The Evidence for and the Theory of Incompleteness

[KWAOUAR]

Starting with the word framework, that for me is a module or mode we achieve with applied coherence. Completeness is a standard reached for an implement so thought. Incompletness is the quest for the perfection, that perfection, for me is a satisfaction of totality at 100% function.
Universal framework i percieve to function as a group of choice selected by forces that, within the feed move with leveled compatible paths that have similar good outputs that can be named "quest".
Galactic framework may be the distinction for forms that are guided with time and matters from an advanced recognition formula thought as line of thought pondered and appicable.
Solar framework gives us the right to choice knowing the energy recieved is retained through the quarks materialized in atmospheres lived.
Planetary framework is the ability to move in degrees to what sorrounds individuality as a moded differencial.
The ToE is the plasma within all molecules furthering the knowledge from golmerates that selected adherence from teach as worthy.

[Fredrick]

Everything exists within an idea, once that is realized, then even the concept ''abstract'' falls away. Then all we're left with is this immediate everything just as it is, as it is appearing now all perfect, undisturbed.

Appearing from nowhere to no-one.

To declare the material world as the result has my blessing, Melanie. It's done in Hinduism for almost 5000 years. Yet formulating the ToE itself must be done from this side, from the result side, and not from the other side as you are doing. The cause of the result is not on this side, but the essence is found on this side with matter. No matter how temporary, no matter how changeable or how fast matter is, it is with matter that we can start to form an overall scientific theory. If we do it the other way around we end up building a belief.

Your pick: you can stand up for the belief (which is definitively not a problem with me), but when discussing the scientific ToE, we cannot other than formulate it the scientific way, even when the conclusion is that all is nothing but a result.

[Fredrick]

That which is causeless does not cause things.

It is itself without cause (being the fundamental), but it can go on through changes and recombination to have upward states on and on.

To scientifically declare the foundation as being causeless requires evidence, Austin; a belief statement does not suffice.

[Fredrick]

Here's a thank you to many for your comments. I'd enjoy interacting more but there's a conundrum I've been seeing for a while and if I'm to really live by what I say, then I need to resolve it or at least see what direction appears the ideal for myself.

Diversity is something that can be quite a value and I appreciate all that you guys and gals have given me. It would be nice to be able to walk on and roll around in the grass, yet also leave it fundamentally unchanged and have a manner to return to it as well as explore elsewhere, but I think we're only handed a specific amount of diversity/information that we have "control" over and that the only effect of that control is to cordon areas off (throw information away or forget it) - not that new things can't be added, but nice pieces of real estate aren't always easy to come by

In that sense, it's not necessarily a bad idea to "tread lightly" (that's figurative of course, but it's still interesting that it's not necessarily best to resolve all discrepancies - a synergy of ideas appears better than a replacement that masks over something else, though similarly that synergy should be something new and not replace the things it arose from either)

... it also appears most everything I do is hypocritical and self conflicting from that perspective and it's something I should spend some time trying to resolve.

Actually, I spent some time thinking about it and here's an interesting possibility for the information problem - if you're rolling in grass that is being rolled in then there's no loss of information now if it wants to be rolled in also, then that's a great state of affairs!

Now in physical terms there is change that occurs but it's interesting to consider that from another perspective there was no change - the grass remains "rolled in" and there are a lot of diverse physical states that can match that quality and hence lots of time available to roll in the grass

That's a line of thought worth looking at ...

I'd say, roll on, Steve; you are providing interesting thoughts on the state of affairs you have.

I like that you point towards your own position within the large variety of choices there appears to be, and accompany it with the question in how far all choices are available. I believe you are hitting on something. Each of us can only pick from choices in as far as they are truly available for us, while we -as the collective we- can have a greater number of outcomes than each of us individually can pick. When 4 feet tall, one cannot view becoming the basketball star on the field as too viable an option, or when built big and heavy one will probably never be a horse jockey winning at the derby.

So, we end up with a result that is greater than each individual of a group can choose to take in. And when declaring the ToE, we must overcome our own restrictions and be willing to declare the ToE as the overall reality with its large variety of outcomes, rather than the one we see possible for ourselves. The overall view of everything is the ToE, the personal view of everything is never the ToE.

[Fredrick]

If one really wants a sort of cause for the fundamental it could be that existence has to be—since a lack of it would be unstable (or something like that).

The implications would be that stuff must fluctuate around as chaos, albeit it summing to zero overall as particles and antiparticles.

I like this better already, Austin. You are delivering a duality of states in which the overall condition is (close to) zero, while specific matter are all following their own drummer (be it a collective or an individual drumming that is being followed).

So, the cause must be placed at the specific level, for the neutral overall result shows that there is no good reason for cause to be found (currently that is) at that overall level.

Again, I see the lack of assembly at the universal level appearing, that can then not point to a cause in the present, while the assemblies at the 'lower' levels of galaxy and solar system can be considered as carrying cause and effect with/in them.

Still, to have reached an 'internalized level' of cause and effect, and to find a causeless neutral state at the overall level, does tell a story nevertheless.

We have an outwardly moving overall story. That some declare this to be neutral is itself a warping of the available information. In reality it only shows that the beginning was based on either a non-conflicting parting, or a parting at such miniscule level that it did not interfere with the overall neutrality. I would vote for the latter, since the overall neutrality is not violated when one small (but significant) change came into being.

I hope you notice that I have moved from the causelessness towards minimizing a cause, showing a cause that in reality is totally unimportant in the moment itself, but that in the long run is the guiding principle for the existence of our universe. So, instead of a black&white yes-or-no cause/causelessness, I would vote for an initially not that important cause that had great effects nevertheless in the long run.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

To scientifically declare the foundation as being causeless requires evidence, Austin; a belief statement does not suffice.

Fredrick, it's Logical Necessity__Not belief... Logical necessity Is, there's No other logic possible... The opposite of causeless is the impossible infinite regress__In other words__Pure inanity/insanity/stupidity...!!!__No matter how many Universes involved in the logic, or many possible worlds... There's only two logical choices__Possible and Impossible__1 & 0...

The cause is pure semantics, as tis a causeless cause... This stumps everyone's minds, as they fail to understand simple entropy and the eternally ciclic quantum state necessities of, as I've mentioned hundreds of times... Decay Entropy necessitates a state of super-positioned wave-symmetries at limit, reversing the decay into regeneration__eternally__The Prime Mover__The Causeless Cause__The Zero T State Va, Vu, Vr Change... And this ain't belief either__It's math's logical outcome necessity, out into the far, far, far distant future...

It's that simple, Fredrick__Yet everyone wants to play a game of excess unnecessary semantics... Please, just do the decay math and logic to its state of entropy state change, and back if you like... We generally know the decay rates, already__the rest is just logical and arithmetical necessity...

If you have this other possibility Fredrick__Please show/tell us...

And, may I remind you of your own rules: "This thread is open to all, but when asked to substantiate or clarify one's words, each individual must do so to the best of their knowledge."

[labelwench]

'Starting with the word framework.....'
Originally posted by Kwaouar

Observing how the word framework causes sufficient misunderstanding between those engaged in any discussion, it is my preference to observe and contemplate all comments.

A new participant brings their own perspective and I look forward to what new directions may arise from your contributions to this thread.

Regards,

Labelwench

[melanie]

To scientifically declare the foundation as being causeless requires evidence, Austin; a belief statement does not suffice.

You are your beliefs.

[melanie]

To declare the material world as the result has my blessing, Melanie. It's done in Hinduism for almost 5000 years. Yet formulating the ToE itself must be done from this side, from the result side, and not from the other side as you are doing. The cause of the result is not on this side, but the essence is found on this side with matter. No matter how temporary, no matter how changeable or how fast matter is, it is with matter that we can start to form an overall scientific theory. If we do it the other way around we end up building a belief.

Any idea of this side or other side is perceived.
There is no this side or other side except as idea, arising now here.
There is nothing outside of perception other than what is perceived. One and the same.
No one without none, no none without one.

Your pick: you can stand up for the belief (which is definitively not a problem with me), but when discussing the scientific ToE, we cannot other than formulate it the scientific way, even when the conclusion is that all is nothing but a result.

Nothing exists which appears as everything.

[SteveA]

I'd say, roll on, Steve; you are providing interesting thoughts on the state of affairs you have.

I like that you point towards your own position within the large variety of choices there appears to be, and accompany it with the question in how far all choices are available. I believe you are hitting on something. Each of us can only pick from choices in as far as they are truly available for us, while we -as the collective we- can have a greater number of outcomes than each of us individually can pick. When 4 feet tall, one cannot view becoming the basketball star on the field as too viable an option, or when built big and heavy one will probably never be a horse jockey winning at the derby.

Yes, though it would be great to have something that ultimately is so simple and obvious that in theory someone sitting on a rock thousands of years might have been able to derive, I can't imagine that sharing a few ideas in company couldn't help (at a minimum it's more entertaining ).

Also, just like the Wright Brothers made the first practical example of human flight, they really didn't do it on their own but instead just happened to be the people working on the dream at a time when there were enough synergistic ideas regarding aerodynamics and combustion engines to actually get the idea 'off the ground', though similarly such a success can be similarly an inertia that is difficult to alter later and, for example, there can be other ideas regarding the properties of chaotic turbulence that could allow flight to occur much more efficiently and in a wider variety of forms (that's just an example).

Or similarly, we spent a lot of time and energy on the space program over the years especially at times when the social pressures were to jump on the bandwagon, but ultimately this may not have served us well as we pulled resources from other areas and slowed development along alternate pathways, and especially if we look across the spectrum of human interests such singular forces tend to be stagnating and ultimately destructive of growth. Yes, we gained a lot of knowledge about space and other planets etc., but in the end, as is generally the case, it appears the diverse interests and views individuals have privately ends up allowing us to indirectly do better now, using much more efficient techniques that consume less resources, in terms of human efforts.

Basically, it just seems like diversity is really what keeps things moving and allows us to find new panoramic vistas and trying to get people to agree on what the "official hiking" trail is, doesn't do people much of a service. Those well trodden trails automatically arise on their own accord, and there's no need to assist in building of them unless that's what one is looking for.