What is "miraculous"?

EBTX

what is the essence of the principles?

EBTX

What is "miraculous"? is principle BEFORE matter!!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">First you have abstract logical principles.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

And then we can expect an abstract logical principle to be played out in some form. That form must be one nothing - Matter is composed of nothing at all.




At the level you speak.

Abstract = nothing
logic = one

Abstract logic = The quality of an object, where quality = nothing, and object = one.

Our perception of reality breaks down to the shape of the form, where any shape is possible, be it a universe, a galaxy, sun, planet, bowl of cheerios, or a fundamental entity.


Each level of inquiry has a carry over from the previous level (what we call commonality). Hence your perception of anything at all requires the shape of one nothing. A spaghetti meatball is the shape of one nothing. No thought is given for it's contents during perception, lest you deny the existence of the meatball.

In our universe - There are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">what is the essence of the principles?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I would say ... chance alloyed with a non-contradiction requirement.

Suppose anything at all can happen. Anything imaginable can exist relative to anything else. Then ... most of these states are contradictory and cancel themselves out, being that there are more things irrational than rational. What's left is what is allowed to "be", i.e. the observable, non-contradictory universe. We are the non-contradictory set out of the set of all possibilities. If contradictory sets "exist", we are not one of them and they don't appear to interact with our set. Such an interaction would negate the identity of the observable universe as the non-contradictory set.

"Exist" must then inevitably mean "to interact in a consistent manner". The principles which govern existence (something) are therefore that which is filtered out of chaos (everything all at once) by the condition of non-contradiction.

=======================

At some point in one's inquiry one must give up trekking into the Cantorian Swamp (as I call it) and wrap up the loose ends and declare a beginning. It's not that language is inadequate. It's that no one can go there ... ever. At some point the snake must desist in eating his tail because he would necessarily end up eating his own brain ... a contradiction ;o)

No matter what one posits, someone else will pose a question that cannot be answered. The main thing therefore (in my view) is this:

After posing some intiial, simple starting conditions ... can a theory generate all those impersonal, experimental numbers?

To the extent that your theory can, you are successful and worthy of a hearing. Thus, religion is a total failure for, though its intitial starting conditions are absolutely simple (God), it can't generate any of the above numbers at all. The Standard Model can generate many but not all and is therefore an incomplete or somewhat misdirected attempt at a final theory. No one is yet successful but I expect some theories to be "close" certainly within another 1000 years ... if people keep asking questions .... and ... keep making observations which further constrain the possible models.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">what is the essence of the principles?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I would say ... chance alloyed with a non-contradiction requirement.

---

since there is no substance(i perfer substance to matter) before principles,what do the principles base themselves on,since principles themselves in order to mean anything must be based on substance.otherwise your principles come from nothing at all.

---

Suppose anything at all can happen. Anything imaginable can exist relative to anything else. Then ... most of these states are contradictory and cancel themselves out, being that there are more things irrational than rational. What's left is what is allowed to "be", i.e. the observable, non-contradictory universe. We are the non-contradictory set out of the set of all possibilities. If contradictory sets "exist", we are not one of them and they don't appear to interact with our set. Such an interaction would negate the identity of the observable universe as the non-contradictory set.

---

but your principles came BEFORE substance therefore anything can't happen.

---

_____________________________________________________________________

"Exist" must then inevitably mean "to interact in a consistent manner". The principles which govern existence (something) are therefore that which is filtered out of chaos (everything all at once) by the condition of non-contradiction.

=======================

At some point in one's inquiry one must give up trekking into the Cantorian Swamp (as I call it) and wrap up the loose ends and declare a beginning. It's not that language is inadequate. It's that no one can go there ... ever. At some point the snake must desist in eating his tail because he would necessarily end up eating his own brain ... a contradiction ;o)

No matter what one posits, someone else will pose a question that cannot be answered. The main thing therefore (in my view) is this:

After posing some intiial, simple starting conditions ... can a theory generate all those impersonal, experimental numbers?

To the extent that your theory can, you are successful and worthy of a hearing. Thus, religion is a total failure for, though its intitial starting conditions are absolutely simple (God), it can't generate any of the above numbers at all. The Standard Model can generate many but not all and is therefore an incomplete or somewhat misdirected attempt at a final theory. No one is yet successful but I expect some theories to be "close" certainly within another 1000 years ... if people keep asking questions .... and ... keep making observations which further constrain the possible models.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

EBTX

where does chance exist with no substance to chance with? from nothing!!?(remember from you, principles&gt;then substance).

principles come out of interactions with substance.

as of yet you make no sense.