[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

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

Dipayankar,

You will not catch me saying that Lloyd is wrong. The point is that next to being right there is another right. And that's the whole puzzle — we have to fit various rights next to each other in the ultimate delivery, even when there is a conflict between both rights.

P.S. If you claim me to be religious in my delivery, I can only conclude you did not get the essence of what I am saying. I can blame myself for not writing better; I can blame you for not reading better. Or I can say that that's just the way it is if someone is focused too much on the truth as a singular experience.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

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...

Thank you, Lloyd. Excellent reply! I like fundamental discussions and I appreciate your openness about having made choices in your own thinking. I hope I get some of the gist of your delivery right when I say that indeed the final delivery is kind of messy.

I do not know if the answer is that we must choose one approach over the other, though, in light of the final platform. I believe both (or all) different approaches must fit on the ultimate platform, and the only requirement of that platform is that each of the deliveries is true onto themselves. One delivery does not need to concur with the other(s) and none has to overcome and resolve the conflict they automatically bring with them when placed next to each other. It also does not mean that when both (or all) can agree that this is the ultimate platform that they must then agree on anything else — this platform does not require the parts to be in alignment; it is only in the abstract that they do have certain specific oppositional positions.

On this ultimate platform, different conflicting scientific sides (I am not talking about ontological deliveries here) can all be considered scientific under the strictest conditions. Science itself (yes, this is a singular noun but ultimately this word is an abstract) has such a platform; philosophy also has such a platform, religion has such a platform.

[dipayankar]

Fredrick,

In a mutually exclusive system, there is only one right. I refuse to believe in God or Religion because it is opposed to logic on which science stands. Show me one piece of logic in religion.. whatever good is written in the gospels do not need a God. It is inherent in a man's mind to do good.

As far is calling us religious, I am just pitting my thoughts against your thoughts.

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Dipayankar,

You will not catch me saying that Lloyd is wrong. The point is that next to being right there is another right. And that's the whole puzzle — we have to fit various rights next to each other in the ultimate delivery, even when there is a conflict between both rights.

P.S. If you claim me to be religious in my delivery, I can only conclude you did not get the essence of what I am saying. I can blame myself for not writing better; I can blame you for not reading better. Or I can say that that's just the way it is if someone is focused too much on the truth as a singular experience.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Fredrick

It also does not mean that when both (or all) can agree that this is the ultimate platform that they must then agree on anything else — this platform does not require the parts to be in alignment; it is only in the abstract that they do have certain specific oppositional positions.

Fredrick, it is not only in the abstract, that specific oppositional positions exist. Yes, tis true most oppositions are abstract, in spirit nature, but the real scientific universe exists, absolutely in opposition, to all abstract illusions and abstract facts and positions...

Originally Posted by Fredrick

On this ultimate platform, different conflicting scientific sides (I am not talking about ontological deliveries here) can all be considered scientific under the strictest conditions. Science itself (yes, this is a singular noun but ultimately this word is an abstract) has such a platform; philosophy also has such a platform, religion has such a platform.

Tis true all three have and use abstract positions, to explain much of what is the truth of each, but only science___The universe's self-contained absolute science of its fundamental substance and motion existence, is in and of itself, separate of abstract theorizing___The universe is absolutely real, in and of itself. Only man is the abstractor, not the universe, even though the universe of teleological evolution, produces this ontological abstractor, the universe remains absolutely real, as it eternally has... Herein lies the problem___Man's self-adding the abstract, to what is absolute...

Science is theorized with the abstract___yet, the pure gas-chemical-geo universe, pre-bio-era, is absolute science___Never abstract, at any motion or substance levels. It's absolutely real, as we are physically and spiritually real, but we become un-real, when we use the abstract to exaggerate the bio-era's true capabilities of limited spirit-egos... The spirit-ego is limited to c, in the bio-era, as a physical spirit-body operative, yet has the capacity of abstract imagination, to use scientifically logical, or non-scientifically logically, or illogically___Choice... We are all free to choose our intelligences, whether logical/illogical spiritual intelligence, or logical/illogical sceintific intelligence, or non-intelligences... That doesn't make them unitable. It doesn't make them un-unitable. It's just the teleological/ontological problem, that must be solved. IMO, it can only be solved by the physical science of spirit subordinated to universal teleological evolution, producing the later ontological being, and not ontological being producing the teleological universe... This is the old one and the many problem, between which came first, the chicken or the egg...

Regards,
Lloyd

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Fredrick,

In a mutually exclusive system, there is only one right. I refuse to believe in God or Religion because it is opposed to logic on which science stands. Show me one piece of logic in religion.. whatever good is written in the gospels do not need a God. It is inherent in a man's mind to do good.

As far is calling us religious, I am just pitting my thoughts against your thoughts.

Dipiyankar,

You did not get the essence of what I am saying. I am saying that science is not a singular system itself. Science contains the conflict already, and if you believe that is not the case, well then you are a believer, because the ultimate evidence is not in your hands. You would then indeed be a believer in a scientific platform of unification; that science and only science will bring the ultimate answers. I repeat; the final answers can be given by science, but they must be of such a nature that at the same time the other deliveries (of philosophical and in some cases of religious nature) can maintain their own positions as well.

I am not talking about god in opposition to science; that's why I found Lloyd's word amusing already to begin with. Don't turn the table on me when I state you to be believers of science as the singular ultimate entity and make me then all of a sudden the believer of the anti-science or whatever.

You need to re-read the discussion and get back to what this discussion is about, Dipiyankar. Your replies are missing the point.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Fredrick, it is not only in the abstract, that specific oppositional positions exist. Yes, tis true most oppositions are abstract, in spirit nature, but the real scientific universe exists, absolutely in opposition, to all abstract illusions and abstract facts and positions...



Tis true all three have and use abstract positions, to explain much of what is the truth of each, but only science___The universe's self-contained absolute science of its fundamental substance and motion existence, is in and of itself, separate of abstract theorizing___The universe is absolutely real, in and of itself. Only man is the abstractor, not the universe, even though the universe of teleological evolution, produces this ontological abstractor, the universe remains absolutely real, as it eternally has... Herein lies the problem___Man's self-adding the abstract, to what is absolute...

Science is theorized with the abstract___yet, the pure gas-chemical-geo universe, pre-bio-era, is absolute science___Never abstract, at any motion or substance levels. It's absolutely real, as we are physically and spiritually real, but we become un-real, when we use the abstract to exaggerate the bio-era's true capabilities of limited spirit-egos... The spirit-ego is limited to c, in the bio-era, as a physical spirit-body operative, yet has the capacity of abstract imagination, to use scientifically logical, or non-scientifically logically, or illogically___Choice... We are all free to choose our intelligences, whether logical/illogical spiritual intelligence, or logical/illogical sceintific intelligence, or non-intelligences... That doesn't make them unitable. It doesn't make them un-unitable. It's just the teleological/ontological problem, that must be solved. IMO, it can only be solved by the physical science of spirit subordinated to universal teleological evolution, producing the later ontological being, and not ontological being producing the teleological universe... This is the old one and the many problem, between which came first, the chicken or the egg...

Regards,
Lloyd

Good to read you reply this time, too, Lloyd. Just a short reply from my side due to Thanksgiving preparations and the likes.

The abstract is not the only opposition to science; within science opposition exists too with science. That's the pyramid: at the basis there is a fundamental opposition on the same level. In top we find the unification of all positions — but only in the abstract.

[dipayankar]

My dear friend... I get your point. However science can be divided into two realms. One is where there is solid reasoning and evidence. The second realm is where there is a pointer to a thruth and the same can be proved at a later time. However religion does not fall in any of these catagories..

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Dipiyankar,

You did not get the essence of what I am saying. I am saying that science is not a singular system itself. Science contains the conflict already, and if you believe that is not the case, well then you are a believer, because the ultimate evidence is not in your hands. You would then indeed be a believer in a scientific platform of unification; that science and only science will bring the ultimate answers. I repeat; the final answers can be given by science, but they must be of such a nature that at the same time the other deliveries (of philosophical and in some cases of religious nature) can maintain their own positions as well.

I am not talking about god in opposition to science; that's why I found Lloyd's word amusing already to begin with. Don't turn the table on me when I state you to be believers of science as the singular ultimate entity and make me then all of a sudden the believer of the anti-science or whatever.

You need to re-read the discussion and get back to what this discussion is about, Dipiyankar. Your replies are missing the point.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

My dear friend... I get your point. However science can be divided into two realms. One is where there is solid reasoning and evidence. The second realm is where there is a pointer to a thruth and the same can be proved at a later time. However religion does not fall in any of these catagories..

Then we are on the same page, Dipayankar. While claiming to make use of scientific information only, I state that the platform of science is one that contains division. I claim to bring scientific (mathematical) evidence that a unified platform for a theory of everything does not exist (except in the abstract).

I find comfort in the knowledge that QM is similarly based on not-knowing the outcome until knowing the outcome. Previous to knowing the outcome, all options in the QM domain are on the table.

If you read Lloyd's wording carefully, you will see that he has no qualms with my mathematical evidence. He is not really interested in discussing it either, rather he moves to make math be not that important. In mathematical circles my evidence is quite controversial since it goes all the way back to the basics, and no one likes to go to that messy state without a struggle. Yet the final (or first) delivery comes down to being quite similar to the binary system (though not perfectly identical): there is no 1 that is thé 1, there are just several 1s. And then there's zero also, but that's just a nothing, totally nothing. It's not a system of one and zero, it is a system of ones and zeros, which is quite a distinction.

That delivery contains indeed similarities with Nobody's delivery, but the similarities are mainly found in structure, they are not identical in detail. Where he claims not having to bring evidence because after all there is nothing that exists, I bring evidence of a scientific level. It fits the scientific requirements even when it is annoyingly contradictory to what many people (including scientists) say.

It may be messy for science, but I claim I am bringing scientific evidence.

[dipayankar]

Fredrick... I feel nature cannot be divided. There has to be a TOE somewhere. Else why should something which is absolutely true at one reference falsify itself in some other reference? There has to be a missing link, a hidden bridge. Maybe its beyond the comrehension of humans....

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Then we are on the same page, Dipayankar. While claiming to make use of scientific information only, I state that the platform of science is one that contains division. I claim to bring scientific (mathematical) evidence that a unified platform for a theory of everything does not exist (except in the abstract).

I find comfort in the knowledge that QM is similarly based on not-knowing the outcome until knowing the outcome. Previous to knowing the outcome, all options in the QM domain are on the table.

If you read Lloyd's wording carefully, you will see that he has no qualms with my mathematical evidence. He is not really interested in discussing it either, rather he moves to make math be not that important. In mathematical circles my evidence is quite controversial since it goes all the way back to the basics, and no one likes to go to that messy state without a struggle. Yet the final (or first) delivery comes down to being quite similar to the binary system (though not perfectly identical): there is no 1 that is thé 1, there are just several 1s. And then there's zero also, but that's just a nothing, totally nothing. It's not a system of one and zero, it is a system of ones and zeros, which is quite a distinction.

That delivery contains indeed similarities with Nobody's delivery, but the similarities are mainly found in structure, they are not identical in detail. Where he claims not having to bring evidence because after all there is nothing that exists, I bring evidence of a scientific level. It fits the scientific requirements even when it is annoyingly contradictory to what many people (including scientists) say.

It may be messy for science, but I claim I am bringing scientific evidence.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Good to read you reply this time, too, Lloyd. Just a short reply from my side due to Thanksgiving preparations and the likes.

The abstract is not the only opposition to science; within science opposition exists too with science. That's the pyramid: at the basis there is a fundamental opposition on the same level. In top we find the unification of all positions — but only in the abstract.

Fredrick, IMO, if you realize the abstract will be made factual, with the completion of scientific knowledge, then you may have a new, and different formula, to work with. The only reason present speculative science contains abstract thought/theory, is its present incompleteness, however; when completed, IMO, of which, I think you are leaving out the possibility, of eliminating all present scientific abstract necessities. This is how I truly see the world. I think it was Noan Chomsky, the major linguist, who stated this very fact, "In the final stages of knowledge acquisition, the facts will eliminate the abstracts."___In so many words... Yes, we still have a ways to go, but I for one, am fully confident of this evolving truth. So, as to you and I's thinking, we are still on opposite sides of the abstract/factual debate. To me, all fundamental debates must be founded on a methodology, which is the foundation of science; and yet abstraction lacks any such fundamental foundation___It's far too loose an explanation format, to explain any type of reality, except the exaggerated, when considered as an all inclusive explanator of understanding___It fails miserably...i.e., no fundamental methodology...

Lloyd