[JDHill]

I wasn't trying to hijack, Thomas, just exploring different ways of defining logic. As it is, I can't see any way for logic to be defined other than through the very framework of itself...that is, if it banishes the possibility of anything it cannot conceptually define. And we know that the (purely) logical systems within our own world execute ruthless logic...given incorrect algorithms, they will busily apply their cold and perfect method, producing technically correct, yet empirically meaningless results. If our consciousness is the result of nothing more than logic perfected (term used looseley), might not our own analysis be lacking in a similar way? I personally do not deprecate philosophy in exchange for pure logic, but rather prefer to simply see them both as tools we have to better explore the state or possible origins of our existence.

[Frances]

...ONLY IF the universe is there. However I was trying to tell WHAT IF it-is-not-really-there scenario. You can't free your mind enough with these constraints and this will keep you discovering forever ONLY IN the universe.

If you change your definition of "universe" to suit your theory, then sure. If you define the universe as the total of all things that exist, then you will have quite a logical paradox going.

We've only recently decided to agree that Pluto in not a planet. That's like, next door in space terms. Even the most brilliant mind on this planet is still in a playpen in terms of actually and trully understanding the concepts of infinity or non-existance. I know for a fact that the most brilliant mind on the planet is not a member of this forum (unless that person is "read-only"). You cannot say "I know." All you can say is "I believe" or "I don't believe". That doesn't make it a spiritual issue so much as an issue that's fun to think about and philosophise about.

[tom]

You cannot say "I know."

Sorry, did I?

I know for a fact that the most brilliant...

..and please enlighten us how do you know?

[Thomas An.]

I'm trying to think with no initial assumption...

Actually it is a deduction. Not an assumption.

What you are doing is basically unhinging the frame of refernence, by an attempt to tweak the meaning of the words "real" or "physical" and then you fall into a paradoxical loop that keeps you captive.

I think you are trying to model your philosophy after the Matrix movie, with the modification that Neo escaped only to go into a second illusion wrapping around the first. This creates a mirror in mirror effect which doesn't solve anything... because the same way we ask "what was the astronomical origin of the cosmos", then in the same way you are compeled to ask yourself what is the origin of all the imagination cocoons (or shells). There must be a first shell that houses the rest. In other words the argument is ineffectual since you are merely transforming the problem, but it still remains (just with a new look). If you assume that there are infinite shells, it is no different than a speculation that there maybe infinite big-bangs.

[Frances]

You cannot say "I know."

Sorry, did I?

I meant "you" collectively as in nobody can and that was a point in itself not having to do with what you specifically said or implied, but more to contrast the notion of knowing with believing.

[tom]

I meant "you" collectively as in nobody can...

Oh, right.

[Frances]

I know for a fact that the most brilliant...

..and please enlighten us how do you know?

Does that bother you?

[tom]

In other words the argument is ineffectual since you are merely transforming the problem, but it still remains (just with a new look). If you assume that there are infinite shells, it is no different than a speculation that there maybe infinite big-bangs.

...and this means I prefer travelling between shells rather than staying inside one of them. It's a decision.

Frances, you answered with a question and where is the answer?

[Frances]

In other words the argument is ineffectual since you are merely transforming the problem, but it still remains (just with a new look). If you assume that there are infinite shells, it is no different than a speculation that there maybe infinite big-bangs.

...and this means I prefer travelling between shells rather than staying inside one of them. It's a decision.

Frances, you answered with a question and where is the answer?

No. I didn't answer. I asked a question because I wanted to know if it bothered you. Even if Steven Hawking isn't the most brilliant mind on the planet, could anyone here honestly say that they are as brilliant? Simple process of elimination.

[tom]

No. I didn't answer. I asked a question because I wanted to know if it bothered you. Even if Steven Hawking isn't the most brilliant mind on the planet, would anyone here honestly say that they are more brilliant? Simple process of elimination.

So, you say you know Stephen William Hawking is surely not a registered user on this forum? How do you know this? And about your question, no I don't feel bothered of course, we're just talking, why bothering about something not related to me.

[Thomas An.]

You mean the biological system (of N) or the the entire universe system ?

No, I was dealing specifically with the process of self-analysis on the part of N -or- the possible lacking of an ability to do so from a logical point other than that which N assumes. When I say 'bugs', I speak not of crashing bugs, but of bugs which produce valid, yet incorrect output...these are always very much worse than the crashing kind.

This relates to conseptual errors from the N-1 conscience. In which case, this is not the problem of the N conscience as it operates according to specification.

As it is, I can't see any way for logic to be defined other than through the very framework of itself...that is, if it banishes the possibility of anything it cannot conceptually define.

Well, yes I agree here. There is a definition problem.

Basically, (at least from my vantage point for the shake of this discussion). Logic is the collective of mental activity that ensures long term survival.

***
Logic is what would enable a species to understand the universe so intimately that it can now survive ad-infinitum for (billions of years on end) without degeneration and without corrupting its own biodome (A state of perfect equilibrium).
***

This ideally logical species would have correctly and flawlessly escaped the sun's future supernova and correctly established a cascade of new biodomes with the least possible ecological footprint and remain unchanged even as the universe decays and other stars go nova...

Anything that erodes this ideal state is considered a logical impurity.

[Frances]

No. I didn't answer. I asked a question because I wanted to know if it bothered you. Even if Steven Hawking isn't the most brilliant mind on the planet, would anyone here honestly say that they are more brilliant? Simple process of elimination.

So, you say you know Stephen William Hawking is surely not a registered user on this forum? How do you know this? And about your question, no I don't feel bothered of course, we're just talking, why bothering about something not related to me.

But I didn't see Sting anywhere in our usergroup.

[jdp]

about the string theory, are we here speaking about TOE (theory of everything)? what are the main differences with the big bang a part from the colliding membrans? It consider time as circular or linear?

[ivox3]

I know for a fact that the most brilliant mind on the planet is not a member of this forum (unless that person is "read-only").

Hi Fran, ... I know how you meant the phrase and I am attacking the thought/idea and not you. The word brilliant is really a loose term here.

Why would the word brilliant also have the word right implied therein? Some of those brilliant minds(Oppenheimer, Einstein etc..) are the very ones responsible for introducing to us the very real reality of mass extinction, among other things. All of this quite contrary to what Thomas noted about logic and surrvival.

Why arent' these people remembered poorly ? It is because we as a species are still adoring the idea that analytical intelligence is somehow better than an emotional one. Man vs. Nature, ...and we think we can win, ...and clearly we're getting our ass kicked. ....brilliant.

[Thomas An.]

about the string theory, are we here speaking about TOE (theory of everything)? what are the main differences with the big bang a part from the colliding membrans? It consider time as circular or linear?

From my understanding, time is still linear. Actually time and motion are interelated. The question might be: Is there time because there is motion, or is there motion because there is time ?

In any case the string theory came to play in order to explain the issue of gravity (as gravity doesn't quite fit in the model of physics; it is the odd one out). Currently a seperate model is needed to explain gravity even though electricity and magnetism were unified and even though gravity and magnetism have similarities. The string theory basically introduces the multiplicity of universes (and dimensions) and the possibility that the contents of one universe (one brane) might be affecting the other and attempts to offer some explanations (insights) as to why gravity as a force is so weak while magnetism is so strong....