Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 titillating 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 insistence 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... |
It makes me feel good to see we agree on not being that far apart, Lloyd. And though you write you have a problem with the statement I make in my signature, you yourself seem to deliver the answer on how to view it correctly. The concept of the concept is the appropriate way to solve the problem: the abstract is a fundamental part of how we view everything. If we want to come to an overall perspective, the abstract must be identified and given prime position. Without giving the abstract that prime position no full-footed outcome can get established.
The reason this demand exists at all is that we can only approach the goal of absolute knowledge in science from the outside; there is ultimately no recreation (though doing experiments is part of science of course). For the final delivery we can ultimately only come to a description of
creation. Hence, we automatically have to include the abstract because the answers are not the real thing; they are
descriptions of the real thing. We are using tools, so we must include the fact in our final answer that we are using tools.
My signature is kind of a question, first of all because I like to entice others — make others curious about my book. But also because science itself (scientists themselves) must see that having to make a choice is part of the ultimate foundation. And it belongs to the essential level of science itself too. A choice was made to establish the basics of science of today. That may be nice and fully defensible in some ways, it also means that a problem exists in science when the choice itself is not fully included as part of the groundwork (currently some scientists include, other scientists exclude that choice). It is a choice not to include the choice as part of the foundation. And that is wrong, incorrect, a falsification of reality, it cannot be done. It is possible
only because it takes place in the abstract (even though it changes the outcome). What it comes down to is similar to allowing the king or president of a nation to be above the law. The law stands and functions fully, except for the fact that the exclusion makes it a corrupted law in one very specific position.
Though nothing is truly nothing, the nothing is part of the basics. Without that nothing our universe would not be. Could not be. We can argue whether that nothing is an abstract or a phenomenon or a quirky occurrence, but that would just be words, just an argument for or against, or an argument for argument's sake. To name the phenomenon of choice we have to give the phenomenon of nothing a prime position because it is one of the two parts of the choice. The king or president must be included inside the framework of the law; otherwise the law is not thé law. Understandingly, the king or president does not want to be bound by the law, but if we don't capture the king or president within the law, a possible monster is allowed to rule the nation. To make this a fully captured world, we must capture the spot from which we capture, too. In science, that spot is the spot of choice itself.