[MJA]

Lloyd,

Allow me to wade into the quagmire of current knowledge that you so eloquently
expound and ask some question you helped create?


1) To fill in the incomplete gap of knowledge that you suggest, for the solution we seek, would it be best to add to our knowledge or reduce or simplify what we already know?

2) Does current man with his vast knowledge have more or less questions of nature than original man, or simply who is or was closest to truth.

3) If complete knowledge were as simple as "I," could "I" be taught to the masses?

4) Could you give an example of an absolute objectable object, or is it only probable or dice at best?

5) Is "C" absolute certain or absolute probable?

6) Measure?

Thanks,
MJA

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi MJA, thanks for the interest and the questions. Let me try to take a stab at answering some of your concerns within your post below.

Originally Posted by MJA Lloyd, Allow me to wade into the quagmire of current knowledge that you so eloquently expound and ask some question you helped create? [I think the questions have always been there, but thanks for the credit.] 1) To fill in the incomplete gap of knowledge that you suggest, for the solution we seek, would it be best to add to our knowledge or reduce or simplify what we already know? [The greatest effort, I think, should be concentrated on simplifying what already exists, by outling such knowledge systems into clear and concise prioritized levels, throwing out the invalid, keeping the factual, and proving the factual. We also must add a new simplification language to describe, not only physics and such other topics, as exist on this forum, but all other interdisciplinary studies, as well. The key I see, is the integration of all fields of knowledge, with universal system's studies, or universalism, as it's called, already, but most don't even realize these fields of study were started over forty years ago, and only a handful of colleges in the world even offer significant courses. From here, we should prioritize by outline, the most important studies and subjects, and important investigation areas of, to the insignificant, as they truly apply to real world conditions. No-one is doing this, or even attempting to. I think this is a real problem, with everyone going off willy-nilly, all over the place, without even realizing where true priorities even play in. This must change.] 2) Does current man with his vast knowledge have more or less questions of nature than original man, or simply who is or was closest to truth. [Current man has far less questions, and far more answers than original man, IMO. This by no means doesn't mean all men and women do, but the handful of serious Ph.D.' professors, and the handful of serious autodidact polymaths certainly do. Current man, at the factual levels, is far closer to the absolute truths___by millenia.] 3) If complete knowledge were as simple as "I," could "I" be taught to the masses? [Of course it could, and very easily. The trouble with current knowledge, is seeing through the theocracy of current academic and political knowledge fallacies, to the fundamental facts, in all fields of study. Outlining the importance of particular studies, and areas of this study importance, would greatly reduce this quagmire. Colleges should be concentrating on just such an outline of importances, yet we get nothing but academic and political entreprenaurial greed, controlling the globe's direction of false travel. Everyone, and all subjects are treated as equal, and herein lies the major trouble, our very theocratic democracy beliefs of liberty___too much liberty respect is just as dangerous, as not enough. We need to respect the older prejudices of knowledge importances, which used to be respected___what's truly worth studying? Just look at Berkeley___8100 courses, when Harvard, in the 1700's had 67 courses, to teach basicly, the same thing. The problem is the breaking of true knowledge, into too much false dis-integration___whatever you call it. This must change.] 4) Could you give an example of an absolute objectable object, or is it only probable or dice at best?[The earth___The sun___The absolute universe.] 5) Is "C" absolute certain or absolute probable? [Light is cerain, velocity is absolutely known to change with matter density___simple example, light travels approximately 1/3 C in water. We know it travels different speeds in all different mediums and their densities. This truly means, the early universe, having a thinner density, by common sense of universal evolution, traveled higher C. It's simple common sense, the radiation medium was a thinner density medium in the early universe___less stars. So, C is absolutely changing over time. It's slower now, than then, yet it's always universally constantly changing, in each local area of space. To measure it is only possible with macro logic knowledge, comparing micro logic facts, and true laws of physics correspondences.] 6) Measure? [Answered above, but the most accurate measure of all macro and micro motions is the cesium clock, as most use this measuring standard. You find the most facts of physics when you prioritize the laws of physics with the macro logic facts, with the micro logic facts, and the known laws of physics, being truly respected. The math and gauge theories follow the true scientific facts, the theoretical gauge theories, are just that___theoretical.] Thanks, MJA

Lloyd

[Lloyd Gillespie]

MJA, please change above sentence; "The key I see, is the integration of all fields of knowledge, with universal system's studies, or universalism, as it's called, already, but most don't even realize these fields of study were started over forty years ago, and only a handful of colleges in the world even offer significant courses."

to read; "The key I see, is the integration of all fields of knowledge, with universal system's studies, Systemology and or Universology, as they're called, already, but most don't even realize these fields of study were mostly started over forty years ago, and even in the last century, and only a handful of colleges in the world even offer significant courses."

[MJA]

Hi Lloyd,

Thanks for tackling my questions, but your answers have only created more. If you could find time to respond, perhaps you'll help me find what I am looking for.

Firstly, I am sorry but I do not have the knowledge required to revise a document per your request. Someday I hope to hire a really nice secretary. Perhaps you could advise.

On to the questions:

1) You suggest we simpilify or current knowledge to find what we are looking for, yet later you the suggest current man with his vast knowledge has less questions than early man.
So which way do you believe the search for truth lies, which path should we take, simplicity like early man or the other path, adding on to our current knowledge or "the shoulders of giants"?

2)You then ponder what should be taught in school after I suggested simply I.
Do you believe like me that once you know yourself you will know all?

3)Measure? I am still confused. Can you or anyone define the difference between certain and uncertain measure?

MJA

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by MJA Hi Lloyd, 1) You suggest we simpilify or current knowledge to find what we are looking for, yet later you the suggest current man with his vast knowledge has less questions than early man. So which way do you believe the search for truth lies, which path should we take, simplicity like early man or the other path, adding on to our current knowledge or "the shoulders of giants"? [Both] 2)You then ponder what should be taught in school after I suggested simply I. Do you believe like me that once you know yourself you will know all?[NO!] 3)Measure? I am still confused. Can you or anyone define the difference between certain and uncertain measure?[Known and unknown] MJA

MJA, since knowing yourself does not allow one to know all, study, study, study___ALL...!!!

Lloyd

[MJA]

Lloyd, if you don't mind only a couple more questions.

Both? You can think or take two paths in opposite directions at the same time?
Do you switch from increasing knowledge to decreasing knowledge randomly or simultaniously?

Known and Unknown? Measure is both certain and uncertain, Simultaniously?
Is that how physics measures nature with Newtonian certainty and QM probability or astro and nano measure at the same time? Is science thinking and walking two different path at the same time, and is that tearing science apart?

Study ALL? If all and I and nature are one, what then would you suggest I study, study, study? And if not the same, where would I or one find a class on the nature of all?

Thanks
MJA

[Fluent Piffle]

The nature of all is the class. I is a student and teacher.

pif.

[MJA]

Thanks for the quote of the day:

"The nature of all is the class, I is the student and teacher".

Best I have seen in sometime!

MJA

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi MJA, I'll post a few answers inside your post to your questions.

Originally Posted by MJA Lloyd, if you don't mind only a couple more questions. Both? You can think or take two paths in opposite directions at the same time? [Yes, the mind is capable of just such actions. That's the fundamental actions of all theorizing.] Do you switch from increasing knowledge to decreasing knowledge randomly or simultaniously? [Both, and each.] Known and Unknown? Measure is both certain and uncertain, Simultaniously? [Of course, the measurments we know for certain, and the measurements we theorize about.] Is that how physics measures nature with Newtonian certainty and QM probability or astro and nano measure at the same time? [Would you know of any other ways? We use all the tools available.] Is science thinking and walking two different path at the same time, and is that tearing science apart? [Yes, it is always thinking and walking two different paths at the same time, but it certainly doesn't tear competant minds apart. Competant minds are analytically capable of functioning on many levels, at once.] Study ALL? If all and I and nature are one, what then would you suggest I study, study, study? And if not the same, where would I or one find a class on the nature of all? [If one studies "I" thoroughly, and understands "I" completely, you still have to know the language to communicate, in the fields of your interests, thus after knowing "I" completely, then study the interests, that link the fields of your personal interests, so you can become fluent in the dialogue of the sciences you will choose to communicate to others.] Thanks MJA

Lloyd

[MJA]

Both Lloyd? Perhaps you could help us wayward souls in a yellow wood where two roads diverge. Mr. Frost and I as well as many others would like to take both and don't know how.


ROAD LESS TRAVELED

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth

Then took the other as just as fair
And having perhaps the better claim
Because it was grassy and wanted wear
Though as for that, the passing there
Had worn them really about the same

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet, knowing how way leads onto way
I doubted if I should ever come back

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence
Two roads diverged in a wood
And I took the one less traveled by
And that has made all the difference


Robert Frost

How??

MJA