[Lloyd Gillespie]

Fredrick, how about we start from scientific fundamentals, instead of trying to interject words of faith, devotion and religion into the conversation, before you even try to understand what I am referring to. I have followed all you have written about fitting everything into your pyramid model, but I reject such a model as being un-scientific, because it includes what I consider to be far too much respect for imaginary thinking. As your last post mentioned about being neutral, I do not accept the possibility of any such neutral positions, as great philosophers of the past have already pointed out that; "All it takes for evil to triumph, is for honest men to do nothing", which I interpret as neutrality.

Now you can try to force your interpretations of what I say as being religiously following science, but such statement has no validity. I follow everything, yet eliminate the imaginary, as having no value, except to initial theorizing, as I have stated. This in no way interprets to any form of religious following science, as I also think much of science needs correcting to newer, more completed understandings. I usually take the radical right positions, to nudge the left further to the center of better understandings, since they are so far left of reality.

Here's the easiest way I can make my point. As a young man, I thought and thought and thought. I was schooled never to surrender my logic to passion. In other words, I thought until I knew something, and would never accept belief or faith, as any form of reality. IMO, thinking with reason leads to belief and faith, as there are no true reasons for anything, when pushed to the absolute understanding levels, yet thinking with logic leads to discovering facts, knowledge and even absolute wisdom. So, I think many must look deeper into the linguistic labyrinth, especially the differences between reason and logic, to even start to climb out of history's dark dictatorship of faith, and "faith's crucifixion of understanding."

Now, if you consider it un-scientific, to be more scientific, than most___do so___That's your choice. Myself, I choose better understandings of science, and do not see any meta-systems involved in any of the sciences. To me, they are false departures from logic, the king of all the sciences, including math...

Originally Posted by Fredrick

It is my honor to correct you here, Lloyd, because it is not science that I call a religion, it is you I call that way for following science religiously.[I think you should use logic, instead of the weaker reasoning of passion, as such judgements are always passions.] You may call me names, meta-names included; it does not phase me. Science = science,[True...] philosophy = philosophy,[True...] religion = religion, and non-existentialism, well... it just isn't.[Just your passionate judgement, and quite false...] They all have their own place,[Yeah, and some in the trash-heap of history...] but none of them can gain the top position unless that exact same top position fits the others in their own right just as much.[That again, is just your false passionate desire...] If you got the gist of my delivery, you know what I am talking about.

Yeah, you're trying to force faith into science, where I already said___It certainly does not belong. Why you'd want to do that, is beyond me, or science...

Originally Posted by Fredrick

The grand dame of science is math.[And, the king of science is sound logic...] Mathematics has often been the scout of scientific disciplines, delivering answers before the scientific questions were even asked.[I'll take logic's superior position, thanks just the same...] You make me wonder, Lloyd, if you are truly committed to science that is well-grounded or if you are more committed to science as a religion.

Fredrick, when you stop bringing up religion, maybe we could discuss something scientifically real...?

Regards,
Lloyd

[Fredrick]

Sorry, but I copied my reply a few times too often and can't seem to delete them. Sorry about you having to scroll quite a bit now (though still on this page 19).

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Religion started because in earlier days, humanity was divided into pockets of isolated civilizations (this is prior to even the Roman or Greek civilizations). They thought they were alone in the world and that frightened them. The leaders of that particular civilization then took advantage of the fear and propagated the thought that God created the world and they were the descendants of God. This is how Religion slowly took birth..

Same here. I did something not quite right here. Please scroll down further for my reply.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Religion started because in earlier days, humanity was divided into pockets of isolated civilizations (this is prior to even the Roman or Greek civilizations). They thought they were alone in the world and that frightened them. The leaders of that particular civilization then took advantage of the fear and propagated the thought that God created the world and they were the descendants of God. This is how Religion slowly took birth..

Dipayankar, the further back in history we look, the less information we have available to us to make strong statements. We do know, though, that before humans became settlers they already had religion. What I found fascinating from their perspective is that nomadic people had multiple gods and often a female god taking in a central position. After nomads became settlers (and had to fight to defend their territories), their central god became male. A very important shift in religious thinking took place when nomads became settlers. Ever since, and especially so with the single god, the religious delivery of the highest form has been male (or presented as male), showcasing the importance given to force (as in the need to defend the settlement being paramount).

Not the gods changed, but the humans and their own behaviors changed. The change of organization from a more egalitarian-natural format to a more stationary-hierarchical format tells us that we tend to take the god(s) that fit our form or organization best, and religion tells us therefore a lot about who we are and what we think is correct.

I think it is fair to say that religion has always been with us, but evidence to support this or refute this is not readily available. If you claim to know how religion took birth, then you actually created a belief (a theory) about the beginning of beliefs. You cannot have the evidence to support your claim, because evidence from twenty thousand years ago is not available to support the idea that those humans did not have religion. Yet this is probably a good example that confirms what both you and I are saying: religion is a human creation to explain something that does not have full-footing (though beliefs always contain at least some important footing to survive over the years).

To claim that we can do away with religion and have science take in its place is a similar act of replacing one set of god(s) with something else that suits us better. Science does not have the full sets of evidence required to do away with god(s); science contains very important footings, but it does not contain all footing — cannot contain all footings. I have no problem with Lloyd stating on page 14 that "at present, science [is] the incompleted framework limited by its own incompleteness," but I must expose his words that this "may not be so in the near future" as a claim, a wish, a desire, an act of faith. If you don't like the lingo, I am happy to keep it at the first word: it's a claim, a not-substantiated, not-fully-founded statement.

Lloyd, I'd love to cut through the language and speak only straight-talk with you, but I accept that we are sitting behind computers and, annoying as it is, language is our tool. As I have said before, we are not far apart in our thinking, but our thoughts contain an essential difference. If I can distill it correctly, the beef I have with you is that you claim that science will come up with a unified theory, and I can only confirm having that claim myself under the condition that separation is the essential part of such theory of everything. If you agree that this is a correct description of both our positions, then I will say that you are ultimately empty-handed in your delivery (a claim but no full-footing), while I claim to have evidence (of full-footing) in my delivery. From my perspective, it is actually the same beef I have with Nobody (though his statement is not about science, but about non-existentialism); he too does not have evidence of full-footing, and circumvents that fact by saying that such full-footing does not exist.

Language is an annoying tool here, because I can accept a unified theory, but only if that exists in the abstract. You can as easily find me saying that a unified theory does not exist, because the word unified is contradictory to the essence of everything being based on an initial separation. I claim separation started the material universe, and established separation is the ground-principle of our universe. Cooperation is not the first but the second principle.

In that manner, I see a pyramid of positions because the cooperation takes place as secondary result. Therefore there are two grounded oppositional positions, and two positions that are 'independent' as well, though they are not grounded. Like DNA, there are four basic parts, and their cooperation is conditional (in their case they are based on two sets of pairs).

I see the pyramid of positions in science, I see this in religion, in philosophy, and even in non-existentialism. I have no reason to make science less than what it is, but the evidence that I bring claims that science itself must accept the phenomenon of division at its basis.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I don't find much difference with your thinking also, Fredrick, but your signature claiming; "The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titilating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not. ", is where I have the problem, as it is far too abstract for science. Yes, math is an abstract tool, but it most often reveals real objective truths about our fundamental universe, yet your insistance on abstract nothing possibly being fundamental, disqualifies your science, and or maths, when you try to join too much, to early. The linguistic union is part of our incomplete understanding, to date... Now, as to separation being a fundamental of the universe, I'd certainly agree. The best way to clarify this fact, is to accept a two concepts[Godel's concept of the concept] level of understanding___The concept of spiritual intelligence___& The concept of scientific intelligence. They both exist, yet both destroy each's understanding, of the other. This is what we must work on, in order to understand each's differences...

Originally Posted by Fredrick

To claim that we can do away with religion and have science take in its place is a similar act of replacing one set of god(s) with something else that suits us better. Science does not have the full sets of evidence required to do away with god(s); science contains very important footings, but it does not contain all footing — cannot contain all footings. I have no problem with Lloyd stating on page 14 that "at present, science [is] the incompleted framework limited by its own incompleteness," but I must expose his words that this "may not be so in the near future" as a claim, a wish, a desire, an act of faith. If you don't like the lingo, I am happy to keep it at the first word: it's a claim, a not-substantiated, not-fully-founded statement.

Probabilities never are, Fredrick, yet probability math is a very useful tool of logic...

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Lloyd, I'd love to cut through the language and speak only straight-talk with you, but I accept that we are sitting behind computers and, annoying as it is, language is our tool. As I have said before, we are not far apart in our thinking, but our thoughts contain an essential difference. If I can distill it correctly, the beef I have with you is that you claim that science will come up with a unified theory, and I can only confirm having that claim myself under the condition that separation is the essential part of such theory of everything.[Agreed...] If you agree that this is a correct description of both our positions, then I will say that you are ultimately empty-handed in your delivery (a claim but no full-footing), while I claim to have evidence (of full-footing) in my delivery.[Not if you still use abstraction, as the universe is real, not abstract, even as to real physical spirits...] From my perspective, it is actually the same beef I have with Nobody (though his statement is not about science, but about non-existentialism); he too does not have evidence of full-footing, and circumvents that fact by saying that such full-footing does not exist.[And I say such full-footing exists, a-priori logically, mathematically, and empirically, i.e., no proton decay yet witnessed, yet we know the finite universe is decaying, through radiation of stars and other matter... The proton just takes longer to decay, than our present experiments, are capable of detecting... Of course, this is conjecture, at present, but the probability math, of universal decay, makes the possibility quite evident... I'll put my money on future proton decay discovery... Is it science yet, no of course not, but probability possibilities is far from religion. It's just perceptronic logic's possibilities___Still science...]

Language is an annoying tool here, because I can accept a unified theory, but only if that exists in the abstract.[All sceintific logic exists in the real world, not in the abstract, to me... This may be where one of the problems of definition is... Abstract thinking exists, but a truly unified theory, must support facts, not abstracts...] You can as easily find me saying that a unified theory does not exist, because the word unified is contradictory to the essence of everything being based on an initial separation.[No, I accept this as just the facts necessary to understanding complex, counter-intuitive thinking, and logic...] I claim separation started the material universe, and established separation is the ground-principle of our universe.[In the absolute matter of fact, I agree with that...] Cooperation is not the first but the second principle.[I don't see what cooperation has to do with random and uniform motions...? Yeah, they become logical with evolution, but that's just the necessity of universal matter's motions. We know it's not an illogical universe, so the facts say it's a logical universe, yet logic doesn't require cooperation, until man enters the picture___The universe's logic just is...]

In that manner, I see a pyramid of positions because the cooperation takes place as secondary result.[Fredrick, cooperation is not applicable to universe, until we, or other animals, show our ugly faces...] Therefore there are two grounded oppositional positions, and two positions that are 'independent' as well, though they are not grounded.[Again, you're applying abstracts, that just do not apply to an early universe. This is the trouble with adding spirit, where it doesn't belong...] Like DNA, there are four basic parts, and their cooperation is conditional (in their case they are based on two sets of pairs).[Yeah, this is fine in the bio-era, but there's no connection to the geo-era, from your ]

I see the pyramid of positions in science, I see this in religion, in philosophy, and even in non-existentialism.[Define non-existentialism...] I have no reason to make science less than what it is, but the evidence that I bring claims that science itself must accept the phenomenon of division at its basis.

I have no dis-agreement with division as the basis of science, as I see FS and motion, in no other dynamics...

Regards,
Lloyd

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

I don't find much difference with your thinking also, Fredrick, but your signature claiming; "The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not. ", is where I have the problem, as it is far too abstract for science. Yes, math is an abstract tool, but it most often reveals real objective truths about our fundamental universe, yet your insistence on abstract nothing possibly being fundamental, disqualifies your science, and or maths, when you try to join too much, to early. The linguistic union is part of our incomplete understanding, to date... Now, as to separation being a fundamental of the universe, I'd certainly agree. The best way to clarify this fact, is to accept a two concepts [Godel's concept of the concept] level of understanding___The concept of spiritual intelligence___& The concept of scientific intelligence. They both exist, yet both destroy each's understanding, of the other. This is what we must work on, in order to understand each's differences...

It makes me feel good to see we agree on not being that far apart, Lloyd. And though you write you have a problem with the statement I make in my signature, you yourself seem to deliver the answer on how to view it correctly. The concept of the concept is the appropriate way to solve the problem: the abstract is a fundamental part of how we view everything. If we want to come to an overall perspective, the abstract must be identified and given prime position. Without giving the abstract that prime position no full-footed outcome can get established.

The reason this demand exists at all is that we can only approach the goal of absolute knowledge in science from the outside; there is ultimately no recreation (though doing experiments is part of science of course). For the final delivery we can ultimately only come to a description of creation. Hence, we automatically have to include the abstract because the answers are not the real thing; they are descriptions of the real thing. We are using tools, so we must include the fact in our final answer that we are using tools.

My signature is kind of a question, first of all because I like to entice others — make others curious about my book. But also because science itself (scientists themselves) must see that having to make a choice is part of the ultimate foundation. And it belongs to the essential level of science itself too. A choice was made to establish the basics of science of today. That may be nice and fully defensible in some ways, it also means that a problem exists in science when the choice itself is not fully included as part of the groundwork (currently some scientists include, other scientists exclude that choice). It is a choice not to include the choice as part of the foundation. And that is wrong, incorrect, a falsification of reality, it cannot be done. It is possible only because it takes place in the abstract (even though it changes the outcome). What it comes down to is similar to allowing the king or president of a nation to be above the law. The law stands and functions fully, except for the fact that the exclusion makes it a corrupted law in one very specific position.

Though nothing is truly nothing, the nothing is part of the basics. Without that nothing our universe would not be. Could not be. We can argue whether that nothing is an abstract or a phenomenon or a quirky occurrence, but that would just be words, just an argument for or against, or an argument for argument's sake. To name the phenomenon of choice we have to give the phenomenon of nothing a prime position because it is one of the two parts of the choice. The king or president must be included inside the framework of the law; otherwise the law is not thé law. Understandingly, the king or president does not want to be bound by the law, but if we don't capture the king or president within the law, a possible monster is allowed to rule the nation. To make this a fully captured world, we must capture the spot from which we capture, too. In science, that spot is the spot of choice itself.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Fredrick

It makes me feel good to see we agree on not being that far apart, Lloyd. And though you write you have a problem with the statement I make in my signature, you yourself seem to deliver the answer on how to view it correctly. The concept of the concept is the appropriate way to solve the problem: the abstract is a fundamental part of how we view everything. If we want to come to an overall perspective, the abstract must be identified and given prime position. Without giving the abstract that prime position no full-footed outcome can get established.

IMO, you are still trying to add the abstract, where it does not belong. The universe worked fundamentally, logically and sound, from its fundamental substance motions, long before our stupid human race was birthed, in the bio-era. There's absolutely no science in adding the abstract, before man existed. So, I am of the opposite opinion of scientific origin of species evolution. IMO, it's science all the way. Yes, we may need abstract ideas to relay both sides of the spirit equation, but in no way did it exist from the evolution of matter's early eternal fundamentals. You have no science or spirit intelligence, to show such conjectures. IMO, it ain't possible, because it ain't the way it happened...

Originally Posted by Fredrick

The reason this demand exists at all is that we can only approach the goal of absolute knowledge in science from the outside; there is ultimately no recreation (though doing experiments is part of science of course). For the final delivery we can ultimately only come to a description of creation.[Believing in absolute first creation is no more than a fool's paradise___It didn't happen. Creation of finiteness, yes, but not creation of the eternal FS and motion...] Hence, we automatically have to include the abstract because the answers are not the real thing;[No real, try decaying a proton...?] they are descriptions of the real thing.[That's what I mean about you. You go into abstract nonsense, just when I think there may be a chance at communicating the two concepts...] We are using tools, so we must include the fact in our final answer that we are using tools.

Tools, yes, but not imaginary inclusions of the real tools___Real inclusions of real tools...

My signature is kind of a question, first of all because I like to entice others — make others curious about my book. But also because science itself (scientists themselves) must see that having to make a choice is part of the ultimate foundation. And it belongs to the essential level of science itself too. A choice was made to establish the basics of science of today. That may be nice and fully defensible in some ways, it also means that a problem exists in science when the choice itself is not fully included as part of the groundwork (currently some scientists include, other scientists exclude that choice).[Real scientists edit out the false science, Fredrick...] It is a choice not to include the choice as part of the foundation.[No, that's where you are wrong. All good scientists are well aware of the inclusion choices, as they've been well aware since Aristotle first laid it out as a choice, excluding the variable middle, to found his and our science...] And that is wrong, incorrect, a falsification of reality, it cannot be done.[It isn't Fredrick, you are doing the falsification of scientific reality, not the true scientists...] It is possible only because it takes place in the abstract, though it changes the outcome.[The universe, pre-foolish-man, has no abstract matter or actions___It was absolutely real and true logic, unto itself, until foolish men polluted the logical intelligence of motion actions, with non-sense...] What it comes down to is similar to allowing the king or president of a nation to be above the law. The law stands and functions fully, except that it is a corrupted law in one very specific position.[/quote]

Nature is absolutely fundamentally un-corrupted. Only man corrupts...

Though nothing is truly nothing, the nothing is part of the basics.[Fredrick, scientists and philosophers proved this foolishness, foolish, long ago...] Without that nothing our universe would not be.[Sorry, you can not know such statement, as it is epistemologically impossible of existing___period...] Could not be. We can argue whether that nothing is an abstract or a phenomenon or a quirky occurrence, but that would just be words, just an argument for or against, or an argument for argument's sake.[There's no argument, it's just plain inane...] To name the phenomenon of choice we have to give the phenomenon of nothing a prime position because it is one of the two parts of the choice.[Sorry, abstract non-sense. You're just quoting Nobody's faults...] The king or president must be included inside the framework of the law; otherwise the law is not thé law.[The law's the law, no matter what. It's just few abide its totality, or try to improve it...] Understandingly, the king or president does not want to be bound by the law, but if we don't capture the king or president within the law, a monster is allowed to rule the nation.[Then change the laws, so he can't...] To make this a fully captured world,[Exaggerated opinion...] we must capture the last spot, too. In science, that spot is the spot of choice itself.[/quote]

As I already said, Aristotle dealt completely with intuitive choice, in his ethics, and with the laws of science, clearly, in his physics. We still use his foundations, for sound scientific logic... The world just needs physical improving of its legal architecture___globally. Abstract ideas play their role, in this improving, but there's no action for the betterment of humanity, without physical action, whether law change, or administrations' changes. Too bad the simple-minded public, keeps electing the simple-minded leaders, but that's just a minor problem of elder democracies, as Alexis DeToqueville, already explained, over most a century and a half ago...

Regards,
Lloyd

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

The universe worked fundamentally, logically and sound, from its fundamental substance motions, long before our stupid human race was birthed, in the bio-era. There's absolutely no science in adding the abstract, before man existed. So, I am of the opposite opinion of scientific origin of species evolution.

It is a choice not to include the choice as part of the foundation.[No, that's where you are wrong. All good scientists are well aware of the inclusion choices, as they've been well aware since Aristotle first laid it out as a choice, excluding the variable middle, to found his and our science...]

As I already said, Aristotle dealt completely with intuitive choice, in his ethics, and with the laws of science, clearly, in his physics. We still use his foundations, for sound scientific logic... The world just needs physical improving of its legal architecture___globally. Abstract ideas play their role, in this improving, but there's no action for the betterment of humanity, without physical action, whether law change, or administrations' changes. Too bad the simple-minded public, keeps electing the simple-minded leaders, but that's just a minor problem of elder democracies, as Alexis DeToqueville, already explained, over most a century and a half ago...

First of all, Lloyd, you cannot take yourself out of the picture — even though I must admire you for trying. It cannot be done.

And Aristotle did receive a reply by intuitionistic mathematicians. A third way is basically an option, though it exists only under certain conditions.

Sorry, Lloyd, but you are using the escape hatch here. You are making the choice not to include the choice, while stating that scientists are including the choice (as in always). That is not true.

[dipayankar]

Llyod is right...lets keep all faith and religion off this forum.. you have numerous forums to discuss religion...

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Fredrick, how about we start from scientific fundamentals, instead of trying to interject words of faith, devotion and religion into the conversation, before you even try to understand what I am referring to. I have followed all you have written about fitting everything into your pyramid model, but I reject such a model as being un-scientific, because it includes what I consider to be far too much respect for imaginary thinking. As your last post mentioned about being neutral, I do not accept the possibility of any such neutral positions, as great philosophers of the past have already pointed out that; "All it takes for evil to triumph, is for honest men to do nothing", which I interpret as neutrality.

Now you can try to force your interpretations of what I say as being religiously following science, but such statement has no validity. I follow everything, yet eliminate the imaginary, as having no value, except to initial theorizing, as I have stated. This in no way interprets to any form of religious following science, as I also think much of science needs correcting to newer, more completed understandings. I usually take the radical right positions, to nudge the left further to the center of better understandings, since they are so far left of reality.

Here's the easiest way I can make my point. As a young man, I thought and thought and thought. I was schooled never to surrender my logic to passion. In other words, I thought until I knew something, and would never accept belief or faith, as any form of reality. IMO, thinking with reason leads to belief and faith, as there are no true reasons for anything, when pushed to the absolute understanding levels, yet thinking with logic leads to discovering facts, knowledge and even absolute wisdom. So, I think many must look deeper into the linguistic labyrinth, especially the differences between reason and logic, to even start to climb out of history's dark dictatorship of faith, and "faith's crucifixion of understanding."

Now, if you consider it un-scientific, to be more scientific, than most___do so___That's your choice. Myself, I choose better understandings of science, and do not see any meta-systems involved in any of the sciences. To me, they are false departures from logic, the king of all the sciences, including math...



Yeah, you're trying to force faith into science, where I already said___It certainly does not belong. Why you'd want to do that, is beyond me, or science...



Fredrick, when you stop bringing up religion, maybe we could discuss something scientifically real...?

Regards,
Lloyd

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Fredrick

First of all, Lloyd, you cannot take yourself out of the picture — even though I must admire you for trying. It cannot be done.[Yes I can. I do, any time I choose>intuitive imaginal choice< or intuitionistic choice...]

And Aristotle did receive a reply by intuitionistic mathematicians. A third way is basically an option, though it exists only under certain conditions.[And I've stated many times, it's psychological, and useless to the science of physics, when used as the other law system of "too much inclusion..." Psychological laws work for psychology, they do not work for any branches of physics...]

Sorry, Lloyd, but you are using the escape hatch here.[Not hardly...] You are making the choice not to include the choice, while stating that scientists are including the choice (as in always). That is not true.[IMO, Fredrick, you should upgrade your understandings of intuitive and counter-intuitive knowledge systems. Some things are not what they seem to be, including one's perception of another's wording meanings.]

Somewhere along the road Fredrick, you lost sight of the fact that science works on the fundamental Aristotlean "Choice", of eliminating certain choices[the excluded middle] from fundamental logic, and mathematics. I am well aware of intuitionistic mathematics, by Broweur and Godel, yet this math is not the fundamental logic of Aristotle's sound mind, which just happens to be what the laws of physics adhere to... I have also stated other places where Husserl explained the differences between science logic laws, and the laws of psychology, music, etc., being opposed logic systems of alternative choices...

It is all scientists choice which system to use, according to which system they choose to work on or with. My choice is the fundametal first system of sound first order logic... The problems always arise with the fundamental choices of our minds between the many and the one, or the ontological and the teleological understandings. In my world, the teleological is the only possible understanding of the ontological, as the ontological is too large to relay with one tongue, or pen/computer or whatever. The ontological one must be explained by the teleological many, as it's impossible for the one to explain the many, and that doesn't mean the one mind can not explain the many, as it's really already the many parts functioning together...

It's the battle between the ontological fallacy, and the teleological reality, or, the quantum teleological birth of the finite universe, vs., the ontological fallacy...

Regards,
Lloyd