Thank you, R.Hassan.
Yes, you are absolutely right that all words have meanings. If they did not have a meaning, then we would not be using words, of course.
So, yes, all words are meaningful.
In science, we do not use the word God. The closest word to God in science would be Energy.
The footing of the word God, the foundation, cannot be shown using the scientific method.
In religion, we can start with God, and that is then immediately the highest of all there is. Everything falls underneath that word, or better: hopefully all falls into place indeed underneath that word. We do not prove that God exists; we accept it.
In science, the approach is the other way around. First we start with collecting data, evidence, observations, etcetera. Then, we stand on the known data and then we try to climb the steps further upward.
Some of the data does help us climb the ladder, for instance, with magnetic force and the electric force, which then later were shown to be two different sides of the same coin. So, we can walk up the scientific data a bit. Yet in general, scientists build theories and that means that the position above the data itself cannot (or was not yet) proven. Still, the data points strongly into the direction of what the theory declares.
Then there are hypotheses in science, and that is basically making a jump, trying to reach for something that is higher up. We can do that, but we must then also find footing for that hypothesis. If we do find footing, then we have a theory. If we do not find footing, then we have to let go of that balloon; it did not pan out.
--
With this, it should be obvious to see that words come with their own structures. God is automatically in top position; everything else is underneath. In science, we start from the bottom, and if we follow Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, then science will not be able to come to a completeness at the overall level. Rather, completenesses will then be found only at levels below the highest level.
If you look at both structures, then they both end up with the same highest overall level: there is no proof for it.
That does not mean the highest level is not around, because as you said all words do have meaning. When I say Universe, then you understand this the same way I do to mean everything there is, everything that can be seen and everything that cannot be seen.
The essence of the article is pointing out how that highest level is different from the other levels.
Yet since we use 10,000 words or more, and all these words have their own structural settings, we normally do not pay much attention to structures inside each word. The human brain focuses on the message itself, not the structure of each word that helped create the message.
We forget that a slice of bread is the result of an arduous process; we just want a slice of bread or a glass of milk. In language, we cut out a lot of all information and just move from word to word to word to convey a message.
That means that I am trying to explain that we are using words exactly as we want to use words, and we may forget (rather easily) what the inherent structure of words is.
Particularly the largest of levels, that word will be non-functional.
The minute we make it functional, we are no longer at the overall level.
--
What I think about God is fairly easy to state: There was the original God, and something happened that caused some of God to materialize.
As such, I see the entire result of matter as a result coming from God, and made up of God but then under special circumstances.
That also means that I can still accept God in today's reality, outside of matter, yet God today is then not the same as the original God because parts of the original God were used for the material outcomes.
That need not diminish God, yet God will have lost an important ability. God is not capable of returning us to the original state.
Allow me to use the broken toy example, which is of course a bit weird when talking about God. Yet something important can be shown this way.
A broken toy shows us two things:
1. Nothing of the toy disappeared. All energy is still there. Yet the toy is in tatters.
2. The special trick the toy could perform is no longer there. It will never come back by itself.
From this, one can read that the original God had an ability that is now lost. It does not matter what that ability was, nor does it mean to indicate that God does not have other abilities still. The point is to show that God sacrificed something important for creation to come into being. We are here because God did that, and it took something away from God.
--
Mathematical reasoning is the essence. Yet the surprise is that there is not just mathematical structure; there are many.
We use the decimal system because we have ten fingers. If we had eight fingers in total, then we would likely be using the octal system.
That means math is itself also malleable.
Take the decimal system and the binary system. You probably know that we can use either mathematical system and declare the exact same things mathematically.
Yet ‘1’ in the binary system is not the ‘1’ in the decimal system. In the binary system, 1 is the same as 'on' (versus 'off' for zero), while in the decimal system 1 is most often used to indicate 'unit'.
In the decimal system, we actually have two meanings for 1. We have 'unit' and we have the 'whole' (the set) and both can be described with 1.
That means that the foundation of math itself is an agreement on how to use numbers, and there is some wiggle space, some differences inherent to math. Most people do not want to discuss this; they just want to get going with their calculations and the likes.
--
I am a structural philosopher. I discovered the big picture back in 1981, and though it was a bit of a disappointment it did help me see the big picture from that moment on. I have been communicating about it since the 1990s, when I realized that physicists do not have the correct big picture in their minds.
What they are doing is mixing religion into their science, which should not be done. These physicists believe (!) that they can find unification among all data. So, they ignore what Gödel showed us mathematically; they declare it a specific truth but not an overall truth.
That is why I write my articles. I want folks to see the inherent structures that are truly there. And I want folks to see that the human brain can fool the human brain. The human brain can ignore that what is true and walk straight into the other direction.
Thanks, R., for being curious. It is fun for me to see your replies and enthusiasm.
That said, trust yourself. Work with your own brain to see what you think of this all. Don't take my or other people's words all the way to the highest level, but investigate your own highest level. What do you know about it? Is it real? What is the foundation? Do you consider it functional by itself? Etcetera. After all, your brain uses all these words, so we need to understand how our own brain uses words.
