[Lloyd Gillespie]

Here's one for ya... The Isomorphic Equivalence Principle of The Universe___"Ain't nuthin" exits a black-hole/star___That "don't" first enter...

I'll show you the physical, logic and math proofs___If interested... They're really quite simple...

Regards,
Lloyd

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie I didn't say math didn't help our understanding, I said it was secondary, not primary. Do you remember it was Einstein's vision of riding on a photon, that lead his search for the math to prove it...? Substance/object first. Math second... Where's your fundamental substance/object, so we may have a starting point...? Math is not a ligitimate fundamental starting point of any reality... It must relate to a subject/object___First...! And btw, I already read the above link, no need to advertise nonsense any further... Your theory of nothing/everything is the mere concept of your own desires, and nothing more, and I might add, not true, not science, not math, not anything... Fredrick, the concept of the concept, is no more than the concept of one's own pre-scientific ego desires... You can't start any realities, from mere imaginal abstract insignificances... You know, I think sometimes, that many of you don't even realize, I once had the same fundamental natural intuitive-logic searching brain, as do many of you. I evolved... And as I've stated before, and being a wise-guy: "As you are, I once was. As I am, you never will be"... Lloyd

It looks, Lloyd, that you are unwilling to communicate about my delivery. The only argument I have heard from you so far in respect to it, is that you want to talk about the beef that needs to be behind the math. That in itself is meager pickings, but I will try make the most of the little you offer.

Math can be seen as the abstraction of reality; it has often been the scout for many other branches of science; and there is a good reason various scientists state that it is the language god speaks to us. In as far as the religious remark: I am not that interested in the divine on this thread/platform. I claim the toe should be pronounceable on a scientific level (as much as on any other level).

Anything in our reality can be translated into the abstract of math, Dipayankar. While it is possible to state more with math than that what is our reality, it is not possible to state less with math than our reality. Even if you say that my delivery is not a window on the toe, it is impossible to say that the toe cannot be translated into math. Whatever the toe is, it (or its abstract) can be delivered using math.

I hope you understand, MJA, that when I say Einstein and me that I then not automatically agree with everything Einstein said. I do not. I would not have made his remark about god not rolling dice. But Einstein and I both say that the toe must be simple/basic in itself — so simple a three years old can understand it.

The toe exists in math already. The question is: did I find the window to see it (and many others before me) or are we still looking for that toe in math? I do not care what place you give math, but rather than arguing about the circumstantial matter and ideologies, please address directly what I deliver.

If you claim my delivery is not appropriate, you must support your statement with arguments that are appropriate to the discussion. So far, you have not. You will find in me a willing person to think along with you. But I will not discuss big names of people or theories; I want to talk about the real stuff. In as far as the ego is concerned: yes, I have an ego, just like you and everyone else. So, big deal!?! If my delivery is understood by others then I will still not be able to say that I was the first to deliver it; many before us already delivered this window on everything.

The binary system is already very much what this window is about. The decimal system allows for confusion, seemingly incorporating that what does not exist. All I am doing is taking away the confusion.

Again, Lloyd, if you say that I am not delivering anything then that is your choice, and that makes for short conversation.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Fredrick Math can be seen as the [objective]abstraction of reality; it has often been the scout for many other branches of science; and there is a good reason various scientists state that it is the language god speaks to us. In as far as the religious remark: I am not that interested in the divine on this thread/platform. I claim the toe should be pronounceable on a scientific level (as much as on any other level). Anything in our reality can be translated into the abstract of math,[No it can not, as Godel already proved. The incompleteness theorem is about knowledge existing, outside math, that math can never describe.]. While it is possible to state more with math than that what is our reality, it is not possible to state less with math than our reality.[Godel already proved this statement false, in 1930.] Even if you say that my delivery is not a window on the toe, it is impossible to say that the toe cannot be translated into math.[I don't think I or anyone is stating this Fredrick, just that it is thus far, incomplete.] Whatever the toe is, it (or its abstract) can be delivered using math.[Yes, but as Godel proved, it's got to be an entirely new realization of the further extension of present logic, as I offer below...] The toe exists in math already.[Where? I'd say false...] The binary system is already very much what this window is about. The decimal system allows for confusion, seemingly incorporating that what does not exist.[Nonsense... Where's the "what does not exist?"] All I am doing is taking away the confusion.[And all I see you doing, is adding confusion, just like Nobody, even more-so, so far...] Again, Lloyd, if you say that I am not delivering anything then that is your choice, and that makes for short conversation.[Then start discussing real math concepts. I do accept the objective abstract reality of math, ya know...? True math, that is...]

Fredrick, you keep stating things that are certainly not true. The math mistakes you keep making are very clearly laid out in Goldstein's book on Godel, "Incompleteness." She is a genius philosopher/mathematician, and attended Princeton while Godel was there... She also explains the entire history of math arguments and mis-understandings, of which you seem not aware of. I suggest you read her, then maybe we could discuss, "The set of all sets, does not contain the set of itself." It's just an incompleteness, not a paradox. If one converts it to human concepts, it is more easily understandable, "The concept of all concepts, does not contain the concept of itself." The math to understand this is; "I=F^(n, c delimited, potential entropy)". I is infinity. F is finiteness. n is any reasonable multiplier. c is the velocity of light. Potential entropy is the entire zpe of the universe, or any multiple of finiteness, as per use in the universal entropy potential formula. The formula is actually the mathematical union of finiteness and infinity, which math has long sought. It's called mathematical utopia, or the sulution to infinity and finiteness union. It'll most likely take considerable explaining, but I see no other way to deal with your mistakes of math.

How about we start with "the concept of all concept, does not contain the concept of itself?"

Regards,
Lloyd

[dipayankar]

Llyod, is it mathematically possible to contain the all encompassing in iteslf?? Somehow the element of infinite envelop will always creep in. I am slightly confused here

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Fredrick, you keep stating things that are certainly not true. The math mistakes you keep making are very clearly laid out in Goldstein's book on Godel, "Incompleteness." She is a genius philosopher/mathematician, and attended Princeton while Godel was there... She also explains the entire history of math arguments and mis-understandings, of which you seem not aware of. I suggest you read her, then maybe we could discuss, "The set of all sets, does not contain the set of itself." It's just an incompleteness, not a paradox. If one converts it to human concepts, it is more easily understandable, "The concept of all concepts, does not contain the concept of itself." The math to understand this is; "I=F^(n, c delimited, potential entropy)". I is infinity. F is finiteness. n is any reasonable multiplier. c is the velocity of light. Potential entropy is the entire zpe of the universe, or any multiple of finiteness, as per use in the universal entropy potential formula. The formula is actually the mathematical union of finiteness and infinity, which math has long sought. It's called mathematical utopia, or the sulution to infinity and finiteness union. It'll most likely take considerable explaining, but I see no other way to deal with your mistakes of math. How about we start with "the concept of all concept, does not contain the concept of itself?" Regards, Lloyd

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Llyod, is it mathematically possible to contain the all encompassing in iteslf??[No, absolutely not... It is always evolving, and we, as mere mortals, can not predict that future___A close probability maybe, but never for sure___proof positive... Just as an example, How much of this cycle of the universe, will influence the next cycle of the universe, and in what ways...? We can never know that, or do its math, therefore; higher math must always remain incomplete, as a model, within itself___Godel's proof, sorta...] Somehow the element of infinite envelop will always creep in. I am slightly confused here

Dipayankar, the infinite containing itself, would be a contradiction in logic, now wouldn't it...? The operative word is, "contained". Infinity, by definition, "is never contained", isn't it...?

Actually, one can plug in most any word, or idea, and have the same set theory incompleteness, be the truth. Try it, there's always an opposite or extra, outside the limits, of all formal logic and 2nd/higher order math systems. That's what Godel's first and second incompleteness theorems, were all about. One should also realize, Godel's first theorem, of the second two incompleteness theorems, was a completeness theorem, of lower order logic, and 1st order math completenesses___The Completeness Theorem... The first theorem was presented on the first day of the 1930 math conference. The second theorem was presented, on the 2nd day of the same conference, and the third was presented, on the third day of the same conference... Completeness___Incompleteness one___Incompleteness two...

They are all three, still the most profound proofs in existence... I should also state that, the second incompleteness theorem, was the mathematical proof of the first incompleteness theorem, and he also included the proof, for all time. In other words, he proved, mathematically, the incompleteness theorem was eternally true... Alan Turing came along after, and proved a very similar condition, for computational math of computers... No-one should, however, interpret this as incompleteness of understanding a world of things, we actually live in... It more applies to the abstract subjective ideas, and the abstract higher orders of objective math and ideas...

So, finally, IMO, a final TOE will be founded on the completeness understanding, of the infinite incompletenesses, truly existing, in our lil' ol' ill-fated world, yet one must also realize, the completenesses of understanding, far outweigh our incompletenesses of understanding, as having the highest value, to our very survival...

Hope that helped,
Lloyd

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Fredrick, you keep stating things that are certainly not true. The math mistakes you keep making are very clearly laid out in Goldstein's book on Godel, "Incompleteness." She is a genius philosopher/mathematician, and attended Princeton while Godel was there... She also explains the entire history of math arguments and mis-understandings, of which you seem not aware of. I suggest you read her, then maybe we could discuss, "The set of all sets, does not contain the set of itself." It's just an incompleteness, not a paradox. If one converts it to human concepts, it is more easily understandable, "The concept of all concepts, does not contain the concept of itself." The math to understand this is; "I=F^(n, c delimited, potential entropy)". I is infinity. F is finiteness. n is any reasonable multiplier. c is the velocity of light. Potential entropy is the entire zpe of the universe, or any multiple of finiteness, as per use in the universal entropy potential formula. The formula is actually the mathematical union of finiteness and infinity, which math has long sought. It's called mathematical utopia, or the sulution to infinity and finiteness union. It'll most likely take considerable explaining, but I see no other way to deal with your mistakes of math. How about we start with "the concept of all concept, does not contain the concept of itself?"

Okay, Lloyd, let's start there. When looking at my mathematical information I would then have to say that you just made a '1' statement. True, the concept of all concepts does not contain that concept itself. But also true, the concept of all concepts does contain that concept. Both deliveries are as much true as the other. Why is that possible? Concepts don't exist as individual entities, they exist on a created level, delivering something about that what exists without necessarily having to contain the real thing. A concept does not contain the real thing, it only describes it. So all a concept needs to contain is a description.

Example in which the thing itself is contained within the thing itself:
the word dictionary is found in the dictionary;

Example in which the thing itself is not contained within the thing itself:
Taking the freedom to not be a freedom-loving person.

When in a virtual reality — and math exists in a reality next to the real world, describing that real world, yet being something all by itself as well — more is possible than in our reality.

The best example — best because it is an example we can all understand — is a painting. Though those who are masterful at painting can truly capture reality in a painting, it is nevertheless never reality we find on the canvas. That is, the only reality we find is called paint. Just as capturing reality in a painting is possible, capturing reality in math is possible, too. But just like a painting can be more than capturing reality (think of Picasso), math can be more than the abstraction of our reality.

Gödel made use of created freedoms; his work belongs to the created realm, which is based upon — but still larger than — our reality. Math can be more than our reality (but not less). Anything in our reality can be captured by math.

To come to the toe, we must include the oppositional pair. The trick is to realize they do not have to add up to 1, even when nothing else can be said about reality next to the oppositional pair. Example: male and female sum it up pretty much, but when something is not male, this does not automatically mean it's female (think of a genderless bacteria, a rock, a bicycle). The number 1 as the only 1 is fictional; it doesn't exist except as fiction (which is a created state). As such, we have to except number 1 as part of our reality, because even though a painting is nothing but blobs of paint, once created it has become part of reality. Gödel's work is part of our reality, but it is a created additional part; it is lacking a dimension.

[dipayankar]

from what I get of Godel's Theorum, as soon as we try for completeness, we land up into incompleteness as we go out of the system for completeness. With this, can we ever arrive at a TOE??

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Dipayankar, the infinite containing itself, would be a contradiction in logic, now wouldn't it...? The operative word is, "contained". Infinity, by definition, "is never contained", isn't it...? Actually, one can plug in most any word, or idea, and have the same set theory incompleteness, be the truth. Try it, there's always an opposite or extra, outside the limits, of all formal logic and 2nd/higher order math systems. That's what Godel's first and second incompleteness theorems, were all about. One should also realize, Godel's first theorem, of the second two incompleteness theorems, was a completeness theorem, of lower order logic, and 1st order math completenesses___The Completeness Theorem... The first theorem was presented on the first day of the 1930 math conference. The second theorem was presented, on the 2nd day of the same conference, and the third was presented, on the third day of the same conference... Completeness___Incompleteness one___Incompleteness two... They are all three, still the most profound proofs in existence... I should also state that, the second incompleteness theorem, was the mathematical proof of the first incompleteness theorem, and he also included the proof, for all time. In other words, he proved, mathematically, the incompleteness theorem was eternally true... Alan Turing came along after, and proved a very similar condition, for computational math of computers... No-one should, however, interpret this as incompleteness of understanding a world of things, we actually live in... It more applies to the abstract subjective ideas, and the abstract higher orders of objective math and ideas... So, finally, IMO, a final TOE will be founded on the completeness understanding, of the infinite incompletenesses, truly existing, in our lil' ol' ill-fated world, yet one must also realize, the completenesses of understanding, far outweigh our incompletenesses of understanding, as having the highest value, to our very survival... Hope that helped, Lloyd

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Fredrick, you have to stick to either logic or feelings when debating scientifically, or you have no debate. Feelings are not logic. Feelings are of the self. Logic is of the external world, which mathematics actually is, even though we represent it in our abstract reasoning___It fundamentally comes, as a concept, from the outside world. Men began scratching lines on the ground, long ago, to represent math, and we just extended that same process with pen and paper, or digital expressions. Everything you see me write, or I see you write, comes from outside ourselves___The digital screen. Feelings are internal intelligence of senses. Logic is external observation. I'll add the appropriate comments, within your post, as it's too long to respond to otherwise, as I haven't much computer time...

Originally Posted by Fredrick Okay, Lloyd, let's start there. When looking at my mathematical information I would then have to say that you just made a '1' statement. True, the concept of all concepts does not contain that concept itself. But also true, the concept of all concepts does contain that concept.[You can't have it both ways, Fredrick. It either is true as stated, or its not, and it's true as I stated it. What you have done is add feelings to logic___A no, no...] Both deliveries are as much true as the other.[No they are not___Godel's is logically true, one can do the mathematics proving it so, and your's is not, as there's no math possible, to prove it so... You can't add feelings to math, on paper. It don't exist...] Why is that possible?[It isn't. Show the math on paper. You can't...] Concepts don't exist as individual entities, they exist on a created level, delivering something about that what exists without necessarily having to contain the real thing.[Concepts, that don't contain the real thing, are never logical, period. There's no math proofs possible. You can't change the rules of math, without inventing an entirely new system, and you haven't...] A concept does not contain the real thing, it only describes it.[The description, iff logical, must exactly represent the real thing, to be logical, and true. Otherwise it's nonsense...] So all a concept needs to contain is a description.[But, in order to be logical, it must be mathematically sound...] Example in which the thing itself is contained within the thing itself:[Wrong, as to the Godelian idea, as he stated, the thing of All things, is not the thing of itself... The operative word being All...] the word dictionary is found in the dictionary;[But, the whole dictionary, is not found in the dictionary, just the word. You see, it's Not a logical example of the identical above statement... Logic only works properly, in identicalities of wordings and meanings... The instant one pollutes logic with feelings, the whole game of rules of inference is done, and invalid logic is the result...] Example in which the thing itself is not contained within the thing itself:[Wrong assimilation, as you very conveniently keep leaving out, All, the operative logic of the Godel inference, actually Russell's statement, and I imagine others before him...] Taking the freedom to not be a freedom-loving person.[Just as I been saying, you can't assimilate logic with feelings, as there's no mathematics proof possible, so it's clearly not a possible logical statement, within the inference rules of logic. The illogic of feelings has been doing this same fallacy, for centuries. That still doesn't make it logically correct. Like I said, one either has to use logic, or feelings, they can't be mixed, and make any sense, WhatSoEver...!] When in a virtual reality — and math exists in a reality next to the real world,[Where...? Math always exists in the real world, and nowhere else, whether that world be virtual, abstract or on paper or screen, whatever. Nothing exists but the real world/universe.] describing that real world, yet being something all by itself[You're just adding false feelings, again, where they do not belong...Not logical...Rather foolish. Remember Ocham's razor; "The best explanation is with the least words possible...?"] as well — more is possible than in our reality.[This makes no sense at all...! Adding feelings to logic is just plain nuts... Even if you were a god, logic should rule your feelings, otherwise they're far too faulty...] The best example — best because it is an example we can all understand — is a painting. Though those who are masterful at painting can truly capture reality in a painting, it is nevertheless never reality we find on the canvas.[Again, aesthetics is feelings. It is not, and never was, nor never will be, logicizable... This is why the axiom of choice must have rules, in logic, for logic to be logic. You can't do the math of aesthetics, since it's just simple feelings choice...] That is, the only reality we find is called paint. Just as capturing reality in a painting is possible, capturing reality in math is possible, too.[Mixing apples and oranges, is against the rules of inference, in true logic...] But just like a painting can be more than capturing reality (think of Picasso), math can be more than the abstraction of our reality.[Fredrick, can you please try to get it through your head, that math is an objective, abstract reality. We might do the actual math in our head, but we are using objective symbols, always, or it ain't math, and believe me, when you add feelings to math, it ain't math, or mathematizable, except by the yet unrecognized, meta-mathimatical nonsense schools...] Gödel made use of created freedoms; his work belongs to the created realm, which is based upon — but still larger than — our reality.[No, he didn't. He used first order logical maths, to prove higher logic maths, incomplete___Short and simple, even if his Godel numbering, may seem over-complicated to you...] Math can be more than our reality (but not less).[Yeah, useless math, i.e., straight number sequencing to infinity, but what good is that. It's just foolishness beyond logic or math, it's interger regression or progression...] Anything in our reality can be captured by math.[Feelings can not be captured by math. Aesthetics, being a feelings response, can never be captured by math. Let's see just such math from you. Where is it. It don't exist. It never will exist. It's called perfection, and it's unmathematizable. Now utopia, I'd say can be captured with math, but it sure ain't perfection...] To come to the toe, we must include the oppositional pair. The trick is to realize they do not have to add up to 1, even when nothing else can be said about reality next to the oppositional pair. Example: male and female sum it up pretty much, but when something is not male, this does not automatically mean it's female (think of a genderless bacteria, a rock, a bicycle). The number 1 as the only 1 is fictional; it doesn't exist except as fiction (which is a created state.) As such, we have to except number 1 as part of our reality, because even though a painting is nothing but blobs of paint, once created it has become part of reality. Gödel's work is part of our reality, but it is a created additional part; it is lacking a dimension.

No, Godel's work is not lacking a dimension, it is the dimension of logic's and math's absolute un-attainability. So, any TOE must be fundamentally based in Godel incompleteness, or as epistemology states it, "There is the dimension beyond the limits of our logical understanding," but it doesn't have to be a mythical god___It's just simply the eternal incompleteness of our knowledge system. No math possible, can reach it___Ever...

Regards,
Lloyd

[Fredrick]

Lloyd,

It's much the answer I expected you to give, but I feel you are throwing away the baby with the bathwater. As long as we do not recognize that our reality is based on that what is real plus on that what can be created, we cannot get to the toe. Gödel's work is part of our reality much like a painting is part of our reality; it does exist in the realm of what is artful.

A concept is only that aspect that describes a larger set of circumstances, it is not equal to it. So Gödel can easily show how the concept is limited in its own creation because that what the concept truly covers is not found on the inside, it is only a description. A word points to the contents, it is not equal to the contents, but it does make it easier to talk about 'it.' The same goes for definitions; definitions help us to communicate with both people understanding the definitions in a similar or same way. Still, definitions often point to choices made in the past to have a certain definition be what it has become. For instance, the definition of what is a prime number has changed in regards to number 1.

To point out where my evidence 'exists,' I'd like to use the analogy of paint and paintings. Paintings come in various forms, some are realistic paintings, some paintings are fantasy paintings, some are variations on both options. Math can be all of the above. Math is like paintings in that it can deliver abstractions to our reality.

It is very important to note that my evidence is not a painting, it is the paint. It is the basic stuff with which the other options are made possible. I would like to continue our conversation on this, Lloyd, but it has been truly difficult to already get you to this point. You may not want to continue?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Fredrick, you are mixing far to many feelings/aesthetics into your logic, to make any logical mathematical sense. Unless you offer a mathematical algorithm of unification, for logic and feelings, you have neither a concept of proper feelings, or a concept of proper a-priori logic. Choose one or the other, or submit the mathematical algorithm of unification___Not more words___The math... So far you haven't...

Originally Posted by Fredrick Lloyd, It's much the answer I expected you to give, but I feel you are throwing away the baby with the bathwater.[See, you make the mistake already___You feel...] As long as we do not recognize that our reality is based on that what is real plus on that what can be created,[I never said I didn't. You're mis-interpreting again...] we cannot get to the toe.[The toe must also include the unification, of the four forces, along with all else...] Gödel's work is part of our reality much like a painting is part of our reality; it does exist in the realm of what is artful.[You're confusing aesthetic art with a-priori logic, again. You have shown no unification of art and logic, and I quite doubt you can. Nietzsche already failed, at this very same attempt...] A concept is only that aspect that describes a larger set of circumstances, it is not equal to it.[What's this___Divide and conquer...?] So Gödel can easily show how the concept is limited in its own creation because that what the concept truly covers is not found on the inside, it is only a description.[Somewhere along the line, you lost track of the fact, that a-priori descriptions, are the real world...] A word points to the contents, it is not equal to the contents, but it does make it easier to talk about 'it.' The same goes for definitions; definitions help us to communicate with both people understanding the definitions in a similar or same way. Still, definitions often point to choices made in the past to have a certain definition be what it has become. For instance, the definition of what is a prime number has changed in regards to number 1.[Fredrick, I'm from the state of Maine___We have one word, that means everything possible___Ayuh... It's linguistics is absolutely amazing. We can carry on a conversation, with sincere definition, with this one word, if the other party is talking, and often times, it's all that's needed for both parties, if we're using it to comment on our observations, of others, or things happening...] To point out where my evidence 'exists,' I'd like to use the analogy of paint and paintings. Paintings come in various forms, some are realistic paintings, some paintings are fantasy paintings, some are variations on both options. Math can be all of the above.[Sorry, I only accept a-priori, and posteriori maths, and proofs___That which is real math, not the foolish meta-maths...] Math is like paintings in that it can deliver abstractions to our reality.[I don't want abstractions delivered to my reality, I just use objective a-priori logic abstractions, to more easily understand the real world___It's a simple tool of the mind, and nothing more...] It is very important to note that my evidence is not a painting, it is the paint. It is the basic stuff with which the other options are made possible. I would like to continue our conversation on this, Lloyd, but it has been truly difficult to already get you to this point. You may not want to continue?

You haven't got me to any point of yours, yet Fredrick. In order to communicate with me, you must choose one track or the other___Either straight art/feelings/aesthetics, or straight objective, and or, abstract a-priori mathematical logic, or straight mathematical logic___The profound fundamental common sense...

Lloyd

p.s.
You know, from these communications with all on this forum, I think the real problem, is just learning the requirements, of this new elect