[Lloyd Gillespie]

Nobody, I say that we should focus more on the physical subject matter, because that's all there is___Period. Anything else is just abstract ideas, that may work fine for theorizing, and making our understanding clearer, or more confused, but no-one can make the abstract/abstract real, unless such abstract thoughts and ideas are of the real physical subject matter, because, again, that's all there is___Period.

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

Lloyd,

You say that we should focus more on the physical subject matter, but that is what philosophy or metaphysics does by extending scientific evidence[No, this is extremely untrue___metaphysics never extends scientific evidence. Metaphysics means, beyond physics, i.e., abstract only. Philosophy, as long as it pertains and sticks to the physical subject matter, can often extend scientific understanding, but never its evidence, except possibly through philosophical interpretations of physical logical evidence.] whereby we can reach logical conclusions regarding what exactly the fundamental matter is and isn't.[Only if the logic stays physical, in its explanations, otherwise you're into the abstract realm of ontological mythology.]

At any rate, when you say that all points being the same point is abstractly true but physically ridiculous, this is how I feel with regards to people using physical models when it can be easily proven to ourselves that all physical phenomena are based on abstract reference frames set according to a particular set of abstract measurements.[This is totally false, as all my physical reference frames of physical phenomena are just that, the physical empirical evidence, and absolutely based on nothing but the physical empirical evidence. There's a big difference between abstract mathematical measurements, and absolutely true physical evidence measurements. All abstract reference are of the relativity crowd, which actually doesn't exist, as all physical evidentiary substance is absolutely measurable. Absolute, in this case, is only to be interpreted as the simple adjective, it truly is.]

This brings us to your statement; "Finiteness is the localized motion of space/infinity/eternity, we can measure." I would agree only to finiteness as abstract measurements that give the impression of localized motion.[Then somehow, Nobody, you have totally missed out on the fact that science also uses absolute physical measurement, quite effectively, as Godel quite easily proved with his completeness theorem of first order logic and math systems.] Yet, I know it seems real to you, but since the universe is the space, matter, motion, energy, all observers, etc., there can be no localization possible.[In your dreams, Nobody. Tell that foolishness to all the thousands of physicists, scientists and mathematicians who quite vehemently disagree with you, as do I.] It therefore must always remain an illusion based on abstract relative perspectives.[You better redo both your philosophy and physics. They are both quite incomplete.] The would-be-absolute perspective, opposes - is opposite to - relative perspectives.[Again, no, no, no___only the absolute opposes the absolute. It's a totally self-opposing universe___matter and motion___cold and hot FS, quite capable of operating far beyond your false abstract reasoning.]

So as far as your insistence of the mechanics of contraction being sound are concerned, the absolute can't possibly share this hypothesis because there is no in or out to the absolute universe that must already be at the innermost and outermost point and all points in between simultaneously, which logically reduces all literal points to a single non-dimensional point; and there are no events occuring at all because, similarly, all events must occur simultaneously from what would be the absolute perspective, which reduces all events to no event at all.[Maybe you can get fools to accept your double-talk, Nobody, sorry, it doesn't work on me. Like I said it's our linguistic differences. You see the absolute as something far different than I. I see the absolute as either a simple adjective, or the infinite thermal FS, and nothing more___period. IMO, there are no further extremes to this word's definitions.]

The confusion is not due to linguistics, but due to not logically following the implications of physics which soley focuses on the limitations of empirical and theoretical data.[Sorry, but I follow the other side of physics more closely, that of focusing on the physical empirical and theoretical data. I see the limitations more as the epistemology of philosophy. Though they're both useful, one should never gloss over the extreme importance of linguistics.] Yet, if you wish to proclaim that the absolute universe literally exists, you are forced to render it literally motionless.[No, not hardly. The universe, just as I've stated, can exist as the oppositions of motion and non-motion, just exactly as we empirically witness, every day of our lives.] And I am only proclaiming that this motionless state is equal to non-existence because without differentiable phenomena, motion, matter, time, space, consciousness, etc., can't exist.[Oh that's perfectly agreeable, except for the non-existence state of your false abstract imagination___That's just plain foolishness.] Put another way, if the absolute universe could exist, even god wouldn't know it.[How can a god that can't exist, possibly know anything?]

As for my pick-up line, I use Einstein's "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." and I can make your dreams come true. That usually works well, Lloyd.

Especially when you concentrate on the, "albeit a very persistent one."

Lloyd

p.s.
Here's a little something extra I sent to Fredrick; "Fredrick, you seem to mis-interpret my meanings just about completely. Let me put the above in the simplest dynamic I know. "The good is the enemy of the true." Now, many, many years ago, many philosophers settled for "The good, the true and the beautiful", as a convenient meaning of absolute philosophy. This of course is quite superficial, as is your assessment of hydrodynamics being only some important aspects of unifying, when in fact it's absolutely unifying. And Fredrick, I have no fear of placing knowledge in any model appearance, yet absolute ground is not, and can never be, well-grounded appearance___Absolute ground must be the fact, and not the abstract. Now, let me see if I can sort our differences out. In my world absolute is a simple adjective, and really nothing more, yet I use the term to avoid the foolish abstractnesses of the world of thought. The absolute, when I use the term, only means the infinite thermal FS, and nothing else. Any interpretations, outside of these meanings, I see as the ridiculous abstract, which others are trying to apply to the real physical world, which is ludicrous, to me. In the three pyramid model I gave you, abstract sits in # 1, absolute sits in #2, and both reside in #3, and so far, no language has been developed to discuss this linguistics problem, as no-one has yet agreed on the foundation of "The good, the true and the beautiful."

"The good, the true and the beautiful." This is where we find the entire human race, trying to decipher others linguistic meaning, without setting the linguistic footing, first. Now, as to my meaning, "The good is the enemy of the true", there are many definitions of the good, and I'd suggest narrowing, for conceptual conversations' sake, three major functions of the true, and again many for the beautiful, just as for the good. Why, you may ask? The good and the beautiful are abstracts, thus quite unlimited to definitions, yet the true is only the absolutely true, when scientifically understand, in its provable capacities. Now, at the same time "The true is the enemy of the good", because the true exists in the three major states of desirable truth, necessary truth, and ideal truth. Now, in the extreme, though one may desire to live[the good], it may be necessary to absolute truths survival, that the good be put to death. And, in the other extreme, it may be that both the good and the true die for the ideal, yet this isn't to say that the ideal is better than the good and the true, but that the presents' good and true are incomplete, and must be traded for the ideal complete.

I don't know if you, yet, get my meaning, but all present concepts are, as yet, incomplete. Linguistics of philosophy, physics and economics must be expanded, to its new completeness ideal states, for any of us, to truly understand each other..."

Lloyd