[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>>

Lloyd,

We all agree that truth is parallel to nature. But do we all agree that it is parallel to logic? Pascal once said 'Contradiction is not a sing of falsity, nor the lack of contradiction a sing of truth.' We are confident when we say that -1x-1=1=1x1 but we are also confident when we say that -1 is not the same as 1. This is strange, as nxn doesn't equal mxm if it's not the same number, and -1 and 1 are not the same number. But both assuptions are true, therefore Pascal is correct in his statement.

Guille, not meaning to be contradictory, but this is where I see the modern world has made its gravest error. True enough, nature should be worshipped, but not at the expense of mathematical truth. Mathematical truth, as our highest human tool, must be used to equilibriate man with nature. It is our only possible solution. Nature is not the problem, but dis-equilibriated man is.
Now, how is this possible? It is not possible if we are going to purposely confuse positives and negatives - they are still true unto themselves, and as Ayn Rand stated, "There are no paradoxes, only men seeming to make them so." When truth is talked about, we must be very clear that formal agreements to formal language use are required for any successful outcomes. Otherwise, we just spinning in circles.

To talk truefully about truth, requires the acceptance of one of the formal scientific languages. General logic languages can not be mixed in as you only get the isomorphic{things are[seemed] the same but different} confusion you mentioned above. Formal logic requires formal language excluding, the middle, general logic as Aristotle{third law of logic} long ago showed us. Though this is not a good reason for exclusion, the inconsistencies of the human language permit no other sulution, sorry.

What I mean is that NOTHING is completelly logical just as nothing is completelly unlogical, just as nothing is compeltelly good or complletely bad.

Mathematics is completely logical if Godelian completeness of first order logic is respected. Mathematics is absolutely and completely logical if equilibrium mathematics is our centerpiece of discussion, all the way to both balances of infinity, positive and negative. Infinity is not an epistemological limit as has been often postulated. It is the open universe understanding of even physics newest thoughts and math, i.e., infinite space and finite matter.

I meant hat nature is a dimensions of events, a line. And truth is a line which is parallel to it. The thing is that truth is what we have to look at nature, to get on nature, to know nature. It's a disposition for us, subjects to nature and it's objects.

The true definition of truth that I work with is logic, the complete mathematics of logics, of man, technology and nature, not the incomplete view of nature alone. Logic and mathematics pre-existed nature, as the pre-structure of matter. There is nothing logical to prove this was not purely logical, as I accept it was. There is nothing epistemological which can prove nature and life had to be produced by nature. Therefore we differ as to whether science could have produced life, as I think it did, or life had to produce life. There is further nothing to prove, we as humans, are nature or purely quantum mechanical beings. This epistemological, ontological, and teleological question is still unsettled.

However, we can never have the turth, or know the truth. Truth is there always, if you get some truth data from the dimension of truth, then this truth data is now knowledge, liek science or philosophy. But it's not truth anymor,e for it's in disconection from nature, althouh it has an origin from connectedness iwth nature.

As I mentioned above this is beyond our epistemological limits of proving and knowing, with the present state of knowledge. I know many would like to think we are more human than we may be, but science dictates we stay within the bounds of known logic systems when discussing real scientific truths. Nature/life is outside our knowing. My personal deffinition is I am a full-fledged living natural human being, but I can't prove it, and I admit it. Furthermore, I know my logic comes from my emotional spirit, but I can't prove it, thus it is not scientifically known. It is only philosophically, and mataphysically known - that's not science or epistemology, per-say.

These questions, I'm afraid, will haunt the world until we finally define the total TOE. We must re-include the mathematics of infinity. The total equilibrium of positive and negative infinity. This I am positive of. And finally, in order to communicate precisely as to topics chosen, we must accept the formal languages of historical presedence, and the principles of. As bad as the newer thinkers and younger generation wants a simpler language, of say isomorphic metaphoric logic, it has not yet been developed. Any suggestions?