Meta model and use of Logic

quote:
____________________________________________________________________________
Any idea what is the influx? How I can get a hold of it?
____________________________________________________________________________

The influx? Observations are limitless.

I don't think you, or any of us can get a hold of it. It will always be held by the Universe; ie. the intelligence upon which we are feeders.

Defeatest? I, for my part, embrace the idea of "Realist." It is merely an option.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(jimiProton)Anticipatory systems would fit right in with a fractal view of the operations of nature, correlating quantum effects with instinctive behavior.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
JimiProton, you made the above statement in one of your earlier post in this thread. Here is my question: Is the fractal view simply just a view of scales? Meaning that no matter which scale you are in ALL of the *general/perminant properties* remain the same and correlative. From a fractal view could you have temporary properties and could they be different from one frame to another? Are fractals just a visual version of SR?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Defeatest? I, for my part, embrace the idea of "Realist." It is merely an option.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Is this a desperate attempt to descibe the incomprehensible as realistic? The null solution is also an option, so is being a Realist.

Realist means nothing in science unless you can prove that you made measurements or demostrations of the causes. Most of those that describe influx do it in a totally subjective manner. As a matter of fact, I wonder whether the universal influx has observability properties to allow identification of causes. Shielding observability could effectively prohibit controllability of the causes. That's also another option. No wonder why so very few, if any, causes are understood by people.

I would say the cause is never known or even of interest since almost always the effects are what is desired on a practical level. The 18th century work in electric fluid was the last time a real interest in the cause of anything was a priority. The industrial age ushered in a new way of viewing and effect was all that mattered since then.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

The industrial age ushered in a new way of viewing and effect was all that mattered since then.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Well said Jim. My opinion, there is nothing more dangerous than dealing with effects when causes are unknown. Certainly a sign of primitives races like ours that are doomed for extinction unless taking a step back, understand and respect causes.

quote:
___________________________________________________________________________
Here is my question: Is the fractal view simply just a view of scales?
___________________________________________________________________________

Yes. Fractology is an examination of scales. These scales which are alluded to in these forums are not congruenous in their independant manifestations, but they are congruenous in the interractions of matter and energy, independant of time and space.

That is why I assert a universal law that accounts for the fracal nature of all things.

The law is unchanging, otherwise we would make no sense of it. Further, we would not be aware of it, and we would not be discussing it in these forums.

Therefore, I would maintain that physics does not (and cannot) violate logic.