East Meets West Logic...

[SB_UK]

'Levels of Consciousness' is a remarkable synthesis.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Imagination / | \ Logic__Pieces, Pieces, & More Pieces...

Also, don't miss these links: Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, & Link, as this is just All simply One ontological/epistemic/teleological/mereological puzzle. We'll all round it up after a bit__Please join in...rrr

Regards to all,
LG

[SB_UK]

Imagination / | \ Logic

... ... as this is just All simply One ontological/epistemic/teleological/mereological puzzle.

- reality as one continuous expanding system; nice because we're thereby guaranteed that things'll keep on getting better -
- exactly as 'we'd like' -

- just though as we have the slightly spooky feeling that that's actually the reason underlying why 'we'd like' it this way.

(circular logical arguments )

[Lloyd Gillespie]

- reality as one continuous expanding system; nice because we're thereby guaranteed that things'll keep on getting better -
- exactly as 'we'd like' -

- just though as we have the slightly spooky feeling that that's actually the reason underlying why 'we'd like' it this way.

(circular logical arguments )

To me, it's just as Shiva/Buddha/Whoever stated, we are entering the age of everyone a sage__WWW__Wisdom for All...

I know what you mean about the circular logical arguments(tautologies), but I don't even make an effort to avoid them,(if even you were referring as such?) as we can always offer actual experiments and proofs or falsifications later. It's just easier to write without excessively thinking about exact logic, so if you do spot faults with some of my writing, just point it out, and I'll clarify, where need be...rrr

Thanks,
LG

[SteveA]

- reality as one continuous expanding system; nice because we're thereby guaranteed that things'll keep on getting better -
- exactly as 'we'd like' -

- just though as we have the slightly spooky feeling that that's actually the reason underlying why 'we'd like' it this way.

(circular logical arguments )

I don't think it can expand.

It always had to be - memory alters, but even it is a dimension in this space.

Logic can't contain time.

The only question is whether or not thoughts themselves and what might be considered to be logic is deceptive or misrepresented, but basically there doesn't appear to be much to logically do about that - but similarly free will is not logically explicable either except when we reduce the scale to something less than all, in which case, from that limited perspective an uncertainty and unknown can appear.

I can't speak for anyone else though, and that at least to me it appears you only need a single infinitely deterministic thing (effectively the same as a "universal" processor - which is actually a very simple structure with just a few components, though you need an infinite space in order to support infinite computations and this similarly requires an infinite number of unique symbols to represent them).

Where did this infinite thing come from? "Does not compute!"

That's a wheel I spun so long I'm dizzy and give up ... it just keeps going and going and going and everytime it's somehow more and yet another layer intricacies - yet ultimately it never contained any value of its own - you're the compass and the only one that knows what it should be - we're sharing common pathways and have our own version of time that is unique and *again sweeps hand around trying to point to all things synchronized in time* This is our reference for time and it's "One" thing.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I don't think it can expand.(time i guess, lg)
Logic can't contain time.
logic is deceptive or misrepresented
free will is not logically explicable either
Where did this infinite thing come from? "Does not compute!"
we're sharing common pathways and have our own version of time that is unique
time and it's "One" thing.

Steve, take a look at what you're saying. Aren't you aware you are conflating logic and imagination, most likely due to your coherentist leanings...?

Logic is our difference engine Steve. We unite ideas with imagination, then prove the truths with experience, experiments and the logical perceptions of. You can't conflate these processes Steve, or you just end swiming in confusion...rrr

Originally Posted by Graybeard

I have to agree with Austin .... This is an excellent essay.

The Scientific methodology is a way of objectively testing your ideas for correctness.

The Father of this methodology was a guy called Abu Ali al-hasan ibn al-hasan ibn al-Haytham or much more simply Alhacen (born 965 in Basra, Persia)

His list of contributions to the world, and to science is enormous ... and if he had been born in Europe, today we would consider him another Galileo. He made only one mistake, and for that they tried to cut his head off, so he feigned insanity ... as all scientists do when threatened with religious persecution ... rotflmao

His method was basically
1.. Ask a question
2.. Do the research
3.. Construct a Hypothesis
4.. Test the hypothesis by experiment
5.. Analyse the data
6.. Repeat steps 4 & 5
7.. Draw a conclusion
8.. Communicate the conclusion

This is what Tim has to say:
This is what Alhasan has to say:
Tim, your a genius and you just didn't know it ... lol.
And if anyone needs to condense this into a simple rule: Be a Devil's Advocate, even to, and especially to, your own ideas.
cool bananas ... greg

"Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency.

Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency". Alhasan

[SteveA]

Steve, take a look at what you're saying. Aren't you aware you are conflating logic and imagination, most likely due to your coherentist leanings...?

Logic is our difference engine Steve. We unite ideas with imagination, then prove the truths with experience, experiments and the logical perceptions of. You can't conflate these processes Steve, or you just end swiming in confusion...rrr

I think you confused a little of what I said in the summary:

I don't think it can expand.(time i guess, lg) - Yes, "Time" in the absolute sense of the framework of all experienceable pathways, but this is also the infinite space of all computations (if we exclude conscious perceptions). I'm not referring to subjective time in this, which is a subset of this complete and infinite reference.

logic is deceptive or misrepresented No, I said that if we made this assumption this would cause a paradox, hence we cannot "prove" logic to be consistent - it's either accepted or not (in whatever form someone believes it to exist)

free will is not logically explicable either - Correct, at least in any finite deterministic sense - it's only on an abstract level containing all actions that this will would be seen not exist - but that's of no import because it's just saying you're always yourself

Where did this infinite thing come from? "Does not compute!" - Correct, yes. Perfect reply for any finite logical system

Hopefully the bolded replies clarify it some. (The rest of your paraphrasing was fine)

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Only Finite Mathematical/Mathematizable/Experimental Results Prove Logics...

I don't think it can expand.(time i guess, lg) - Yes, "Time" in the absolute sense of the framework of all experienceable pathways, but this is also the infinite space of all computations (if we exclude conscious perceptions). I'm not referring to subjective time in this, which is a subset of this complete and infinite reference.

logic is deceptive or misrepresented No, I said that if we made this assumption this would cause a paradox, hence we cannot "prove" logic to be consistent - it's either accepted or not (in whatever form someone believes it to exist)

free will is not logically explicable either - Correct, at least in any finite deterministic sense - it's only on an abstract level containing all actions that this will would be seen not exist - but that's of no import because it's just saying you're always yourself

Where did this infinite thing come from? "Does not compute!" - Correct, yes. Perfect reply for any finite logical system

Hopefully the bolded replies clarify it some. (The rest of your paraphrasing was fine)

Steve, please re-check last post again. You are still conflating the issues of logic, science and imagination. It's obvious. It's true. Hell Steve, I couldn't even make a good potato stew, with you...rrr

p.s.
Steve, go Here, I offered you the manual, free, for exactly the ground of your type of thinking...

[SB_UK]

Hell Steve, I couldn't even make a good potato stew, with you...rrr

ToE forum wills a response.

[SB_UK]

(if even you were referring as such?)

Just the idea that when things work out the way that we'd like -
that (perhaps) we shouldn't be so surprised
- because the basis for our desires are grounded in the evolutionary rules of our environment.

Our environment is making a transition towards greater complexity -
- our own desire is therefore for greater complexity of experience

- where greater complexity is going to involve increased {granularity, resolution} of sensory perception (geometric) and its logical dual (the model which we have believed resides within our heads).

The expanding Universe model then works as a metaphor for this kinda':


static model.

The increasing complexity in geometry results in the logical model for that geometry growing ever more complex.
Where the complexity in geometry is in structured complexity
- where the logical model of ever more mathematically complex geometry is the metalevel above (model of) the metalevel (geometry) below
- where the geometry is cyclical

cyclical calculi

- meaning that the logic is cyclical too.

Two circles:
throwing in the third (imaginary) domain and we have Trinity:


(lifted from Prof Pat)

green circle
~ ~ ~ ~
...................................................

~
==
nu
->- (a little later) ->-
un

nu
un
==
OO

- the red and blue circles



Ever more granular structures formed in nature from the same template -
- to be imagined as a series (evolutionary sequential series) of photographs next to one another -
- a series of 6''x4'' photographs of the same picture taken at these resolutions

"The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G.
"... sweeps hand around trying to point to all things synchronized in time*This is our reference for time and it's "One" thing." SteveA
added: the photograph is fixed at 6''x4''

1 Megabit -> 2 Mb -> 4 Mb -> 8 Mb -> 16 Mb ... ... ...
- the exponential evolutionary sequential series
- our evolution to complexity

The pixels making up the photographs resolving from 'blocks' of cells into individual cells -
- where the Planck length standing wave is our limit of resolution (a Universal limit on the highest possible resolution).

"The tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.
added: at the Planck length standing wave level - the transition from
nu ->-to->- un takes the same finite amount of time.

However - because there're two planes of folding -
even if we were able to fold down to this resolution
- we could simply switch to the orthogonal plane
- and so it continues ... ... ...

An origami model of reality where the number of folds is effectively limitless.

The second law of thermodynamics -
- towards the most efficiently packed (both internally structured and homogenized) suitcase.

One's shirt folded down to Planck length in one plane -
down to Planck length in its orthogonal plane
- down to Planck length in the original plane
- and then down to Planck length in its original dual
... ... and so it continues ... ...

- till 'the eye of a needle' ... ...

~*~

Billy Boson's bicycle pump which inflates the peculiarly shaped Moebius strip tyre to ever more crenulated edge.

A manifold which unlike the average bicycle tyre simply won't boiiist.

fjords