False & True Philosophical Utopias...

[Mikal]

My comments within SB's Post as: [] & {}

Oh you don't have to speak loud to me in this area, as I've suffered from her viscious teeth, at different times, all my life. I'm still a recovering 'everything bad actor', but I guess that's how it's taught me the aesthetic/esthetic path__I hope...

Hi Lloyd...in regards to your post to SB, I totally agree with you about systems in China and other nations. These are smaller Nation Dictatorships. If you start to talk about large Global Systems which have the overriding potential for dictatorship, you are talking World Dictatorship. All dictatorships are evil in their nature but the one most discussed as to the present referred to as the NWO is particularly evil in nature....here is a quote from Dave Hodges and his show, "The Common Sense Show" which airs over The Republic Broadcasting System. Dave is also an exceptional researcher....

"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation."
David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations


Regards Mikal

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Lloyd...in regards to your post to SB, I totally agree with you about systems in China and other nations. These are smaller Nation Dictatorships. If you start to talk about large Global Systems which have the overriding potential for dictatorship, you are talking World Dictatorship. All dictatorships are evil in their nature but the one most discussed as to the present referred to as the NWO is particularly evil in nature....here is a quote from Dave Hodges and his show, "The Common Sense Show" which airs over The Republic Broadcasting System. Dave is also an exceptional researcher....

"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation."
David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations. Regards Mikal

Hi Mikal, and I agree the NWO are a bunch of kooks, but we need not believe all we hear about them. Yes they are power-mongers, that's for sure, but most of them are far right-wing pompous Christian radicals. I don't think we can put too much validity in the quote about them having a Lucifer oath, iffa ya know whata I meen...

As I stated, somewhat, in one of those posts of SB's, the economic laws of nature have a way of destroying all power-mongers dreams, after a while, and we need not, nor do I think we will, end with dictatorships, in the major advanced democracies, due to the power of the web__Today, thank god...

[Mikal]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Lloyd. I would have to be genuinely honest here and tell you that as a researcher of 26 years, I believe nothing and question everything...I am into deep examination not anything shallow...I am sure you understand...

Regards Mikal

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The Freedom of Information...

'Iff' we intentionally classify 'everything' in the Universe as information: Are we within our rights to call information the 'fundamental' substance_FS_which 'seeds' our Universe of action? I think your are correct SB...!

The only problem left, Is complete categorical classification of information__Me thinks...

Quantum Coding: From the Concrete Instincts to the Highest Abstract Intellects = The Classification Base...
Space / | \ Space = Discrete / | \ Open
Time / | \ Time = Progression / | \ Occurrence
Occurence / | \ Occurrence = Conceptual / | \ Non-Conceptual
Photon / | \ Information...? Carrier...? Yes...!

At least, let's work on it...

p.s.
Ya mean, that's all there is to it? The TOE is nothing but a True Information Theory_T*T... A T*T...? Well, of course it is...! It seems only a matter of naming__The ancient Chinese Book of Names...

Since the mind deals in information, and the mind of the Eastern line == the substrate from the Western scientific line == the creator from the Western religious line - and since the human mind is higher than the sub-quantum level - and is continuous with the sub-quantum level. So ... are we within our rights to call information the 'fundamental' substance which 'seeds' our Universe of action.~*~'Conveying information' then

- through extending its scope to the sub-quantum level then explains away why in 'Information Theory' - entropy appears to have been seized upon as a term of utility in explaining away information transfer - the point (I think) being that the second law of thermodynamics seeks re-arrangement of energy with direct analogy (because of the continuity above) with 'the freedom of information'.

[SteveA]

The Freedom of Information...

'Iff' we intentionally classify 'everything' in the Universe as information: Are we within our rights to call information the 'fundametal' substance_FS_which 'seeds' our Universe of action? I think your are correct SB...!

I'm pretty certain that anything science could describe with certainty ends up being the equivalent of a serial program (there basically an infinite number of programming languages that are all effectively identical in the end - so you could translate this model into anything a 17000 dimensional string theory could predict - it's the length of 1 dimension and the operations it can perform that determines its properties).

Now though this is true of physical communication, it's not true of the conscious interpretation of these and that makes quite a difference - imagine for example, if #17 is the concept of the quantity 3, or the #11 is a concept of identity or that #42 is the concept of a belief and #5 is the color red etc., but individuals don't necessarily translate these the same way and #5 might be green for someone else and #11 could be a concept of smallness instead of an identity etc.

I think when you dig down, that's about the only universeal way it could work - on one hand, that could be a bit frustrating, on the other hand it's practically a miracle.

In effect the logic that we'd be using then would not be the fundamental form but a layer built upon this.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Steve, you seem to be totally mis-interpreting what's been written in this post and this thread. May I suggest you start from the beginning, read every word of mine and SB's, especially all the links in those posts, please...

Then maybe we can consider dividing 2/3=0.6r and 1/3=0.3r or 0.9r=1, and discussing the ramifications of. For now, how about we stick to the subject...

I'm pretty certain that anything science could describe with certainty ends up being the equivalent of a serial program (there basically an infinite number of programming languages[I'm not talking about programming languages_my computer has 7 operating systems on it_OK?] that are all effectively identical in the end - so you could translate this model into anything a 17000 dimensional string theory[Na Da!] could predict - it's the length of 1 dimension and the operations it can perform that determines its properties).

Now though this is true of physical communication, it's not true of the conscious interpretation of these and that makes quite a difference - imagine for example, if #17 is the concept of the quantity 3, or the #11 is a concept of identity or that #42 is the concept of a belief and #5 is the color red etc., but individuals don't necessarily translate these the same way and #5 might be green for someone else and #11 could be a concept of smallness instead of an identity etc.

I think when you dig down, that's about the only universeal way it could work - on one hand, that could be a bit frustrating, on the other hand it's practically a miracle.

In effect the logic that we'd be using then would not be the fundamental form but a layer built upon this.

Good! Change your logic to Triadic + and see the true... Steve, if you'd paid close attention, Post #126, that you reposted, had this line in it: Non-Aristotelian/Non-Fregean/Non-Russellian Perspective, i.e., Logic from post #107. That logic's been out-dated for 150 years! Aristotle's, Frege's and Russell's logic is D-dimwit Incomplete logic_Please read Ibn Sina, Boole, De Morgan, Grassmann, Clifford, Lobachevsky, Peirce, Schroder, Vasiliev Logics... Open your mind and smell the roses of a new day_The crystal clear lake in front of my campsite, early in the morning, is amazing_Breathless...

[analog]

Hi Lloyd,

First let me say that though we've never met, it's good to have you back on the forum. I've come across many of your old posts during my time absorbing information here from older threads. I'm glad to see that we may now have a chance to exchange some ideas. I always like a challenge and with the recent absence of Dave (dleviwing), Greg (greybeard) is the only one left to listen to and put up with my ramblings. lol.

I don't have a lot of time to spend reading many threads these days, so forgive me if I'm misinterpreting something or just being ignorant, but on a quick run through and as gathered from your most recent post, I would have to say that as a strict materialist who adopts Dave's concepts of a paradigm of matter and motion, then ultimately we must quantify/unify all energies in terms of motion, and all further emergent structures and information between those structures in terms of the motions of matter. There are many layers to existence from our level inward, whereby a simple discussion of the social sciences, in terms of emotions and such, can be had at the most obvious resolution of our motivations of actions, yet it can always be taken towards the more fundamental level of how that blends into the entire system of nothing more than density variations of an FS and the entropy of an evolving universal system which exhibits the emergence of structures so complex that they develop the ability to mentally detach themselves nearly entirely from a systematically functioning world they're completely submersed within. We often act as though the interactions of the entire rest of our universe which allows for such things as atomic structures, planets, stars and galaxies simply stop at the surface of our skin and play no part in the further thought process we possess thus also the further structures formed by us within this system.

I did a little rambling on such things here http://www.toequest.com/forum/consciousness/4194-the-methodology-science.html a while back if you get bored and feel like reading. Might have to read a bit before I get to my point. I was a bit "long winded" as Dave would say, LMAO. I've often given much thought to the role of information and its place within such a paradigm though I realize our paradigms could be much different. Hope I'm not too far off the discussion. If so, my apologies.

later,

Tim

[analog]

Oh yea, within my own views, the "information" being processed in the form of density variations of mediums and structures by the entire universal system is merely those concepts we acknowledge of a classical Newtonian type interaction i.e. the conservation of momentum and the absolute physics behind such things as establishing direction and speed at the absolute scale of existence. All other concepts must find relevance within such, IMHO, in terms of how we relate such abstract things as emotion to the more familiar and easier to explain processes such as gravity and electromagnetism, which lend themselves much better to being understood in such terms.

To me, mankind and all of his imaginations simply developed as an internal structure which is nothing more than a part of the entire calculation of a volume moving from here to their with a change of velocity as information is exchanged in its truest form i.e. motion. Once we take ourselves off of the pedestal we've made for ourselves, it's not hard to fathom that similar things go on within the motions of all structures at all resolutions. Talk about a type of "many worlds" concept, lol. Yet, its all just forms of substance interacting and nothing as mysterious as many current interpretations gathered from the concepts of quantum mechanics.

Hope I'm making sense. lol.

[Graybeard]

Now though this is true of physical communication, it's not true of the conscious interpretation of these and that makes quite a difference - imagine for example, if #17 is the concept of the quantity 3, or the #11 is a concept of identity or that #42 is the concept of a belief and #5 is the color red etc., but individuals don't necessarily translate these the same way and #5 might be green for someone else and #11 could be a concept of smallness instead of an identity etc.

In effect the logic that we'd be using then would not be the fundamental form but a layer built upon this.

Steve ... Each person may see a different colour red, or interpret red differently .... But Science has a measured basis for the frequency of each wave (red) . So no matter what we perceive we have a standard that allows us to communicate exactly

cool bananas ... greg

[labelwench]

Steve ... Each person may see a different colour red, or interpret red differently .... But Science has a measured basis for the frequency of each wave (red) . So no matter what we perceive we have a standard that allows us to communicate exactly

cool bananas ... greg

It has generally been my observation that guys who wear pink shirts are of equitable disposition, and usually possessed of excellent communication skills.