[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Eric, hey relax, I'm not attacking. I'm just trying to point out inconsistencies. I'll try my best person approach to answer your points below, within your post.

Originally Posted by Eric

Lloyd,

I appreciate that you're able to keep the "attack" down to a minimum. Two posts to say the same thing, however, could be improved upon.

So what are you saying? That an absolute has to have dimension or just that a dimensionless point can't exist?[Both] I'm not sure what you're intending to add to the conversation.[Just as I said, a dimensionless point can not exist___period.]

An ABSOLUTE is very simple. It can NOT have anything whatsoever, OUTSIDE of itself.[This would be your personal deffinition. My unabridged Random House dictionary has many meanings of "absolute"___almost more deffinitions than any other word in it. Still, if we use your personal deffinition, this point is true, with qualifications___inside and outside of infinity must be understood to be both positions, at once, in order to linguistically describe real phenomena___herein lies quite a difficulty. If I am inside looking out, I have one view. If I am outside looking in, I have another view. This can only be resolved by accepting the complexity of language when describing the absolute.] If something has or may have anything outside of itself, it can only be deemed RELATIVE.[And you see, here is where our deffinitions part company. I only know of an absolute universe, with absolute thermal matter motion parts. You seem to believe in Einstein's relative universe{actually other people's exaggerations of}and I do not. I accept the relative language used for easy description, but I see it all as classical absolutes of thermal matter motions, and the equivalence principle would have the thermal and motion laws of physics equally applied to finite and infinite absolutes___parts and wholes. You try to narrow the absolute to as much as you are trying, and the linguistics needed to adequately describe reality becomes almost impossible. Leaving the linguistics wide at least allows us to describe many realities, with difficulty, yet, I see no other route.]

It has to be EXTERNALLY INDEPENDENT, with NO environment, cause, source, destiny, size, location, movement, or change.[This is not science, it is conjecture of your own private self, created by privatizing the deffinition of the absolute, improperly, IMO. IMO, here, you are only adding an extra absolute to the existing absolute universe___it's already one absolute, without addition, and fully connected___within and without finiteness and infinity.]

Now, unless you have an ALTERNATIVE to this assessment, so far we can say that I know what I'm talking about. This is POINT #1.[I'm not trying to be a smart-alec Eric, but I would suggest you look up absolute in an unabridged dictionary, and then compare those many deffinitions and words in an unabridged thesaurus. I think you may quickly see the linguistics problems created by single-izing specialized multiple deffinitions. When there's more than one person in the world using these dictionaries and thesauruses, we can't choose meanings at will, and conjecture it is the only meaning. This is the same problem my Buddhist friend and I ran into___he was using Webster's short deffinitions dictionary and I was using Random House's long deffinitions dictionary. This linguistics problem is as old as history.]
____________________

Secondly, if one is not wanting to rely on an ASSUMPTION, one must begin their logical argument with the most ALL-ENCOMPASSING pair of relatives there could possibly be.[And here, I completely disagree. I would replace the word relatives with absolutes___first.] And then proceed to dismiss one of the members of the pair, as IMPOSSIBLE or NON-EXISTENT, which then leaves only one of them all alone. This then, is an argument that does not begin with an assumption, but by DISPELLING the greatest possible assumption. A LOGIC that begins with a PROOF and not an AXIOM.[I agree we need a logic that begins with a proof and not an axiom, but I seem to disagree as to how we may go about doing this. The word relative poses a severe problem for me___I don't think it's appropriate. You can't acquire an absolute from a relative___period.]

Now, unless you have an ALTERNATIVE to this assessment, so far we can say that I know what I'm talking about. This is POINT #2.[This point needs further discussion of what relatives and absolutes truly are to different people.]
____________________

The most all-encompassing pair of relatives possible, is SOMETHING ABSOLUTE and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.[It is absolutely impossible for a relative to be or become an absolute, in absolute terms. Absolute is more robust in meaning than relative___therefore, absolute must have root state over the relative___period.]

Now, unless you have an ALTERNATIVE to this assessment, so far we can say that I know what I'm talking about. This is POINT #3.[As above, absolutes can not be produced by relatives, as Poincare's and Einstein's physics determines relatives to be. Again, relative and absolute deffinitions becomes the problem for different minds.]
____________________

I'm tired and going to bed. In the meantime, do you have an argument against any of the first 3 points?

After I get some rest, I'll post 2 or 3 more points. You must however, follow the bouncing ball, because I'm not going to go through this again.[I just wish you'd go through it one time, and get it straight with science and linguistics. Sorry for being harsh, but I am really trying to help. I, of all people, want to see a TOE conclusion, as I have been working in this area since 1972, without stop. Many of my notes are posted about this very subject at this site: http://kondratyev.blogspot.com/ Just scroll down to the section titled; "A Search For Universal Justice...Wisdom Logic - The Final Stage of Philosophy - A Universal Wisdom of Universal Justice Can Be Taught". It's about three quarters of the way down the extra long page of notes, collected since the early seventies. Still has to be edited more, before use in my fourth book. The physics notes are in this section, somewhere. Just trying to let you know I've done my homework.]

Eric

Sincere regards,
Lloyd