[undef00]

As for my opinion, human made mathematics or measuring instruments only make sense or better, can be 100% exploited if 100% integrated in a human brain. Sure, our brain probably (still) lacks bandwidth/power to integrate anything like that, so, in the meantime we have to try somehow to get the most out of each device/method by using our limited senses to transfer a focused meaning of a picture to the brain, and getting a more or less fuzzy picture back into our mind.

Anyone knowing how far (really) research/testing already has gone in this particular matter?

[Guille]

I'm not an expert, but I'll give it a chance.

Well, of course human tools have sense for humans, only for humans, and for all humans. But, LOGIC is a universal. This is not my thought: I have read many studies on, for example, hypothesized extraterrestrial life by proper biophysicists, and, they all agreed that logic would be equal in any civilization; even the animals of this planet have logic. When I write logic, of course, I don't mean mathematics, although linked, not exactly identical. Now, all thoughts and expressions of the thoughts (words-languages) have connection to reality, defining which this connection is, is a philosophical aim, which is quite advanced to sum up in one post.

There are maths which have little connection with reality, in that they are just sort of "entertainments" for the human mind, such as number theory and algebra, which are connected to reality in that their principles are directly obtained from it: two apples and three apples make five apples, and two apples and three bananas are five fruits. Other maths, like geometry or mathematical physics, is much more connected to it, not only that their principles are obtained from reality, but that they are applied to the understanding and use of reality: making buildings or stating the acceleration of an object.

I hope I have explained clearly enough what I think and try to communicate, for any question or comment, let me know.

[AntonioLao]

scientific research is telling us that absolute certainty does not exist. The most we can work with is the law of averages. This is what makes statistics and probability so practical and useful in our daily lives. However, when it comes to individual achievement, we are now talking about something that is relative. Is Newton smarter than Einstein? It does not make any sense to ask this question. They are comparable only when both are faced with the same problem and the first to solve it is the smarter one.

[undef00]

Guille:
I agree that logic (if well defined) is kind of universal - can you state a universal logic expression in this forum?
I also agree that thoughts/expressions have connection to reality but only to a tiny (!!!!) part of reality.

As you mentioned, extraterrestrial life - that's my main target (especially highly advanced extraterrestrial one) - that's the reason why I contemplate about logic and the universe (overall the human brain) - and try to draw my own picture - I’m not interested how they might look or when a contact will be established - I’m mostly interested in how they could behave and what kind of technology they could use if, lets say, were once something like humans (in terms of evolution of the brain) and already have advanced from, lets say, year 2005 to year 2000005 (to express that somehow). I also guess, that before that time humans on earth will get something like the toe there will be sooner a contact to some eti established, which will push toe a little further - sure if human brain is capable of getting the information/or human brain will allow a proper getting-together then somehow human brain got by itself a little closer to toe.

Antoniolao:
even if research is telling "us" that certainty doesn't exist - I rather go with the possibility that certainty does exist - we (including our mathematics, instruments, etc.) - we are just not able (yet) to get the whole picture. Einstein or Newton? I guess, Einstein was a little smarter that just because his brain was a little more sophisticated (evolved further while time passed by). Now - probably your neighbor will be smarter in general compared to Einstein - she/he may lack articulation (that's another question) compared to Einstein but sure has the potential to surpass Einstein by far.

[Guille]

I said that logic itself is universal. But I also said that expressions and thoughts are subjective. So, an expression of whatever, even of universals such as logic, is subjective, so it wouldn't make sense to everyone if I write =, {b}, r

If by this question you were trying to show me that logic is subjective because, and only because any kind of communicative or process upon it- -which in fact the use of it is what makes it exist- -is going to make it be subjective, and because it is only something when it is communicated or processed and thus is only subjective, then you probably are right. But you have to proof that logic only exists when communicated or processed, something that creates many disagreements between philosophers.

About extraterrestrial life, I also am doing my mini investigations, and also center them completely in technologies, tools (including mind tools), etc. But I don't think that it would affect the TOE if, what we mean here by TOE, is what I call, Classic Style TOE (CSTOE). The CSTOE is centered on the unification of at least two forces, and then has other possibilities which if added or taken away, make the several configurations of all the possible DTOE (Derivative TOE) which can include, apart from the forces unification, the explanation of what happens whiles gravity occur, the proof that the conservation of energy is correct, create a perpetual motion machine, etc.... Then there are what I call the ATOE (Abstract TOE), which are the TOEs, that center on biology, chemistry, cognitive sciences, philosophy (alone), sociology....etc. Your pursued TOE, the one you say will be removed from birth because of other life finding, is an ATOE. I don't believe, that the TOE will be an ATOE, I believe it will be a CSTOE or DTOE as maximum changes. So, although I don't even think we will come along other civilizations at all, even if we do it could be whenever, but if it would be in a near future we would have detected strange things: detecting waves from them or with telescopes observing their transportation machines. But even if we have contact, it wouldn't alter the TOE development directly, unless of course they have knowledge to give us that we don't have, then everything would be chaos for hundred of years, until the knowledge is compatible, understood by both sides, and accepted, and then, the toe pursue will come back.

[undef00]

Guille,
Sure - you know how to express yourself (I already learned something from you - but I'm not going to tell you what-eh) - anyway: I'm rather using a simple articulation (not just because of lack of English language - I'm doing it the same way in German) so ...

you said: logic itself is universal.

I rather say now: logic itself is universal (the latter infinite to explore).

you said: proof logic only exists when communicated or processed.

I am not going to prove what you're asking for but rather just say:
nice question to get back to my questions #1 (at: explain the brain which does claim to explain (no answers yet! arghh!)) - there is just one logical answer (prove me wrong please) to satisfy the question - on the other hand if you ask: lets assume: we have absolute proof that one particle equals another particle (I don't know why I state that here because it is meaningless?) and we are absolutely aware of interactions between these particles (is also meaningless) and lets even further assume we do know (at least think to know as it shows day after day) the exact future of these two particles and we even do know everything(at least as soon as influence could be possible) around them (maybe necessary to know their future) it is NOT allowed to answer any questions about them by a logic definition - because something NEW could EVOLVE. What we haven't been aware of until that day it shows up the very first time ... and makes it all shine ... and I thought it was mine ... so what is the point?

Logic can be only be applied for the moment (sure-that moment may last for millions of years) - that's what I guess. but sometimes you've got to be fast to act logical...

you said: But even if we have contact, it wouldn't alter the TOE development directly, unless of course they have knowledges to give us that we don't have, then everything would be chaos for hundreds of years, until the knowledges are compatible, understood by both sides, and accepted, and then, the toe pursuit will come back.

I say now: if they have advanced further than we have by that time a contact is established (we/they will know that pretty fast by then). I guess we've to adapt to them and vice-versa - the same thing if we land on "mars with mice" ... they just won't tell us what to do and what not to do ... by that I'm not necessarily meaning that a more advanced intelligence will fight us ...

Greetings to Madrid,

undef00 (also: if I say something today, it doesn't necessary mean that I say it tomorrow again)

boredom is the key to wisdom if not then I guess it is stress - both alternately together even better.

[Guille]

Hi again.

I think I was quite harsh in some posts recently, but this is because I'm quite fed up of reading hundreds of TOE theories that are absolutely disgraceful. Sorry if it makes anybody uncomfortable.

Now, what is that thing that you've learned from me?

And can you explain question #1 better? It's just I get confused. Explain the brain that is explained? Or something like that...

[undef00]

Question #1: I cannot go to explain any further. .. It has been formulated with a clear minimum to enable someone else to give a maximum response.... It wouldn't help anything to explain the brain which formulated the question - maybe it would make sense for each other to explain our brain (try to) if answers are different-especially I'm interested if you surpass my answer...

What I learned from you?... As I said I'm not going to tell you...

And I noticed most posts come from you or AntonioLao...

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by undef00

even if research is telling "us" that certainty doesn't exist - I rather go with the possibility that certainty does exist

The key word is 'absolute'. If you mean relative certainty then I agree with you that it exists.

[undef00]

Ok - you scored! (?)

To correct: even if research is telling "us" that absolute certainty doesn't exist - I rather go with the expression that relative (relative long lasting) certainty does exist.

As I said earlier on: if I say something today it doesn't necessary mean that I will say it tomorrow again - so now I scored again.

Further, I do think relativity can be transformed into the "absolute" for a particular period of time and that on a large scale - let’s say within our Milky Way...