East Meets West Logic...

[labelwench]

Consciousness needs something to be conscious over; something it can recognize.
Originally posted by SB__UK

Hmmm, I would suggest that the feeling of 'there's just got to something missing' is exactly about the above quote.

In conversation with various people, we are all seekers, though often it is difficult to define what we seek, when we are lacking for nothing tangible.

Yet, although we may not be able to describe what we are looking for, we are confident that we will recognize it when we find it.

Otherwise, wouldn't we give up seeking?

[polarmedium]

1+1=3
2+2=5
(half-brains)

Three or more is a crowd.
3.14159 to (6_5) infinity.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The Quantum Essence Cycle…
IE à X/X=1+IEE à AFS=EIUE
Individual essence, to its infinite division, equals itself plus its isomorphic extensions and entanglements, to its absolute fundamental substance, which equals the eternal, infinite universal essence__and the inverse evolution of this decay process, or evolutionary growth, re-creates the individual essence__Evolutionary growth is simply the joining together of the eternally existing, infinite universal essence infinitesimals. Whether speaking of brain, mind, body or atoms, etc., the above applies__eternally everywhere, to everything…
The Axiom of Life__From Matter’s Essence…
A Quantum Model of AFS to Life RRReality/rrreality…
Zoomies__ Rads to Rads, and Back to Rads/rads…
The High-Rad Drifter__Strontium, and His Horse__Caesium…
The Law of Absolute Necessity__Something Over Something...
Decay of Finity Is The Loss of Electro-Magnetism and Gravity…
S1 Field Is Non-Electro-Magnetic Field Over S2 Electro-Magnetic Field…rrr

(An older post...)
A Non-Quantumization Model of S1 Space to S2 Quantumized Space(quantum defined as radiating structured 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 non-em void/space, and S2 to designate the finite em 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, etc. 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 hydro-dynamic(continuum mechanics) wave motions, of differing entropy states and stages.

2.Thermal hydro-dynamic 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/field, and the motion is the lowest entropy[velocity] possible to exist in a thermal temperature, and least wave action, 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 wave 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 hydro-dynamically 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-wave 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 wave-motion to high entropy temp and wave-motion___yet this changing state wave-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, non-magnetic, non-gravitational, linear only state of near zero k hydro-dynamic motion.

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.

P.s.
All the above represents a mathematical model of possibility, probability and necessity__A law of absolute universal necessity. This represents an absolute physical philosophy, since imo, most philosophy follows far too much illusionary and belief philosophies, instead of real physical philosophies. The absolute law of necessity requires__Something over something, i.e., the S1 non-electro-magnetic field of infinitesimals, over the S2 electro-magnetic fields, and structured matters__Total finite universal decay is simply the loss of electro-magnetic field and its related gravity, which is replaced by the fundamental natural wave-state mechanics of hydro-dynamics__The prime mover__The pure S1 Bosonic/photonic wave field of hydro-dynamic self-affinity, due to the law of necessity__Wave equilibriums become, spontaneously, self-hydrodynamic...

The future's mathematically more visible than the past. Imagination requires a fundamental logic__A mathematically necessary evolution__Modal logic's and reason's necessities...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

A General Account of Peirce's Ideas...

Peirce compared his philosophy to:
“The attempt of a physicist to make such conjecture as to the constitution of the universe as the methods of science may permit, with the aid of all that has been done by previous philosophers.”
(CP 1.7, 1897)

His goal was:
“To make a philosophy like that of Aristotle, to outline a theory so comprehensive that, for a long time to come, the entire work of human reason, in philosophy of every school and kind, in mathematics, in psychology, in physical science, in history, in sociology, and in whatever other department there may be, shall appear as the filling up of its details.” (CP 1.1, 189

“Every person who wishes to form an opinion concerning fundamental problems should first of all make a complete survey of human knowledge, should take note of all the valuable ideas in each branch of science, should observe in just what respect each has been successful and where it has failed, in order that … he may proceed to the study of what the problem of philosophy consists in, and of the proper way of solving it.” (CP 6.9, 1891)

Three main classes of sciences (1903, the “perennial classification”):
1.Sciences of Discovery(Sciences of Research, Theoretical sciences)
2.Sciences of Review
3.Practical Sciences(the Arts).

Methodeuticis the search for “the method of methods”.
•Fallibilism: Most ideas are probably true, but we cannot be absolutely sure of any one of them.
•The Final Opinion: Science is predestined to reach a single opinion agreed upon by all inquirers.
•The Long Run: Were inquiry pursued indefinitely long, the final opinion would be reached.
•The Scientific Attitude: No sham reasoning, fake reasoning.
•The Structure of Scientific Inquiry: Abduction, deduction, induction.
•The Economy of Research: Prefer simple (‘caution’), explanatory (‘breadth’), productive (‘incomplexity’) hypotheses.

3. Intuitions

”The truth of reasonings consist in that instinct’s saying that they are true. Outside of a German treatise of logic, I have never met with so bald a fallacy as that.” (CP 2.169)

We have no power of introspection, we have no power of intuition. Every cognition is determined by previous cognitions, and there need not be any first cognition. (CP 5.265)

4. Pragmaticism

”Postulation of certain meanings which the subject possesses surely has conceivable practical consequences. They can be brought out by asking what the speaker would have said and done had his past experiences been different.” (Hintikka 1976:

“The word pragmatism was invented to express a certain maxim of logic … intended to furnish a method for the analysis of concepts. ... The method prescribed in the maxim is to trace out in the imagination the conceivable practical consequences,--that is, the consequences for deliberate, self-controlled conduct,--of the affirmation or denial of the concept; and the assertion of the maxim is that herein lies the whole of the purport of the word, the entire concept.” (CP 8.191, 1904)

Hypotheses

If we know any positive facts which render a given hypothesis objectively probable, they recommend it for inductive testing. When this is not the case, but the hypothesis seems to us likely, or unlikely, this likelihood is an indication that the hypothesis accords or discords with our preconceived ideas; and since those ideas are presumably based upon some experience, it follows that, other things being equal, there will be, in thelong run, some economy in giving the hypothesis a place in the order of precedence in accordance with this indication.

But experience must be our chart in economical navigation; and experience shows that likelihoods are treacherous guides. Nothing has caused so much waste of time and means, in all sorts of researches, as inquirers' becoming so wedded to certain likelihoods as to forget all the other factors of the economy of research; so that, unless it be very solidly grounded, likelihood is far better disregarded, or nearly so; and even when it seems solidly grounded, it should be proceeded upon with a cautious tread, with an eye to other considerations, and a recollection of the disasters it has caused.

The third category of factors of economy is especially important in abduction, because very rarely can we positively expect a given hypothesis to prove entirely satisfactory; and we must always consider what will happen when the hypothesis proposed breaks down.

The qualities which these considerations induce us to value in a hypothesis are three, which I may entitle Caution, Breadth, and Incomplexity. (CP 7.220, 1901)

Epistemic Logic

•“A modal proposition is a simple assertion, not about the universe of things, but about the universe of facts that one is in a state of information sufficient to know.” (CP 4.520)

“There will be some peculiar and interesting little rules, owing to the fact that what one knows, one has the means of knowing that one knows--which is sometimes incorrectly stated in the form that whatever one knows, one knows that one knows, which is manifestly false” (CP 4.521, 1903).
•The notation for one “state of information” following another.

Semantics of Questions

“An assertion has its modality, or measure of assurance, and a question generally involves as part of it an assertion of emphatically low modality. In addition to that, it is intended to stimulate the hearer to make an answer.
For example, the question
Does this road lead to the city?
can be replaced with
This road leads, perhaps, to the city. I wish to know what you think about that.(CP 4.57, 1893)

Language

Peirce: Philosophy is “The Queen Bee of the Sciences”
•Language is inept for expressing thought in full.
•Exact words are hard or impossible to find. Moreover, we should be historically and etymologically faithful.
•Science warrants technical vocabulary (“impotentipenereperlation”), but philosophy should stick to the vernacular. In the conceptual analysis of vague ideas of philosophy one however uses technical terms.
•Thinking in terms of the symbolic system provided by natural language will in the end be flawed...rrr

[labelwench]

I was raised quite conservatively, to be obedient, respectful and diligent in my doings.

Over time, I have tested all that was forced upon me.

I consider myself to be respectful, and endeavor to be diligent.

I am no longer obedient, although neither do I indulge in transgression.

Few things seem irrefutable, as most of our sacred cows are but constructs of our mind, in my opinion.

To each their own belief.

The universe has plenty of space for every opinion, as long as there is no harmful intent.

The third category of factors of economy is especially important in abduction, because very rarely can we positively expect a given hypothesis to prove entirely satisfactory; and we must always consider what will happen when the hypothesis proposed breaks down. Originally posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Or when the prior conditioning of whole societies should break down?

[SteveA]

I was raised quite conservatively, to be obedient, respectful and diligent in my doings.

Over time, I have tested all that was forced upon me.

I consider myself to be respectful, and endeavor to be diligent.

I am no longer obedient, although neither do I indulge in transgression.

Few things seem irrefutable, as most of our sacred cows are but constructs of our mind, in my opinion.

To each their own belief.

The universe has plenty of space for every opinion, as long as there is no harmful intent.

...

Or when the prior conditioning of whole societies should break down?

Sounds very similar for me and I think it's something that people naturally encounter over time if they do much of their own thinking and questioning.

It can be easy to refer to some book, doctrine or figurehead etc. and try to follow the leader (to whatever extent that proves possible or valuable ... it's often interesting to ask "why" they follow such and such views or beliefs, and if they can give a good answer, then maybe they don't need that external reference as they have something more fundamental already and if they can't give a good reason, then how do they know there's value to it? To me, there's an obvious question of what value or benefit some view, belief, habit etc. has) though with some proficiency at life, you can scout out some of the terrain yourself (or even lead) ... likely either way you'll find a few potholes, but at least in one case you won't be stuck waiting for someone else to lead around it.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Lorrina, keep in mind the fact that; "If all views/opinions are respected__no views/opinions are respected"__This is just a known fact of life. Mind has an end goal in its cross-hairs__All life marches ever closer to that end goal, but all paths change many times on the destination to that same end goal__Pure Justice for All...rrr

It is considered, that before a question can even be thought, the answer is also formed......

Usually, quite true... Thanks Lorrina, as Peirce also stated this above quote of yours, in so many words... There may be no new questions and answers, just re-ordering of the old ones...

I was raised quite conservatively, to be obedient, respectful and diligent in my doings.

Over time, I have tested all that was forced upon me.

I consider myself to be respectful, and endeavor to be diligent.

I am no longer obedient, although neither do I indulge in transgression.

Few things seem irrefutable, as most of our sacred cows are but constructs of our mind, in my opinion.

To each their own belief.

The universe has plenty of space for every opinion, as long as there is no harmful intent.



Or when the prior conditioning of whole societies should break down?

[labelwench]

Hi Lorrina, keep in mind the fact that; "If all views/opinions are respected__no views/opinions are respected"__This is just a known fact of life. Mind has an end goal in its cross-hairs__All life marches ever closer to that end goal, but all paths change many times on the destination to that same end goal__Pure Justice for All...rrr

Your above remark is interesting to me, Lloyd.

One can be respectful of the views of others without embracing any of them.

Tolerance of diversity of action and thought, with the single caveat being that it does not do intentional harm. Therefore, intentional harm negates the rule of respectful tolerance.

Pure Justice for All....perhaps you have a brief summary of that already posted somewhere that you could point me to?

Appreciate your patience, which I seem to test regularly.

Regards,

Lorrina

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Pure Justice for All....perhaps you have a brief summary of that already posted somewhere that you could point me to__Lorrina

Without being too long-winded, this post to SteveA, way back in the thread seems to put it quite well...LINK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie
Now Steve, since you're a big boy, I'll take you to task for your conflationist illusions. Truth is simply, the evolution of truth, to the objective of truth -> Goal -> The Admirable, The Good, The True, The Beautiful, The Aesthetic, The Esthetic, and the unification of it all... Conflation and confusion will not unify__Only clarity unifies, so unify the real, instead of the super-ficial illusions...

Yes, those are the only truths worth keeping Nicely said.__SteveA

Hope that helps Lorrina...rrr

[labelwench]

Only clarity unifies, so unify the real, instead of the super-ficial illusions...

Originally posted by Lloyd Gillespie.

Thank you for your prompt response, Lloyd.

As we all have our own perceptions of what is real from what is illusionary, we shall likely still be embroiled in debate.

Only clarity unifies....

What single statement, in any language or culture, could all agree upon, or at least find a tenable consensus?

My simple thought for the day....