[Lloyd Gillespie]

I don't find much difference with your thinking also, Fredrick, but your signature claiming; "The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titilating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not. ", is where I have the problem, as it is far too abstract for science. Yes, math is an abstract tool, but it most often reveals real objective truths about our fundamental universe, yet your insistance on abstract nothing possibly being fundamental, disqualifies your science, and or maths, when you try to join too much, to early. The linguistic union is part of our incomplete understanding, to date... Now, as to separation being a fundamental of the universe, I'd certainly agree. The best way to clarify this fact, is to accept a two concepts[Godel's concept of the concept] level of understanding___The concept of spiritual intelligence___& The concept of scientific intelligence. They both exist, yet both destroy each's understanding, of the other. This is what we must work on, in order to understand each's differences...

Originally Posted by Fredrick

To claim that we can do away with religion and have science take in its place is a similar act of replacing one set of god(s) with something else that suits us better. Science does not have the full sets of evidence required to do away with god(s); science contains very important footings, but it does not contain all footing — cannot contain all footings. I have no problem with Lloyd stating on page 14 that "at present, science [is] the incompleted framework limited by its own incompleteness," but I must expose his words that this "may not be so in the near future" as a claim, a wish, a desire, an act of faith. If you don't like the lingo, I am happy to keep it at the first word: it's a claim, a not-substantiated, not-fully-founded statement.

Probabilities never are, Fredrick, yet probability math is a very useful tool of logic...

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Lloyd, I'd love to cut through the language and speak only straight-talk with you, but I accept that we are sitting behind computers and, annoying as it is, language is our tool. As I have said before, we are not far apart in our thinking, but our thoughts contain an essential difference. If I can distill it correctly, the beef I have with you is that you claim that science will come up with a unified theory, and I can only confirm having that claim myself under the condition that separation is the essential part of such theory of everything.[Agreed...] If you agree that this is a correct description of both our positions, then I will say that you are ultimately empty-handed in your delivery (a claim but no full-footing), while I claim to have evidence (of full-footing) in my delivery.[Not if you still use abstraction, as the universe is real, not abstract, even as to real physical spirits...] From my perspective, it is actually the same beef I have with Nobody (though his statement is not about science, but about non-existentialism); he too does not have evidence of full-footing, and circumvents that fact by saying that such full-footing does not exist.[And I say such full-footing exists, a-priori logically, mathematically, and empirically, i.e., no proton decay yet witnessed, yet we know the finite universe is decaying, through radiation of stars and other matter... The proton just takes longer to decay, than our present experiments, are capable of detecting... Of course, this is conjecture, at present, but the probability math, of universal decay, makes the possibility quite evident... I'll put my money on future proton decay discovery... Is it science yet, no of course not, but probability possibilities is far from religion. It's just perceptronic logic's possibilities___Still science...]

Language is an annoying tool here, because I can accept a unified theory, but only if that exists in the abstract.[All sceintific logic exists in the real world, not in the abstract, to me... This may be where one of the problems of definition is... Abstract thinking exists, but a truly unified theory, must support facts, not abstracts...] You can as easily find me saying that a unified theory does not exist, because the word unified is contradictory to the essence of everything being based on an initial separation.[No, I accept this as just the facts necessary to understanding complex, counter-intuitive thinking, and logic...] I claim separation started the material universe, and established separation is the ground-principle of our universe.[In the absolute matter of fact, I agree with that...] Cooperation is not the first but the second principle.[I don't see what cooperation has to do with random and uniform motions...? Yeah, they become logical with evolution, but that's just the necessity of universal matter's motions. We know it's not an illogical universe, so the facts say it's a logical universe, yet logic doesn't require cooperation, until man enters the picture___The universe's logic just is...]

In that manner, I see a pyramid of positions because the cooperation takes place as secondary result.[Fredrick, cooperation is not applicable to universe, until we, or other animals, show our ugly faces...] Therefore there are two grounded oppositional positions, and two positions that are 'independent' as well, though they are not grounded.[Again, you're applying abstracts, that just do not apply to an early universe. This is the trouble with adding spirit, where it doesn't belong...] Like DNA, there are four basic parts, and their cooperation is conditional (in their case they are based on two sets of pairs).[Yeah, this is fine in the bio-era, but there's no connection to the geo-era, from your ]

I see the pyramid of positions in science, I see this in religion, in philosophy, and even in non-existentialism.[Define non-existentialism...] I have no reason to make science less than what it is, but the evidence that I bring claims that science itself must accept the phenomenon of division at its basis.

I have no dis-agreement with division as the basis of science, as I see FS and motion, in no other dynamics...

Regards,
Lloyd