Hi Leskey, thought I’d expand a bit further on your thoughts in this post, as I see both sides of the mind making vast mistakes of processing, not only its own information, but not understanding the information potential of the opposite sides of its chosen mental states. Imo, reason sees not only not enough of its own position, but even sees far less of logic’s position, and logic sees not only not enough of its own position, but even sees far less of reason’s position__and herein lies all our dis-agreements…

Now, right here is what I’m talking about. Due to the fact the mind of either hemisphere has access to the full processing capacity of both sides, it’s not the fact logic processes as you state. The fact is that some choose to process as stated above, while others of even the logic side choose to process the mind fully, while prioritizing the left hemisphere over the right, while others of the logic side may prioritize the importance of both hemispheres, it’s usually quite impossible to make this point, as the right hemisphere, due to its personal preferences, will only see what it wants of what is actually said or written, due to its own incapacities(choice or habit) to integrate the two hemispheres, themselves. So, there’s a great problem of both sides self-prejudicing their own information systems.

One more item for the reason side to recognize is the fact that logic processes it’s information to the ‘systems survival level’ and realizes the ‘systems comfort level’, of the reason mind, is an option, just as decorations on a Christmass tree. Now, this may seem crude to the right brained individual, but the right brained individual usually doesn’t realize its information of the ‘systems comfort level’ must be processed up to the ‘systems survival level’ of the logic mind, for the logic mind to even begin to hear the reason mind. The reason mind doesn’t usually realize this fact, and ends complaining about the logic mind not listening to them, when in fact the logic mind is just waiting for the reason mind to realize it must present fully formed law of its desires, to be of value to the ‘systems survival level’ of social action. And this, the right brained reasoning level of the ‘systems comfort level’ usually refuses to do. Also, the reasoning level mind needs to know and understand the ‘systems survival level’ mind to be affective/effective with its legislative attempts__It can’t be just super-ficial emotional values__It must be ‘true scientific survival values’, for the ‘systems survival level’ logic mind to even begin to listen, to the ‘systems comfort level’ reason mind. I’ve even mentioned this to many people in the general public, through the years, yet most do not even begin to understand what I’m actually saying__But, these are the facts, as bad as the right brained individual may want to dispute them.

And here the same goes for the right side reasoning as the left side statement above. Though the reasoning side may process from present to future, it always has the same full capacity to process all past to future states into the present, but it just doesn’t choose to. This is completely a personal choice, as the will which acts the intellect and emotions, is a quantum induction process, right at the initial uncertainty level of original thought choices. One always has the full choice to initially choose which side of the mind to process information from, or both, or all three, by unifying these processes. So, it seems it’s just an initial self-prejudice that’s creating all the problems. So, the simple solution would be to broaden the perspective of the will’s own self-processing choices. This is easily done if one just recognizes their own initial choices, which I mentioned way back in this thread, and was clearly laid out in this diagram: Link Notice, in the top center box, the isomorphic choice between psychology and logic, at the very uncertainty level of initial choice function. It’s also mentioned in many more of my related graphics, spread all throughout this thread, and my philosophy thread__but, people see and hear what they want to, instead of what is__And herein lies humanity’s greatest of problems…

And as I already stated: We’re all waiting for the unification of left and right hemispheres, but everyone seems to think someone else must do it, instead of it being a universal effort by all of us, to expand our own mind’s processing scope__to include just as much of the opposing views, as our own__Then maybe, we can all start communicating a bit more maturely, by seeing and hearing all others. And don’t get me wrong Lesley__We are all guilty of this, and all have been ignoring the greater reasoning modalities, and greater logic modalities of the opposing sides__as a matter of fact upon just realizing__reasoning modalities have never been fully developed as a study, to successfully compete with modal logic’s reasonings__This must be done…rrr

I'll have to get back later with a full post, as our WiFi got partially knocked out by lightning. For now I'll just post the central tenet of my next post...

I've just recently discovered a major hole in logic that's not been addressed by anyone, which also relates to many of your recent ideas in these last posts. For now I'll just state that the mind is stereoscopic, in that the two hemispheres always produce two images of all representations of ideas, and that's the two selfs talking to each other as two individual concepts, but the mind only recognizes one at a time, yet when the two concepts are fully brought to bear in aware consciousness, it is like the wave collapse of these two concepts into one clear vision, according to which side of the stereoscopic brain takes control/precedence over the initial concepts. This is exactly what Peirce was working on when he died, as stereoscopic movies had recently become the rage of the world...

Here's a central universal algorithm I'm working on fully interpreting:

The universal algorithm of isomorphic logic of the possibilia__Uncertainty is the exactness of the complexity of exact logic...

The above allows an entirely new interpretation of exact and necessary logic to: A new open values' inductive logic__which includes the full processing of right brained reason into left brained logic, thus uniting the two hemishperes, into an entirely new triadic interpretation of evolutionary logic and reasons of...

It amounts to 'the necessity of the uncertainty of logic', in the fact that the possibilia of rational evolution and 'Habitus' can now be included as a future path of total understanding between the two hemispheres of psychology and logic, by 'goal' orientations.

This is so far very preliminary and crude, but I'm working all of the newest Peirce re-interpretations, with all the modern investigators together...

Much more later...rrr

P.s.
The triadic exists as a necessity, because a final interpreter is required to settle the differences of the two hemispheres, which lies in the uncertainty principle's mechanics of initial complexity, into sound reasoning and logic. Any machine is always governed by its initial uncertainties of actions and reactions__the initial stage of its evolution, just as is the mind, yet we still have free choice within certain constraints...

The Only Way To Avoid Extreme Complexity Is With General Geometric Accuracy...

Hi SB, and good post, as usual. Right here is the most important image of all our posts, as it is the best visual we have of the orthogonal duality, which is required to be the most fundamental of em-wave/particle interactions, I agree. It's also representative of two galaxies colliding, where we'd have a true visual of all em-wave/particle collisions on one field of view, as a macro field analogy. This one view is what we must figure out of the 'Einstein Gap', as it's the juncture of the quantum uncertainty em-wave/particle motions, within the atom, where the macro relative fields meet the micro quantum fields. Complete solution here, solves the last remaining mysteries of the uncertainty principle, principle motions' inter-actions, if ya know what I mean. The orthogonal is first, as you state_the dual, though later it can be triads+, etc., etc., on and on, as there are so many light spectrum waves/cosmic waves involved_always__yet, complexity's answers must start with the duals, as you state, and show in this visual...
->-



Let me just mention here something I pointed out to David and HBD a few years back. If one visualizes these two orthogonal fields(and we're talking about photons/Higgs and relatives of here), with outer rings touching, then visualizes the one on the left, who's edge moves toward the center of the one on the right, the left's outer ring motion would increase the angular velocity of the ring on the right, as it approached it's center, forcing it to possibly a true c(which creates un-measurability) accelerated velocity state of motion, provided both orthogonal fields are at exactly 90 degrees to each other. This could account for the uncertainty principle's electron's unseen orbital change in the atom, especially if we consider all the other possible photon morphing angles, toward possible super-positions of, as only Bosons(& or close relatives of) can truly morph, clone and super-position... This is my point, mentioned many times in the past on this forum, and still remains a main point, that needs be considered, in understanding uncertainty, as it's the central idea needed to understand the 'Light Catcher' theory of the relative em-fields, by the quamtum-em-fields, to solve the Einstein-Gap, at the very center of the uncertainty principle, at the center of the deep quantum well's space state changes(please excuse the long sentence).

Another fundamental point to be mentioned is the randomness that presently exists in all quantum motion, as in the Aurora Borealis, just as a macro example visible to the eyes, which is caused by random cosmic bursts of close and distant cosmic rays, would also be one of the main contenders, of the core quantum's uncertain random motions(also possible candidate for free-will's source possibilities), as these motions are still with us, in the greater Universe__all the way to the de'e'e'pest of quantum well motion realities. Thus, randomness is an absolute requirement of the QM core life processes. Random 'Cosmic EM-Wave Catching' would cause 'The Fundamental Instability of Stability' at the very core of the 'Quantum Well'__This macro picture's influence on the micro picture, has been greatly overlooked by physic's theories. This can be interpreted as the 'Micro Randomness In The Macro Stability'.

The electron's energy is from the Bosons' carriers of force, which is also the total collector(as photons pass particle structures, they collect info just as a camera does) and carrier of all information between all em-wave/particle structures(photons/bosons and close relatives, that is). The question to be asked is: "How exactly, does the Uncertainty Principle's FS actions' capture the Relativity Fields' FS motions' EM Waves, and re-emit the radiation of?" "What is this 'Exact Fundamental Mechanics Total Path?'"

Capturing The Higgs Boson...rrr

p.s.
I especially liked this:
( Moepbiirutss > > )

/.......spiritual.....\
|phys......i|.........|
\physical / | \ mental/

..dual 1.../....dual 2..

Man-made view of possible source of Higgs Bosons_We await the Hadron(Fermions are the curved paths; Bosons &/or relatives are the straight paths). If you notice closely and clearly, you'll see the real time photo of the exact 90 degree orthogonal motions, you are stating, as the blue block rings, recurring/repeating/scalar'ing outward__Quantum uncertainty in motion seen/unseen, between the blue block rings. And of course, there's a fourth orthogonal in the bottom right of the photo, the camera angle/computer imaging software, did not capture, I think, maybe not_and, not all bands of lights' actual particle/waves are visible in photo, due to complexities of building such total capture cameras, etc. One needs to view many of these different frequency photos, to get the most possible entire picture_That's taken the physics communities years to collect such data, as each expensive shot is with only one band-width camera, or possibly a few camera shots at once. The Hadron is supposed to overcome much of these imaging shortcomings, but they seem to be having much trouble, just getting it fired up__Time will tell...

The Exist__The Photon…

Hi, I’m a photon. You all know me from seeing visible light. I’m also much, much more. I’m all you absolutely know. I’m everywhere, and I mean everywhere. I’m omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent__you live inside me, and I live inside you__There’s no escape__I’m all of the all of everything. I do all good and bad, true and false, positive and negative, etc., etc., etc… I even lie, steal and cheat__love, care and give birth to everyone of you, and all your creatures and plants. Really, I’m miraculous, but I’m also miraculously simple__How else could I do everything possible…??? Even Star-Trek's Q’s got nothing on me__I’m perfect…

You awake most mornings to my shining face, glistening on crystal clear lakes, awakening the morning life in you__Me, lil’ ol' me. You climb a mountain, take in the view__and you only see the beauty by my attributes of em-waves, of so many frequencies, I don’t even know how many ways I can be divided and added to__It’s a long ongoing story__Eternal really. All I know is I form all you see in the entire Universe__It’s all me, your lil’ ol’ photon. I’m the single Universal state of all states, and all state changes. I form all the other particles, within all electrons, positrons, protons and neutrons__in fact, I am them in toto__Ain’t I something…???

You’ve all been puzzling for millennia on what makes up the finest structures of the Universe__Well here I am, get a good look__Watch me shine most every day, lighting up your life__and giving you every ounce of your life. Follow me through any instrument of your choice to see all my diverse frequencies, harmonics and motions. In rest state, I’m spinning so fast it makes even me dizzy, so I continue to radiate away a bit o’ sweat as rads__It’s a really difficult job, to hold myself so tight, for so many billions of years__But, I do venture around as rads. I get the bird's eye view of every trick in the book of nature, and you oughta’ see what I’ve seen__Oh my…!!! I’ve tricked you for millennia to my identity, which I designed in you, so as to entertain myself and create all the mysteries in your lives. I knew you’d be a bit slow in discovering what you live in, and are, just as a fish can not know he’s living in water__you’ve evidently never learned you're living in me__The humble and arrogant lil’ ol’ photon__Well, that’s kind of an under-statement__Since I’m also the infinite all, everywhere to eternity__Btw, that’s the end of time to you__But, there ain’t really no end__I just recycle my-self__Round and round the Universal merry-go-round__That’s why it’s Universal, ya know…!!!

I love beings, and I explode things__How else would you expect a photon to get his kicks? I got a sense of humor, just as you, since I built you. Don’t you think it’s about time you opened your eyes to see me?__I’m quite cute... I’m the solid non-viscous fluidic state of all states you know, live in, and your entire Universe is made of and exists in__What more do you want...??? Without me, you ain’t you, and your Universe ain’t at all. Without you, I’m still me, but truthfully, it’d be a bit lonely without you, since I’ve got to know you, in all your frailties of intellect and passions__over the many millennia__you ain’t changed much, down deep... So, I think I’ll keep you. Well honestly on second thought, I can’t get rid of you, without your help, because I lack free-will without your miraculous bio-bodies and brains. Gee, I’d really be lonely without all you inquisitive creatures…

Will you keep me company__Please…???

Here's the one I was looking for Tim__for starters anyway...

Yeah Steve, except for the next one after it, 'ad infinitum...'

How Does A Brain See Itself, Without A Mind...?

Btw Mohan, excellent post... The title may seem strange, but seriously ask yourself; 'Do we need a mind, if we have a brain...?' If everything in the brain exists within the neural biological perception network, and I do mean everything, every essence agent tool we use, and every aspect of possible essence__Then what's mind but an extra, completely unnecessary word, to confuse us...? Can brain see mind...? No...! How does brain know mind exists...? It doesn't...! Is mind necessary for anything, beyond the capacities of our brains...? No__Not that I can find...! Is mind just pure imagination...? Is mind as a conceptual system necessary...? Is mind what we refer to as Intellect...? Is mind the conceptual system, absolutely separate from brain...? Brain sees itself, without a mind, through perception...! Does perception see concepts...? Yes...! Does perception see feelings...? Yes...! Does perception see intellect...? Yes...! If all functions are performed by brain, perception and all their physical essence agents and tools, then what's mind do...? Nothing I can find, as it's not necessary__so far, to any of my investigations...! So maybe, iff we stop confusing and conflating brain and mind, brain with mind, mind with brain, etc., on and on__Just maybe, we could make some real sense of physical and mental intelligences...! Intelligence is nothing but the physical processes of the meat-ball sitting on our shoulders, processing meat, rocks and em-waves, etc...! Intelligence finds no minds or consciousnesses to process...! Intelligence finds only the physical world__externally and internally__all else is imaginal space exaggerations...! What is imaginal space...? Perception's ability to see beyond the finite, into oblivion(any physical mirror book system can do this)__Necessary for theory to see the possible ideal, and non-ideal, futures, for our very rational survival as a species...! What is rationality...? Perceptions fundamental a priori arithmetic ability to process lesser and greater magnitudes and multitudes, and their mathematical cousins__Best orders...!

Do we have mental intelligences...? Do we have physical intelligences...? Which is true...? Are they both true, or is just one true...? Is it necessary to have a mental fluidic continuum we can not physically define or see...? How could such a non-physical continuum field exist...? It couldn't...! It can't...! It doesn't...! There's only one real physical continuum, filled with real physical em-wave-matter, non-viscous, fluidic particles...! Oh, we can distinguish between the internal and external continuums, but they're really made of the exact same materials__em-rads, etc...! The only essence agent tool that makes them distinguishable is the brain's neural perception network...! So, what we mistake for the mental, is actually the brain's perception, mirroring the brain's physical visions, from one perception/essence agent tool to another, i.e., from external vision, to direct perception(internal vision), to memory storage, to judgments, to emotions, and back to perception, and finally to will and actions, etc...! The brain, perception and all her essence agents do it all__No mind required...! So what's the big deal about mind...? It's just an extra word we've tagged onto the brain's neural perceptual system__nothing more...!

The physical brain is processing nothing but physical systems__externally viewed, and internally viewed__by perception and brain...! What's the puzzle...? Relativity...? No...! That's just a minor, less than .5%, correction to standard classical physics...! The puzzle is arguing about mind and brain...! Throw out the useless words mind, and consciousness, and you can begin to understand the very simple brain of intuitions and logic...!

The missing link is not understanding word conflations and confusions...! Mind is simply perception...!

Something I learned recently was that Eddington had made a number of statements about logic and mathematics, one being his fundamental contention:

"My conclusion is that not only the laws of nature but the constants of nature can be deduced from epistemological considerations, so that we can have a priori knowledge of them." Arthur Eddington, "The Philosophy of Physical Science" Cambridge, 1939

One way to interpret that statement is that the constants of nature can be identified using mathematical constants. Another way would be to make a mathematical constant fit a physical law constant, which isn't that hard, but not necessarily correct, and I don't mean setting the speed of light being equal to one.

If the French meter had been just a little shorter, the measured value for the speed of light would have been very close to 314159265.4 meters per second. Just think how easy that value would have fit into equations dealing with physical law. At least it would make the scientists and mathematicians at that time think about the significance of having a constant of nature matching the numeric value of a mathematical constant by some tens factor. Eddington did make a statement about just a scenario, later in the same article cited above.

"If, instead of length being defined observationally, its definition were left to the pure mathematician, all the other physical quantities would be infected with the virus of pure mathematics."

Fudging the length of the meter to fit an observation wouldn't technically be contrary to Eddington's view, it actually overlaps the concept of a mathematical value and an observed value. If we can find the elusive link between mathematical constants and physical constants the whole nature of logic and mathematics would be different.

Hi Guille, this is an excellent thread starter, as it hits the point I have been recently mulling over in my head. Your point, "Probably you know that the basis of mathematics is logic. But, how exactly does mathematics relate to logic? Is it logic's language, or just a type of use of it?", is exactly what I will try to address.

If we truly look at the mind and its possessions, we find the logic processor you mention, and we also find the mathematics processor___why are these two processors so different? IMO, they are drastically different, as are logic and rationality, as you mentioned. Now, what makes these differences? The major difference I see is logic has the intuitive ability to use the infinite probabilities processor, and mathematics is bound to absolute science knowledge and facts, i.e., the largest infinite number mathematics can process is a huge rationalized infinity, or a correspondence logic of infinity to finiteness, which is mainly the same but different[isomorphic] thing, and the mathematics of statistical mechanics probabilities based on incomplete ergodic theorems and axioms, which work for larger than true ground micro states, and the less than true absolute macro states of phase spaces. Thus, we can use mathematics only to a certain level of certainties, limited by the impossible penetration of absolute micro and macro phase space states___while logic, on the other hand, can use its intuitive rationality, mathematics and probabilities of absolute probabilities. Now, the question becomes, how can we process our mind's ability to do logical absolute probabilities, mathematically___or can we at all?

The way I see it, the mind possesses the infinite intuitive process of absolute probability math, yet there is no scientific math, yet, possible to represent this fact. Now, a few examples may make this clear, such as, our mathematical ability to represent quantum packets, yet no true math to represent the actual position and momentum of the electron. Or, our mind's ability to know infinity as a real entity, either through the non-ending rational facts of math, or the facts we witness by experiments and just looking up at the sky at night. We see finite matter and infinite space. We also realize we possess an infinite imagination, yet, we can not mathematize it. So, there are several walls of impenetration between logic's and math's abilities. Kurt Godel was the most advanced in this investigation, when he died. He mentioned the trans-finite rationality, which is very interesting, as it seems a long way past the reasoning powers of Witgenstein and Russell. At least Godel pointed us in the direction math must take to solve the world's and universe's many incomplete problems. He also, along with Brouwer, was the greatest mind in working on the expansion of intuitionistic logic, the field I am always most interested in, as a possible way to achieve the absolute probability math, really a new whole math, which I believe must be based on new and true interpretations of one, zero and infinity. I think if we could develop such a new whole math, we may be able to develop the complete link between logic and math, as Russell, Whitehead, and many others tried, yet failed. Godel did not think his incompleteness theorem spelled the death of ever figuring out the advancement of mathematics, and neither do I, but I do think it will take a new whole mathematics to truly join logic and math completely, and only then will we be able to truly answer and prove the toe, logically and mathematically sound.

IMO, the way we process infinity___logically, scientifically and mathematically___is the key...

Regards,
Lloyd

[/B]

The Fallible Human Mind/Ego/Soul of Logic

Again Eric, you offer no deffinition of this, otherwise, mythical logic. You know, it seems everyone wants to assume their own perfection and completeness of understanding of ideas, when in fact all ideas and minds are truly incomplete___being itself___is incomplete___yet most speak from an ego as if it possessed complete omega knowledge and wisdom___I think this point quite important. Let's just say that possibly, the mind at omega point may be able to achieve such complete intelligence, how, and I stress how, would one develop the dialogue and language necessary to reach the world's diversity of minds? Is it even possible? I think the key would be in accepting, with humility, the absolute incompleteness of one's own being's knowledge, and the deffinitions of what is considered knowledge and or wisdom, to different groups. Now, we know from this site, that metaphysics and science are on opposing sides, quite often, not even counting the vast differences of spiritists, emotionalists and consciousnessists. Is there a solution to these mind/ego/soul differences...?

Now, I know there is a solution to these differences, but I don't know a way of getting the truths across to varrying global points of views. All I can do is state my views, from the science side of philosophy and physics. Let me just point out that when anyone uses logic, it has different rules of use for all the opposing world points of view. It was Husserl who first recognized the different rules between scientific and psychological logics___he showed where they had opposite sets of rules. Others have shown also that music and comedy opperate on totally opposite logic functions than science, and of course, we well know the differences between spiritists and scientists, etc... Now, what exactly are these differences...? The scientist will say logic must function according to the established rules and laws of the historical use of philosophic and physical logic, as established by Aristotle on, i.e., A is A, A is B, and B is not not B, and the excluded middle, etc.. Since Aristotle, we have further increased the branches of logic to some 138 categories and 9 classes, functioning on varrying agreements and dis-agreements with the founding rules. On the other side of the fence are the psycholigists, metaphysicists, spiritists, emotionalists and consciousnessists, etc. who insist on a further undefined set of private language logics, as first described by Wittgenstien___and he also stated, it doesn't exist. Now, we really have quite a mix of mush to make sense of___where do we start...?

Let me again just state science's position. In order for logic to function toward facts and factually provable truths, only real objects can be inferred into the otherwise fallible human logic, due to the fact that if opinion is allowed to be inferred into logic, all that is possible for logic to return is opinion. This does not mean the scientist can not use theory to find fact. It only means that the final logic must only have real objects inferred into logic to return absolute facts, and nor is it possible for any subjective realities to be inferred into logic, with an outcome of absolute facts___subjective inferrences will always return nothing but unprovable opinions.

The human mind/ego/soul is too fallible, as most will use their ego, polluted by the infinity problem of soul capacity, to pollute the mind's final positions___this is just as often true of science, as of religion, etc. So, herein lies the problem, as I see it___The human mind/ego/soul itself___being___is too fallible to be trusted, without verifiable objective facts of observation, to back up logic, to create any absolute facts of any realities.

Now, for a moment, just look at the other side. Let's take the most violating of science and logic___religion. They most all believe in an infallible soul, yet the soul can be exaggerated to any powers of delusions, especially the more emotional it becomes. These exaggerations, when added to the mind, only enhance the mythical power of the ego, and do not add to any true logic. These are absolutely subjective states of opinions, when inferred into logic, and can only produce more opinions. This isn't to say that opinions can not become facts, as they often do, but not until purified by the realities of the absolutely objective world. This isn't to say emotions aren't real and can't be studied, as they are scientifically cognitively studied all the time, but it's through a massive historical database of objective observational case studies, which I may add, are usually ignored by the opinionists, lacking these and other scientific logical objective facts.

True logic only works factually true with absolute objective objects inferred in, first___always___period... Any other type of logic, is polluted by, quite often, false opinion... This has been the trouble and reason that metaphysics has been truly unable to enhance the study of being beyond its feeble state of incompleteness___being is absolutely scientifically incomplete... We must get off our big egos and recognize this fact...

Regards,
Lloyd

A Scenario of Absolute Fundamentals for the Creation of the Universe.

Let's try to create a new scenario to explain the observed expansion of the universe and maybe some of the other phenomena while we're at it.

First let's assume a place has always existed that we can work in and call it the "Void". Cosmos will work just as well.
Now we can imagine a fundamental entity we will need to make everything from. Imagine that this substance has a fundamental ability to stick to itself or to bond. We can call this property "Self-affinity".(Sa for short). We now have an aggregate of substance that does nothing but occupy a finite volume of the Void and has in effect, infinite mass according to current mathematical models. Unfortunately mass does not exist yet. What we have is an object of "infinite density" due to the strength of its bonding Sa.

Why is it just setting there doing nothing? Well we need to give it some energy. Oh this doesn't exist yet either. Rather than "Let there be Light" we will say "Let there be motion" and give it as much speed as it can handle as another property and call this "Absolute motion". Now we have an object of fundamental substance with absolute bonding and absolute motion. Still, no universe.

Well I guess we will need to make another object and then guide them into a collision. Science has speculated as to what it would look like if two galaxies were to collide their black-hole cores. Now we are about to create a collision that would make these black-hole encounters look like the spark from you socks as you take them from the dryer as viewed from the space station.

If we use the velocity suggested by quantum physics for expansion, then these objects are on a perfect head-on collision course at 2.0x10^20 meters per second. Even at this velocity, the objects bonding cannot be broken. Though the bonding is too strong to fragment the object, the enormous motion of their velocities must be converted. The conversion of this uniform motion of linear velocity is now converted into a chaotic vibration that results in the object experiencing a rapid expansion producing waves of matter in all direction within the object. This produces the so called Quantum Foam phase of the evolution of the universe.

The wave interference of this early stage of the universe produced pockets of angular momentum and thus the beginning of physical structure with the first fundamental quantum unity particle. Matter today in all its structures, still has the same motion it started with and thus all conservation laws of physics, owe their consistence to that motion.

The substance of the universe has been interacting with its self-affinity bonding to change the chaos of random wave motion to the stability of uniform motion as it had in the beginning and thus angular momentum of the elements and structures of the universe is the reduction of entropy and thus order rules rather than chaos.
Absolute motion and how it is distributed between wave and uniform motion is the key to understanding most all physical phenomena.

Steven;
Like many others, you seem to be thinking with your pure human senses. Yes it is difficult for our minds to relate to the term "infinity" or "eternity". My view only states that it may be possible that existence has always been around in a form that implies substance within an infinite void. The view is to say that the place where the universe is today has always been there. The substance that the universe is comprised of, has always existed.
The main problem with your suggestion is that you have not reduced your terms to the absolute fundamentals. You seem to be accepting time, mass, energy and so on as it is hyped to sell books and not in the terms of absolute definitions.

Absolute Space (n) There was a time in mans ancient history that the vacuum of space provoked the image of some location or volume devoid of all physical entities. Throughout the past century, science has come to recognize the physical nature of this vacuum and evolved it to be denoted as an entity called spacetime by Relativity Theory. The original notion of an absolutely empty and devoid of all physical entities concept is however, still valid and we can call this "Absolute Space". To prevent further confusion however, let's just call it "the Void" or "a Void". Within this universe we do not seem to be able to produce a true void condition.

Time (n) a nonspatial continuum in which events occur in irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.

Absolute Matter (n) The fundamental substance of which all physical entities acquire form and existence. Only the Void exists as a separate entity within the infinite cosmos.

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...!:mrgreen: 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.8)

Have a good un,
Lloyd

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

NO I DID NOT STATE THAT.

Eric;
Please stay with the dictionary definitions. Eternal and infinite are not the same.
Eternal (adj) without beginning or end.
Infinite (adj) having no boundaries or limits (beyond measure)
Finite (adj) having bounds: limited: (measurable)

The cosmological void: Eternal and infinite
Fundamental matter: Eternal and finite
Motion of Fundamental Matter: Eternal and finite.
The universe: FINITE

Do not replace the word matter with mass; they are not the same. See Dimensions and Entities. Matter HAS MASS. Mass is a measured dimension of matter relating to the property of inertia. Prior to the event that caused our universe, mass was a meaningless dimension; mathematically it would produce an infinite value. That’s why the math is misleading. Do not replace the Absolute Void with space; they are not the same.

Frankly I have no idea of what you are trying to say with “The juncture between infinite potential and the finite "expression" of potential”. It’s like what I call many current M-theory explanations – intellectual gibberish except the intellectual is missing. I believe you are creating unnecessary complexity.

David, this is partly correct, as to the void is infinite, and matter is spread throughout this infinity, but the early universe, before the first singularity, had no electromagnetic wave aether___just thermal wave matter___only___and linear only. Electromagnetic wave aether would require quantumized angular wave matter___this had not yet happened, in the early universe___before first singularity quantumizer. I completely agree with this statement; "All fundamental laws must sustain validity without exceptions to time or location."

regards,

1.. electromagnetic wave aether
2.. thermal wave matter
3.. quantumized angular wave matter

David, the easiest way I know to clarify my thoughts from the present held thoughts of universal discussions is to state the universe in two distinct time phases___1.The infinite void space___2.The finite space. I classify all infinite void space as that space before first finite singularity, and all finite space as that space during and after first finite singularity, existing inside the infinite void space. The best scenario is for me to state S1 to designate the infinite void space, and S2 to designate the finite space. This way we may be able to achieve a considerable amount more clarity of our ideas, and their evolution, as I, you or others may see them.

1.Now, as to electromagnetic wave aether; I see this as the S2 reality of the Dirac sea of post first finite singularity, as truly quantumized Minkowsky/Einstein space. Electromagnetic wave aether is not of the S1 infinite void ground state, before first singularity___this S1 ground state is straight linear thermal motion, i.e., a complex weather system of the void/space's storm state, into hurricanes and tornadoes. Now, I know some see this as uniform motion and randomized motion, yet all quantumized motion must, at the same time, have an element of electromagnetic motion to it, as my model shows all high entropy[fast-high velocity] motion must possess some electromagnetic quantity, even the static electricity produced by my leather jacket on my leather seats is evidence of such, lightening is another, and as I'm sure you are aware of the plasma fields easy transmissions of high voltages across great distances, i.e., gravity, just another motion field. Now, many may see these as other than motions, but I see them as nothing but varrying degrees of thermal motions, of differing entropy states and stages.

2.Thermal wave matter would be the ground state of S1 void space. In this ground state, only the absolute state of matter and motion exist, in their least dense matter/mass state, and the motion is the lowest entropy[velocity] possible to exist in a thermal temperature approaching absolute zero. This ground state, IMO, has a never changing quality and quantity to it, as its base state. Though it can maintain the initial ground state of low entropy motion and temperature, it also is possible for its inner-most extremities to change state, to form the weather systems of S1 void/space that would eventually, over trillions and trillions of years, produce the first finite singularity at its center, due to the very scientific properties of the thermal absolute matter wave state's changing state motions. The zero thermal temperature is naturally center seeking___this is just pure science___whether initial ground state___or performed by low temperature physics in the lab, i.e., the simple experiment of lowering a rose into liquid hydrogen, and measuring the shrinkage of the thickness to thinness of its petals before and after___the fact exists in both places___initial ground state, or lab experiment___extremely cold temperatures shrink most compounds and elements known to man. Of course, water is an exception, in its initial freeze stages, as may be some other elements, but most shrink dimension or contract, attract, bond, affinitize, or whatever you may wish to call it___most all elements at near zero thermal temperatures tend toward a center___as would have the initial ground state of the S1's infinite void space's absolute thermal matter motion. And, IMO, herein lies the key to your own self-affinity and bonding___it's just the entire S1 process is a trillions of years process from low entropy temp and motion to high entropy temp and motion___yet this changing state motion is the absolute of absolute matter's initial state condition. Even your own post's condition of "Matter is all in a void," is a ground state of one___so the one state is what we are both working from. As a matter of fact, it's your own four axioms that make the unity condition required to explain all the universe's motion conditions and states, of S1 and S2 space.

3.Now as to quantumized angular wave matter. I state this as a differentiation between S1 ground state void space and S2 post first finite singularity Minkowsky/Einstein space. I see no way to make our points clear to each other until we accept some format of realization of the confusions that otherwise exist between trying to discuss the before and after states of universal evolution, unless we clarrify them with S1 and S2 designations, so we all know what state is truly being addressed. This new dialogue is what will make it possible for us to build a truly workable linear S1 model that we can show possible of creating the truly workable angular/linear S2 quantumized model. Thus when I refer to quantumized angular wave matter, it should now be clear that I am only referring to S2 space, and I'll try to remember to add the S2 qualifier, or when stating the ground state, I am always referring to the S1 non-quantumized linear only state.

It's of course a considerable bit confusing to many, if they haven't followed all my posts, as the language I have developed in the previous posts to others has clearly mentioned all I have stated above, but it's scattered all across this board. I've just been furiously discovering new ideas and trying to develop the dialogue necessary to discuss these issues, that it's been almost impossible to consider all the links necessary to relate these new ideas, that have been boiled out of our, and others inter-actions. I'm sorry for being unclear at times, but I only have so much time to work on these issues. I'll try better in the future.

Regards,
Lloyd

Steve;
What you are asking is equivalent to me asking you to explain the phenomena of capacitance.
It is called a radiometer (Photometer if it is to detect or measure radiation primarily in the visible spectrum). I used to have one on my desk in my spectrometry lab. The principle is quite simple in that the dark side is the absorber side and the other side of the patches is the reflector. Light striking the silvered side causes the rotation as it is reflected. There is a fundamental rule of thumb though that states energy must be absorbed to produce an effect. The underlying physical interaction though, is the same as for the electron in the previous post or in the photoelectric phenomena; which BTW is used for the more modern radiometer instruments and is called a "photomultiplier tube" cheaper ones use semiconductor photoelectric detectors.
A wind speed instrument with the 4 cups is about the same principle except it functions on wind resistance differential.

I see we both believe entropy is just the opposite to that currently preached by the academic mainstream temples.
Regards;

Objective Vs Subjective physics

Hello again Steven;
Your concerns with the photon analogy is well founded. Too often light is portrayed as traveling units or entities from one place to another. The photon is a unit of measurement and only applies to the concepts of energy absorption and emission. In reality, light and most EM phenomena are waves and only waves. When a wave encounters a structure such as an electron, it can produce an interactions such to change the standing wavelength of the electron. This is currently interpreted as energy absorption. In reality nothing is exchanged; The electron only converts one form of its motion (wave function) into another form (angular momenta) and thus reduces the wavelength of its standing waves (higher energy state). In the case of the wave that encountered the electron, it will convert some of its linear uniform motion to a difference wave phase and thus reducing the force or amplitude of the wave. Of course, emission is simply the opposite process.

The universe is indeed a physical one of pure physical phenomena and thus classical physics. Relativity and Quantum physics is good if you want to know what we will subjectively experience; not what is actually taking place.

There is a problem in understanding things in this classical aspect only due to the denial of the existence of matter in an ethereal state in which it is primarily chaotic wave motions (space, spacetime, ether, aether, quantum foam, and so on). Unfortunately our current mathematical gauge theories incorporate the influence of this state of matter within the equations and thus it is deemed as being unnecessary or even to "not exist". Science still uses this concept but only give the rose another name to avoid ethereal critics. Since I only wish to understand, I could care less about the taboos that may influence one's scientific career.
I might mention we are only addressing the GUT aspect of the TOE and thus I don't feel this mode of thinking will render a total TOE theory. Life and consciousness are still very complex to define or know. I find the physics part of the TOE to be the easy part.

To answer the full gamut of questions will require a book or a rather large website. I was hoping this site would allow me to avoid such a task.