The TOE Paradox

[baudrunner]

Guille, we are referring to:

from Funk & Wagnalls:

dialectic 1. often pl. The art or practice of examining statements logically, as by question and answer, to establish validity. 2. A specific logical mode of argument: Hegel's dialectic. 3. Formerly, logic -- adj. 1. pertaining to or using dialectic. 2. [Dialectical < OF < L < Gk. < dia - across + legein to speak]

Let's not get into the philosophy of the word.

[Guille]

Baud,

The thing is that all those definitions of dialectic are derived, or better siad are part, of the idea of Hegelian dialectics of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Anyway throughout your post you used these three terms, so I find appropiate a discussion about the dialectic philosophy.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Let me take a stab... I am more than I, is paradoxical nonsense. "I" am more than I, is perfectly logical. Deparadoxing only requires two languages in one as Tarski shewed us. "Theory" can express theory about itself and be perfectly logical.

Simpleminded me,
Lloyd

[Guille]

Let me take a stab... I am more than I, is paradoxical nonsense. "I" am more than I, is perfectly logical. Deparadoxing only requires two languages in one as Tarski shewed us. "Theory" can express theory about itself and be perfectly logical.

Simpleminded me,
Lloyd

Tarski's lesson was incomplete, that's the reason that philosophers become intlelectuals: not for completeling a good system, but for leaving it incomplete and so many future philosophers have to discuss different views of it all... Like Spinoza's book Ethics, which was interpret wrongly since it was written until Deleuze came on.

The double language use leads to a problem: if the 'theory' is the same as the theory it expresses, what can you say? The theory should have a theory that expresses it also, which is again itself. So again, you might eliminate the fact that it is a paradox, but you don't eliminate the problem that we lead to infinite number of TOEs which are the same TOE, and are about the toe that is about the toe that is about the toe.... All being the same.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

"If you think you've found a paradox, check your premises. One of them is wrong" Ayn Rand

Tarski's lesson was incomplete, that's the reason that philosophers become intlelectuals: not for completeling a good system, but for leaving it incomplete and so many future philosophers have to discuss different views of it all... Like Spinoza's book Ethics, which was interpret wrongly since it was written until Deleuze came on.

Lloyd>All systems are incomplete, but that's no reason to abandon mathematical certainty in thinking, it's the only truth possible to achieve with any degree of certainty. I think the intellectuals abandoned it because it became to complex. This is witnessed most clearly after Frege, Cantor, and Peirce developed second order logic, and complex and infinite number mathematics. If you notice, right after, William James and Dewey both abandoned the new logic, James for psychological logic[the axiomatic opposite of scientific logic] and Dewey retained the then superceded first order logic and condemned the new second order logic, and other many new logics since. Many intellectuals followed suit, falsely, i.e., Foucault, Carnap, Dirrida, Quine, etc., on and on. This was the birth of the psychological corruption of epistemology, and true beginning death nell for scientific' science and logic. Although there may be over 130 new logics, they still need be understood, at least in general, by philosophers and intellectuals, to have true idea progression, even if intuitive and isomorphically represented. We only need know what formal language is being used, then the argument stops if we agree to follow the principles of the game called. You don't play rummey when the game is poker.

Of course the above hasn't been the case, especially with Einstein's special realativity - god[infinity] in a bottle. And now most of the whole world has fallen into the post-modernist relativity of truth trap. Truth is not relative, it's absolute and certain, according to the areas and principles talked. We must all rise above this foolishness and seek the real truth within, once again, as Heraclitus taught best. We should all become trans-mordernist realists, if you ask me, but then again, who's asking little ol' me?

[Quote]The double language use leads to a problem: if the 'theory' is the same as the theory it expresses, what can you say?

Lloyd>Use the language within the language to explain it, as I stated, i.e., a scientific notation. Infinity' is greater than infinity, i.e., the greatest magnitude infinity' is greater than the least magnitude infinity, even though it's actually one' equilibriated infinity'. Gallileo was one of the clearest about the mathematics of infinity not being able to be cited, but he was talking specifically about greater and lesser magnitudes of infinity, which it is true, can't be expressed, but greatest and least infinities' can, to clarify when talking about theories of everything. The self can talk about :self:, always.

The theory should have a theory that expresses it also, which is again itself. So again, you might eliminate the fact that it is a paradox, but you don't eliminate the problem that we lead to infinite number of TOEs which are the same TOE, and are about the toe that is about the toe that is about the toe.... All being the same.

Here again, you only eliminate this problem when you finally create the only one and true TOE - the total true explanation of origin. I still say this is possible and am working on the very problem. I'll drop a few hints at this time as I'm still digesting what I'm working out. Let's look at the problems; Einstein's suffers from the fact of non-correspondence with infinity, i.e., infinity in a bottle. I as a human can exceed his space-time construction in two directions. The first I know to show this was John Wheeler, in his drawing of a big intelligent looking eyeball looking at the pre-big-bang space, and I, in the eighties, created my own psychological cyclotron to spin the entire existing universe back into the original big-crunch black-hole, yet I still existed as the big "I" beyond all, i.e., the "I-now-time-space." So it wasn't too hard to realize Einstein wasn't tolally right. Since, Einstein's mistakes have even been on PBS, for what that's worth. He hinself admitted many in his old age. But this doesn't mean we can't logically define the infinite unbounded black hole, we happen to live in. And, if we start from here, maybe we can figure out some of its properties, like say, the conservation of infinite' and finite quantum states, or the infinite' quanta factory, the identicalities of spirit' and infinity'. As long as we stay within the bounds of sound mathematical judgment and logic, I think we can make much headway on a deffinition of a real TOE. The system must produce itself, to be a true TOE, and we must be able to mathemathematically-logically represent it. then prove it with all four methods of sense and science. I say it's possible - Let's try.

[michellemfry]

Try we will. Why let a few mistakes stand in the way? It only adds to the humanity factor, it does not take away. Einstein was only beginning, and he would himself enjoy the young people today following the footsteps. Is there another who tried to take on such a task, and to do it openly, mistakes and all?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

"To know the one true thing which is unprovable, you must know the one proven thing which is false." Subversion

Einstein?