[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie The science will include the metaphysics, when all is completed... At present, science being the incompleted framework, that is limited by its own incompleteness, may not be so, in the near future. But, as far as stating science, or myself, as having anything to do with religion, is missing the fundamental point of what a-priori and empirical science is all about. Science can only be science by respecting the limits of its foundational laws, of such a priori logic and empirical experimental proofs, and simply uses imaginal theories, as a tool to further the quest, for real a-priori logics, maths, and empirical experimental proofs___This is not religion___Science is a facts-only based undertaking. Einstein always stated his ideas only pertained to a very small part of universal motion, and not to our general Newtonian motion and substance universe... It's best to get the real fundamentals, from the horse's mouths...

Not to be facetious, Lloyd, but I have always been amused when my own arguments are used against me. In this case, I can subscribe to close to all your words, except to the point that science will be... that science will include... because both are expressed hopes for a future reality; your words do not capture what we have today. I am not saying that science has any religion to it. Please, don't twist my words! But I am saying that your attitude towards science has a religious twist. Or... if that makes it easier, I'd say your attitude towards science has the clear ring of a wish to it.

The real discussion should be about the scientific basics... Yes!

But thank you, Lloyd, most certainly also for the Einstein perspective. I always thought he meant his work is important only for a very small though essential part of universal motion. Your telling me about that indicates yet again for me how our thinking is very similar. And Einstein's remark is about the same extent as my remark on your religious approach towards science: it is only about a very small part of your human nature that I am refering to. The absoluteness of science (that exists indeed within the framework of science, but not outside the framework) cannot and should not be replicated in our own attitudes towards science. If we take in that absolute position ourselves, we are missing the point of science. Science exists within its own framework, we exist in our own framework. We should not apply absolute information from another framework into our own.

In my view, early twentieth century scientists figured out all we needed to figure out to understand the entire scientific picture.

In the binary system, we can only say what we want to say in as far as the binary framework allows us to say it. Most people agree, the binary system can cover everything. But it is clear too that the system itself is limited, and cannot express everything as experienced by us humans. It is difficult to translate our love for someone in ones and zeros. Only when translated back into human language do the ones and zeros become something we can be touched by.

My question: do you agree that science is only a tool? I do not mean this in a facetious way. Science is quite an outstanding tool, but a tool nevertheless. Do you agree?

[Tina]

Originally Posted by ScottAnfield Hey, you can have a look at my theory on www.threes.com or google my name: Scott Anfield Let me know what you think

In an attemt to bring the thread back to topic - especially in view of Lloyd G and Fredrick's recent posts - Protheory offers solution to the problem of determining TRUTH:

According to Protheory the TRUTH value of any given statement has three (3)
potentialities of being either

True (+)
Not True (-)
Not true but not false either (0)

The equivalent to black - white - grey. Science can identify the grey areas and examine them without negating the established true and false aspects of the problems being investigated. True/False are not reality's only options. We can say "the answer is indeterminable/partly true /or something else yet to be determined".

[dipayankar]

I agree there is not relative truth. Either it is true, partially true of false..

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Your statement, Tina, is the very problem with metaphysicist views about science. If science took the stance of "truth" being relative, it destroys the very foundation of science. So, science must be founded on what is empirically and a-priori logically know to be true, and not the relative exaggerations, that plagues modern thought. Einstein long ago warned about this very problem, showing up in the interpretations of his relativity theories, of which he applied to only a very small portion of Lorentzian measure. This is where relative belongs, and nowhere else, as the universe, less man's measure mis-understandings, is an absolutely true entity, functioning as its mechanical fundamental self, and I think always will, for quite some time... True science uses no relative terms, except where Einstein's Lorentzian measure is necessary to accurize Newtonian or classical maths, and then it's only millionths of millionths cm differences. The rest of science(most of it) is straight classical first order Euclidian math. Regards, Lloyd

[Tina]

Originally Posted by dipayankar I agree there is not relative truth. Either it is true, partially true of false..

Do you agree with the description of "not true but neither not false" as equal to your expression PARTIALLY TRUE OF FALSE. Or did you mean to say "true OR false"?

[dipayankar]

Partially true or false would be describing a partially black and partially white bag as a 'black bag or a white bag'. I would not know how to descripe your phrase...

Originally Posted by Tina Do you agree with the description of "not true but neither not false" as equal to your expression PARTIALLY TRUE OF FALSE. Or did you mean to say "true OR false"?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Fredrick But I am saying that your attitude towards science has a religious twist. Or... if that makes it easier, I'd say your attitude towards science has the clear ring of a wish to it.

Fredrick, in your "all too humaness", you mistake confidence for religious views...

Originally Posted by Fredrick The real discussion should be about the scientific basics... Yes! But thank you, Lloyd, most certainly also for the Einstein perspective. I always thought he meant his work is important only for a very small though essential part of universal motion. Your telling me about that indicates yet again for me how our thinking is very similar. And Einstein's remark is about the same extent as my remark on your religious approach towards science: it is only about a very small part of your human nature that I am refering to. The absoluteness of science (that exists indeed within the framework of science, but not outside the framework) cannot and should not be replicated in our own attitudes towards science. If we take in that absolute position ourselves, we are missing the point of science. Science exists within its own framework, we exist in our own framework. We should not apply absolute information from another framework into our own.

That is your position Fredrick, not mine, and I mean no harm to anyone. I'm simply using the most efficient method, at my disposal. You don't have to like it, but that is what I will continue to use. Since there is far too much crossover from the meta-communities into science, science should take the radical position, to secure its true ground, or we end up just as India, losing its rational ground, long ago. As an example, our founding father Hamilton, took the democracy argument to the radical position of being ruled by an all powerful prince, to mute the far left ignorance, which brought the debate to the middle road position, of the constitutional democracy, we now all enjoy, as he so confidently intended. His genius for this move is hardly recognized, in most all the histories written. Thank god for such free-radicals... Thus, I will continue to use radical positions of science, to get science's facts across, especially in "web" contexts...

Originally Posted by Fredrick In my view, early twentieth century scientists figured out all we needed to figure out to understand the entire scientific picture.

You'd go some selling this one to all the physicists, since. Remember, we still haven't solved the gravity issue, or the background issue...

Originally Posted by Fredrick In the binary system, we can only say what we want to say in as far as the binary framework allows us to say it. Most people agree, the binary system can cover everything. But it is clear too that the system itself is limited, and cannot express everything as experienced by us humans. It is difficult to translate our love for someone in ones and zeros. Only when translated back into human language do the ones and zeros become something we can be touched by.

That's funny, I wasn't aware this medium of Boolean communication we're using, on this forum, wasn't binary...? The binary seems to express everything, when words and a-priori logic are used...

Originally Posted by Fredrick My question: do you agree that science is only a tool? I do not mean this in a facetious way. Science is quite an outstanding tool, but a tool nevertheless. Do you agree?

Fredrick, science is a tool, but is also the entire reality of sensible, sensuous, feeling humanity. Take a gander at Hofstader's newest book. Can't remember the name(I'm A Strange Loop), but it's all to do with what you are talking about. BTW, I don't agree with much of it, but he is the one who coined the question; "How does inanimate matter produce animate life?" This is what we need to answer, in binary, if you wish, but that's easy, since words on this page are in Boolean logic's binary code. You see Fredrick, I am also quite familiar with math. I just don't think it much use, especially when it can't even figure four sphere inter-actions, and the universe, even in a cubic CM, operates at the trillions of spheres level. Math is far too limited. Words seem to be unlimited, sometimes for the good, and sometimes for the worse...

Regards,
Lloyd

p.s.
BTW Fredrick, it's all already science in my mind, or I wouldn't write as I do. It'll just take a while to open others' eyes...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Tina In an attemt to bring the thread back to topic - especially in view of Lloyd G and Fredrick's recent posts - Protheory offers solution to the problem of determining TRUTH: According to Protheory the TRUTH value of any given statement has three (3) potentialities of being either True (+) Not True (-) Not true but not false either (0) The equivalent to black - white - grey. Science can identify the grey areas and examine them without negating the established true and false aspects of the problems being investigated. True/False are not reality's only options. We can say "the answer is indeterminable/partly true /or something else yet to be determined".

Tina, as I've noted before, this is great for psychology, but science must operate on the three more sound laws, which eliminates, "Not true but not false either". It's called the excluded middle, and must be in the foundational structure of sound science. The two systems of psychology and science operate on these opposing sets of laws, as Husserl already showed in the early twenties, in one of his phenomonology books. Both systems are correct to their individual systems, but untrue to each other. And, that's not a paradox___It's just a fact of human nature, that I think only science will answer. The problematic differences exist because of the indecisive human imagination and desires, which there's nothing wrong with, but conforms to science's symmetry breaking rules of the uncertainty principle, at it root levels of fundamental motions...

Sorry for putting emotions into scientific analysis, but that's just the way I like my mind to work. I've been this way since childhood___Most likely the mad mother syndrome, but I choose it for its scientific efficiency, as a fully aware adult...

Regards,
Lloyd

[dipayankar]

Yeah, lets keep this forum completely free of Rreligion and totally into reasonable science...

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Fredrick, in your "all too humaness", you mistake confidence for religious views... That is your position Fredrick, not mine, and I mean no harm to anyone. I'm simply using the most efficient method, at my disposal. You don't have to like it, but that is what I will continue to use. Since there is far too much crossover from the meta-communities into science, science should take the radical position, to secure its true ground, or we end up just as India, losing its rational ground, long ago. As an example, our founding father Hamilton, took the democracy argument to the radical position of being ruled by an all powerful prince, to mute the far left ignorance, which brought the debate to the middle road position, of the constitutional democracy, we now all enjoy, as he so confidently intended. His genius for this move is hardly recognized, in most all the histories written. Thank god for such free-radicals... Thus, I will continue to use radical positions of science, to get science's facts across, especially in "web" contexts... You'd go some selling this one to all the physicists, since. Remember, we still haven't solved the gravity issue, or the background issue... That's funny, I wasn't aware this medium of Boolean communication we're using, on this forum, wasn't binary...? The binary seems to express everything, when words and a-priori logic are used... Fredrick, science is a tool, but is also the entire reality of sensible, sensuous, feeling humanity. Take a gander at Hofstader's newest book. Can't remember the name(I'm A Strange Loop), but it's all to do with what you are talking about. BTW, I don't agree with much of it, but he is the one who coined the question; "How does inanimate matter produce animate life?" This is what we need to answer, in binary, if you wish, but that's easy, since words on this page are in Boolean logic's binary code. You see Fredrick, I am also quite familiar with math. I just don't think it much use, especially when it can't even figure four sphere inter-actions, and the universe, even in a cubic CM, operates at the trillions of spheres level. Math is far too limited. Words seem to be unlimited, sometimes for the good, and sometimes for the worse... Regards, Lloyd

[Tina]

Originally Posted by purveyor of knowledge One has found some more examples of the three theory........Michael Evans has discovered the simplest platonic solid and it has three faces. This becomes possible when you allow the platonic solids to have curved lines. When you shine light through the simplest platonic solid a pattern of DNA emerges. One has witnessed this personally last summer. -POK

POK - good to see you (metaphorically) - that is brilliant information - my friend Protheory is going to be extatic. As I said before the TOE is going to feature 3 in a significant way. Evidence is mounting everyday.

But does this mean you'll be threatening to extract our DNA to make our clones now you have this knowledge?

(I would add STRESS to college thing maybe instead of STUDY.)

[dipayankar]

So probably the Universe consists of three spatial dimensions after all and not the 9 that String theory predicts...

Originally Posted by Tina POK - good to see you (metaphorically) - that is brilliant information - my friend Protheory is going to be extatic. As I said before the TOE is going to feature 3 in a significant way. Evidence is mounting everyday. But does this mean you'll be threatening to extract our DNA to make our clones now you have this knowledge? (I would add STRESS to college thing maybe instead of STUDY.)