False & True Philosophical Utopias...

[SteveA]

Oh, there’s the occasional kook that wants to argue, but for practical purposes most agree to not dis-agree about this simple system of facts, even though all real objects can be represented by their relational qualities and quantities of contents and attributes. Simply put, all objects content and fields can be represented by a simple algebraic formula of X/X = 1 + IEE, or any object divided by itself to infinitesimals equals the one object plus its isomorphic extensions and entanglements,

That's interesting that you added the infinitesimal component to this. Yes, I think you're very much correct and this is similarly why irrational numbers aren't numbers in a typical sense and ultimately pi may or may not equal itself by typical definitions of real numbers - the infinitesimal components are ignored, which is perfectly reasonable in terms of physical approximations, but in terms of logical identities there are different constructions of pi that could be proven to never construct the same rational number (for example, we could simply show that one form of construction is always relatively prime to another construction and there would never be a way to "lay down all the points" in an identical manner between them. These infinitesimal structures have various forms and properties that also quite complex, unique and diverse ... so we have the equivalent of higher dimensional fractal structures embedded within things that can appear as simple as the area of a circle and it depends on the form of construction as to what properties are embedded within the same large "infinite" structure (even if that's not the largest infinity - sub infinities are still infinite and they allow for fractal/dynamic/chaotic forms).

since it’s really only possible for us to break down the molecular structure that far in nuclear explosions, which we don’t often do. The fact of the object for all practical purposes is one object, containing the simple chemical and biological attributes most of us take for granted.

I agree that there should logically be a level at which moments of time are describable in an objective manner as a single number - physics is fundamentally about communcating "by the numbers" but these are similar to conscious words that have non-numeric contexts and meanings.

If we decompose a number in various ways, it can also be seen as a construction of smaller numbers, though the end of such a decomposition is always finite and terminates - that's experiencing a moment as a collection of properties in an instant.

There are many ways that such a process could be rewritten and transformed but basically this descibes universal computation - any physical theory communicable by science is going to be limited to describing, at most, a structure of universal computation - (anything any finite deterministic computer could compute, which is really just all the possible permutations between sets of information).

This, I believe is where the laws of physics appear - anything physically communicable within a finite time is also finite - though unbounded time contains unbounded information, and makes these finite statements empirecal/statistical/probabilistic instead - they're left to be changed.

Iff one wants extremely complex conversations to take place, one should premise the subjects with specific categories, so these ideas can be discussed sensibly, especially when they involve scientific as well as metaphysical properties and attributes…

Yes, I do agree that the correct context is necessary, but if someone looks out at the world, there is an implicit context involved and not matter what scale this contexts moves to, there is still a context beyond it.

So in this sense, there is no context - because there is forever a context and it's implicit. Though if something does not experience growth or time, then this context may not exist, but the objective reality of time could be quite pervasive and encompass a broader "objective" reality from a subatomic particle to beyond the universe and past the texture of velvet and the smell of winter.

Consider that a group of people living in a forest in a village will likely see trees (at least that's what I believe to be true) and animals and maybe mountains, but not New York City. Does this make New York City any less real or an illusion? No, they can both be real. Considering that reality is only trees is the illusion. Now I'm not claiming that there is some physical reality that which people perceive there to be but simply that these physical realities aren't the same, and that there appears no way to confine there to only being finite differences, though in those cases we're not really looking at other people but things and properties extending back toward the Big Bang and beyond, or out into the edges of the known universe (not uncoincidentally spherical - though the spherical form implies that we really don't know what we're looking at ).

I appreciate the flexibilities in your view. You're very open minded and trying to maintain a solid perspective, which is great (personally, I think that's the ideal mindset - pick a point to define as true and try to build from there).

I admit I tend to overreact some though when I hear close minded views that want to just say someone else is wrong and don't bother putting in much effort in trying to understand what the other intended to say.

I'm going to have to get back to some of your comments later (I've been a bit busy recently but I apologize for taking a while to respond).

Thank you, Lloyd for the consideration of putting thought into your comments and working toward that more inclusive view.

Also, have fun

[SB_UK]

woof !

[Lloyd Gillespie]

[quote=SB_UK;96428]Lloyd Gillespie
Your posts are simply too good.
So - a whole buncha' people lost in mis-understanding (semantics).{LG_I realize also...}

How do we make language clear?[lg_In order to make language clear, we must first establish clear distinctions between mentalities, and the classifications of categories of all's personal thinkings(instincts to intellects), from the simplest tables distinctions expositions possible. I have developed these tables for clear expositions. ex. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2QxI45oGwK...icDistinct.jpg This is just one of many I've already assembled. It's the simple basic selves, of diverse communities of thinkers. This can be a start.]

We need to ensure that people - when they communicate
*know* when there's any room for mis-understanding in their communicating partners.[Agreed]

How?[lg_Some would want this process as simple as possible. I think this is possible, but it isn't quite as simple as a, b, c, it does take a bit more, but not a whole book. Another ex. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2QxI45oGwK...ommonSense.jpg I'll just offer these two for now, not to confuse any further. If members just ask questions of what's here not understood, it may be a start, as these were developed out of my philosophy questioning meetings, as resolutions of problems of language and idea problems we were having. And this philosophy society has the deepest thinkers in all areas, emotions, spirit, math, quantum and relative physics, as well as all divisions of philosophy and thought. We of the group have been just as stumped as everyone here on ToeQuest at how to make our ideas understood by others. We are making some progress, but diverse groups of individuals are time consuming to weild.]

By ensuring that the ideas which people are communicating are inter- nally logically consistent between the two partners? That one understands the other - that the other understands the one - not because they're speaking the same language - but that their language is forged from the same underlying structure. Those structures will need to be the same -and will represent a connection between logic and knowledge - a common model - a common shared model of reality - representing a structured 'Theory of Categories' as the starting point - the global infrastructure from which words are then forged.[Absolutely agreed]
~*~
Point
The convergence which need occur, for people to *truly* understand one another - will need to be in the structure which underlies the words which people use. We call this the mind.[lg_Here a few new words need be learned, because our present language does not have the proper words for clear distinctions, as the modern world has conflated these meanings. Just look at the two tables offered. Aesthetics, A-Aesthetics, A-Esthetics and Esthetics have been completely conflated/mixed into the one word aesthetics, which will not describe instincts to intellects, without severe mis-understandings. Also, we have no clear distinctions for logics between natural folk logic, and academic intellectual logic. This is why I offer the 1st table. We must have these clear distinctions for understanding to even begin to understand one another.]

The global human mind from which local human minds are formed - need converge - prior to the words from the local human minds potentially, acquiring group meaning group meaning == general (all of people) validity.[lg_Exactly. Six months seems like a long time to reach understanding, but I feel it may take this long, unless more members are truly interested in speeding up this process.]

General validity - and we're back around to logic again.
A single internally logically consistent global model from which our individual perspectives grow to become.
The 'Categories' represent the units which need be arrayed into order. When arrayed into order - the tree structure forms. Where the tree structure has a beginning and end.[lg_You are absolutely correct. My 50 pages of tables, graphics and images/informations offer just such a structure. If you wish you may have an early preview of them all here: http://kondratyev.blogspot.com/ The trouble is, it will most likely take my interpretation, as we go toward the goal of an intuitively interpreted and understood, complete system of eclectic general global structured thought.]
~*~
All of the various category theories are essentially about the completion of a puzzle - the completion of a puzzle which on completion doesn't mean that we'll come to an end - instead that we'll begin again.[lg_True, evolution is much larger than our puny minds will ever conclude, but we can realize truth's intuitive true and pure liberty goals, to work toward__And at the same time realize total truth is the object of universal evolution's march toward that truth goal__not necessarily to achieve it, but to seek it. Perfection / | \ Truth.]
~*~
Attempt to simplify
Even without any of us (bar wikipedia) storing all of the details in our local mind (at any one time) - it's clear that we're approaching a seeming end-point in our species' comprehension of reality. It all (more or less) has begun to take shape. As it takes shape - the general thrust of this argument is that a global structure representing a structured (hierarchical) array of a model for the inter-relationship between knowledge (knowables) has
settled into position.[Totally agreed]

We (individuals) 're like ants - offering up sacrificial explanatory models of reality for the global structure's approvalaisal - and then waiting to see if those models become incorporated into that (if so then just that little bit more simplified) global structure.[lg_I'm only shooting for interpretation of other's ideas, even more than my own, but I do feel I am offering the simplest interpretation of a completed/with qualifiers, sensible global structure of thought.]

The simpler model wins. The simplest model with explanatory capacity over 'all of reality'. The simplest model represents a global minimum.[lg_That's exactly as is my goal and work.]

So - what's the mechanism for model to be selectively pruned towards idealized (perfect) simplest structural form?
The mechanism would appear to be the analogue of the shortest distance between two points being 'as the crow flies'.[Excellent grounded analogy]{Cont.}

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Continued Sb and Lg Post...

The quantum wave collapse model appears to result in the crystallization of the one shortest path between two points - where immediately prior to collapse - all possible routes are taken.[lg_Here is why I've stated the mind must be used as a quantum laboratory to more easily understand the quantum waves inversions, convergences, divergences and the comflexivity of. And I'm simply meaning to look at the internal concept processes as in and out quantum motions of photons, since that's what most quantumists have finally boiled it down to, whether of the complex schools of conformal geometries of matrix mechanics of, or the simpler, yet still quite complex, schools of cognitive psychologies. Here's the examples I'd give for the latter: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_2QxI45oGwKI/Sp51vajBw_I/AAAAAAAAAHE/Cp8z-CPk85c/s1600-h/LefebvreSelfRef.jpg /|\ http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2QxI45oGwKI/Sp1gIWzxK8I/AAAAAAAAADE/YjEVJn6duww/s1600-h/Lefebvre2.jpg /|\ http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2QxI45oGwKI/Sp1gHj8Ix7I/AAAAAAAAAC0/zHLrt-sn4Wo/s1600-h/Reflexivity.jpg /|\ http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2QxI45oGwKI/Sp1gH6sPxlI/AAAAAAAAAC8/YM8-MyMpkPQ/s1600-h/PeirceMil.jpg Don't let the last one scare you off. It's the Russian/American military's psychology program that's also seriously trying to deal with the global social complexity problems.]

Attempt to suggest that the mechanism of quantum wave collapse - is shared (perfectly) - with the model of convergence in models (of local minds) into a global mind
- into a global mind (a very specific structure - the structure of a web) from which perspective - the perspective at the local (individual) level - the collapse
of the global waveform of mind into 'enforced moral consistency' at the local level will be seen.[lg_Sb, I think enforced moral consistency will/can be achieved by enough people realizing, for the first time in history, a true model of lil ol' planet earth really exists. It's just nobody's seen one yet, so everyone's at logger-heads, in total thought grid-lock-lock-lock...]
~*~
The choice of philosophy over psychology seems correct
(your other thread?) - it is impossible to think clearly until philosophy has been structured - separated into categories and then arrayed into that single internally, logically consistent, hierarchical, recursive global structure - that all people (until generation of that structural form) are
feeding in their lines of enquiry (perspectives, observations, explanations) towards group convergence.[Totally agreed]

Local contribution ->- Group convergence in the global structure of mind ->- Local enjoyment (of restructured society)[That's it...]

Ahhhh!

From which vantage point we realise why all higher degrees are labelled 'philosophy' M Phil, D Phil (PhD) - knowledge has been being acquired to build not (as we have thought)
- a model of the external Universe - instead (more appropriately considered) - an internal Universe
- a model from which our minds then operate (A working single blue-print to inform our 5-10 billion unique perspectives) - a mechanism of permitting us to (unlike in the case of external reality where we can't seed our own reality) - a mechanism for us to 'create our own internal/local reality' ADDF::Nova to make 'Heaven a place on Earth' ADDF::Stabilenda Carlisle ~*~ good post.[/quote]

[LG_Couldn't have said it better myself. And wouldn't have wanted to...]

[SB_UK]

~

sploink!

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Steve, I'll try to wade through this...

But I can't maintain every other belief I have and get it all to fit - finite logic and time do not mix - there is no logical way to constraint time inside a box.[lg_Then stop mixing and constraining them Steve, use them where they belong. Finite Logic / | \ Infinite Time__Problem solved...][Logica Utens / | \ Logica Docens i.e., Folk / | \ Academic...]


The only resolution to this problem appears to be the existence of an infinite determinism.{lg_When you abandon science, all's left is the exaggerated/exaggeratable imaginal. Determinism/strong, is not science_It's the god factor again, and science dis-allows it, due to the fact it answers everything, and that means nothing...}

I'm trying to give a little better picture of what infinite determinism can look like - there is not such a thing as an infinite void[lg_And that is totally unprovable_Pure conjecture and theory...], except as once again, something entirely new and passing and mixing and flowing and dynamically growing and dancing etc.{lg_I like Saturday nights too, but we're discussing science, I thought}


Now can we also logically explain why specific processes are used or specific points selected?{lg_Absolutely Yes} That also appears a logical paradox[] - either you know it or your don't or you can figure it out, but as long as time is "running" there'll still be the one you've overlooked.{lg_You search far too hard for information/causes/knowledge __ Awake_It’s before your very eyes…}


Now what if we could sort out those diffusions so they weren't so chaotic and random? Would the Sun still appear as a sphere in a 3-D space?[lg_Tell me something_Have you invented a machine to make it disappear] I doubt it - it would probably appear as some hyperdimensional tetrahedral form - the volume encapsulated by endpoints.{lg_Boy, you really are out there. Do you have alien parents__SM…?}

Just having some fun Steve. I can't take this stuff too seriously...

[SB_UK]

complex -> woof / | \sploink


real




well God alone knows




~*~

geographic North pole / | \magnetic North pole

[SB_UK]

A magical punk dragon thing ?

Richard Dawkins is too short; please elongate to 10' on the rack.

XXX Pope

[labelwench]

Well that's a good question. I'm at least trying to stick to something that I can hold as true - even assuming everything was an illusion, that still doesn't mean you can't figuratively "pick up a piece" and use that as your basis to define truth within it.

Originally posted by SteveA

"Throw your homework onto the fire ... ...

ved -anta
The end of knowledge

Originally posted by SB__UK

The convergence which need occur, for people to *truly* understand one another - will need to be in the structure which underlies the words which people use. We call this the mind.

Originally posted by Lloyd Gillespie


Interesting comments by all.

By whatever means we select as our personal truth, by which means we seek our own Philosophical Utopa, I would hesitate to judge any of them false or true.

All perspectives will be required before we can fully discern the whole.

Perhaps we are not yet capable of such comprehension, and that is why the answers and understanding remain elusive...LW

[SB_UK]

Do you have alien parents ?