Logic is the science about drawing conclusions…

Hi, well a short reply grew monstrous; again__but maybe there's a silver lining in this big cloud...(this is just a repost to keep the blog active...)

Question: How would a mind process 'the infinite number line', and the infinite energy capacity link of emotions/desires, to solve a scientific problem__unless logic herself, had an infinite capacity to do so...? Logic must somehow see some sort of infinity, to even think about it__No...? In my experience, logic even corrects wayward imaginations and dreams back into reality, but if imaginations and dreams do happen to contain infinite scenes of action__then, how does logic do the correcting back to finite realities__What's that particular 'inference path' mechanics...? See the difficulties...? If we don't know this 'inference path mechanics', yet the path does get corrected back to reality_as we certainly know it does__then, does the mind know more about how to do these corrections than us...? Is such auto-pilot 'inference mechanics' not 'background-independence', of the highest order...? Is such 'auto-pilot inference mechanics' possibly part of our existing 'a priori' bio-structured brain self-mechanics...? 'A priori' here meaning simply, 'built-in bio-mechanical functions' similar to, or the same as, how our heart and lungs function...

These are just some of the old skeptic's questions that have been asked for millennia, but they do bring the complexities into clear light, imo...

Just wade in, and see where you go... I guess that's all I can say, since it is so monstrous a reply...

Imo, you can't derive a 'came to be' from an eternal state mechanics__It's just simply always been... Any 'came to be' state is simply what science and physics has falsely been attempting and doing, over the last 100 or near so years, with the big-bang and inflation theories__And, that's why I say, "they are religions", as all 'came to be's' are 'creation myths...' I think you seem to be forgetting our most recent x-ray satellites are presently correspondingly externally filming the internal dynamics of black-holes spewing their internal guts all over space__It doesn't take a great deal of good investigative science to put this picture together, as much of that I revealed in the Universal mechanics of fs-field photons I just sent you. I think we can pretty much extrapolate most of this internal mechanics, presently... We presently still do have some information horizons(incompleteness’s), but they are fast falling__maybe not all of em, but most of em will fall__shortly, imo..."

Have you thought out the 'Many Universes' model thoroughly__As near as my logically using the entire laws of physics, nature and thought go__Such mechanics would by necessity of the mechanics produce just about exactly what we actually have. I see little difference in the mechanics of one Universe or many... If you think our the possibilities of other 'Universal Law Systems' actions being different, one's mind comes up short, as there's only a certain workable mechanics, by these very necessary laws' functions__of fundamental motions' aggregations... Do they arise, or are they integrally existing, and necessarily so__as an aggregate matrix, unit of the exist...] [Ditto__It is...] [If we have field_everywhere_nothing is impossible_tis eternally outside logic__logic also ceases to function as any possible viable mechanics, any time 'nothing' is considered viable__except as a 'not something' virtual state of reference to validate 'something'__yet we still know the impossible of 'the naked nothing'.] [You are probably meaning by 'emerge', to 'self-construct', I'm not sure__But, I might point out that infinity is an absolutely necessary requirement of logic and the exist, for any Universal and logic mechanics to function__since the opposite is 'naked finiteness' which I've many times shown to be impossible, due to such mechanics necessitating the 'something from nothing' 'creation myth' impossibilities__not even counting contradicting the very necessary requirements of the laws of physics, logic and thought... Also, even for logic to begin to recognize the all known and necessary existence of feelings and emotions, logic must have a rhetorical core of knowing intelligence, above both the 'infinite emotions'__which every finite logician has admitted, since antiquity__but, also for use to even begin to understand others who are using mixed metaphoric and rhetorical states of communication__such as, courts of law, where lawyers have to stick to strict physical evidence, and physical motives__yet, at the same time convince very subjective information processing jurors of the clients innocence, or guilt if the lawyer is the prosecutor__so, logical and rhetorical knowledge of both sides of the mind__'infinite subjective' and "finite objective' are absolutely necessary__as has always been shown by juridical logicians, for millennia... This same logically necessary 'inference mechanics' of abductive judgment, concepts, theories, hypothesis, models, etc., applies to physics as well as any subject, in the same inference requirement necessities__except possibly setting aside most or all of the 'infinite subjective' as much as necessary or possible__though, it still exists as a necessary part of our grounds of meaning and knowing mechanics__These ideas have been settled, over the last 75 or so years, by many logicians', scientists' and mathematicians' work, as well as the lesser philosophers...]

[In that case__where's the initial function of the initial forming...?__as per forming structures from fields, or even forming disorganized fields into organized fields as forms of fields...? As a case__Fields exist in dense and less dense states, and most likely always have...] [And, may I point out right here__Herein lies our 'background independences'__And, this pertains to both the 'hyper-small-infinitesimals' as well as those 'hyper-huge-infinities' we will never be able to define__but, I have also shown that such states, the smaller or larger, the further away__have less real and possible influence, the more infinitesimal or infinite they become__due to c mechanics necessities... Further 'background independencies' can be the non-isomorphics of the very laws of physics, nature and thought__that are also known to exist... I'm not trying to steer you away from knowledge__I'm trying to point out the mechanics knowledge that exists, in these 'not knowable' states__when one simply thinks our the necessities these 'not knowable' states force on us about the known possibilities, that are left to think about__these ideas simply force us to think more about the 'logical possibilities left', by eliminating such impossible influences from our theorizings...] [I don't know, but it seems we may both be trying to convince each other of the same ideas__without knowing it...?] [Maybe form + function at the same time...?] [We must be very careful here, to fully understand what is purely virtual abstract theorizing, and the real factual physical motions and forces of functions and forms...] [To me here, there's no deeper understanding than 'pure inference mechanics', as this is the only 'pure mechanics' understanding we possess of any physical actions of our Universe... Imo, all our 'inference mechanics' functions and forms must correspond to our views of actual Universal facts__or we've left the field of science and physical laws, required for real and true science... This doesn't mean we can't abstractly use 'virtual ideas' beyond such 'inference realities'__but, in the end we must bring them within scientific intelligence's scope...

[Imo, you're ignoring a lotta' scientific capacity of discovery without evidence here__We do have much scientific discovery capacity with circumstantial evidence, by aggregating and integrating exactly what is possible of such finished models__and imo, to where none of exactly what is happening at the center of a black hole is of any importance to reality__what-so-ever__as long as we generally know its conclusion and effects. This is where I and many modern thinkers part company with the deductive logicians__as the deductive only logicians are leaving the largest part of science and scientific history out of the equation, from Francis Bacon onwards. Abductive and inductive logic have and do make up by far the larger part of real science__and this is the science I use. By truly looking at the end result__the 'cosmological ontological eschatology', as I mentioned already__science can logically build the internal mechanics of black holes, in the computer labs, to show these deeper functions__if they be necessary to you. They are not necessary to my theorizing and logic to understand the Universe, as I more use the natural 'innate a priori inference mechanics' as my major guide to science's proofs. If it don't fit my 'inference mechanics'_it ain't science__but that does not stop me from conjecturing the internal mechanics of black holes__as the entire Universe offers exactly zero mysteries to me, where real necessities of function and form are required, to complete my model... The black hole mechanics I've seen is fine with me__as much of it is a known necessity to produce such metals as tungsten and uranium, or many other heavy elements__as our sun, and many bigger suns' science, has done the hydrodynamics of, is incapable of the pressures required to construct such heavy elements__Imo, that leaves the super-high-pressure of the hydrodynamics of black holes as our sound model producers of such heavy elements. Diamonds are not included here, as they grow under even Earth's low hydrodynamic pressures... Just model mechanics, but it satisfies me... The black hole results are far more scientifically important to me, than the deepest internal mechanics' processes__whereas I see that nothing than higher pressures, and the further conjectured actions such actions would produce up to tungsten, then spew it into the Universe for other forming planets, suns, moons and other rock debris to pick up, upon coalescences of...] [But, if this be true, then why do we see these massive jets of real information exiting black holes__that we absolutely know had to go in, in the first place...?_Unless your wish is some 'creation-myth black hole...?' I don't accept any of these new 'emergence myths' as valid science__as they all represent 'something from nothing' 'creation myths'__Again, imo... [I see the same here, as to real matter__on the way in, but 'matter that goes in, must come out'__'Action-reaction law...'

 [Aren't you forgetting here, there's already a pre-formed uniform model, nature has planted in our minds, of a 'general descripted Universe'__implanted since birth...? My main point asking those questions was to have you see and understand, we can't possibly process from each other’s private information processing centers__we must have a publicly agreed upon objective model__Named 1st, so's we both are on the same page... I know and agree with probably 99% of your private logical processing mechanics__but I'm yet to get a good picture of your public model__or any possible public model you are working toward. Maybe the same is true to you of my wordings, also__I don't know... It's just I hate to keep confusing these small points, when agreeing to a public model and personal goals of what one is trying to discover, may be able to alleviate the difficulties__That's all...] [I get a kick out of this dialogics that's going on between us. I'm not talking about real models of 'Infinity', as how you are evidently thinking about them__I'm simply speaking about the infinities we do absolutely know exists within our finite understandings__We do have infinite realizations of both mathematics and emotions__Neither one is possible of boxing in finiteness__Yet, what seems to be happening when I try to bring those entities we absolutely know are infinite, you somehow get the idea I'm speaking about actual infinities, of different sorts, than I am actually meaning. Let me see if I can straighten this out. Let me list a few pieces of knowledge, I've stated before about both finiteness and infinity__as these ideas are so necessary to wrap one's mind around, that I can't stress enough their importance to scientific and logical thinking...

1. Rational finiteness is all we can pertain science and logic to, and have scientific meaning about the geo-universe...

2. Rational infinity is a scientifically known reality of our bio-mental-natures...

3. Therefore, iff finiteness is scientifically restricted to eliminating rational infinity of our bio-being state__even in casual scientific conversations__it is not true scientific thought, and this is where the skeptics enter, to destroy scientific thought and conversations__so I also always dispute these mistakes of thought...

4. Scientific thought must be worded to be true to both geo- and bio-systems, or it's not scientifically true__and this is the area science has made many of its mistakes in...

5. The differences between 'True Infinity' and 'Rational Infinity' are immense__yet, science uses both, while biology mainly uses only 'True Infinity'__due to not understanding the mathematical restrictions of 'Rational Infinity', which simply means 'Extremely Large Numbers Logic...'

6. We can't scientifically quantify logic, without setting up the boogie-man of 'True Infinity' or 'Rational Infinity', to quantify finite logic against__As already mentioned, finiteness has no definition until quantified against 'True Infinity', which also exists in science, through science's knowledge of 'The Unending Number Line' and 'The Known/Unknown Unending Energy of The Universe' and 'The Known Infinite Capacity of Emotions To Keep On Giving...'

7. All the finite wishes in the world can not eliminate these infinite facts' realities, from the world of finiteness, no matter how much scientists wish for it__yet, it sets the 'Dynamics of Conflation and Confusion' in play in all dialogical conversations__which must be quantified, qualified and clarified, iff scientific conversations are to achieve real meaning and substantial knowledge...

8. This simply means, 'Exactly and Explicitly Known Models of Interpretation and Explanation' are absolutely necessary for real scientific conversations to take place, and all the parameters and axioms must be stated clearly and exactly of the ideas, hypotheses, thoughts and models used and expressed__even though I prefer only thoroughly derived axioms, and not postulated axioms...

9. In other words, 'Scientific Results Necessitate Exact Methodologies of Procedure'__Even our simplest of conversations__at these particular levels of thinkings...

I don't know if that will help, or not...]

[Well, that sounds feasible__but, the problem enters when 'simple wordings' that apply to 'parts' have 'wholes' implications__as my mind normally processes from the 'largest to the smallest' and not from the 'smallest to the largest'__as I think that's the present world's major problem within science__sending them into foolish 'somethings from nothings' theories... I can't even think of a 'part' without an 'infinite whole field' attached, whether I know of a reality of such 'infinite field' or not__as I absolutely know of the 'infinite number line' which has been known since the ancients... How can one throw away the absolute knowledge of an 'infinite number line' that all sound logical quantification is founded on, through 'modal quantification logic'__well and hard proven, over the last 60 or so years...? It just can't be done. There is a solution, but you've never liked this solution__You can be exactly accurate in your scientific wordings, to avoid the pitfalls of 'unintended subjective links' within your sentences. I know that's very difficult for someone who may not be schooled in exact scientific linguistics__but, I see no way to avoid the many 'conflations and confusions' of different levels of knowledge trying to be used. If I restrict my language to 'parts', when I don't accept the logical validity of a 'parts formed from finiteness' Universe__Such logic would negate my 'Necessary EM-Field' of 'A Highly Possible Infinity' Bose-Einstein condensing into rocks, moons, planets, stars, black holes and galaxies, etc.__which if you also look at Dave's entire model, was founded on the 'Eternally Existing' colliding spheres, as well__and iff eternal, then infinite__even though Dave entered the contradiction of finiteness into his genesis model... The simplest main point I've constantly tried to make, is the complexity of our languages, in handling the 'one-many_infinite-finite' self-generating contradictions__when not fully understood as true__as 'Both at Once...']

[Platonic numbers. It's been known since Pythagoras, and many other earlier Assyrian and Indi sources, that the number line is absolutely infinite, as pertains to the 'Law of Large Numbers'__Now scientifically, it's as simple as that__but personally, my thinking goes back to my childhood, and being raised in a constantly bickering academic family__I rejected all the finite nonsense by going outdoors, from the earliest age memorable, and simply looking up at the night sky. I knew by seeing the billions of trillions of bright lights, on the clearest of spring and early summer's clear nights__These academics' known finiteness arguments didn't make any sense to what I could see, on these clearest nights... My wife and I both, just a couple of months ago, witnessed one of these most super-exceptionally clear nights, just as we crossed the Alabama-Florida border a month and a half ago__She'd never seen anything like it, as she'd grown up in the city, where the light makes it impossible to see with such country mountain clarity__but, even I was impressed, as I'd never seen a night as clear as this, so we stopped and stared for a long time. The more and deeper we looked, the more we saw__It was exactly like the deep Hubble pictures, except we were seeing it with our naked eyes. Somebody tries to tell me these visions are absolutely known to be finite__and I just ain't buying it, no more than I did as a kid__then with age, I learned that scientific observation and facts of finiteness, with nothing but mere conjectures__at the least conjectures of mathematical models, that couldn't fully be proven to the exact curvature numbers. But anyway, getting back to why and how I choose to process from the 'wholes to the parts'__It's not only from childhood skeptical rejections of adult views, it's also my own deep investigations of the inadequacies of scientific proofs of finiteness, and then in HS when I first read Newton and Einstein, that I thoroughly rode that 'single photon' with Einstein, to see exactly what he saw__and he also only knew that the 'single photon' may have been produced by the sun, but where did the first particles come from to produce the very first star-sun...? That quests true result lead me back to the em-field, or simple photons__as the most elemental entity of the Universe. It's not a massless non-particle wave, or it couldn't form a picture imprint on film__It's a real particle-wave, with real mass, just as the father of the photon's name, Gilbert Lewis, long ago stated... I can't make it any planer___Fields and photons are absolutely required by all physical logical necessity to have real fundamental mass, or it ain't valid science__and complete scientific validity is all important to scientific logic and truth...

[I build my ideas about logical content from actual real world and universe properties, i.e., real physical particle waves, that imo, are not absolutely known, to be finite__but just may be infinite, and the bare atom of 'A Priori Inference Logic Mechanics' absolutely necessitates such most fundamental substance to be physically eternal, as such being finite would negate and contradict the laws of physics, especially the 1st law__conservation of energy and matter, of course the law only states 'conservation of energy', but matter or mass is always implied, by E=MC^2... You've gotta have mass, in that most fundamental energy, or ya don't gut' science... And here realize__The eternity I'm referring to, that necessitates infinity, is first the state of logical equivalence required, to quantify logic as having true validity, and next that the 'Universal Exist' must also 'Inference-Wise' be eternal, to exist at all__as no other 'Modal Quantification Logic' is available, as proven by Ruth Barcan, back in the forties... These are just simple logical necessities__for our logic to be absolutely free of contradictions__and I think you can believe me, as you know my extensive studies of logic, for some 66+ years of experience and reading thousands of the world's wisest logicians, rhetoricians and scientists who agree with my research results... When all the contradictions are absolutely eliminated from 'pure logic'__and that's the state of 'pure arithmetic logic arguments'__All that stands in the end, is the integration of the aggregate logical and biological truths, fundamentally based on real world 'truth-maker' objects and laws, aggregated over time, into my logic database, based in bio-physical memory...

I probably couldn't begin to explain all the intricacies of complexities of full explication of what I've above written, but maybe you can see somewhat, what I am trying to relay. I think the Universe is simple, and that relaying this simple information between two people__is the only complexity__and that's why I've often suggested positive rhetoric, to relay such information__but then again, that's another whole new field of study, to thoroughly know what it truly is, and much of the older schools of rhetoric ended, when womens' sensitivities had to be taken into consideration, when they newly started entering the male dominated colleges and schools of higher learning, back in the 1900's...

Oh, all the complexities of the simplicities...

P.s.
Here's something you might look at. I don't know if you are familiar with formal logical and scientific validity or not: anyway, here's the links:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive-Nomological

The second link refers to the laws of physics, nature and thought having higher validity over even statistics...

The Triadic Maxim___Any Idea; “Arithmetically check all possible effects, against all possible premises, and the combined results will be the total actions of the idea.”