Impeccably Venerable: A Qualitative Conceptual Metaphysical Analysis of the Unknown by Dale Carl Gillman

Your learned words............Permeated with ambiguity, one is able to easily see the challenges that (any) language can pose particularly within the realm of metaphysics. Attempts to decipher (e.g. translate, interoperate, or otherwise analyze) [ancient] metaphysical texts demonstrate the near insurmountable dilemma that scholars face daily...........Tells the in depth knowledge you have in philosophy!!!

I think I can add few words........ the ultimate of the quest in philosophy is very difficult to understand. Describing in words is very difficult........ what do you say?

I really appreciate you!!

Dear Dale Carl Gillman,

I received your document through mail. But not in this forum.

Thank you for your nice words and discussion.

I am just posting the contents here as well as on my essay...

Best

=snp.gupta

Document sent by mail by Author Dale Carl Gillman

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

Hello there, S.N.P. Gupta,

Thank you so very much for your high regard. Your feedback is very kind and your compliments are greatly appreciated. I'm sorry that my replying comments are coming relatively delayed. Perhaps there is a time difference between where you are and where I am. I have recently re-uploaded my essay (newly edited); do you mind rating that one please? I am trying to get my old one taken off of the website. To begin:

A) "...A theory in pure Mathematics and a theory in Physics have different requirements and outcomes. Apure Mathematical theory may not have any physical basis and out-comes also may not have any physical significances..." I think that our essays are somewhat similar.

B) I agree with A.1. "...With a predetermined idea that the theory should behave in some manner, religious feelings etc, must be avoided while forming a new theory. As far as possible, the new theory should be based on scientific findings and experimental results..."

C) Perhaps I am misunderstanding A.2. "...It is a common thing that there is some fear about teachers, professors and superior bosses..."

D) A.3. I think that this is a great point, I agree and think that it's very unfortunate. ("...Such boundaries do exist and are being imposed by institutions, teachers and professors. Funding and allocation of seats and vacancies are inside these boundaries. It is well known generally that the Professors don't accept students who work outside these boundaries or provide funding. Many times, they don't accept that there is some science beyond these boundaries...")

E) I also agree with A.4.

F) I must disagree with the following "...A.5. Don't make the mathematics too complex with thousands of multiple possible solutions...). Depending on the proposed theory (of quantum gravity in particular) the mathematics required is highly complex. M-theory (for instance) requires the extra spatial dimensions and an implication that is highly complex is where one would see the Holographic Principle emerge. "...All your time will be wasted which was spent for developing such system of mathematics to describe a physical system..." For instance such proposals include the proposition that posited extra dimensions exist and exist at the Plank scale and are tightly curled up. Imaginary (and complex) numbers have vast implications in the [hard] sciences.

G) I absolutely agree with B.1. Personally, I think that selfish financial motives are the primary obstacles to everything from world peace to a unification of gravity with the rest of physics.

H) You made a wonderful point in B.7. This [philosophy of mind] is my primary area of concentration within philosophy.

I) Perhaps I'm misunderstanding C.1. but are you listing the criteria for a newly revised requirements that would allow for a new cosmological paradigm?

J) In C.2. "...Concept should come out from the depth of truth..." This was unclear, as was a definition for "perfection".

K) I don't know the nature of time "...Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only..."

Additionally, on "...I think I can add few words........ the ultimate of the quest in philosophy is very difficult to understand. Describing in words is very difficult........ what do you say?" Language most certainly is a tool (it may or may not be unique to human beings). In general, I think articulating one's thoughts is always challenging. I also do not think that English is the most sufficient language to convey oneself.

Finally, one completely separate conversation topic is the matter of allowing individuals who might be capable of studying such discourse as the foundations of mathematics (and the philosophy of maths, or "metamathematics"). Scholars who study rigorous matters tend to be underfunded and making a living (in said cases) is (usually) a nuisance as this hinders academics from making contributions and fully investing their time in solving the universe's most challenging questions.

Indeed, I will rate your essay highly. Thanks again,

Dale Gillman

Dear Gillman

I could not post this document in my essay, some technical error came. You may please copy paste it from here to there.

Best Regards

=snp.gupta

"Nearly, virtually unfalsifiability has been the primary and most sound bit of criticism for any currently viable theory of quantum gravity. " I disagree with the preceding statement. I now have an outline of the physical interpretation of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. Consider the Milgrom Denial Hypothesis: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. Please google "kroupa milgrom", "mcgaugh milgrom", "sanders milgrom", and "scarpa milgrom". What are the 2 most important predictions of my theory? (1) The Riofrio-Sanejouand cosmological model is (approximately) empirically valid. (2) dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^-5 -- contradicting Newton and Einstein (who assumed that this constant = 0). The vast majority of experts believe the Gravity Probe B science team -- and not me -- concerning the 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes -- but are these experts correct?

Adrian Cho wrote, "... But electrostatic imperfections in the gyroscopes thwarted that plan. Mechanically, the spheres were the roundest objects ever manufactured, Everitt explained. Were one blown up to the size of Earth, the biggest hill on it would be 3 meters tall. However, trapped charges in the niobium made the gyroscopes far less round electrically; an Earth-sized map of a sphere's voltage landscape would sport peaks as high as Mount Everest. Interactions between those imperfections and ones in the gyroscopes' housing created tiny tugs, and to reach the final precisions, researchers spent 5 years figuring out how to correct for them. Some other scientists aren't sure how much they trust the corrections. Five years ago, Ciufolini notes, Gravity Probe B researchers were reporting uncertainties more than 10 times bigger. Correcting for such large "systematic errors" is tricky business, he says: "I don't know the details, but it seems to me very difficult to get rid of more than 90% of the systematic error." ..."

"At Long Last, Gravity Probe B Satellite Proves Einstein Right" by Adrian Cho, 4 May 2012, Science

I suggest that the gyroscopes worked correctly and, thereby, confirmed what I call the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect. Am I wrong about the gyroscopes?

Dear Dale Carl Gillman

Thank you for your document sent in mail and all your comments.

I just Replied it on my essay.

Thank you for all your wonderful comments and blessings for my essay.

Best wishes to your essay ...

=snp

Bookmark and Share

Hello Dale

The first I see is that you write very poetic. Where you obtained experiences for such a style? You also wrote that you studied integrative studies. This name is a new one for me. What was your job?

You also gave me some new philosophical terms about consciousness. Do you have any knowledge of the physiological or neurological base of qualia? (for instance peptides.) This is are for which I interested, and I will study this when I will have time.

Regards

Janko Kokosar

Admin Note: Forum posts from an earlier version of this entry (updated in error) have been moved into this thread. That forum post has been closed. Please post all responses to this entry here.

Dear Dale,

I read with great interest your deep philosophical and analytical essay with significant conclusions for finding a way to overcome the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of fundamental science and in philosophy itself as a whole.

Excellent, clear and figuratively said:

"In time, we should reinvestigate paths that have long been abandoned. Perhaps reinvesting the allocation of our valuable time into once discarded or dismissed notions might help to explicate the conundrums which have been so confounding. If reflections within the black mirror are real- only we will know."

Fine epigraph:

"What is poetry without cold mathematics? What is mechanical mathematics without poetic elegance?"

Who is the author?

To overcome the crisis in cognition, the paradigm of the world as a whole must come to the aid of mathematicians and physicists. But here we need deeper ontological and dialectical ideas with a critical analysis of the whole path of development of philosophy, taking into account the problems in "cold mathematics", physics, cosmology, which rested in the "big bang", the nature of the "laws of Nature", space, time, fundamental constants, information consciousness. Physicists, mathematicians, cosmologists, poets and composers composers [/link] should have a single picture of the world - "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl). I score the highest rating.

The problems of modern science have their roots in the cognitive attitudes of modern science: "Physics, fear metaphysics!" The 20th century has shown that it is necessary to "dig" deeper to the most remote meaning-distinguishable depths. Now, I hope, many theoretical physicists will support the appeal of Carlo Rovelli Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics K. Rovelli poses the ontological questions first: "What is space?", And then - "What is time7" ... The idea of ​​the need for the most profound metaphysics the doctor of physical and mathematical sciences Y. Vladimirov, the editor-in-chief of the scientific journal Metaphysics , has long approved and holds in his conception. Obviously, it's time to enter the board with the philosophical precept of John Archibald Wheeler at the entrance to many research physics institutes: "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers" ...

I think that the mathematician Alexander Zenkin is right: "the truth should be drawn ..." in SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS.

Please see my ontological ontological ideas for "drawing" the Primordial generating structure -ontological basis of knowledge: framework, caкcass, foundation. Please give me your critical comments. What ideas do you disagree with?

With kind regards,

Vladimir

Just interesting how to compare the difference between hypothesis and prediction in this case.

For example like in this review [link:differencebtwn.com/difference-between-hypothesis-and-prediction]https://differencebtwn.com/difference-between-hypothesis-and-prediction[link]