Lloyd Gillespie's Blog

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

All I mean Dave is that we do not yet know this, as I have learned through history that logic itself sometimes becomes its own proof, as an example many of the fundamental axioms of mathematics and philosophy. Many are just self-evident proofs. Future logical creations can also possess such character. Though I do admit it's rare today, but it does still happen, i.e., new ways discovered to use math and logic combos, and even entirely new math and logic systems, most likely will be invented. Then watch out world - here comes the real TOE...! That's all I meant. The accuracy of what actually constitutes absolute zero is indeed questionable.Again as I said, none of us knows what new math and logic systems are in the making. Just as Guille has mentioned, he is working toward creating just such logic and math systems of philosophy, as in his case, a more metaphysical one. I, on the other hand, am working on both sides of the equation, logic and metaphysics.

Intervention of gods is VooDoo to me also, but I am much more lenient toward those who need belief systems of such, to fall back on when science takes all their natural beliefs away. The secular can be awful rude and powerful at destroying the natural mind's ability to survive in public. I don't think any of us should make the mistakes of Hegel and Wittgenstein, who both pushed it so far they have been laughed off the face of the earth by all sensible natural caring people. This is an area I respect the likes of Charles Sanders Peirce, who defended the god-fearing even though he personally was a non-god-fearing scientist. He was a truly wise man, and mathematical logical genius, to boot.

Have a good un,
Lloyd

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Eric, the way I see it we are trying to define two entirely different absolutes. I only accept one absolute___The absolute one law of the universe is___The infinite thermal space matter motion is one single ground state entity. This is, imo, the universal ground state mechanics explanation in and of itself___This law of one law is the law of all law. This represents just a simple common sense mechanics of the ground state of the infinite universe. The absolute model I'm representing is just this one law state of___"The Absolute" is infinite thermal space matter motion.

Now, I think the place where we both may be getting messed up is whether talking about the infinite or finite concepts. Since this dialogue is so new to the world, we are both bound to make mistakes, as are all others of our and their interpretations. My problem with your definitions, so far, is there hasn't been enough of them. One time I see you responding scientifically, and the next metaphysically, about the same subject. I am trying to stay focused on the scientific, only, to get this model down pat. Since you are new to the forum, you most likely, don't see the problem of bouncing from one view to the other, as much as I do. Like I said, a while back, if you wanted to discuss the deep metaphysical aspects of the absolute, I'd be more than willing in private e-mail, but not on this forum. You didn't take me up on the offer, so we are still stuck bouncing between science and metaphysics. I know they represent the one, but I think dialogue can only be achieved separately, as I've tried with many for years, without success.

If that helps,
Lloyd