Philosophysics of a fundamental substance

[MJA]

Without question,
Truth is.

=

[labelwench]

Is there a true 'Inside' or an 'Outside' to the total system...???



Is the 'Question' inside, or outside the circle of truth...???

'Inside' or 'Outside' is a matter of perspective, is it not?

The 'Question' arises from the 'experience', as does the perspective, IMO.

Tricky questions you like to pose.

Seemingly 'simple' yet anything but......

[labelwench]

I hope you're not modifying the post I just replied to, lol......

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Discernment...

1: the quality of being able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure : skill in discerning
2: an act of discerning
synonyms discernment, discrimination, perception, penetration, insight, acumen, mean a power to see what is not evident to the average mind. discernment, stresses accuracy (as in reading character or motives or appreciating art) <the discernment to know true friends>. discrimination, stresses the power to distinguish and select what is true or appropriate or excellent <the discrimination that develops through listening to a lot of great music>. perception, implies quick and often sympathetic discernment (as of shades of feeling) <a novelist of keen perception into human motives>. penetration, implies a searching mind that goes beyond what is obvious or superficial <lacks the penetration to see the scorn beneath their friendly smiles>. insight, suggests depth of discernment coupled with understanding sympathy <a documentary providing insight into the plight of the homeless>. acumen implies characteristic penetration combined with keen practical judgment <a director of reliable box-office acumen>.

Intentional Intelligence...
Entry Word:wisdom
Function:noun
Meaning:1 the ability to understand inner qualities or relationships (with age and experience comes wisdom—hopefully) (neither book learning nor simple intelligence should be confused with wisdom) Synonyms:discernment, insight, perception, perceptiveness, sagaciousness, sagacity, sageness, sapience

Related Words:acuity, acumen, astuteness, penetration, perspicacity, sensitivity, understanding; appreciation, apprehension, comprehension, grasp; braininess, brain(s), brightness, brilliance, canniness, cleverness, gray matter, intellect, intelligence, judgment (or judgement), mentality, power, reason, sense, smartness, wit; discrimination, judiciousness, prudence, sanity; logic, rationality

Near Antonyms:density, dullness (or dulness), obtuseness; brainlessness, folly, foolishness, idiocy, imbecility, mindlessness, silliness, simpleness, stupidity, witlessness; illogic, irrationality, unreasonableness, unsoundness; craziness, insanity, lunacy, madness; preposterousness, senselessness, silliness, zaniness

2 a body of facts learned by study or experience (shared some of the wisdom that he had accumulated over 20 years as an oceanographer) see knowledge 1

3 the ability to make intelligent decisions especially in everyday matters (had overstayed her welcome and lacked the wisdom to know it) see common sense

[analog]

Lloyd,

I'll post my unknowable curiosities here. In your own words, how can we have one continuum with fluid interactions, and two seemingly opposing math systems appropriate to their own scale. Perhaps the division is us ie the observer. We must factor ourselves in at the small along with our limitations, but we count less at the large. Do these important maths define the bio universe equally as well as the geo?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Lloyd,

I'll post my unknowable curiosities here. In your own words, how can we have one continuum with fluid interactions, and two seemingly opposing math systems appropriate to their own scale. Perhaps the division is us ie the observer. We must factor ourselves in at the small along with our limitations, but we count less at the large. Do these important maths define the bio universe equally as well as the geo?

The Planck scale maths allow for that, but it's not been fully theorized or figured yet... Like you stated; 'It's observer discernibility dependent, at the bio-level' and most haven't deeply enough even considered the bio-quantum mechanics of self__yet...

[G_burnett]

i find myself giving ponder to the bio physical thinking process more and more these days. One interesting rational that came to my mind was the time element of the mind ability to form the prior mentioned hard wire ease between memories use as for a function of the brain to human endeavor. This may have a great impact on consciousness function verses unconsciousness function in ratio to what we do unconsciously and what we do consciously. To even go further we can consider the location of a memory being established not just with in relation to the spine in early development the type of cell formed but by the type of function having greater effect to locate deeper into the brain based on the function severity to the endeavor. The early repetitive formation of tactical pathways for the example in learning chess is done with a certain intensity that places such mental function into the central area of the brain. The term competitiveness may be replaced in use of the term tactical function in this consideration.
this would all lead to full use of the brain possible and not ten percent or so that we do use as a conscious value. Breathing and heart operation could be considered as functions directly wired to the body independent of path accessible to travel on by the input of senses because there is no valid need to alter the path the wires have formed. (unless one would want to stop breathing or stop his heart with a better path created, it just would not be done.) the time factor to make such a change is also a good thing for the maintain of acceptable function endeavor because it take so long to actually get the physical path created to an ease it would be taken with no conscious effort.
the valid need is something that can be considered as a changing set of veritable input factors but it does not mean those factors are necessarily present all the time.
just a morning thought i wanted to share.
kind regards graham

[analog]

Va=Vr+Vu=1 whereby Vr+Vu is a reciprocal relationship within which we must derive all dimensions of the universal system and its further internal autonomous systems which conserve absolute motion within the same reciprocal relationship but with lesser quantities of substance. There is an uncertain relationship amongst the extremes of this reciprocal relationship whereby at the largest scales of Vr, the system displays the three dimensional measurements of volume (position) as is evident by all the 'space' within which we are surrounded, but our ability to establish whether the system has any forward momentum or linear motion of the whole is lost as no such measurement can be taken from within the system to determine the value of such with perhaps only an inference of such made due to certain observations as suggested by Dave in the past of galaxies aligning their poles as with magnetic moments being aligned with the flow of electric current if I'm remembering correctly. Inversely, as Vu reciprocally increases as we view inwardly, our ability to give a momentum value increases with a loss of defining the dimensions of volume, with the internal scales somewhere along the middle of the motion spectrum supplying the greatest opportunity to give a relative value to all dimensions.

How many dimensions are required to define Vr+Vu and the reciprocal change of such over time within the entire system? All of the four forces, thermodynamics, spatial dimensions, velocity etc are all our attempts at explaining the changing view we see from the absolute perspective as the scene changes at Planck intervals, volumes, etc. as it plays out in the direction of the arrow of time. Some of these dimensions are reflective of the Vr of the universal system, while others are reflective of the Vu of the universal system, with some being reflective of the transitional states between the two eg E=MCC. My current thoughts have been in exploration of how we could possibly overlay the absolute perspective model with an inverted version of itself, whereby perhaps physically capturing the reciprocal nature of the Vr+Vu aspects. If they are reciprocal in nature then how do the dimensions by which we measure their value translate and conserve from one state to another. I keep picturing the manifold in terms of the density variations which we observe with the structured massive systems propagating through the unstructured spatial systems. What is the reciprocal relationship to this whereby an inverted mental construct of such imposed upon the universal one within our mind might equal some form of 1 or the sum of the reciprocal image by which we now view things in their asymmetrical state with an inverted spatial and temporal asymmetry which equals spatial and temporal symmetry. If that which is playing out spatially maintains the reciprocal relationship as with a frozen absolute image of the universal model and its density variations, then why too wouldn't it contain some sort of temporal reciprocal relationship as with how the system is changing, whereby when united with such a concept uniformity is achieved. Basically, I'm considering how to mentally contrast the Vr aspects of the system with Vu terms and vice verse.

Can the reciprocal relationship be exploited to provide the symmetrical concept being maintained by the asymmetrical arrangement of substance and the internal systems produced to do such. For some reason it seems that we are only viewing one side of the reciprocal nature of things, whereby asymmetry is all that we witness. Perhaps it is within the inner relationship of translating between the dimensions by which we evaluate the two states of motion that interactive symmetry might be explored. Within an atomic bomb E=Vu conserved to Vr whereby aspects such as mass which once could be measured in terms of linear velocity and such are now conserved to spatial expansion aspects and the dimensions by which such are measured. Under what rules is the universal system changing its material landscape from temporal increment to increment as volumes undergo spatial changes in terms of density and or position whereby the dimensions and mathematical methods by which we model them undergo the changes necessary to represent Vu to Vr?

Maybe I'll get some much needed clarity to explain this better soon.....

[G_burnett]

one thing in motion i find hard to remember sometimes is the ratio lack of electrons and positrons as they would call them in the standard define winking out and into exist momentarily when if going in deep there is a relationship between quarks there should be many more showing up .. especialy in the proximity of imagined causal. Then my memory serves me and i remember the posting some where in this this site that a plane landing has but to apply brakes to one side of the planes two wheels and begin to spin thus stopping forward momentum hmmm such dynamics should not be forgotten as we move on ... kind regards graham

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Sorry Tim, but this is a long and continued post… It may offer a few usful tidbits, maybe not… Enjoy…

Va=Vr+Vu=1 whereby Vr+Vu is a reciprocal relationship within which we must derive all dimensions of the universal system and its further internal autonomous systems which conserve absolute motion within the same reciprocal relationship but with lesser quantities of substance.

You see Tim, right here is one of our main obstacles to overcome. When we have our formula applied as equaling 1, what it’s truly saying is the entire Universe. That may be fine to state as an assertion__but, when done so, we would be required to produce the maths between zero and infinity, that truly represent this true 1__and we just don’t have the maths to honestly cross this great chasm. If we apply the formula as a finite absolute volume, as Dave suggested, then we can possibly do some of the maths__but, this sets up the other dynamic we do not want, of a possible greater Universe existing outside the one we are measuring__which is also no good, imo. Furthermore, we have no fully formed finite maths to even begin to represent what absolute motion even means, though we may rationally know it well__with all our other theorizings and modelings, we truly have no experimental or instrumental measurement too possibly accomplish this job__to allow true and sound verification and quantification… At these hyper-fine structure levels, as Dave has also admitted of Vr, we just can’t measure a total volume’s worth of absolute motion__even though we may know it exists before our eyes, as in Lene Hau’s experiment__which would include Graham’s point below, as well as what Dave said about Hau’s experiment__where the Bose-Einstein condensate particles are absorbing the linear motion of the entered photons, as increased harmonics(spins, frequencies, amplitudes, wavelengths changes)…

At this point, I see ways we may model this better, but measurement is still another matter. Anyway, we can use the formula I’ve long suggested of X/X=1+IIEE, which simply means that any single piece of matter entered into a collision in a massive cyclotron, will produce the FS of our model, if that cyclotron but be large and powerful enough__And therefore, I shortened the formula to X/X = FS ___Which simply offers a possible quantification path proof of __ Va = Vr + Vu__by nothing other than simple division.This doesn’t mean it’s complete by any means, as it only offers one side of the experimental proof required, which is the mental ratio-logical mathematical division proof of the necessity of the existence of a FS__being produced by simple division of the existing matter and mass of any materal chosen… The problem is, we can’t measure this process accurately enough yet, in any of the world’s present cyclotrons, except maybe the Hadron__and if we can’t measure the division accurately to the FS level__we have no empirical physical correspondence evidence for our logical and mathematical mental evidence… I see what you’ve written below, and this is also the way I’ve always looked at it, by trying to see some inverse process of modeling the volumes, distances, temps and motions to explain their greater formulation knowledge potentials__and I think it’s the way to go. I have some ideas here, but they’ll have to wait for later, as we work through the elimination process, of what’s not possible__First… We have to remove the junk ideas(impossibilities) from the models, to procede…

There is an uncertain relationship amongst the extremes of this reciprocal relationship whereby at the largest scales of Vr, the system displays the three dimensional measurements of volume (position) as is evident by all the 'space' within which we are surrounded, but our ability to establish whether the system has any forward momentum or linear motion of the whole is lost as no such measurement can be taken from within the system to determine the value of such with perhaps only an inference of such made due to certain observations as suggested by Dave in the past of galaxies aligning their poles as with magnetic moments being aligned with the flow of electric current if I'm remembering correctly.

And here you speak of a forward momentum or linear motion of the whole, as though it’s not measurable__where I don’t look at it in the same manner. I look at the entire system of volumes and volumes within volumes as motions within motions__which David, for reasons unknown to me__never wanted to address, yet I think is the route to go__as such offers the ability to model all motions anywhere, within a whole Universal motion dynamics__having total motion’s direction being totally unimportant to me__as I view the entire system as a background independent motion system of absolute variability__or (Absolute Vr=Va/Vu)=Va, at a most fundamental motion level, if our models are even capable of this vision…Of course, there’s a problem with the logic under classical understandings of logical non-contradictions and excluded middles, and here’s where the non-standard logics come in to process such ideas__but most are not familiar with non-standard, or paraconsistent logics__which have been around and in force since Lukasiewicz, and others going back to Boole,perfected his multi-valued logic, and is the reason I’m always studying logic from all possible historical sources. It takes these non-standard logics to even begin processing the possibilities of motions within motions__sensibly, and this has always been standard deductive logic’s shortcoming. So, in order to fully process our inverse models of motion such logic realizations are necessary, and are quite common when the web is consulted thoroughly for such logics…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic There’s a list of logicians near the bottom of the page… The first to construct such logic was this Russian… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolai_A._Vasiliev and the Russians have been a leader in this field__We need do a lil’ bit o’ copying…
(continued...)