lmsfao...

Ultimately, if we can't fit reality into physical processes being as we are materialists, where are we gonna fit it?

I've never said to fit it anywhere else, Tim... Your reading in ideas, that aren't there...

My materialist views simply don't allow such because if all is matter or substance then all can be explained by way of the physics of such a substance.

Never said it couldn't__What you been readin...??? You're readin-in to my ideas, Tim... It seems like you are using my ideas, I used to use to David, years ago__and I'm using some of David's ideas, to you, that he used to me... I'd like to be able to use my own__but conflation keeps blocking the path mechanics...

Intelligence is merely when the bio universe has reached such a state to be so far removed from the fundamental mechanics by which geo nature operates that they can't even be recognized as having any part in such intelligence any longer.

Yeah, and what intelligence system did you draw that from__A duck...? Intelligence exists only in brains/minds, Tim__and must have a rational intellectual free-will, to choose between stupidity and intelligence... You ain't gettin outta' the intelligence necessity of free-will, no matter how hard ya try... This reminds me of the skeptics who said they processed information from outside the real world__"Yeah, well just where is that...?" We must all 'process' all information from inside this dear lil' ol' skull__sittin atop our shoulders...

Yet, if we were to excavate through the many layers enough, the past universe is still presently within us also.

Tim, what are you__an epiphenomenoligist...? Sad to inform you__there's no past Universe still presently within us. Us is a blank slate, with a few__when compared to the whole Universe__waves with certain frequencies, amplitudes and varying wave lengths__constantly passing through us, feeding us all the information pool, we do freely choose from__but that nowhere's near makes an entire Universe. That's what Heisenberg was talking about in my last post to you__We never even possess all the information of even the present state of this simple world space, called Earth, because most of it is hidden within other passenger's heads, then there's the extreme immensity of the global information pool__just think about all the ideas existing in all the world's libraries, not even yet interpreted into any form of Universal Language, let alone our own... This is where the 'intuitive ego' thinks it knows far more than it possibly can, Tim... Knowledge is knowing what can't be known, just as much as it is knowing what can be known__and quite often the most important, to keep one from falling into mans very 'stupid intuitive ego...'

Tim, the biggest job in the world is separating one's ego from its true intelligence... I find it much easier to not know anything, than to know something, as I'm constantly having to edit every word I read, especially on the web and almost any new books. I do find some older 19th century masters' ideas worth listening to, but the modern world's gone nuts__completely, and I actually like it, because this means we are on the verge of necessary truth entering the present insanity...

Btw, your post's mechanics, up to the last few paragraphs is excellent__You are turning into a more sound scientific thinker, all the time, and__Thanks...!!!

Now__'How is it, wave-mechanically operationally possible, that one's own intelligence can talk to one's own stupidity__'Memory State Mechanics__Maybe...???' lmffao...

Maybe Our Bio Eyes are a Bit Near Sighted.....or perhaps it's just me.

Seems we found another one of those fundamental divides which seperate us. Lmao. That's ok. 

To bridge the gap between the two systems (bio vs geo) Lloyd, I'm suggesting that we've over complicated bio nature slghtly and under complicated geo nature entirely lmfao. I'm not saying that geo nature directly applies at the simple atomic levels as though making a direct comparison. I'm suggesting that at the subatomic information level, the rules are the same for both. When the atomic level of geo nature folds back in on itself to create a never before materialized bio interface due to the mechanical entropy of the system, then a distinction is made between the two systems, yet they still have fundamentally the same sub structure at the subatomic absolute resolution but it is the higher order entropy which now causes more complexity to emerge from the otherwise inanimate system. 

As I said, a very simple two dimensional program was made with each pixel having to operate per it's neighbors. I posted a similar one at TQ a few years ago. If surrounded on certain sides, a pixel made an action different than if not which ultimately led to very emergent patterns through the time aspect of the elapsed process and the space aspect of ever larger groups of pixels working together. Im not suggesting anything this simple, but consider how much more complicated a three dimensional system with more complex parameters than this might become.  It would potentially build in layers from the subatomic to the astronomical and back to the bio scales just like nature. 

This all goes back to my inference of a simple parameter such as a conservation of momentum over distance and through time overseeing a unique universal programming aspect which might shed light on the complexities of the system. A photon has momentum at it's velocity of c as does a massive system at a proportionately less velocity whereby due to c conservation the photon has less instantaneous momentum which it can impact another system with, but distributes it over a much larger distance within an equal interval of absolute time than does the more massive system which can reciprocally impact another system at a much greater eneregy level. 

This goes back to the animations I made also which I'm working further on in my thoughts and should be able to add more to later but can't do an animation cause I'm on a job away from my computer, but basically we go back to the falling bodies analogy (because its just easier to think in terms of falling) and imagine a two sided mirrored wall which represents absolute space and time extending to near infinity. Now we imgaine that on each side of the center wall there is another finite mirror equally spaced off the left and right side facing the center mirrored wall with one moving at near c and one moving at a much slower classical velocity. Now these two mirrors are divided up into equal intervals marked thereon whereby if both were going the same velocity the intervals would be the same, but the greater the velocity the shorter the intervals relative to each other ie distance contraction. Now, in between each of the two moving mirrors and the absolute stationary mirrored wall, a stream of photons (considering the particle view to make it easier) equally spaced is bouncing at a fixed constant angle between the mirrors as they move forward thus establishing a photon clock within each reference frame with a phase velocity of c and a group velocity much less depending upon the mirror spacing and angle of attack but for the thought experiment we'll just say that both photon wave packets are identical. The wavelength established by the photon wave packet also establishes an equal absolute spacing reference upon both sides of the center mirrored wall. Now we can consider a single photon in each frame of reference (on each side of the center mirror) being dropped at the same time and from the same position as the two mirrors go into motion/get dropped, with the photon clock simply running in the background with an endless stream of photons. 

So now we have two falling mirror rulers at seperate velocities, two photons at equal velocity falling at c within their frames and two symetrical photon wave packets (oscillating time reference) propagating through at a greater group linear velocity than both the mirror rulers, but less than the two photons which have no angular variance thus propagating at c. Now we can imagine how the changing intervals of the moving mirrors due to the motion of each reference frame changes how absolute time is experienced as each moving mirror would recieve a different phase velocity as it referenced the bouncing photon stream as it more slowly passed the higher velocity frame of reference and more quickly passed the lower velocity frame. Thus we get a dilated perception of absolute time along with a contracted perception of absolute distance as we imagine the effects such relative motions play upon referencing from one frame to another while all the while recieving the same value for the speed of light/dropped photon in each frame.

Now if you can see, the two moving mirrors construction from the subatomic is actually no different than the referenced clock signal merely just a slower group velocity thus allowing for the conserved lateral motion to establish a mass value relative to c. The de Broglie type matter waves simply set reference frame against reference frame whereby the only relational background independent measurements going on are from one wave system to another whereby whether determining distance or time, each system is finding a value for such in reference to the wave aspects of itself relative to another system in terms of group velocity, phase velocity, frequency, wavelength and amplitude. It's easy to see how oscillation frequency dilates temporal reference but the rest becomes visible when trying to establish the length contraction aspect due to wave aspects of the matter wave system.   

Taking such concepts to a background dependent stage by representing such interactions in terms of a digital type representation helps to further evaluate the exchange and conservation of motion from system to system by allowing for the absolute observer position. This all relates to how information is transfered as with bit rate and bandwidth concepts. The reason we can obtain depth perception of structured systems by way of the unstructured information within EM waves which are reflected from such whereby we don't just see in two dimensions as with a wall of information slapping us in the eyes is due to the aspect of such transmitted information propagating at c whereby the information is reflectively transmitted and recieved in a temporal sequence thus allowing the difference in time reception supplying visualization of depth in the third dimension which is an everpresent dimension. If our minds couldn't distinguish such then it would be as if a solid wall of information was recieved instantaneously. This does happen in nature but at lesser velocities than c which is how structured systems interact or make contact. We tend to call it mass. The greater the amount of information propagating as a unit, the more such motions conserve lateral transference from linear. This goes into the decay mechanics approaching c. 

If we consider a photon as one bit of information and structured systems containing many bits of information, it's easy to see why the variance in the transference rate which seperates structured from unstructured information exchange. The very coupling of structures or information in terms of 'forces' is a conserved aspect from the uncoupled state of electromagnetism or photons. There's simply something transfered from unstructured states propagating at c to structured states propagating at velocity values which multiply times their mass to account for their greater momentum. We translate this as an inability to accelerate a structured massive system to c due to the infinite energy requirements, but all of the values which pertain to structured and unstructured systems such as energy, mass, force, momentum, inertia, frequency, wavelength, amplitude, etc, are merely dimensions which are interchangable whereby distinguishing such systems, yet are always conserved in some manner.    

This allows for a conservation aspect of conserved momentum through distance and time or something to that effect, whereby potentially allowing for a quantitative aspect of why such structured systems decay if certain requirements are met or perhaps not met. If the transference rate has to be maintained per the reciprocal relationship of the distance covered by a propagating system vs the amount of instantaneous energy delivered by such, then when complex composite stuctures encounter situations happening within such short temporal intervals where it cannot maintain such a parameter by way of self adjusting quickly enough as with the mechanics which allow for a length contraction, it would have to decay or eject bits of information in the form of radiation whereby such a law was maintained. Slowing or accelerating a large object doesn't cause radiation of it's information structure but it does change the matter wave frequency/wavelength aspects of the structure internally per length contraction, as it causes a reorganization of such information whereby maintaining such a micro parameter. If similar interactions happen at the more micro scales per atom splitting type encounters, then the restructuring might require a loss of information in the form of radiation. The simple repositioning of an electron is obviously enough to radiate a required restructuring of the unstructured EM field. 

Point being here, that geo nature isn't just a simple process of atoms and structured systems. There are many conversions of information taking place constantly which allow for many dynamics. When dynamic bio systems interact directly with such conversions then the highest order informational layer of nature built from the various other layers and aspects discussed becomes a very dynamic place which could ultimately translate to the geo complexity needed to account for bio mechanics such as thought, logic, etc. We can't simply just observe a galaxy or solar system at the macro scales and find any interactions complex enough to translate directly to the interactions of the mind, but if we were to understand how information is organized and maintained at the most micro informational resolutions to accomplish such macro mechanics, then we are exploring an intrinsic parameter which might apply to an external means for internal exploration of the mind. Who's to say what a simple quantitative conservative conversion at the subatomic scales looks like at the macro scales especially when you have various systems a different stages of such conversions interacting to ultimately accomplish the same thing while shaping a diverse universe in the process. Some of the most complex emergent patterns in nature can arise when simple rules are necessarily followed through vast periods of time and various layers of space. Structured systems are just like archeology, the more we dig within them to reach the ever shorter distances that reality happens within, the further back in time we are going to witness how things were at the earlier stages of the universe when such systems were formed along with witnessing the foundation by which this house of cards is now standing. 

I simply refuse to put thought as a fundamental system Lloyd, no matter how much our egos might suggest it. To me it must be explained by the most fundamental of interactions which underly the entire rest of the inanimate universe. Egos used to try to place the Earth at the center of the solar system whereby the sun orbited it, this was obviously a mistake and in one of Dave's greatest responses that I recall from TQ, they even supplied the math to prove it, thus math isn't absolute proof but can be manipulated as we both know to stroke mankinds great ego. I won't make the same mistake by trying to place intelligence at the center of the universe. Intelligence and bio nature appears to have taken many eons to accomplish as it is the newest system or rather most recent layer in existence to be added to this complex universe. There's no evidence that it supercedes the same interactions which built the atoms, stars, galaxies, planets, bodies and brains required to allow for it's existence. There's only evidence that such fundamental interactions which constructed those various layers of existence simply reach a state where information is allowed to begin being structured differently. You point out the great complexity of the mind as proof of it's distinction from geo nature. I just see such mental complexity as proof that we don't fully understand the much greater complexity of geo nature whereby such things as imagination, structuring of ideas, free will, etc, can arise or perhaps as I suggest, how such complexity arises from mere parameters whereby the parameters aren't necessarily complex, but the outcomes through eons of factoring such parameters becomes that way. In good spirits and just to rile you up, maybe your horse is looking the cart in the ass a little also. Lmfao. 

I dont want to get you too much on the defensive because I feel that even if I'm wrong on a few things which I know I am, there's important aspects in what I'm saying which need to be addressed and developed much further if we are serious about solving this little riddle. I also find it easier to communicate the workings of the brain to an external reference than trying to develop the many laguage skills required to explain it in any other terms to people who may not speak my language. A picture is worth a thousand words. I see no way to discuss such complexity of the mind strictly internally as I feel the answers we seek are all around us rather than merely within us, but that's just my opinion and I have great respect for yours as well. If I were to search for free will, I'd simply look for where it emerged by such processes rather than seeking an intrinsic aspect of nature which accounted for it to be a seperate function of a universe which otherwise had none. To me, there's enough uncertainty per QM in the things we will never know and can't measure which might accomadate such a concept, but this still doesn't rule out a simple overall concept of how the universe might function in terms of information rather than forces, matter, energy, etc. Determinism is also debatable in many ways even with a discrete system if motion is quantized to spacetime, because the system would be on idle even If it weren't processing. Every little motion doesn't have to be causal and constructive. I really see no way to accomplish a 100% efficent process which doesn't have wastful interactions. Ultimately, if we can't fit reality into physical processes being as we are materialists, where are we gonna fit it? I refuse to use the approach of modern science when their calculations don't work where they create exotic concepts to explain the inconsistencies eg dark matter, dark energy and some would argue black holes. My materialist views simply don't allow such because if all is matter or substance then all can be explained by way of the physics of such a substance. Intelligence is merely when the bio universe has reached such a state to be so far removed from the fundamental mechanics by which geo nature operates that they can't even be recognized as having any part in such intelligence any longer. Yet, if we were to excavate through the many layers enough, the past universe is still presently within us also. 

The Highly Refined Bio-Eyes Compared To Our Far Less Refined Geo-Eyes…

The more we learn about it, the more we simply and inevitably learn about ourselves. We don't have to be able to see within if we simply identify with that which is taking place externally. Thus, we have effectively defeated the barrier of layers or so I would think.(Tim, if this were true, then how would you explain the knowledge of intelligence we already know we possess, of self-innate manipulation of concepts, and contents, disjunctions and conjunctions of such concepts__or any other innate inference mechanics' manipulations, by our actionable-intelligenced free-wills...? You seem to leave far too many unanswered questions, by such blanket statements__No...?) :-)

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/tutorials/free_will/ (Flash exhibit__NEW...)

Hi Tim__I appreciate the depth of your reasoning in your posts, but I must still point out, as per the above title__There are still massive quantum differences between our geo-systems and bio-systems… I do not think this systems’ gap can be bridged by the simple laws of physics__This gap also requires the ‘laws of thought’, especially as to ‘the conservation of time’ in relation to ‘the conservation of energy/mass and matter/mass’ pertaining to our most fundamental states of thinking and logic’s massive demarcation differences__especially as to meanings and facts__and life's 'entropy-law-breaking' realities… Imo Tim, ‘we do have to be able to see within’, at least as concerns ‘the objective laws of thought’ which govern the very logic and math we conduct all our measurement sciences with…(this would be objective epistemology) Since the geo-system lacks all bio-complexity, when viewed as the two discrete systems they certainly are, or can be interpreted as__since if being the same, the geo-system would possess the same living functions as the bio-system, which we clearly know__it certainly does not. Imo, no matter how many general composite compactifications and levels of mechanics you pack into the geo-systems, those existing measurement systems have not the resolution power to explain the very necessary ‘laws of thought’, that even begin to explain the mechanics of thinking, required to begin to explain the hard sciences involved__ya know what I mean…?(and Tim, the skeptics demand this level of facts and understandings, or they blow your ideas out of the water. You see, you have a lotta’ hope, it’s the way you are describing it, but you offer little facts of such wishes, if ya know what I mean…) :-)

Tim, I just don’t think you are being fully reasonable here, when you try to force all reality into some completed scientific theory, when we both know such completed scientific theory does not exist__when and where you really keep insisting the scientific explains the philosophical__but, it does not. The reason the philosophical was invented in the first place, was because science and folk psychology could not explain the sciences and feelings involved__and nothing has changed Tim. When one is honest, we are still having as much trouble today, as did the early Greeks, at coming to agreement, or logical and scientific measurement truth, as to exactly what the truths of science and feelings actually are. Imo, not much has changed, except to make the word systems much more massive and complicated as to meanings__but fundamentally, the same exact measurement and meaning problems exist, thus requiring philosophical interpretations__which are really no more than higher rational intellectual level scientific thoughts, about the very exact lower level hypothetical theoretical thoughts of science, feelings and such. Scientifically, metaphysics is just the simple scientific rationality about physics, we can’t scientifically yet explain__We know it’s there, so the most performative language just happens to be metaphysics__The mental science of physics. It’s just so many people all through the centuries have mis-represented and mis-interpreted these old ideas so often, such confusions and non-meanings have reached our era__many are now convinced metaphysics has no value__when in fact, it’s our historic archetype of theoretical scientific understanding__that is when the original meanings are respected__as is required of all scientific meanings’ interpretations. Metaphysics does not mean anything supernatural__but simply an abstract method of epistemologically(science of the internal states) and transcendentally(abstractly intellectually staying above the fray) representing the scientific incomplete, below itself, with a common universal language of understanding__many can relate to, to build new and possible systems, hypotheses, and models of reality__but, always fully scientifically based on the truth-making real objective world… Remember Tim, other human beings, actually being psychological, religious and maybe even just plain ignorant, yet they are still real emotional and rational state human beings__that our internal scientific reasoning and other normative mechanics must deal with__and herein is why a clear metaphysics of scientific understanding is oh so necessary… We can’t reach the world, unless we as the more scientific thinking, are willing to speak a more universal language, that also appeals to the very core of their feelings, while slightly tickling their intellects__That is if you are truly interested in a philosophical explanation of science, as well as a scientific explication of the same material__Both are required, though I’m no better than anyone else at it, as I’ve also so long been involved in the purely logical, mathematical and scientific__a major drawback, unless the psychological feelings of readers are also taken into consideration… Tim, it actually helps us make sense of the science, by keeping us honest to our moral cores__with our science…

The present model of science excludes the above__when it’s actually absolutely necessary, to have any model we devise, make universal sense__to all the different creatures that inhabit this diverse planet. Unless everyone realizes a universal language is necessary for successful communication with the general public__then what good is all the hard science in the world, if it’s making the same mistake as religion__of only speaking a private language, all its own, to itself, that does not pertain to the real world of folk-language and concepts__simply put, the common man…? Tim, you simply can not use your private language to exclude all the alternative languages to science, and have the system you advocate, have any real meaning of being the system that correctly interprets the world__when in fact, it does not__by its own default position of ‘extreme exclusionism’ to all but itself. Human beings are naturally far more intelligent than science alone, which is really just one small language system, of explaining the world__and a very limited one, at that__and should never exclude the culture it needs to support it__the living beings of honest thought and feelings. Tim, take a look at all these different positions, to your position, and see if you can refute them all__logically and scientifically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-stage_model_of_free_will

You see Tim, imo, it’ll do no good to develop a proof of science__unless you also develop a proof of the language system of science, used to describe the proof of that very science__and this requires logical and mathematical proofs__which just happens to be the domain of philosophy, or the philosophy and science of philosophy and science__otherwise known as metaphysics__because there’s actually millions more against your ideas, than there are for em... There’s no way to avoid formal logic and math Tim, and have your ideas accepted in the firestorms of their necessary peer reviews__which all ideas must pass__and this means being true to the millions of scientific minds working in the fields of philosophical proofs of these philosophical and scientific systems__of which there are many__Here’s a taxonomy list of em, just to give you an idea of the complexity, of just philosophy, and believe me physics or any other science is no less complex__just type science into Google, and see the number of hits__It’s a billion more hits than philosophy:

http://consc.net/taxonomy.html

Just trying to let you know how involved these projects are Tim, and also that years ago I also thought a simple language of science may solve for all our questions and answers__I no longer think that way, as I’ve realized the difficulty of communication between any involved parties__and how near impossible that really is. The scientists can’t even talk to each other…!__How can they possibly make sense to the entire world, unless some historical universal language is adhered to…?__and that simply leaves every language out, except philosophy, as it’s the only study to have fully developed a formal universal scientific language__and no other science has__not even physics…

Addendum...
THE DECLINE OF DETERMINISM
In the nineteenth century, according to historians of science and philosopher Ian Hacking, there was a “rise in statistical thinking” and an “erosion of determinism.” The strict physical determinism implied by Isaac Newton’s classical mechanics was giving way to the statistical mechanics of physicists James Clerk Maxwell and Ludwig Boltzmann, who assumed that gases were composed of atoms and molecules moving at random and following statistical laws.

In the United States, William James’s colleague Charles Sanders Peirce followed these
developments. Peirce was a superb logician and mathematician who mastered probability and statistics. He gave us the name “normal distribution” for the law of errors in scientific measurements. He knew that the inevitable errors in physical measurements meant that the deterministic laws of nature could never be proved logically necessary. Peirce developed the idea of randomness as a key element of his philosophy. He called it “Tychism” (after tyche, the Greek word for chance).

George Boole...
George Boole's The Laws of Thought (on which are founded the mathematical theories of logic and probabilities) was an enormously influential work. Writing in the heyday of Quetelet and Buckle, Boole concluded that

the consideration of human free-agency would seem at first sight to preclude the idea that the movements of the social system should ever manifest that character of orderly evolution which we are prepared to expect under the reign of a physical necessity. Yet already do the researches of the statist reveal to us facts at variance with such an anticipation. (p.20)

If we regard the intellect as free, and this is apparently the view most in accordance with the general spirit of these speculations, its freedom must be viewed as opposed to the dominion of necessity, not to the existence of a certain just supremacy of truth. (p.408)

I would especially direct attention to that view of the constitution of the intellect which represents it as subject to laws determinate in their character, but not operating by the power of necessity; which exhibits it as redeemed from the dominion of fate, without being abandoned to the lawlessness of chance. (p.420)
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/boole/

Frank Ramsey...
THE CONTENT OF LOGIC

(1) Preliminary philosophico-psychological investigation into nature of thought, truth and reasonableness.

(2) Formulae for formal inference = mathematics.

(3) Hints for avoiding confusion (belongs to medical psychology).

(4) Outline of most general propositions known or used as habits of inference from an abstract point of view; either crudely inductive, as 'Mathematical method has solved all these other problems, therefore...' or else systematic, when it is called metaphysics. All this might anyhow be called metaphysics; but it is regarded as logic when adduced as bearing on an unsolved problem, not simply as information interesting for its own sake.

The only one of these which is a distinct science is evidently (2).

THE UTILITY OF LOGIC
That of (1) above and of (3) are evident: the interesting ones are (2) and (4). (2) = mathematics is indispensable for manipulating and systematizing our knowledge. Besides this (2) and (4) help us in some way in coming to conclusions in judgment.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/philosophers/ramsey/

Frank Ramsey was the brilliant and precocious son of a Cambridge don. In his short but productive life, he made significant corrections to the Principia Mathematica of Russell and Whitehead and he was a principal translator of the works of Wittgenstein.

Ramsey was a pragmatic thinker who frequently made references to Charles Sanders Peirce.

Paul Dirac...
Paul ( P. A. M.) Dirac formulated the most elegant version of the mathematical principles of quantum mechanics after hearing a lecture by Werner Heisenberg on his new ideas of "matrix mechanics." Shortly after matrix mechanics, Erwin Schrödinger developed his "wave mechanics" and showed it was equivalent to the Heisenberg picture.

Dirac combined both of these using a method from classical mechanics called Poisson brackets.

In his 1930 textbook The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Paul Dirac introduced the concepts of superposition and indeterminacy using examples with polarized photons.

The examples suggest a very simple and inexpensive experiment that we call the Dirac 3-polarizers experiment to demonstrate the notions of quantum states, the preparation of quantum systems in states with known properties, the superposition of states, the measurement of various properties, the projection or representation of a state vector in another basis set of vectors, and the infamous "collapse" or "reduction" of the wave function and the resulting indeterminacy.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/dirac/

Albert Einstein...
Physical concepts and the laws of nature are "free creations of the human mind."

Werner Heisenberg...
In 1925 Max Born, Werner Heisenberg, and Pascual Jordan, formulated their matrix mechanics version of quantum mechanics as a superior formulation of Neils Bohr's old quantum theory. The matrix mechanics confirmed discrete states and "quantum jumps" of electrons between the energy levels, with emission or absorption of photons.

In 1926, Erwin Schrödinger developed wave mechanics as an alternative formulation of quantum mechanics. Schrödinger disliked the abrupt jumps. His wave mechanics was a continuous theory, but it predicted the same energy levels and was otherwise identical in its predictions to the discrete theory.

Within months of the new wave mechanics, Max Born showed that while Schrödinger's wave function evolved over time deterministically, it only predicted the positions and velocities of atomic particles probabilistically.

Heisenberg used Schrödinger's wave functions to calculate the "transition probabilities" for electrons to jump from one energy level to another. Schrödinger's wave mechanics was easier to visualize and much easier to calculate than Heisenberg's own matrix mechanics.

In early 1927, Heisenberg announced his indeterminacy principle limiting our knowledge of the simultaneous position and velocity of atomic particles, and declared that the new quantum theory disproved causality. "We cannot - and here is where the causal law breaks down - explain why a particular atom will decay at one moment and not the next, or what causes it to emit an electron in this direction rather than that."

More popularly known as the Uncertainty Principle in quantum mechanics, it states that the exact position and momentum of an atomic particle can only be known within certain (sic) limits. The product of the position error and the momentum error is greater than or equal to Planck's constant h/2π.

ΔpΔx ≥ h/2π (1) (i.e. Tim, position and momentum measurements are greater than, and smaller than, the smallest Planck state measurements__thus indescernibly indeterminate, and herein is the mathematical and logical death of hard determinism. Also, Heisenberg's last two paragraphs below, have to be read very carefully, to see the full implications of this formula__which is the coffin of hard determinacy, as tis impossible to ever even have nature function absolutely determinately, at this complex a level of extremely large populations of particle motions' indeterminacies__as they draw measurement positions and momentums from what is absolutely impossible to absolutely accurately measure__by any means of truly accurate probability and statistical mathematics(a best fit guess system)__just as Peirce had already proved, clear back in the 1800's__with his “normal distribution” for the law of errors in scientific measurements...)

Indeterminacy (Unbestimmtheit) was Heisenberg's original name for his principle. It is a better name than the more popular uncertainty, which connotes lack of knowledge. The Heisenberg principle is an ontological as well as epistemic lack of information.

Causality...
Heisenberg was convinced that quantum mechanics had put an end to classical ideas of causality and strict determinism.

In his classic paper introducing the principle of indeterminacy, he concluded with remarks about causailty.

If one assumes that the interpretation of quantum mechanics is already correct in its essential points, it may be permissible to outline briefly its consequences of principle. We have not assumed that quantum theory — in opposition to classical theory — is an essentially statistical theory in the sense that only statistical conclusions can be drawn from precise initial data. The well-known experiments of Geiger and Bothe, for example, speak directly against such an assumption. Rather, in all cases in which relations exist in classical theory between quantities which are really all exactly measurable, the corresponding exact relations also hold in quantum theory (laws of conservation of momentum and energy).

But what is wrong in the sharp formulation of the law of causality, "When we know the present precisely, we can predict the future," is not the conclusion but the assumption. Even in principle we cannot know the present in all detail. For that reason everything observed is a selection from a plenitude of possibilities and a limitation on what is possible in the future. As the statistical character of quantum theory is so closely linked to the inexactness of all perceptions, one might be led to the presumption that behind the perceived statistical world there still hides a "real" world in which causality holds. But such speculations seem to us, to say it explicitly, fruitless and senseless. Physics ought to describe only the correlation of observations. One can express the true state of affairs better in this way : Because all experiments are subject to the laws of quantum mechanics, and therefore to equation (1), it follows that quantum mechanics establishes the final failure of causality.

Btw Tim, David never did understand these facts of 'Heisenberg's Indeterminacy Principle'__The original principle, as interpreted by a German into English, the only way of proper interpretation from language to language, this is, by a German... David lacked the mathematics knowledge, especially as to the history of mathematics__Quantum and other...

Finding Ourselves Within Nature

As much as our terminology is unified with our scientific concepts Lloyd, often times when we get into the logic of logic, science of science, thinking of thought type discussions, I must admit I don't identify as much with your use of the more technical words. I simply don't extract the meaning from them that I should to truly see your grounded mental pathways which I know are there. Let me try to explain my take on such as far as I've been able to reach in my own language of simple interactions, scales, resolutions, etc. and see if you can find my mentally grounded path of logic. 

The greatest aspect of nature which allows for it's self understanding is the fact that it builds and constructs itself in layers. If we look at the shortest of distances we might find a continuous FS which condenses in localized regions to form elementary discrete particle structures, which further works together as a unit to form a seemingly continuous yet composite system, which further clumps with other systems to form ever larger macro systems from ever more constituent interactions. Thus we see the continuos to discrete to continuous to discrete etc, etc, processes of the layering aspect of nature itself whereby a simple seperation of scales for the observer allows a seemingly continuous unit to be composed of constituent discrete systems and as we know, there could be a further discrete aspect to the FS itself. I'm simply trying to set up the thought process of layers here so I can address the deeper philosophical aspects by doing such. 

Despite the shortcomings of computer analogies, the very layering aspect allows for the strong comparison of nature to a simple computer program which operates within simple rules at the most fundamental scales to build ever further complexity through time and space simply by obeying such rules of engagment. Very complex patterns can form through time by simply applying a few parameters and allowing the nature of the operation to run it's course. This has been proven with a few emergent programs. 

The combination of parameters and initial conditions established the potential for all future conditions to come yet such exacting conditions cannot be calculated to great percision or within any less time or space than it takes the system itself to run it's course. This is why most digital physics concepts argue for determinism due to the symmetry of nature yet argue against our ability to calculate certantity of future states as implied by determinism simply due to the most efficient process of such being the universe itself from the unaccesible micro scales throughout. But this is just worth mentioning and not my point still. Such a process could form a more composite layer of interactions whereby mathematical expressions emerge to analog various processes as statistical type translations without having to address every little micro interaction as seen with RM, QM and CM. 

Now keeping the many layers of nature in mind, we can imagine all of the various composite systems built from ever more constituent interactions to the point that bio nature emerges from geo nature. The processes of the brain are no exception. The very parameters of logic and understanding are composite layers tracable back to the most fundamental constituent geo scales while they further become the constituent resolution from which further composite thought is achieved. 

The thing is, the further we dig into the very fabric of nature within any region of space or structure, the more we disconnect ourselves from composite aspects of forces overseeing interactions and the closer we get to mere outcomes of a system operating within parameters. This very characteristic of nature establishes an intrinsic inability to pearce into a more constituent resolution by any composite means as is the case for geo natures relationship to itself, which is also the case for the most constituent parameters of thought from which understanding and logic are achieved allowing any form of probing from the composite concepts, ideas, etc, that further emerge from such. They simply have no grounded path which allows a system built upon layers to penetrate or probe it's most fundamental interactions by way of it's ever larger composite systems which have taken much more time and space to achieve. 

This would remain the case within the universe if not for the dichotomy established by way of geo natures processes and interactions springing forth the very subsystem of bio nature by which the system sets itself internally against itself to allow for an otherwise unallowable penetration of micro constituent interactions, by way of macro composite interactions. Not to be too metaphysical here, but we are the universe learning about itself whereby our compsoite scientific aspects penetrate deeper into the most constituent layers of nature, yet when we turn our thoughts and investigations upon ourselves, we have an intrinsic mental roadblock which doesn't allow us to probe the very parameters of how our mind operates due to the composite layers we are using to attempt to do such. Thus, the only grounded path to accomplish such is the other side of the coin to the bio vs geo division which has already allowed understanding in one direction, and that is to complete the circle by simply understanding that the very aspects of geo nature which we observe in all it's layers from the micro to the macro holds the keys by which the only allowable grounded path is achieved for us to see deeper within the constituent aspects of the very mental processes by which we operate. Just as the universe used us in a sense to view within, we must reverberate/reflect such back into our understanding whereby we might find similarity between how geo nature sorts, positions and orders structured and unstructured volumes and systems compared to how we sort through fact, fiction, knowledge, logic and all other concepts relational to the processes of thought itself. 

I simply feel there lies an impossibilty to view our own constituent interactions directly, just as geo interactions are a one way street so is thought. Though it (the universe) is not to be personified as with emotions and such, we are the very method by which it has developed a division to penetrate itself with whereby we too should find the patterns and potential within it's rules of engagement to apply to our own understanding of ourselves. Though the very layers of existence might prevent direct inward observation of a system by it's own means, it doesn't disallow a bridge to be built between two opposing processes whereby they begin to mirror each other to the point that it's understanding of itself supplied by us is the very quantitative values represented within the many equations and formulas of science within the minds of many, thus our internal understanding supplied by it is perhaps the very dance of matter and motion which such mathematical concepts are analogously modeling. I feel that my personal final intellectual journey will be complete when nature looks inside of me to see itself within the very thoughts and scientific concepts racing through my mind, the same as I might fully see myself within it as I look out into the vast distances of space and time to identify with the various interactions of the sorting of systems to further build increasingly complex systems. The current univeral entropy of substance and thought isn't necessarily order to disorder, but rather the overall continuous ordering of geo systems and bio ideas to form ever more complex structured objects and intelligence all due to mere parameters whereby such things as thermodynamic entropy is a byproduct as well. Such also allows for the observed disorder from order while never breaking the rules of engagement. Thus the prime mover might lie within a simple sorting problem which has no solution and emergent behavior always ends in a collapse back to an initial state. 

I hope you'll see both the complexity and simplicity in what I'm saying in terms of the layers and such pertaining to the logic of logic you seek. Follow the reasoning as far as you can and hopefully you'll see my position, even if you find yourself at odds with it. It's how I answer such things within my own mind whereby feeling that we'll perhaps know that we know when we see the hypothetical geo and bio mirrors align to seemingly reflect infinity within our very understanding allowing us to have both internal and external understanding by way of nature itself. I don't mean to be metaphysical here, because I don't personify nature, but I do believe it holds the only keys which unlock the doors of our self understanding. The more we learn about it, the more we simply and inevitably learn about ourselves. We don't have to be able to see within if we simply identify with that which is taking place externally. Thus, we have effectively defeated the barrier of layers or so I would think.