Is there an absolute Principle?

[Guille]

Guille, it is true that nothing is outside of logic and can not exist, but post-modernists have all made the great mistake of thinking infinity, and absolute doesn't exist.

Don't associate me with pos-modernist. In fact, pos-modern philosophers are culturarilsts, not conceptualists. Therefore they don't talk about infinity. In any case you could give me another school name, but not one that exists for I don't belong to any.

This is one of the gravest errors in history.

You said it was very religious of me to find religion an error. Well the same is very religious of you to see anti-infinitism an error. And if you want to be considered by me more than what I consider a person who believes to be a true magician, then please give a rational-empirical background to your claims, and let them be not those that were used by infinitism, for you can only fight anti-infinitism with a new form of defending what infinitism defended, not anymore with infinitism. Just like in art, when realism got too annoying for artists in the second half of the 19th century, they didn't come back to romanticism, they invented a new way of defending anti-realism, it was impressionism.

I notice by other statements of yours that you do not believe in Frege, Cantor and Peirce's infinite mathematics, also, since these are the major propagators of such math.

Mathematics cannot treat infinity. Infinity is just a limit. As is zero. They are not numbers, not quantities, just limits to quantities. To mark the range where mathematics can deal. Just as religion and science are the two opposed limits for philosophy, infinity and zero are the two opposed limits for mathematics. However, the format might be different, but the opposites always have the same form (here I consider format a substitute of shape, and form a substitute of presence).

Here is your grave error... Carver Mead, the electrical engineer/physicist/mathematician working for Intel, has used such infinite mathematics to real world advances in computer technology.

And? I don’t give. This proves nothing. NASA and astronomers around the world still use Newtonian mechanics, and it’s more than a century since Einstein proved him wrong (not wrong completely, just inexact, unscientific).

He has also been granted millions of research dollars, from many institutions and others, for his various fields of work - real infinite mathematics work.

He will have no value for me—and, I believe, for everyone who has a will to find the truth—if he lies. I don’t know how that mathematics is, it might be correct, even if it deals with infinity. I’ve studied Russell, not gone into Frege though. But I don’t care how many stupid $ he gets with the stamped face of Washington or Lincoln…

Guille, I suggest you catch up to the real world of infinite possibilities and infinite realities.

This made me laugh a lot. YOU come out of that world, with Kantian critique, Hegelian Dialectic, Wittgensteinian logic… And when you realize the world, you’ll see that all you modernists might be at the top of the mountain, what you don’t know is that you are attached to stones that always end up rolling you down. However, we pos-modernists (as you call me) decide to stay down here, and tell you guys how the ground feels, how reality feels.

Infinity is real, has always been historically real, has been proven mathematically real for centuries, and will always absolutely be real. Are you infinitely real or not? Are you infinitely authentic, or not?

Thanks you Lloyd for showing this rigid straight decided thought. But again, it means nothing. Infinity is real, you say, then prove it. Has always been historically real, you say, then, first, remember that what has been real isn’t necessarily real anymore, and second, you should know that infinity has always been part of our mystical-religious history, nothing more. Ha been proven mathematically real for centuries, you say, well then, first give the prove of infinity’s existence, second you should know that what exists in mathematics doesn’t necessarily exist in reality, and third, that mathematics can’t deal with infinity properly as this one is for mathematics is base don logic and logic is incompatible with concepts like infinity.
[QUOTE=Lloyd Gillespie] The post-modern studies areas is the wrong studies area, compared to highly respected realist physicists, realist philosophers and realist mathematicians. Much of present physics wouldn't exist without second and third order, formal, infinite mathematics and logic. /QUOTE]
And you think those physicist, who reduce everything to a couple of entities, know reality? And you think the so-called ‘realist philosophers’ can explain objectively reality? And you think that mathematicians know about reality? The perception of reality is always an illusion. Mathematicians don’t have a clue, if they are viewed as only mathematicians, of the world. Philosophers are always wrong, for their thoughts are always good to their theories. Physicists fail to explain the four or five concepts have to deal with.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of simple first order logic and math for its easily proven completenesses, but these other systems are also required for our complex world.

This is what we want to think, not necessarily true. The fact that we can’t explain the universe yet without these higher order maths doesn’t imply that it’s not possible. What is thinkable is possible (this is what you wittgenstenians state, at least). And where is ‘infinity’ used in physics? Up to what I know, physicists escape from infinity always: when explaining fields, waves, time, energy…

At the same time, I think the TOE must be developed in the simplest language possible to reach the most people the quickest, as the world is fast approaching critical mass of sustainable survival. The simplest explanation will require the use of infinity, a principle the general populace easily conceives. The general populace understanding is much more important than the lost relative academic mind.

Yes, it will require the use of infinity, but only to explain that it doesn’t exist. And I’m not the academic, in any case it is you who is the academic thinker. You believe in a reality, an objective point of view, in a logic, in a truth, in an exact perception and conception. This modernism that surrounds and overtakes all your thoughts is academic.

As to singularities, Pascal wasn't talking about a singularity. He was talking about falsely seemed contradictions. Remember what I've stated elsewhere that Ayn Rand said; "Paradoxes are impossible. If you think you find a paradox, check your premises. One of them is wrong!" The mind is more intelligent than simple false paradoxes, though I've noticed many inferior philosophers have played with others heads with them for ceturies. I suppose, sometimes it can stimulate investigation, but...?

Paradoxes are obviously wrong, false. Nature has no paradox. But, however, many philosophers, in fact, some superior to most, have come along good ones. Zeno’s paradoxes are head-cracking. What I meant is that in philosophical thought, there are many contradictions, paradoxes, that really make sense and are true. But of course nothing is true in philosophy, if it wants to not be trivial. And if it’s not trivial, then it is false. A philosopher said this, can’t remember his name. Maybe Russell…

[mkirkpatrick]

A principle is a fundamental truth, a comprehensive law or doctrine from which others are derived or on which others are founded. An obsolete definition is a motive force. The protylality of the principal is a given. It assumes that others will be derived from it. An absolute principle is the One from which all others can unfold logically, each taking it's form from the protyle principal or motive force. It is the One and All you often write about.

Yes that is so,thank you for your kind comments,
regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Don't associate me with pos-modernist. In fact, pos-modern philosophers are culturarilsts, not conceptualists. Therefore they don't talk about infinity. In any case you could give me another school name, but not one that exists for I don't belong to any.

You said it was very religious of me to find religion an error. Well the same is very religious of you to see anti-infinitism an error. And if you want to be considered by me more than what I consider a person who believes to be a true magician, then please give a rational-empirical background to your claims, and let them be not those that were used by infinitism, for you can only fight anti-infinitism with a new form of defending what infinitism defended, not anymore with infinitism. Just like in art, when realism got too annoying for artists in the second half of the 19th century, they didn't come back to romanticism, they invented a new way of defending anti-realism, it was impressionism.

Mathematics cannot treat infinity. Infinity is just a limit. As is zero. They are not numbers, not quantities, just limits to quantities. To mark the range where mathematics can deal. Just as religion and science are the two opposed limits for philosophy, infinity and zero are the two opposed limits for mathematics. However, the format might be different, but the opposites always have the same form (here I consider format a substitute of shape, and form a substitute of presence).

And? I don’t give. This proves nothing. NASA and astronomers around the world still use Newtonian mechanics, and it’s more than a century since Einstein proved him wrong (not wrong completely, just inexact, unscientific).

He will have no value for me—and, I believe, for everyone who has a will to find the truth—if he lies. I don’t know how that mathematics is, it might be correct, even if it deals with infinity. I’ve studied Russell, not gone into Frege though. But I don’t care how many stupid $ he gets with the stamped face of Washington or Lincoln…

This made me laugh a lot. YOU come out of that world, with Kantian critique, Hegelian Dialectic, Wittgensteinian logic… And when you realize the world, you’ll see that all you modernists might be at the top of the mountain, what you don’t know is that you are attached to stones that always end up rolling you down. However, we pos-modernists (as you call me) decide to stay down here, and tell you guys how the ground feels, how reality feels.

Thanks you Lloyd for showing this rigid straight decided thought. But again, it means nothing. Infinity is real, you say, then prove it. Has always been historically real, you say, then, first, remember that what has been real isn’t necessarily real anymore, and second, you should know that infinity has always been part of our mystical-religious history, nothing more. Ha been proven mathematically real for centuries, you say, well then, first give the prove of infinity’s existence, second you should know that what exists in mathematics doesn’t necessarily exist in reality, and third, that mathematics can’t deal with infinity properly as this one is for mathematics is base don logic and logic is incompatible with concepts like infinity.

This is what we want to think, not necessarily true. The fact that we can’t explain the universe yet without these higher order maths doesn’t imply that it’s not possible. What is thinkable is possible (this is what you wittgenstenians state, at least). And where is ‘infinity’ used in physics? Up to what I know, physicists escape from infinity always: when explaining fields, waves, time, energy…

Yes, it will require the use of infinity, but only to explain that it doesn’t exist. And I’m not the academic, in any case it is you who is the academic thinker. You believe in a reality, an objective point of view, in a logic, in a truth, in an exact perception and conception. This modernism that surrounds and overtakes all your thoughts is academic.
Paradoxes are obviously wrong, false. Nature has no paradox. But, however, many philosophers, in fact, some superior to most, have come along good ones. Zeno’s paradoxes are head-cracking. What I meant is that in philosophical thought, there are many contradictions, paradoxes, that really make sense and are true. But of course nothing is true in philosophy, if it wants to not be trivial. And if it’s not trivial, then it is false. A philosopher said this, can’t remember his name. Maybe Russell…

Lot of word spray about nothing, Guille. Seems you've forgot arithmetic is the only true ground, possible. If it's not mathematizable, it doesn't truly exist, except in one's false perceptions and concepts. Even beauty is mathmatizable, i.e., the perfect equilibriated state of nature - the centropic arithmetic of aesthetics. As to infinity, if a flower or a perfectly flowing female isn't infinite beauty, I don't know what is.[they stay infinite beauty in my memory] Sex is infinitely necessary for propagation of species. Matter production is infinitely necessary for new nature and life creation. Sunlight is infinitely necessary for its philanthropic propagation of light to give the life energy. The infinite source of all is necessary for the finite propagation of all. Open your eyes Guille, there's infinite space up there... Open your mind Guille, there's infinite space in there...

As to logic and infinity, there are arguments through the centuries, I must admit, but as many mathematicians have so clearly stated, "It is always the infinite that gives birth to the finite." The finite can not give birth to the infinite, that would be non-logical and foolish.[as many foolish physicists have thought over the last hundred years - the false particle theories] Others have stated that infinity is beyond logic, but I don't find that to be necessary, when isomorphic logic is used.[by isomorphic I mean the many new forms of transformation logics] When you state there is no infinite, you state only your own ignorance of the fact, that such a statement is beyond your knowledge ability. Any logical mind clearly knows you can't know that - it is absolutely impossible to know the infinite can't exist. My evidence shows there to be an infinite number of waves and electrons in an infinite space, I sure can't count that high, so my logic must settle for infinite number, by simply being overwhelmed by any other possibility. Even Stephen Hawking calculated the decay of all universal matter to be ten to the one-hundred thirty-fifth power in years, and then what?[and I think that's extremely on the low side] Infinity? The infinite now-time space?

Energy propagation is infinitely necessary for the survival of our species. Where does infinite life energy come from, Guille? Is it the conservation of matter and energy?[btw an infinite law] Is logic from infinite spirit or matter? Is life from infinite spirit or matter? Is spirit, soul and mind infinite or finite? And I'm an atheist! You see Guille, I know, I know, the infinite exists. It is my infinite ground - the eternal mystery of life! I need not defend it, I'm just humoring you, believe any foolish way you wish.

"Finite to the finite. Infinite to the infinite." me

Regards,
Lloyd

True, there should be a principle that started all. That is EXISTENCE. I know, it is not the normal kind of principle with which we meet, but it is the reason why we have principles, why there are principles, why there are things from which to dervie principles, and why there "are" anything at all.

Guille, you state EXISTENCE and not seem to realize it connotes infinity?

Universal principles seem to be carriers for an expression of cosmic law
impregnated within.As the principle unfolds,it enables a law to manifest,and
become Active!A First principle, that had within it,all the others,each unfolding
at its appointed spot,and becoming!
kind regardsmichael.

Michael, are you familiar with Milo Wolff's work, about the origin of natural law unfoldings, and physics wave structure of matter? He explains what you ask the best. Your idea is very close to his. He's at; Milo Wolff

Regards,
LLoyd

[mkirkpatrick]

Have been absent from this thread for a while now,time to report for duty once more!

There most certainly is a first principle,logic damands it to be so!At the onset of involution
thrusting out into the "what was soon to become the embryonic universe"from the
singularity formed by awesome intention,was a line drawn,and a process began,that of
involution,wrapped up within this first,absolute principle,were all the other principles or
laws that would each be unfolded at their appointed time.

regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Michael, the human race is maybe only a few hundred million years old, at best___if you prefer a few more hundreds of millions of years more, that's fine. I have only one question___if, as you profess, universal consciousness is infinite, how does even the light speed traveling, of our brain waves, reach beyond this few hundred million light years light cone? Do you choose to break the laws of physics to make your theory true? And a second question, since the s1 infinite space must be non-quantimized, that means linear, it won't support electricity or information passage to our finite world of s2 space time___how can you possibly explain how the distant infinite no mind state of matter motion could in any way be connected to anything in the finite? My thinks your thinking is well beyond any biosphere's possibility of the quantumized passage of waves of light and information. I think we should stay within the laws of physics to explain any absolutely true principles of anything, "Mythos" or "Logos." So please explain such exaggerated super-luminal ideas. I think Einstein was much more correct than you___he believed all existence existed at true light speeds or below___this has been a law physics has been working with for a century. Yes, tis true, quantum mechanics allows 2c, but that allows their mathematics to work, without the real work needed to explain the universe with true c and below. I think we should all stay within or somewhere's near the established universal principles of the laws of physics, to arrive at any TOE.

regards,
Lloyd

[mkirkpatrick]

Lloyd,well as you are being thoughtful and polite,then so shall I,You said than Einstein was
more correct than me!Well I take that as a compliment Lloyd,thank you kindly! I am
grateful to be wrong to such a noble man.

You asked Lloyd how could the laws of physics deal with this superluminary ideation?
Well how far have you ventured into natural law,Lloyd?They are naturally transcendant
and go way beyond what is in the current textbooks.they spiral and bore into finer and
higher laws,travel through the physical realm,atomic and sub atomic,etheric and astral
planes,ascending deeper into consciousness and fluidity,and finally exiting into a super
symmeterized state,where the flow is deflected by eddies of quintessence,and a pooling
of essentials is merged back into the ocean of consciousness.

You also asked how does light breach this cone?It dont,is the simple answer,all manifestations are basically the same thing?There is nothing to breach,that is an illusion.


regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Michael, I have read thousands of books of the natural laws, especially of ancient and modern India. My own daughter teaches the Eastern ideas in her own private school in Maine. The name of here school is Namaste___I'm sure you recognize the name. Most of her formal education in the Eastern traditions is from her mother and I when we were studying these beliefs when she and her brother were growing up. That's fine, they both believe in something, however I wanted answers beyond the East's exaggerations of much of the natural laws, so I started studying Eastern logic, and found it to be almost identical to Western philosophy's logic and math ideas. Since I realized India did and still does produce very knowledgable logicians, and mathematicians, my views of Western cognitive studies was given more confidence. I actually, as many do, thought that India believed extremely different than the West. I've since found out it's only the fringes of India's beliefs that are that exaggerated. I have come to appreciate the old logics of India, Persia, and others of the East immensely, thus as they sincerely compliment the western logics, maths, and physics, this is what I choose. I like truth I can test. I only accept truth I can test.

That's it,
Good day,
Lloyd

Lloyd,well as you are being thoughtful and polite,then so shall I,You said than Einstein was
more correct than me!Well I take that as a compliment Lloyd,thank you kindly! I am
grateful to be wrong to such a noble man.

You asked Lloyd how could the laws of physics deal with this superluminary ideation?
Well how far have you ventured into natural law,Lloyd?They are naturally transcendant
and go way beyond what is in the current textbooks.they spiral and bore into finer and
higher laws,travel through the physical realm,atomic and sub atomic,etheric and astral
planes,ascending deeper into consciousness and fluidity,and finally exiting into a super
symmeterized state,where the flow is deflected by eddies of quintessence,and a pooling
of essentials is merged back into the ocean of consciousness.

You also asked how does light breach this cone?It dont,is the simple answer,all manifestations are basically the same thing?There is nothing to breach,that is an illusion.


regards michael.

[Infinite Consciousness]

Michael, I have read thousands of books of the natural laws, especially of ancient and modern India. My own daughter teaches the Eastern ideas in her own private school in Maine. The name of here school is Namaste___I'm sure you recognize the name. Most of her formal education in the Eastern traditions is from her mother and I when we were studying these beliefs when she and her brother were growing up. That's fine, they both believe in something, however I wanted answers beyond the East's exaggerations of much of the natural laws, so I started studying Eastern logic, and found it to be almost identical to Western philosophy's logic and math ideas. Since I realized India did and still does produce very knowledgable logicians, and mathematicians, my views of Western cognitive studies was given more confidence. I actually, as many do, thought that India believed extremely different than the West. I've since found out it's only the fringes of India's beliefs that are that exaggerated. I have come to appreciate the old logics of India, Persia, and others of the East immensely, thus as they sincerely compliment the western logics, maths, and physics, this is what I choose. I like truth I can test. I only accept truth I can test.

That's it,
Good day,
Lloyd

Well Lloyd if you only accept truth you can test how about testing consciousness to determine whether the materialist doctrine re consciousness being the product of the pure motion and interactions of matter is true or false ?

In accepting materialism you are accepting and advocating a conclusion about consciousness that has not only not been proven - in fact - it has not even been tested by those who claim to only accept truth that they can test and who demand the same from others.

This is not a matter of who is right or wrong - this is a matter of what is right or wrong - and in the long run the means of ending humanities needless suffering.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

You know IC, if the world just woke up and mandated by law that all nations go to gdi, gas/direct/injection in all vehicles, they would average 40 to 60mpg, and end the gas wars overnight, but instead we, so far, mainly use such technology in recreational vehicles, jet skies, etc., and a few vehicles in Japan, so far. The technology has been around for years. Don't you think this would go a long way to improving humanity's conditions? I also deal in real technology ideas to improve humanity's horrendous needless plight.

Sincerely,
Lloyd

Well Lloyd if you only accept truth you can test how about testing consciousness to determine whether the materialist doctrine re consciousness being the product of the pure motion and interactions of matter is true or false ?

In accepting materialism you are accepting and advocating a conclusion about consciousness that has not only not been proven - in fact - it has not even been tested by those who claim to only accept truth that they can test and who demand the same from others.

This is not a matter of who is right or wrong - this is a matter of what is right or wrong - and in the long run the means of ending humanities needless suffering.

[Eric]

From Wikispeedia...

Aristotle, author of the earliest surviving text on logic, formulated a principle that later achieved the historical distinction of being called "the first principle" as a proper name.

"For the same (characteristic) simultaneously to belong and not belong to the same (object) in the same (way) is impossible."

My own version of a first principle or absolute principle, would be the "principle OF the absolute".

For an object to truly exist, it would have to alone. It could not have an equal or greater contingent.

Without this, no other "principle" is possible.