The Evidence for and the Theory of Incompleteness

[Fredrick]

With incompleteness as the overall 'standard' we should be able to achieve an overall vision about everything. As Greg has shown, and as Antonio pointed out, there is a bottom line to it all. We can say that there is either an absence of a collective bottom line because each individual creation is ultimately based on its own outcome (Greg) or we can state that there is a collective behavior to avoid reaching the zero point (Antonio). In either case, there is no overall completeness except what is found with the overall reality (the status quo).

This means that anything that is proclaimed to have an absolute nature can be shown to either have a twist to it, or be the twist itself. I think Lloyd provided an excellent word with 'placeholder' for we do use words where we lack exact information.

First, if we look at the decimal system, then we cannot use the number 1 to portray the overall state, because the overall state contains the other numbers as well (including zero). The only position for 1 to be used at the overall level is when we apply it to the status quo, which as we know is a term that refers to something steady at this moment but that can change over time. The status quo is the known situation, but there is no exact knowledge available how long that status quo will last. Possibly, some may already be working on establishing a different future status quo. It is an overall state that contains or may contain that what will undermine that status quo.

The binary system contains multiple 1s, and 1 can then not be used to portray the overall state.

Words can come to mind that portray a statement about the whole, but which are not in themselves words that exactly appoint the overall reality. Infinity is a word, for instance, that declares a perspective about the whole, yet in itself it does not declare the whole, just a characteristic about either the whole or about our own limited ability. It fits in with words like city, nation, mankind, in that all these words are very clear in their meaning, yet from a scientific perspective are not defined clearly. How many people in a city, a nation? Only with precise numbers of people do we have the tangible information that these words portray. In a way, these words are placeholder words. With lacking the exact information (a baby may have been born, an elderly person may have passed away, a car crash may have taken some people's lives, and the exact count is off for how many people live in a city, a nation) and with still using the same word over and over with a rather clear meaning to us, we use a placeholder word for what is not exactly known with absolute certainty.

A word to also mention here is the 'unknown', a term that indicates something we do not know, yet words like city, nation, infinity do capture the unknown on the inside. It is unknown how many stars exist in our universe, and yet we have no problem grasping the meaning of the word universe as if we did have that knowledge.

A universe that is one of incompleteness means we acknowledge there is always an uncertainty that cannot be overcome, and that we can be certain about this uncertainty.

I welcome other contributions that describe what twist needs to be incorporated to get to a completed theory about incompleteness.

[labelwench]

A word to also mention here is the 'unknown', a term that indicates something we do not know, yet words like city, nation, infinity do capture the unknown on the inside. It is unknown how many stars exist in our universe, and yet we have no problem grasping the meaning of the word universe as if we did have that knowledge.

A universe that is one of incompleteness means we acknowledge there is always an uncertainty that cannot be overcome, and that we can be certain about this uncertainty.

I welcome other contributions that describe what twist needs to be incorporated to get to a completed theory about incompleteness.

Originally posted by Fredrick

You seek a completed theory of incompleteness?

Yet we acknowledge that we are certain about an uncertainty that cannot be overcome?

When you have counted all of the stars that are in the sky, Fredrick, you shall have certainty.

That it cannot be done with any precision, I am certain of. Extrapolations don't count.

All who have gone before me have not returned.

Perhaps the completeness you seek can only be found beyond that horizon.

Such is my thinking.

I'm quite curious, but not in a terrible hurry, as I have no doubt that some things shall come to pass, no matter that I exercise my perceived free will in the interim.

The universe may be incomplete, yet even so, in diversity, it is replete.

[Fredrick]

You seek a completed theory of incompleteness?

Yet we acknowledge that we are certain about an uncertainty that cannot be overcome?

When you have counted all of the stars that are in the sky, Fredrick, you shall have certainty.

That it cannot be done with any precision, I am certain of. Extrapolations don't count.

All who have gone before me have not returned.

Perhaps the completeness you seek can only be found beyond that horizon.

Such is my thinking.

I'm quite curious, but not in a terrible hurry, as I have no doubt that some things shall come to pass, no matter that I exercise my perceived free will in the interim.

The universe may be incomplete, yet even so, in diversity, it is replete.

Replete it is indeed and the universe can be a work to marvel at on a daily basis (close to home or when looking at the sky) especially if we know how to remain open for seeing the beauty of it all (and I think you do know how).

The question I am asking is as you state, how to complete the theory of incompleteness, but please know that I am not looking for completion of incompleteness, because that would make no sense. Just like we can have certainty about uncertainty, we can formulate a theory about incompleteness. To complete such theory, we must give incompleteness (in whichever form we prefer to mention this) its specific spot within that theory.

The big question that has divided religious streams in our human history, and one that appears to be avoided by scientists time and again (they're chicken if you were to ask me) is where to place the aspect of incompleteness in a ToE. One can place the incompleteness centrally on the inside or as only occurring marginally on the outside.

Not to be confused as religion, the example of religious streams can help clarify the choice I am talking abaout.

If we place god as a single entity central in the universe' reality then we have placed a certain belief we have as completion in that central spot. Yet if we believe in a variety of gods, then no one god sits centrally as an all-encompassing entity in that universe' reality. As the Greek made certain, Zeus was not the example of perfection. The Norse, meanwhile, had their central god, Odin, commit suicide as the act that created our universe, not quite the symbol of perfection either. In Hinduism, Brahman is all-encompassing, but sits as a deity far far away (and doesn't move much).

It is not possible to marry these two streams of having either one god or having multiple gods in a new belief. Zeus is definitively not the same as Jahweh.

To translate this choice for science, we must take the choice of how to view the ToE in consideration. Either we consider a single answer possible, or we consider multiple answers at the same time possible. If we consider a single answer possible, then there is a variety of choices which single answer is the one. For instance, we can follow Lloyd who claims there is no answer possible. Though in the negative, please understand that his is a single answer. We can follow Pat or Nobody, who claim that the single scientific answer exists, but that its reality will only be understood when viewed from the other side of existence. We can follow scientists, who claim the final ToE is out there in a singular format based on the universe as we know it, yet we haven't gotten to it yet. I am certain I am forgetting some important options and I invite others to help me populate the list of ToEs based on a singular answer. As you know, I do not subscribe to this option, so I find it difficult to come up with more examples. But please do not forget that I embrace this option as one of the options.

Then there is the choice to view the ToE as one of diversity — with the absence of a singular answer. Though not requiring strict oppositional entities, the ToE of diversity claims that the scientific entities are first self-based and second exist in an environment of primarily self-based entities. Here we can find those who believe in a singular answer back again, but then as those who base their existence/knowledge on the singular answer without the singular answer actually existing at the overall level (I know, the words make this a rather complex statement, but it is almost the same as being self-based). Just like religious streams have different grounds for their existence, together they make up the full religious palet we find in existence in the world. Or, we can use the word we for all that exist, but the word does not ensure we are a peaceful bunch.

For proper communication, the question is what option you are following in your mind? Knowing you from previous answers, you may declare to not make a choice. But please understand that that is a singular answer. It is not the same, but similar to Lloyd's answer. Lloyd clarifies his position with a lot of knowledge, while you would then clarify your position by not stating anything (further). Please understand that this is a perfect choice to make if you so desire, yet I am trying to show that it is a choice nevertheless of the singular kind. Not providing an answer is a singular answer, much like we would say that "Nobody was hurt" and "No one is going to show up in church this Sunday" (we do not say: "Nobody were hurt" nor: "No one are going to show up in church on Sunday".) No answer is considered a singular answer.

Will you clarify to which group you belong?

[SteveA]

Using any form of reasoning/logic would automatically appear to rely some form of facts or structure, and if those are things that are acquired within time, then this imply a growth that is linear in time - an accumulation - a quantity and a counting - of a common unit. That's time.

The alternative appears to be utilizing no structure at all ... but that couldn't be done logically or rationally, because that would require the deconstruction of the cause of the deconstruction.

Whether or not reality conforms to this, this is simply the logical/rational truth (a possible subset of everything) that any form of reasoning we might use here would derive.

[labelwench]

Will you clarify to which group you belong?

Originally posted by Fredrick

I will clarify that I belong to no group, save the human race.

No evidence, save that of my own senses do I trust, and I do not expect you to trust my senses over your own, though there are others who expect such of me.

Lloyd has considerably more knowledge on many subjects, and more life experience. Of all that he has shared here at the forum, the words that I most respect are when he says, "We don't know", when he answers for the Scientific position to certain questions.

Many posters do I respect, both for their knowledge and/or presentation, and I number you among them.

You do have a desire to place others in a position from which they would speak, which is done most respectfully, yet also persistently.

You further pursue your point by offering interpretation of what a non-response implies, from your perspective, as relates to how you have formed the question.

You do so in a very considered and considerate manner, for the most part, and I do appreciate the teachings contained therein.

I have walked the path of both religion and science and find the answer to not be known by either, and the reasons that they would deny each other have less to do with knowledge or the lack thereof, and are entirely of human nature.

Knowledge implies power.

Each camp would have it and deny it to the other.

Every now and then, one drops a coin and it lands on edge.

If you look at it from the correct perspective, there are no sides, merely a precise edge.

[SteveA]

I will clarify that I belong to no group, save the human race.

No evidence, save that of my own senses do I trust, and I do not expect you to trust my senses over your own, though there are others who expect such of me.

I can relate to your perspective very much here (at least, as I interpret your perspective to be ... there's the unavoidable subjective "filter", though from another perspective it "filters" nothing at all because it's all subjective and in that respect there is no subjective/objective divide except as one might believe them to be).

Lloyd has considerably more knowledge on many subjects, and more life experience. Of all that he has shared here at the forum, the words that I most respect are when he says, "We don't know", when he answers for the Scientific position to certain questions.

Yes, a lot of people (including myself) use the word "Science" to attempt to convey a social agreement, or a consensus, but in the end people just speak for themselves and their beliefs and not for "Science" (Unless that's maybe their name? ).

I see science as simply representing a form of worldview - a belief that there exists an order to things that can be known and that these relationships can be discovered, created or understood etc. I'd assume in a very simple sense, applications of science arise from beliefs that we can use logic to satisfy various needs or desires and from that perspective, people "do science" all the time.

Most the debates between people involving science are over those needs and desires, and oftentimes not over what logic satisfies them, though someones desires may be obscured by the "logic" they present - as an example, in the 70s, pollution was claimed to be the cause of a cooling climate with a possible danger of entering another Ice Age. Currently, the logic is reversed and basically the same causes are now claimed to create opposite effects - and environmental "science" is the word of the day. The "disagreements" involved have little to do with logic at all and have much more to do with desires to control energy resources around the world. You can similarly have someone with an excellent academic practically backtrack and become conflicted in everything they say if you might, for example, imply that his/her views lead in a direction other than desired.

People are generally driven by immediate desires first - longer term or broader view sense and logic takes a back seat to this. To one person, something that is stubbornness, is seen as persistence to another. Frivolity to someone else is creative to another etc.

Many posters do I respect, both for their knowledge and/or presentation, and I number you among them.

You do have a desire to place others in a position from which they would speak, which is done most respectfully, yet also persistently.

You further pursue your point by offering interpretation of what a non-response implies, from your perspective, as relates to how you have formed the question.

You do so in a very considered and considerate manner, for the most part, and I do appreciate the teachings contained therein.

I have walked the path of both religion and science and find the answer to not be known by either, and the reasons that they would deny each other have less to do with knowledge or the lack thereof, and are entirely of human nature.

Bingo

Something else is that people will generally say what they want someone to hear and not necessarily what's beneficial for that person (that's not necessarily bad and it could be unavoidable to an extent, but it's just something to consider. I do tend to think that people are best off when they're all on the same page and things are rather clear, though people still have a habit of playing games).

Knowledge implies power.

Each camp would have it and deny it to the other.

Every now and then, one drops a coin and it lands on edge.

If you look at it from the correct perspective, there are no sides, merely a precise edge.

Yes, with regard to uncertainty, it doesn't actually appear that uncertainty exists in any physical sense except to the extent to which we believe that something is, or some outcome will be uncertain.

Where something happens is always "Here". When something happens is always "Now". "How" something happens is exactly as you believe it to be right now. "What" happens is exactly that which is observed etc.

It's when we create a separate virtual environment with various expectations and divergent properties etc. that uncertainties arise - but those uncertainties were actually constructed by oneself and placed into that environment, but there wasn't really anything uncertain about them.

Maybe this is just semantics but, for example, a die never rolls a random number - for example, a die might be rolled and come up as 2, but 2 is not a random number. If 2 is random, then 5 should also be a random number, and all numbers should be random.

Uncertainty arises from expectations of unknowns. Whether or not something is uncertain is subjective. Someone who's never seen a bird in flight might consider the wings to move in ways that are uncertain, but someone else could see a bird flying and see nothing uncertain in any of the observed patterns. The 'value' of uncertainty is largely just in implying that there exists more detail that can be added within some context, but this is something optional and doesn't have to exist as a fact and can be freely altered. If the motion of a car appears blurred, then it appears blurred and this doesn't mean that the car must possess some exterior state in which it is not blurred. If the car is later seen clearly, then this is similarly something that can be certain and we could declare specific reasons why these changes are observed ... and even later change our mind ... all of it happened just as it did and there never had to exist anything unknown, unless we decide to label these as such.

For example, the "Uncertainty Principle" in physics can arise from incorrect assumptions - if we begin with the ideal that we're measuring infinitely subdivisible units/quantities of space beyond what we can immediately see and experience, then uncertainty is inherent in this belief - it's believed that what we experience is not real and that something else that we don't experience is real. When this belief is tested, it obviously proves false because noone measured anything other than what they measured which were always discrete and precise experiences/thoughts etc. The uncertainty in physics arises from unprovable, unrealistic and intangible assumptions.

There's just one direction for all sources of infinity things and I personally would have to point in the (vague - yes, and it can be a very precise vagueness ) direction of time. Notice that continually subdividing units requires time and we could always imagine that we're measuring something smaller and smaller - the simple fact is that none of these measurements were ever smaller (or larger) than the first person perspective in which they were made. For example, atoms don't need to be specifically "small" and they definitely can't exist on a scale beyond perception otherwise they wouldn't even need to exist. If the explanation is that atomic influences are only experienced in aggregate terms, then there need not exist atoms and we can simply replace atoms with those aggregate objects instead.

I'm rather certain using this approach to physics - using the actual first person facts of experience and removing uncertain components can end up giving a very clear, though not necessarily conventional view of thing. What are people really looking for anyway? (I admit the route I've been taking is not necessarily simple, but it's one that, would appear to desire little of any alteration - if we built a physical model of events on scales beyond having much of any predictable influence on human experiences, that would be something not particularly useful and we'd then need to construct entirely new fields to describe how these are translated into events on different scales ... it's just the wrong direction to head and it appears almost certain that it would end up all canceling (once those cancellation were discovered) only to find out that physical laws are determined from an observer outward - how could it be otherwise? All the information gained regarding physical laws by people has to ultimately be detected by the human body and any physical theory that bypasses that fact will likely just be fiction and give rise to "uncertainty".)

P.S. Fredrick, I don't want you to consider my post a disagreement with the general aim of your posts, and I do agree that it appears unlikely we'd ever be able to be certain of having discovered all the specifics of every possible form of physical interaction, but that instead we'll probably find a distribution of influences that "fade off" in their relative density of occurance, along with a potential evolution over time to physical properties.

In fact, my comments agree with your basic premises. There is (certainly) evidence as to "Incompleteness", though following along the lines of my post, it might be an interesting consideration to see if there are precise reasons as to why this "Incompleteness" is perceived - a good question to ask is "What is it that is seen as incomplete?" Maybe if it isn't certain what the subject is, then trying to derive qualities from something unknown would ... well, give unknown results.

It might also be interesting to discover that, to the extent the question is precise, the answers are similarly precise ...

[Fredrick]

Using any form of reasoning/logic would automatically appear to rely some form of facts or structure, and if those are things that are acquired within time, then this imply a growth that is linear in time - an accumulation - a quantity and a counting - of a common unit. That's time.

The alternative appears to be utilizing no structure at all ... but that couldn't be done logically or rationally, because that would require the deconstruction of the cause of the deconstruction.

Whether or not reality conforms to this, this is simply the logical/rational truth (a possible subset of everything) that any form of reasoning we might use here would derive.

Excellent reply, Steve, though not completely true. As Antonio showed there is a logical basis for collectively avoiding reaching zero. Money, for instance, also works on the premise that those who do not have cannot buy anything, and we can then say that we have entered into an existence that contains an a priori. I would classify your reply also as a construction containing an a priori.

If we then desire to create a theory of everything, then we should (must) include the phenomenon of the a priori as well, otherwise we have not described everything, agree? In religion, Hinduism includes the a priori by stating our reality is one of result only (as in: not containing the origin).

Do you agree that the level at which I formulate a ToE is different from the level where others may claim there is no ToE?

[Fredrick]

I will clarify that I belong to no group, save the human race.

No evidence, save that of my own senses do I trust, and I do not expect you to trust my senses over your own, though there are others who expect such of me.

Lloyd has considerably more knowledge on many subjects, and more life experience. Of all that he has shared here at the forum, the words that I most respect are when he says, "We don't know", when he answers for the Scientific position to certain questions.

Many posters do I respect, both for their knowledge and/or presentation, and I number you among them.

You do have a desire to place others in a position from which they would speak, which is done most respectfully, yet also persistently.

You further pursue your point by offering interpretation of what a non-response implies, from your perspective, as relates to how you have formed the question.

You do so in a very considered and considerate manner, for the most part, and I do appreciate the teachings contained therein.

I have walked the path of both religion and science and find the answer to not be known by either, and the reasons that they would deny each other have less to do with knowledge or the lack thereof, and are entirely of human nature.

Knowledge implies power.

Each camp would have it and deny it to the other.

Every now and then, one drops a coin and it lands on edge.

If you look at it from the correct perspective, there are no sides, merely a precise edge.

A beautiful reply, Labelwench, one that shows your integrity. Allow me to nevertheless point to the question itself whether you provided a singular answer or an answer of diversity; I see your reply is one belonging to the singular category. It is not the information within your reply that makes it a singular answer, it is the format. The option of 'not knowing' is singular; it is not plural. I see the singular answer about everything as taking place on a different level than the plural answer.

Still, this option plays a very important role in the plural outcome, because it portrays the neutral next to the positive, together delivering two positions at the overall level.

I do not know if you can move away from the specific information your position contains (the position of not knowing for sure) and view it as one of the positions, or whether you feel you must always remain with that what you know. To overcome both of us getting stuck in positioning ourselves, I must therefore come up with an example in which the same positions are portrayed but from another field, and I will choose politics.

In nation A a dictator rules, which means a hierarchy is in place sustaining that ruler. The ordinary person in the nation can be considered without power, for asking one person to change society in a fundamental way would be asking the ordinary person to have as much power as the dictator — something that is not the case. Yet collectively, the ordinary persons of this nation are the power base for the dictator. And we see this occurring throughout history: when bread and other basic foods become too expensive (all of a sudden) a revolt can easily take place, leading to the replacement of the dictator.

The position of not being empowered to decide lies here with the ordinary person at the bottom of the hierarchy. The option of empowerment lies with the hierarchy and the ruler, who may even decide to do nothing (about problem x).

In nation B, a democracy has been established, and the powers of those in control are limited by the agendas on which they were elected. Though a little bit of leeway is available for those currently in the government, voters can vote for other parties with the next election when too much leeway was taken and those in control moved too far away from what they said they would do.

The positions of being empowered and of not being empowered are not found with anyone in specific anymore, but is shared within the game of democracy. A revolt is possible, but once a democracy has been established, a revolt is unlikely, because the voters wait for the next election and pick a third party to vote for.

This was still just the introduction.

We can see that nations A and B have divvied up the position of not being empowered (and therefore as well the position of being empowered) in different ways.

To next come to overall conclusions about nations, for instance in a Theory of Nations, we cannot come to a singular answer about power because each format is different. Those who state that we cannot know such theory make a declaration that is a bit besides the point. While it is true that we cannot create a singular Theory of Nations, we are able to create a Theory of Nations in which the specific aspects are set apart in clear functions or positions. For instance, where one system allows power to come to a zenith where all decisions can be made by a single person (or group), the other system is based on sharing powers at the highest position. One is like an Egyptian pyramid (containing a top position), the other is like a Meso-American pyramid (flat or truncated at the top). Together, they can be formulated in a Theory of Nations, a Theory of Power, a Theory of Pyramids.

I am the first to admit that the nature of the ToE is of such an abstract level that it is easy to not see the structures we're dealing with; it is exactly my point: scientists are not paying attention to what the question is they are asking. They are looking for a 'Theory of Power' that declares something in the singular and may then come to the conclusion that such theory does not exist or that they lack the knowledge to formulate it. Yet instead of stopping then and there, we should move one level higher and formulate the plural Theory of Power.

Was I able to show where you are positioned with your answer, Labelwench? I state that a ToE is always possible, but when not possible the way we think it should be, we must construct it so it includes that particular position/inability.

[SteveA]

My apologies, but (as often happens) I'll drift along an interesting tangent here:

Excellent reply, Steve, though not completely true. As Antonio showed there is a logical basis for collectively avoiding reaching zero.

Actually, it may not be logical in a conventional sense at all, but instead that there could be emotional reasons to avoid zeroes and that emotions lead logic in some respects (for example checking a set of quantities and operations to determine if any mechanism for generating a zero is possible). Logic utilizes time to generate transformations of the information and structures it's given, but doesn't create information or operations beyond that. So it could be that what logic operates with is "prescreened".

For example, imagine we have just 4 components, a quantity n, a subtraction, a division and a recursive operation. From there we can generate natural numbers, 0, negative numbers, fractions and many (all, with an addition of memory?) irrational numbers.

The only conditions by which you arrive at zero would be subtracting an identity or potentially a division by a quantity that could become infinite (but I'm skeptical of that second case. That's not a "real" zero)

So, in that above example, emotions wouldn't want to see a lot of identical and redundant things around and you could have a space in which superpositions compress out redundancy.

Though similar to Antonio's comment regarding changes in entropy, it could also be that a sequence that only generates redundant values is also something "prescreened".

... as always, I'm just tossing out ideas, though it would be interesting to discover some physical biases along these lines.

[Fredrick]

Where something happens is always "Here". When something happens is always "Now". "How" something happens is exactly as you believe it to be right now. "What" happens is exactly that which is observed etc.

It's when we create a separate virtual environment with various expectations and divergent properties etc. that uncertainties arise - but those uncertainties were actually constructed by oneself and placed into that environment, but there wasn't really anything uncertain about them.

Maybe this is just semantics but, for example, a die never rolls a random number - for example, a die might be rolled and come up as 2, but 2 is not a random number. If 2 is random, then 5 should also be a random number, and all numbers should be random.

Uncertainty arises from expectations of unknowns. Whether or not something is uncertain is subjective. Someone who's never seen a bird in flight might consider the wings to move in ways that are uncertain, but someone else could see a bird flying and see nothing uncertain in any of the observed patterns. The 'value' of uncertainty is largely just in implying that there exists more detail that can be added within some context, but this is something optional and doesn't have to exist as a fact and can be freely altered. If the motion of a car appears blurred, then it appears blurred and this doesn't mean that the car must possess some exterior state in which it is not blurred. If the car is later seen clearly, then this is similarly something that can be certain and we could declare specific reasons why these changes are observed ... and even later change our mind ... all of it happened just as it did and there never had to exist anything unknown, unless we decide to label these as such.

For example, the "Uncertainty Principle" in physics can arise from incorrect assumptions - if we begin with the ideal that we're measuring infinitely subdivisible units/quantities of space beyond what we can immediately see and experience, then uncertainty is inherent in this belief - it's believed that what we experience is not real and that something else that we don't experience is real. When this belief is tested, it obviously proves false because noone measured anything other than what they measured which were always discrete and precise experiences/thoughts etc. The uncertainty in physics arises from unprovable, unrealistic and intangible assumptions.

There's just one direction for all sources of infinity things and I personally would have to point in the (vague - yes, and it can be a very precise vagueness ) direction of time. Notice that continually subdividing units requires time and we could always imagine that we're measuring something smaller and smaller - the simple fact is that none of these measurements were ever smaller (or larger) than the first person perspective in which they were made. For example, atoms don't need to be specifically "small" and they definitely can't exist on a scale beyond perception otherwise they wouldn't even need to exist. If the explanation is that atomic influences are only experienced in aggregate terms, then there need not exist atoms and we can simply replace atoms with those aggregate objects instead.

I'm rather certain using this approach to physics - using the actual first person facts of experience and removing uncertain components can end up giving a very clear, though not necessarily conventional view of thing. What are people really looking for anyway? (I admit the route I've been taking is not necessarily simple, but it's one that, would appear to desire little of any alteration - if we built a physical model of events on scales beyond having much of any predictable influence on human experiences, that would be something not particularly useful and we'd then need to construct entirely new fields to describe how these are translated into events on different scales ... it's just the wrong direction to head and it appears almost certain that it would end up all canceling (once those cancellation were discovered) only to find out that physical laws are determined from an observer outward - how could it be otherwise? All the information gained regarding physical laws by people has to ultimately be detected by the human body and any physical theory that bypasses that fact will likely just be fiction and give rise to "uncertainty".)

P.S. Fredrick, I don't want you to consider my post a disagreement with the general aim of your posts, and I do agree that it appears unlikely we'd ever be able to be certain of having discovered all the specifics of every possible form of physical interaction, but that instead we'll probably find a distribution of influences that "fade off" in their relative density of occurance, along with a potential evolution over time to physical properties.

In fact, my comments agree with your basic premises. There is (certainly) evidence as to "Incompleteness", though following along the lines of my post, it might be an interesting consideration to see if there are precise reasons as to why this "Incompleteness" is perceived - a good question to ask is "What is it that is seen as incomplete?" Maybe if it isn't certain what the subject is, then trying to derive qualities from something unknown would ... well, give unknown results.

It might also be interesting to discover that, to the extent the question is precise, the answers are similarly precise ...

Being Dutch, I have always been fascinated with language, Steve, and your words of "Here" and "Now" prompted me to think about the words. In Dutch, there is a similarity between the word 'Here" and 'Master'. The English word 'Here' and the Dutch word for Master ('Heer') are actually pronounced very much the same ('Hier' is the Dutch version of the English word 'Here'). To master an area is to lay claim on a piece that is known as 'Right Here', so it should not be a surprise that this link is rather strong.

Another word I appreciate a lot in Dutch is the word 'Waar'. It is used both for the question word 'Where' as for the word 'True'. Where and True are one and the same word in Dutch. It is also found in the plural in Dutch for the past tense for 'to be'. In English we can still see this with the word 'were'. "We were in town last night" is of course a declaration of a truth. It is found in the past, because only the past contains an established truth.

What I love about the English sentence "If I were there, then..." is that it shows the use of the word 'truth' yet again. The normal sentence is "I was there", but in the case of stating the option without it actually being true, we use were even in the singular past tense. Written out we are saying: "If it was true that I was there, then...". In German this form is still found as well ('wäre' instead of the normal 'ware'), but in Dutch we must nowadays say 'as the where' / 'as the were'.

In reply to your last remarks, I know we have a certain understanding of agreement, and our differences may be explained by the perspectives and formats we use to provide our words (these are more or less your words that I fully agree to).

For me the answer is clear: because we have self-based realities (independent in their position of existence) we have an overall reality that can only be captured in the singular as an abstract. Example: 1) man/men, 2) woman/women, 3) men/mankind — or in other words: 1) specific position(s), 2) specific position(s), 3) abstract position (no plural here for what is nevertheless always plural).

Thank you for sharing your overall view (word in the singular showing nevertheless a possible plural reality) and perspective (word in the singular showing nevertheless a possible plural reality).