I agree with Llyod. When all the pieces fall together in science all abstract thoughts like God and Religion will automatically evaporate because their relevance will be null..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie
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...
MJA, please post your ideas of non-science in the appropriate religious threads, or you will be deleted...
Lloyd
"To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel "Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein "The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G. "The tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.
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 comprehension of humans....
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 truth and the same can be proved at a later time. However religion does not fall in any of these categories..
It is not that one truth denies the other truth, Dipayankar, both truths exist at the same time, but only within their own context. Water and fire are both true, but when put together water will extinct the fire or the fire will evaporate the water. Only when the water is frozen and a campfire is built on top can the two exist right next to each other.
I do not lose any sleep over the fact that water and fire cannot exist at the same time and place. In my mind, I see them as separate entities, and I do not think less of water or fire — they are incomparable.
The truth is something that has been proven, while the pointer to the truth is just that: a pointer to the truth — it does not make it the truth. There are very solid aspects to science, but in science the realm of theory has a less full-evidenced location. Sometimes, opposite theories can get built out of the same set of facts. In biology, for instance, nurture versus nature is one of those long standing divisions, and in time one has gained the upper hand for a decade or two, only to be given second position (for another decade or two). In math, the natural numbers are either 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc (in number theory) or 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 etc (in set theory).
These examples are not showing enormous discrepancies, but just like Einstein's theory of relativity, the tiny discrepancies are important and fundamental, too.
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.
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
You will find in me an admirer of science, Lloyd, but to specifically claim success at a location where there is no scientific success to show for is a rather weak offer, especially in light of my scientific claim.
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.
You will find in me an admirer of science, Lloyd, but to specifically claim success at a location where there is no scientific success to show for is a rather weak offer, especially in light of my scientific claim.
Fredrick, IMO, you have offered no scientific claim, that can be clearly understood, from the required fundamental formal framework. Such a framework would require the distinct separations mentioned, in many of my posts, with actual substances/objects, as its base fundamental... Yes, you admit to such separation, yet your framework, seems to always join, the yet un-joinable, with too much abstractness... If you were to study America's greatest mathematician/philosopher, Charles Sanders Peirce, I think you would see your mistakes. He is actually the author of first higher order logics, and graphed set theory fundamentals, which Cantor just happened to found his ideas on... If you studied Peirce, you'd see why the abstracts, and abstract maths must be categorized, properly and separately, as he did... Peirce was the first to fully rationalize numbers between 1 and 0... Frege, Cantor, Russel and Godel, etc., were later, and both founded their higher logic and higher maths on his framework of clearly graphed logic operands... Peirce wrote his original work, as early as the 1860,s... He's the practical son of one of America's finest school's math professors...
BTW, I have made no claims of success, of any toe, as you seem to state. All my work is premised on the incompleteness, and highly possible completenesses, of present understanding... I have no knowledge of a completed toe, yet___just pieces...
Lloyd
"To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel "Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein "The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G. "The tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.
I got your point. When both the realms of religion and science merge, religion will automatically be extinguised. Because science is the reality and religion is a fluke..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrick
It is not that one truth denies the other truth, Dipayankar, both truths exist at the same time, but only within their own context. Water and fire are both true, but when put together water will extinct the fire or the fire will evaporate the water. Only when the water is frozen and a campfire is built on top can the two exist right next to each other.
I do not lose any sleep over the fact that water and fire cannot exist at the same time and place. In my mind, I see them as separate entities, and I do not think less of water or fire — they are incomparable.
The truth is something that has been proven, while the pointer to the truth is just that: a pointer to the truth — it does not make it the truth. There are very solid aspects to science, but in science the realm of theory has a less full-evidenced location. Sometimes, opposite theories can get built out of the same set of facts. In biology, for instance, nurture versus nature is one of those long standing divisions, and in time one has gained the upper hand for a decade or two, only to be given second position (for another decade or two). In math, the natural numbers are either 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc (in number theory) or 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 etc (in set theory).
These examples are not showing enormous discrepancies, but just like Einstein's theory of relativity, the tiny discrepancies are important and fundamental, too.
I am not that far off from what you are saying. I do see how three appears to be the fundamental aspect. Appears to be... because others have stated (like Aristotle) that duality is the fundamental structure.
My question to you now is, in similar fashion as my question to Lloyd, whether you state that protheory and protheory alone delivers the final structure or does protheory allow for other theories to also deliver the correct overall view?
How does protheory view the knowledge, Tina, that light comes in three ways also, but that there are two versions to light (one is red, green and blue for direct light, the other is red, yellow and blue for reflected light)?
Fredrick thankyou for your interest and response to my post (WHICH I HAVE ONLY JUST DISCOVERED) I am interested in further reading your ideas but as for the time being I'll answer the above:
Protheory explains a dynamic that underlies everything - the dynamic can be expressed literally or metaphorically as the interaction between positive (+), negative (-), and neutral (0) potentialities.
If we seek truth values then Protheory will say that a thing is "either True (+)
or False (-) or neither True but neither False (0). Schrodinger's cat is a good example here for before you open the box we cannot say if the cat is dead or alive. So True and False are not options. But we can say that the cat is in the neutral, indeterminable state of "neither dead but neither alive" the WE DON'T KNOW STATE in this case. QT call it "superposition" but Protheory defines this "superposition" exactly. Consequently stating clearly the Truth of the situation.
But regarding Physics: The fact that light comes in three (3) ways may be coincidence but the fact that green is replaced by yellow in reflected light can be explained by a change between (+) (-) and (o) potentialities of the green that results in yellow light.
But regarding Physics: The fact that light comes in three (3) ways may be coincidence but the fact that green is replaced by yellow in reflected light can be explained by a change between (+) (-) and (o) potentialities of the green that results in yellow light.
I was under the impression that light is a continous spectrum: that is, there are infinitely different colours of light, which depend upon the wavelength of that light. Is this not the case?
You are right here. Light does not have any +ve, -ve or zero values. It is a continuous spectrum that can change infinitesimally its wavelength to have the colour variations. I have a doubt that quantum mechanics would have role here a well. I dont know how...
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutralino
I was under the impression that light is a continous spectrum: that is, there are infinitely different colours of light, which depend upon the wavelength of that light. Is this not the case?
I was under the impression that light is a continuous spectrum: that is, there are infinitely different colours of light, which depend upon the wavelength of that light. Is this not the case?
Light can be placed in the framework of a continuous spectrum, Neutralino, but to start out and get any color on paper or screen, all we need is three of the colors. Therefore, this explanation tells us something more about light and the important distinction between source of light and reflection of light that is otherwise overlooked.
On paper we only need red, blue and yellow, and for a screen we only need red, blue and green to create/display any color. The only aspect not mentioned here is lighter/darker; black and white can therefore be considered part of in the recreation of any color.
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.
) I am interested in further reading your ideas but as for the time being I'll answer the above: 
Linear Mode
