Quote:
|
Elementary logic: on the one hand, mathematics is an indispensible utility to explain theory but a mathematical conclusion cannot be allowed to initiate theory. I trust that you agree.
|
Excellent post Tiny Tree. I would just like to expand a bit on the above. I agree that mathematical conclusion cannot be allowed to initiate theory, but the initial intuitional opposites of theory are innately mathematical, in and of themselves, whether by greater and lesser magnitude logic, or actaul arithmetic. Thus the two are entangled in the very essence of logic, and cannot operate separately. Logic, mathematics and sound intuition are triplets, and all function on the same one principle - the essence union of self-operational-mechanics. Judgment seems to operate in this same equation at the same time, and never seems to not. So when we start truly trying to figure out what goes into original thought and principles, the answer is much more complex than simple deduction and induction. It is also the multiplycation of the necessary entanglements. Emotions, if believed, are also present. If we continue, we are going to need a quite powerful computer to just figure out a single initial thought. It seems, the more we use reduction the more we destroy the true functioning of mind. Mind must function as an isomorphic whole to function properly.
So, what does the above amount to. We must have principles of emotions, etc. for the mind to function. These principles must be of the whole centropic union of the functioning mind. The logically functioning mind must recognize what principles are necessary to create a logical theory. All this must work intuitionistically/theoretically at once. All choices and changes of mind in the theorizing/ideation stage are capable of the same principles as those of quantum mechanics - the many choices theories. So, the mind creates principles as it develops new theories, as tis its only choice to be logical, and in the end make any sense. Thus, any new TOE will require not only the theory, but its accompanying principles. I would suggest an absolute mathematics and logic, not belief, but true logos - knowledge. True and absolute knowledge should be producible from the above, by using simple arithmetic, as it has been proven complete by Godel's completeness theorem of first order logic and simple Euclidean arithmetic.
at least it's a start,
Lloyd
p.s.
For anyone to understand where I'm coming from, you'd probably need this information. I take only the infinite absolute as logos, or true absolute knowledge. This knowledge I see as intrinsic, innate "self" - the pure arithmetica logical self. Further, the entire infinite universal self-mind I see as the logical mathematical absolute. And finally, I see the absolute as being able to produce nothing but the absolute, i.e., self can produce nothing but itself. Show me anything that isn't absolute. Even describe an emotion, if you can, and I mean the essence of an emotion. I don't think you can, as I simply see emotions as false logic - the pain of injured essence, or pleasure of flattered essence, and nothing but. What most feel is emotion, I see and know as pathological dis-equilibriated logic, needing re-balancing. Now that really gives you people something to fire on me about. Fire away.
Sorry Michell and any other of the fairer sex, fire away.