Hi RC,
I can't speak for Parmenides. But for me, after an intense journey to "all", I was faced with the decision to let go of my self to see what would happen. I did, I caught a glimps of absolute nothing, recognized it for what it is, came back, didn't really piss my pants, but damn close. It may sound semantic, but it was as real as it gets.
The initial principle point IS the bulk context. There is no outside of it or to it. Maybe you're thinking from the inside out? Parmenides saw it as a perfect sphere, which gives it a spatial conotation and I see it as a dimensionless point. As you said, a "point-in-principle". So; no greater context, no outside, no space, no sphere of spatial extent, etc. Just a lonely dimensionless point, which does not have a position in a greater spatial extent, as geometry would have one.
Again, it surrounds, and not the other way around. It is not locatable. There is no field it is within.
If you realize you have misunderstood what I have said, then, well, who knows?
So far and in short, you have introduced a field of all directions extending infinitely. Then a matrix of finite centers, lines, and preferences, that extend infinitely upon and within this field. All without making a logical connection between infinite and finite.
A few weeks ago, I said that you were not going to have this be a logical theory, if you didn't define center and the container of everything. I said it a little differently, but that was my jist.
If your finite extrapolations extend infinitely, then you will never know when you get to everything. Actually, you won't get to everything. You'll ride the infinite train for infinity, and never arrive at a point of everything.
As for the matrix; first of all, how does one go from infinite to finite, without a logical explanation? The matrix is not the field. It is what is upon or within the field. You've established infinity in all directions as the field, but the matrix doesn't extend to infinity in all directions. Infinity is always a step beyond the finite and a step short of everything.
As for the centers in the matrix; what centers? A matrix of centers is is made up of clones of a master or mold. Physics has not found a center to anything; micro or macro cosmically. If you can't locate the master absolutely, then you have no center to clone.
So far, you don't even have any approximations.
RC, were both too unhealthy. I'm just trying to quicken the pace. If you're convinced that what I just said is wrong, then keep running with what you've got. I will continue to monitor your posts and see what you say. I will not add any more ad hoc input.
Eric
Actually Eric, what you're doing is 'testing'. This is a good thing. So don't stop. hehehe.
And about 'point-in-principle' having no dimensions/context. Well, that is precisely it. At the present stage of our project, there is no logical/physical 'context/location BEFORE the 'coincidence-points' locations-matrix generated by the starting concept.
And re infinity/infinitesimal etc.: Stage-II is where/when we shall see what we shall see regarding how to get from infiniteness/non-locality....to....finiteness/locality. What a blast that should be!
So it seems we do NOT disagree at all in substance....merely in 'timing' of concept introduction, eh? As you say, ad hoc inputs NOT allowed, BUT you are FREE to discuss whatever aspects you want to in these threads....the only 'control' is placed when it comes to the inputs to the TOE Q & A thread process...which is strictly self-determined from the starting concept.
I understand the 'point' (hehehe) you are making. But at this stage that 'point' falls ouside the scope of 'physical/logical only' derived from our starting concept.
Hence it is 'philosophical' at this stage...but again...one never knows when that 'perspective' may be needed to 'make sense' of the final output from the 'physical/logical process.
Besides, this IS a 'philosophy' thread...and so....have at it!....and any insights gained may be useful in future stages in our TOE thread, eh? Who knows?
And I DO apologise for the slowness of things...but 'pseudo-science' and 'anti-science' has to be faced elsewhere as a priority (or all is lost if pseudo-science/anti-science prevails as the norm in future, no?)...and moreover, I'm only human. with life problems/commitments that keep coming at the most inconvenient times!
And of course, I'm not being paid for all this; nor am I making or intend to make any financial benefit from my efforts here. All in the name of objective science. Poor but willing 'natural philosopher', eh? hehehe. Typical!
But I am trying to grab some time and do those implications posts I promised.
I may grind slow; but I grind exceedingly fine!
Cheers!
RC.
.
Eric England
30th September 2006 - 06:51 PM
RC,
I'm not complaining about the time. Just pointing out, there may only be so much time.
When I go through all the threads, I see good comments by jal and others. A "spot", "true bulk", false bulk", "true bulk remaining untouched", etc. They seem, however, to have been disregarded.
What has developed, is not a logical trail at all. If you begin with absolute nothing being impossible, then it's DIRECT COUNTERPART must be the starting point. "The ABSOLUTE concept."
Infinite omni-direction is NOT the starting point. There is not one thing that is absolute about it. The absolute has to be a "spot". Not a location, not a sphere, but a dimensionless point that is not inside of a greater extent. This is the 1/true bulk.
The "false bulk" that has been spoken about, is equally important. It is within the "true bulk", at its center. It's another dimensionless point. It is not outside of a lesser extent. This 0/false bulk is the "reflective" bulk. Absolute 0 is in "respect to" absolute 1. Absolute false is in respect to absolute true. ABSOLUTE CENTER is in respect to 1/true and 0/false is at center. All "spots" have now been located. Actuality has now been established. It is dimensionless.
NOW you can have OMNI-DIRECTION. All directions in from true, to its center and out from false, at the center. You also have an absolute basis for RELATIVITIES and GRAVITY.
This is NOT philosophy in a pseudo-scientific sense. This is theoretical mathematics and physics taken to their absolute limit. Taken to their historical roots. Where they came from to begin with. All PHDs are Doctorates of branches of Philosophy. That's what PH means.
QUOTE
Doctor of Philosophy, or Ph.D., an abbreviation for the Latin "Philosophiæ Doctor"; alternatively, "Doctor philosophiæ", D.Phil. (from Greek ???????? ??????????, meaning "Teacher of Philosophy"), is a doctoral degree granted upon completion of extensive academic work in a field of study.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Doctor of Philosophy, or Ph.D., an abbreviation for the Latin "Philosophiæ Doctor"; alternatively, "Doctor philosophiæ", D.Phil. (from Greek ???????? ??????????, meaning "Teacher of Philosophy"), is a doctoral degree granted upon completion of extensive academic work in a field of study. |
And of course, I'm not being paid for all this; nor am I making or intend to make any financial benefit from my efforts here. All in the name of objective science. Poor but willing 'natural philosopher', eh? hehehe. Typical!
How does this relate to your website?
http://www.earthlingclub.com/Eric
RealityCheck
30th September 2006 - 10:56 PM
QUOTE (Eric England+Sep 30 2006, 06:51 PM)
RC,
I'm not complaining about the time. Just pointing out, there may only be so much time.
That’s OK. If I “fall off the perch”, I’m sure there will be someone who can carry on, now that the project is “self-determining” from the starting concept from stage-I. I'm not 'materialistic' or wanting to hog any 'glory' to come of this project. It's EVERYONE'S project/theory in the end, and I'm merely the 'facilitator' at this stage in our worthy collective endeavour. Who knows what the future holds for us mere mortals. Maybe YOU might turn out to be that someone to 'facilitate' when Im 'gone', eh? (not too soon, I hope! hehehe).
QUOTE (Eric England+Sep 30 2006, 06:51 PM)
When I go through all the threads, I see good comments by jal and others. A "spot", "true bulk", false bulk", "true bulk remaining untouched", etc. They seem, however, to have been disregarded.
If you read through my posting history record, you will note that in many threads (long before this special project sub-forum was set up) it was I myself who introduced the true/false ‘bulk’ aspect when discussing 'background contexts) in string theory with Good Elf and AWT with Zephir etc in the main Relativity/quantum theories forum. So no, I haven’t ignored such things, it’s just that the process we are embarked upon has to 'say' WHEN/IF such things arise as logical segues from the starting concept chosen in stage-I. IIRC, I may have already suggested that the locations matrix generated by omni-direction lines is in fact THE ‘passive’ true/primary ‘bulk’ which we may ‘perceive’ as ‘empty space’ arena or true VOID (passive omni-direction context), but of/from which all other ‘active’ phenomena we perceive must necessarily arise/subside in if omni-direction IS the actual starting ‘point’ (hehehe). And all those active infinitesimal-scale phenomena ‘things’/features, while ‘active’, will in the first ‘level’ of physical EFFECTIVENESS, form ‘the background’ on OUR scale, and so will form the false/secondary ‘bulk’ we currently call ‘spacetime’. Just like the ‘photonic’ background is the ‘active’ sea in/from which electro=magnetic phenomena arise/subside, the smallest SUB-photonic things arising from the passive matrix at the lowest/first SCALE of such ‘activation’, will form a sea of ‘active locations’ in the matrix...from which things then aggregate/de-aggregate to/from larger scale features/phenomena that we may or may not perceive at OUR scale.
BUT all THAT is still only conjecture and logical surmise from our starting concept...and while we may discuss them as we are here, it is NOT yet ‘settled’ until stage-II gives us the nature/mechanism for getting from ‘passive’ matrix to ‘active’ features/phenomena associated with the behaviour of ‘activated’ locations arising at certain ‘points’ within that passive matrix from moment to moment.
So we still have to wait for stage-II inputs/finalisation before we can say WHAT our process will ‘choose’ as the next logical mechanism/nature for continuity from ‘infinite’ PASSIVITY/BALANCE to ‘infinitesimal’ ACTIVITY/IMBALANCE(S).
QUOTE (Eric England+Sep 30 2006, 06:51 PM)
What has developed, is not a logical trail at all. If you begin with absolute nothing being impossible, then it's DIRECT COUNTERPART must be the starting point. "The ABSOLUTE concept."
Infinite omni-direction is NOT the starting point. There is not one thing that is absolute about it. The absolute has to be a "spot". Not a location, not a sphere, but a dimensionless point that is not inside of a greater extent. This is the 1/true bulk.
Note that omni-direction was the ‘starting’ PHYSICAL CONCEPT, and not the starting ‘physical/non-physical point’. The ‘point’ of DEPARTURE for our process is NOT the starting ‘physical’ point, but is merely the start of the project per se. Like the start of one READING a book, is not the actual ‘first page’ of that book; merely your OWN commencement of reading. So we should all be careful not to ‘interchange’ the use of ‘start concept’ and ‘start point’....or we will all be talking at cross-purposes “from that ‘point’ on”! hehehe.
QUOTE (Eric England+Sep 30 2006, 06:51 PM)
The "false bulk" that has been spoken about, is equally important. It is within the "true bulk", at its center. It's another dimensionless point. It is not outside of a lesser extent. This 0/false bulk is the "reflective" bulk. Absolute 0 is in "respect to" absolute 1. Absolute false is in respect to absolute true. ABSOLUTE CENTER is in respect to 1/true and 0/false is at center. All "spots" have now been located. Actuality has now been established. It is dimensionless.
NOW you can have OMNI-DIRECTION. All directions in from true, to its center and out from false, at the center. You also have an absolute basis for RELATIVITIES and GRAVITY.
From my perspective as set out earlier (above), the ‘false bulk’ must logically arise/subside and otherwise ‘flow’ from the starting concept’s true bulk. Otherwise, if there is ‘a’ point/centre, dimensionless or otherwise in that true bulk, then one has to explain why there is any such ‘point/centre’ concept AT ALL in an ‘infinite’ bulk that has not been ‘activated’. And once stage-II gives us the mechanism/nature of that activation, then ‘dimensionality’ and ‘number/quantity etc of EFFECTIVENESS at certain coincidence-point locations/centres will immediately invoke MANY ‘points/centres’. Hence a ‘one’ sole ‘point/centre’ is NOT part of the ‘infinity’ aspect...because ‘dimensionality’, until ‘activation’ of preferred direction at any location or other, is a-priori OMNI-
DIMENSIONAL in accordance with the omni-directionality of the starting concept. See what I mean about ‘no ONE point/centre’ of ANY ‘physical/philosophical’ nature/properties (irrespective of ‘dimensionless’ or not) has ‘arisen’ in any part of the process to date? Stage-II will tell us the next ‘segue’ from ‘omni’ to ‘mono’, I hope!
QUOTE (Eric England+Sep 30 2006, 06:51 PM)
This is NOT philosophy in a pseudo-scientific sense. This is theoretical mathematics and physics taken to their absolute limit. Taken to their historical roots. Where they came from to begin with. All PHDs are Doctorates of branches of Philosophy. That's what PH means.
Sorry if I didn’t make myself clearer. When I mentioned ‘speudo-science/anti-science, I was referring to what was going on in the 9/11 threads and the Creation/Evolution threads.....NOT, repeat NOT, in any way referring to philosophy or yourself. My apologies if it came across that way in my haste to finish that particular post, hehehe.
And the ‘natural philosophy’ in question was my OWN (now known as ‘science’, hehehe). Again, “humour in haste” can end up very serious if one is not careful to make it clear that it WAS humour at one’s own expense (which I apparently didn’t, hehehe). And I think that ‘philo-sophy’ means ‘lover of thinking/logic’, doesn’t it? And THAT’S all of us here at Physorg...save some notable exceptions in the 9/11 and creat/evo threads, eh!
QUOTE (Eric England+Sep 30 2006, 06:51 PM)
How does this relate to your website?
http://www.earthlingclub.com/Eric
That website was set up for a ‘loose club’ of likeminded scientists/thinkers with the intention of coming up with solutions to BIG problems. It was intended to finance our collaborative efforts with our own money and any money from sale of ideas/publications. However, because of my essentially ‘loner’ and ‘zealously independent’ nature, it soon became clear that I wanted to be strictly NON-COMMERCIAL, and distribute ideas/publications FOR FREE as best we could. That’s when most members left, because they could not afford (or be willing) to operate strictly NON-profit.
Any search in the relevant records will show that THUS FAR, we have sold NOTHING. We HAVE distributed one book to UNIVERSITIES and selected professors/researchers in the relevant field...along with the EXPLANATORY papers based on that book. Again, NO ‘income’ at all is being made, let alone any profit (I wish! hehehe). And NO 'fanfare' either....since the sharing of knowledge was the aim, not 'returns'.
That website is a ‘relic’ that is now used SOLELY to have a presence on the web for publication and communications to a larger audience FOR FREE reference and FAIR use. You will also note that NO ADVERTISING has ever been associated with that site. And that we NEVER DID get round to that ‘payments’ arrangements we were considering at the time when we thought we would be ‘commercial’, hehehe. Which reminds me, we have to wipe all THAT ‘relic’ stuff off the page! Thanks for reminding us, Eric!
By the way, that THEORY on that site was begun by me alone using a 'starting concept approach' in the same way as our project. I have only mentioned my theory/site twice here, I think. That’s because I am not ‘selling’ or ‘pushing’ anything, or all these threads would have been inundated by the usual 'pushing/selling' spam instead of 'hands-off' guidance/facilitation, eh? I just started THIS project sub-forum because the other threads and conventional theorising don’t seem to be GETTING anywhere except MORE endless argument/confusion. And anyway, I am very interested to see WHERE the PARTICIPANTS HERE (yourself included) will eventually ‘take’ this project and it’s developing TOE. It may end up at a TOTALLY DIFFERENT ‘PLACE’ than where the theory on the website did! Again, wouldn’t THAT be a BLAST to compare notes from ‘before’ and ‘after’ (so to speak)!
Again, you will note from my posting/participation here since my joining Physorg, that I ‘push’ no barrows and ‘sell’ nothing but ENCOURAGEMENT to SCIENCE AND REASON without fear or favour, or profit for that matter-------unless the privilege and pleasure gained from fruitful discussions with all the intelligent and talented participants in these and the other science/physics threads can be said to constitute ‘profit’ for me...in which case...”guilty!” hehehe).
And again, Eric, thanks for your 'testing'...it's a good thing, and much appreciated by all, especially in projects like these, because it keeps us all on our respective TOE's (ouch!....sorry, couldn't resist it!...I'm only human, despite any opinions to the contrary from anyone here! hehehe).
Good luck and good thinking all! Posting math/geometry implications SOON. Cheers till then, everyone!
RC.
.
Eric England
1st October 2006 - 07:07 PM
Hi RC,
You've shown max graciousness again. Understood about the website. Yes, I forgot about those other threads where you introduced bulk etc.
QUOTE
Note that omni-direction was the ‘starting’ PHYSICAL CONCEPT, and not the starting ‘physical/non-physical point’. The ‘point’ of DEPARTURE for our process is NOT the starting ‘physical’ point, but is merely the start of the project per se...
Ok, the starting point of the project is the decision to begin the project. Now, is the project beginning with a "physical" concept" or an "absolute concept"? The title says "begun from absolute concept", so should the title be changed?
"Infinite omni-direction" is a relative term. "Physical" is a relative term. An "absolute" has to be shown to have no contingent. No cause, source, or "other". Are you headed towards an absolute, by beginning with the relative? Or are you dismissing absolute entirely?
Why is "point" secondary, to that which has no point? Infinite omni-direction has no point. If the "logical trail" is all-important, exactly how did "matrix" come from "no-point"? How can it be stated there's a matrix of points, without defining a "master" to clone? How does "finite" come from infinite, when any reference within infinity, is infinite as well?
Is "all directions from and to all points, infinitely", an accurate assessment? If so, then you have infinite being greater than all. All, however, is greater than infinite. Infinite never arrives at all and infinitesimal doesn't arrive at "each".
A "point of each" and a "point of all", is the goal of science. Each won't be found, unless its center is found and it proves to be indivisible. All won't be found, unless we step beyond all, so we know that all is all.
The center-point of each, the point of each, and the point of all; are what have to be found, to have a hope of developing a successful TOE.
If starting with the relative will evolve into these points, then great! If you don't think you're starting with the relative, then what exactly about it, is absolute?
Eric
jal
1st October 2006 - 08:09 PM
Eric England ...RealityCheck ...all!
You are beyond my abilities...
When you do arrive at an agreeable starting point, will I be able to simplify the concept to ??? eg. a situation that is positioned to evolve to our universe?
Would it be sufficient to aknowledge that there are other infinite situations/universes?
Do we need to have our initial definition unchangeable?
Could we backtract and revise if we had forgotten/realized that we needed to include something else?
I'm not suggesting that we stop doing what we are doing.
I agree that we should try to include as much as we can now.
However, somewhere we will need to branch to a specific set of potentials situations that we think will lead to our universe.
jal
Eric England
1st October 2006 - 10:39 PM
Hi jal,
I don't see that we are trying to agree on a starting point, but I am questioning the one that has already been agreed upon.
As for being beyond your abilities, I think you've made some excellent points and asked some very important questions.
QUOTE
... will I be able to simplify the concept to ??? eg. a situation that is positioned to evolve to our universe?
The concept should not have to be simplified. In fact, it should be "unsimplifiable". Will you be able to work with it, to take or to see taken, logical steps that have no gaps? That should be the plan.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ... will I be able to simplify the concept to ??? eg. a situation that is positioned to evolve to our universe? |
The concept should not have to be simplified. In fact, it should be "unsimplifiable". Will you be able to work with it, to take or to see taken, logical steps that have no gaps? That should be the plan.
Would it be sufficient to aknowledge that there are other infinite situations/universes?
In short, no. The "multi-verse" or "multi-bang/crunch" theory, is just a placebo to stave off the inevitable questions that need answering. "What is a universe and how is it uncaused"? Or "what is uncaused and how does it relate to the universe"?
QUOTE
Do we need to have our initial definition unchangeable?
In the final analysis, yes. In the initial analysis, it depends on how much time and confusion one is willing to endure, in trying to adjust the house to an unlevel foundation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do we need to have our initial definition unchangeable? |
In the final analysis, yes. In the initial analysis, it depends on how much time and confusion one is willing to endure, in trying to adjust the house to an unlevel foundation.
Could we backtract and revise if we had forgotten/realized that we needed to include something else?
I would hope so. The question is, how soon and how far?
QUOTE
I'm not suggesting that we stop doing what we are doing.
Are you suggesting that I'm suggesting, a suggestion should be suggested, to suggest that someone suggests, we do? Ok, I'll bite. :-)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm not suggesting that we stop doing what we are doing. |
Are you suggesting that I'm suggesting, a suggestion should be suggested, to suggest that someone suggests, we do? Ok, I'll bite. :-)
I agree that we should try to include as much as we can now.
Not sure what you're suggesting.
QUOTE
However, somewhere we will need to branch to a specific set of potentials situations that we think will lead to our universe.
Infinite omni-direction has already been chosen. It may or may not lead to our universe. I said from the very beginning of my "chiming in", that I thought is was unique, in context. I didn't speak to the context, however, but I have been since.
Eric
RealityCheck
1st October 2006 - 11:16 PM
.
Hi jal, Eric and everyone.
If one reads the 'stage-I' discussions re omni-direction and it's 'survival' as THE starting concept, one will see the reasons which make that concept 'independent' from any other possible 'physical' concept that was discussed.
And I stress again that this 'physical' rider should attach to everything we consider at this stage....otherwise we would be 'philosophising' forever, rather than 'theorising' with a 'physical' TOE in view at least to START and be going on with, eh? hehehe.
As to absolutenes of omni-direction. Well, in stage-I it was successfully argued that omni-direction WAS 'independent' and 'primary' (and hence NOT 'relative' to anything but ITSELF). So, as far as WE or our PROCESS can tell, it MUST BE an 'absolute' from which all else springs/flows...including physical/logical RELATIVITIES. No?
So the upshot SO FAR is: Omni-direction is an unending/unbounded 'physical absolute' from which THE UNIVERSAL PHENOMENA (including our LOCAL 'observable' component) must necessarily be 'derived', and in which it must necessarily 'occur' actively from moment to moment and location to location throughout an otherwise infinite/passive omni-directional coincidence-line matrix.
So while philosophically one can discuss the 'abstract overview' at ANY stage-I, it must be borne in mind that the actual 'physical' project ITSELF MUST strictly follow the 'physical' logic-trail set out from our self-chosen ABSOLUTE (omni-direction). This is so that we CAN at least GET to some stage where we CAN THEN discuss 'philosophically' any RELATIVE 'physical' TOE aspects that 'output' from the 'absolute' in our present approach. And that is also when our and conventional theory/terminology will need to be 'correlated/reconciled' via our own TOE glossary (what fun THAT will be, eh?....especially if some of the conventional 'terms/concepts' are then found to be 'misleading' or even 'superfluous'!).
Hence, Eric: SO FAR, our process has identified an ABSOLUTE CONCEPT that is PHYSICAL in the sense that we can 'relate' to it as something that can have 'physical phenomenological' REPERCUSSIONS in any (single/set of) 'physical' frame(s) of reference that can possibly 'exist' in the 'concrete' rather than 'abstract' sense.
And jal: Since omni-direction is not 'confined' to any ONE reference frame, then it is ITSELF the infinite context of THE UNIVERSE (in toto; as distinct from any LOCALISED "the universe"----note lower case----sub-sets like our observable universe volume). And if a later stage sheds light on omni-direction that 'relegates' it to secondary status to some other concept identifed as 'prime' at THAT stage, then of course we must follow the logic therefrom....so there is no 'fixed' starting concept in THAT sense...but any such 'relegation' must occur as part of the self-determining logic flow, and not as 'ad hoc' input (whether philosophical or physical).
Thanks guys...I hope this answers your concerns.
Cheers all!
RC.
Janus
1st October 2006 - 11:35 PM
Hi Eric England, RealityCheck and All,
Glad to hear the base is not yet fixed.
I wish some others would put their pennies worth in re: ‘nothing’ … maybe reposition the thread … I’ve never noticed it before.
Excuse the jumping around of ideas … but I’m not writing an essay … just having a conversation.
My hope is that ‘If’ we can nail down ‘nothing’ a natural progression of what ‘Is’ will follow.
What I will strongly disagree with is if people just jump to the conclusion that nothing cannot exist … and follow their pet TOE … which will lead to the usual rubbish … has to be from the begging … if people haven’t one … then they have no TOE.
It this inability that has farmed so many theories and so many particles all backed-up by excellent mathematics/theories etc … which then spawned ‘The Standard Model’ … because everything was getting out of hand.
Unfortunately ‘The Standard Model’ (and String theory and others) from the start goes right ahead and shoots itself in the foot … twice … firstly with the Planck length and then the Planck time … they have no way of going back any further … even though everything points to a start from ‘nothing’.
No matter how big a ring CERN builds they are constrained by Planck … ‘The Standard Model’ will also get out of hand … but they will keep it under control by being selective in what they publish … and the pawns will continue to ‘crank’ any new thought because it doesn’t follow the ‘The Standard Model’ … any of this new?
End of ramble … I mean philosophising.
Aside … I do actually like the ‘The Standard Model’ but it won’t answer all our questions.
To Eric:
We are a lot closer in ideas than you think … even though it seems we are at odds with ‘nothing’.
If, I put my concept like this … that zero is talking about no mass, no energy, or any other physical property, this includes space and time … whereas ‘nothing’ is something else.
The view of the macro being the visible and micro as the invisible … all existing in the same bubble is what I am against.
‘Nothing’ has two states so to me the macro is in one bubble and the micro in another … but both working and requiring each other … i.e. there is a phase change between the macro and micro … there is not a straight route to each domain.
Re mathematical zero, there is a negative zero, its just that we chose to ignore it (I’ve shown why before) … also zero is a complex number which is real and imaginary … so mathematical it has two states … RealityCheck has only given part of the story and is referring to zero … I’m referring to ‘nothing’ being only akin to zero … anyway there is distance between ‘zero’ and ‘nothing’ … we can think of ‘nothing’ as a term describing the set itself, whereas ‘zero’ is a term not describing a set, but an element.
The confusion between the two is a result of the fact that the number of elements in the
empty set is 0 … so the discussion need not get complicated.
Re philosophical zero or nothingness … well this is where I’m trying to give a new concept.
You cannot tie me up and suggest ‘look Janus, this what zero/nothingness means … this is what has been philosophised … you can only work round this’ … to me it is too flaky, only a wire frame … we need to give it some form.
Much what I am saying is not new … in the I Ching two states (positive and negative) will make a third … and upwards towards infinite states … unfortunately it referrers to these higher levels as requiring higher understanding … but to me we haven’t got out of bed yet … true understanding is not achievable until we can state where the two states came from.
If Buddha can contemplate his navel and come up with wisdom … I’m hoping we can get the same results from contemplating ‘nothing’.
Re physics, we have the theoretical tools to describe a system with no particles.
The methods in quantum field theory provides the means to move mathematically from a state with (n) particles to a state of more or fewer particles, including zero particles … that is if an n-particle state can be described … then so can a state with (n = 0).
Note … Physics talks about the total energy of the universe being zero … fortunately not ‘nothing’.
If we quantum mechanically look at a system of (n) photons of equal energy (E).
The mathematical description of the field is equivalent to a harmonic oscillator whose quantum solution is a series of energy levels equally spaced by an amount (E).
Each field would have one more photon than the field below.
Looking from the bottom we get to a field of zero photons … but this is not classed as zero energy but as (E/2).
This is called the ‘zero-point energy’.
This is true for all bosons i.e. particles that have zero or integral spin.
But, fermions that have half-integral spin, such as the electron and quarks … which have a zero-point energy of (negative E/2) … negative energy is permitted in relativistic quantum mechanics … again two states is no problem.
Even with the above understanding, we have got ourselves into problems because the understanding and the physical world is different … e.g. cosmological constant.
Quote from Wiki:
“… the cosmological constant problem, the worst problem of fine-tuning in physics: there is no known natural way to derive the infinitesimal cosmological constant observed in cosmology from particle physics.”
i.e. A simple calculation indicates that the energy density of the vacuum is about 120 times greater than its experimental upper limit.
This calculation must go down as the worst in scientific history … but are there more?
Also Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provides a natural explanation for how energy may have come out of nothing … ‘virtual particles’ appear and disappear without breaking the law of the conservation of energy.
Again, full understanding of ‘virtual particles’ is not correct because people now start thinking of multi-worlds being possible … and off we go in another direction.
Aside … in my thought experiments I create ‘virtual particles’ via a glass dome which I evacuate at various pressures … at a certain high pressure I observe many red sparks that appear and disappear very quickly … closer inspection shows that only one (pair really, a Cooper pair) red spark is present at any instant … this is because ‘virtual particles’ are ‘secondary nothings’ … they spontaneously appear in a vacuum … but because they immediately become aware that they are not required they disappear.
I have got similar results compressing water … this time the virtual particles were blue in colour.
Others have obtained the ‘Casimir effect’ via parallel metal plates.
The closer we get to ‘nothing’ … strange things seem to happen.
……………………………………
This is how Nobel Laureate physicist Frank Wilczek put it:
"The answer to the ancient question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' would then be that 'nothing' is unstable."
I just want to take it back a step to suggest why it might be unstable … and why it is a one off occurrence … then define a model for ‘nothing’ that allows us to go forward, naturally.
Cheers
RealityCheck
1st October 2006 - 11:54 PM
.
Hi Janus.
The 'nothing' you seem to be contemplating appears the same as jal's and others' (and our project's) 'balanced state' which can be 'effectively' nothing....insofar as 'physical action' is concerned.
But if an 'imbalance' is introduced, then that 'nothing' HAS some 'preferred' action at that affected 'location' in that so-called 'nothingness'.
Hence that 'nothingness' was merely a 'state' of the absolute 'something' which may be 'activated' via imbalane in its inherent properties/characteristics. So again, 'nothing' may be 'something' that is in balance...but it is NOT ever 'nothingness' per se....but merely a 'perceptual' nothing simply because it is always the 'ground state' in and from and to which all else springs/interacts/subsides.
All other 'forms' of 'nothingness', whether mathematical/philosophical, are (so far at least!) 'abstract', and 'elements' ONLY of the particular abstract 'construct' that gave them 'pseudo-existence' within that abstract (not actual) 'system'.
Still rushed....but I hope I have explained it better this time, Janus. hehehe. Cheers!
RC.
.
jal
2nd October 2006 - 01:08 AM
Good day!
I see that our various backgrounds are going to be affecting the process.
Good!
I think that RealityCheck will have to keep at bay the various "old guys" syndromes.... like forgetting what went on before. heheh (I mean me)
jal
Eric England
2nd October 2006 - 06:21 PM
Hi RC, jal, Janus, et al
QUOTE (RC+)
...absolutely independent PHYSICAL (NOT metaphysical etc.) concept that EVERYONE can agree on.
In trying to keep with this, can "physical" be removed as a limitation that is not yet in evidence? Is there enough historical evidence, to show that physical might be a contingent "relative"? Is there enough historical evidence to warrant considering "logical thinking" as the only limitation?
If there is and only if there is, might it be accurate to say that a "starting concept" would be "something" that is uncaused, and unable to be divided, multiplied, added to, or subtracted from? Something beyond any notion of mass, space, time, and force?
In short, something that is "absolute" (independently existent), yet "implies" (involves out of logical necessity) the "relative"?
Eric
Janus
2nd October 2006 - 09:01 PM
QUOTE (Eric England+Oct 2 2006, 06:21 PM)
[If there is and only if there is, might it be accurate to say that a "starting concept" would be "something" that is uncaused, and unable to be divided, multiplied, added to, or subtracted from? Something beyond any notion of mass, space, time, and force?
Hi Eric, RC, jal, et al
I thought you could see it ... that is exactly my 'nothing' ... hehehe (Mutley laugh).
Cheers
Eric England
2nd October 2006 - 09:38 PM
Hi Janus,
Yeah, just trying to speak to everyone.
But even before getting to the question of whether the "something" is "nothing, doesn't your nothing have two states and become a third? If so, then it is "relative" to begin with. Two states in relation to each other, can't be an absolute. The third state can't qualify as an absolute, because an absolute can't come from a relative.
Eric
RealityCheck
2nd October 2006 - 09:45 PM
QUOTE (Eric England+Oct 2 2006, 06:21 PM)
Hi RC, jal, Janus, et al
QUOTE (RC+)
...absolutely independent PHYSICAL (NOT metaphysical etc.) concept that EVERYONE can agree on.
In trying to keep with this, can "physical" be removed as a limitation that is not yet in evidence? Is there enough historical evidence, to show that physical might be a contingent "relative"? Is there enough historical evidence to warrant considering "logical thinking" as the only limitation?
If there is and only if there is, might it be accurate to say that a "starting concept" would be "something" that is uncaused, and unable to be divided, multiplied, added to, or subtracted from? Something beyond any notion of mass, space, time, and force?
In short, something that is "absolute" (independently existent), yet "implies" (involves out of logical necessity) the "relative"?
Eric
Hi Eric. One of the aims of this project is to avoid the 'endless speculation' that ensues once 'theorising' leaves the 'physical' plane, hehehe. Which is what's happening NOW in the conventional/professional field.
One of the requirements was that at all times we must be able to 'relate' our project's 'concepts/results' to the reality around us. Otherwise, what's the point, hehehe?
The reason for the 'physical' rider was to keep the project 'grounded' for at least long enough for us to "get somewhere" that reflects the reality. THEN, in order to make 'human thinking' SENSE out of any 'physical' TOE we DO 'arrive at', we will necessarily introduce the 'metaphysical' and other aspects to 'ROUND IT OFF', as it were.
The rule of 'physicality' at present must remain....or all will be confusion for sure! And we don't want to re-join the conventional-confusions-crowd so soon, do we, eh? hehehe.
Let's see what OUR process AS DESIGNED will bring. We can always modify it LATER ON. But again, that 'physicality' rider is NOT meant to apply to any "background" discussions here or elsewhere...it only applies for the TOE Q&A stages inputs/outputs!
Here in this and the other associated threads we can 'speculate' about anything even remotely relevant to human thinking on these matters!
QUOTE (Janus+Oct 2 2006, 09:01 PM)
Hi Eric, RC, jal, et al
QUOTE (Eric+)
If there is and only if there is, might it be accurate to say that a "starting concept" would be "something" that is uncaused, and unable to be divided, multiplied, added to, or subtracted from? Something beyond any notion of mass, space, time, and force?
I thought you could see it ... that is exactly my 'nothing' ... hehehe (Mutley laugh).
Cheers
Actually, the starting concept MUST be 'divisible' etc....else we could not exist as part of the 'changing' and waxing/waning universal phenomena.
And since 'zero' or 'nothing' per se (as distinct from 'passivity/balance' of 'something') cannot be 'divided', changed etc, then that 'type' of 'abstract' nothingness/zero is ipso facto NOT the starting concept that will give what we observe.
And as for any notion of mass, space, time etc....these things either 'derive' from the starting concept or they are 'ad hoc' inputs.....and in either case, they are not the determinants of the INHERENT characteristics/properties of a starting concept, but rather its inherent CONSEQUENCES of its 'divisions', changes etc.
So Eric, Janus: it seems that our starting concept is NOT that particular type of 'nothingness'....or else we would not "be" here at all doing anything, let alone discussing nothing, eh? hehehe.
Cheers!
RC.
.
Eric England
3rd October 2006 - 12:27 AM
Hi RC,
I'm not trying to make this thread affect the other thread right now, just seeing if we can lay some groundwork for the possible eventuality. If you or anyone one sees a point being made, it would be nice to speak to it, however. I mean really speak to it directly. No use in letting any approach go around in circles.
QUOTE
One of the requirements was that at all times we must be able to 'relate' our project's 'concepts/results' to the reality around us. Otherwise, what's the point, hehehe?
Do you see any absolutes around us? If you were to remain consistent with the requirement, then you would have to begin with a "relative concept". With "absolute concept", you are beginning with a reality we don't see around us.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| One of the requirements was that at all times we must be able to 'relate' our project's 'concepts/results' to the reality around us. Otherwise, what's the point, hehehe? |
Do you see any absolutes around us? If you were to remain consistent with the requirement, then you would have to begin with a "relative concept". With "absolute concept", you are beginning with a reality we don't see around us.
The rule of 'physicality' at present must remain....or all will be confusion for sure! And we don't want to re-join the conventional-confusions-crowd so soon, do we, eh?
Hasn't "physicality" been the rule of thumb for the "the conventional-confusions-crowd"? You wouldn't per chance, feel unfamiliar with philosophy and be trying to shy away from it, while science is just starting to attempt to embrace it? Hawking has been calling for the "why" for 20 years. Einstein stated it's all an illusion. Many are refering to the mind of God.
QUOTE
Actually, the starting concept MUST be 'divisible' etc....else we could not exist as part of the 'changing' and waxing/waning universal phenomena.
There's a universe of difference between starting with the divisible, and starting with something indivisble, which can then lead to the divisible. Are you planning on starting with the relative and finding the absolute? That's exactly what science is doing. Theoretically and physically smashing stuff, to find something that is indivisible. Looking for something that can stand alone. Trying to reconcile GR and QM. Trying to reconcile the finite with the infinite. Trying to take "twos" and turn them into "ones".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Actually, the starting concept MUST be 'divisible' etc....else we could not exist as part of the 'changing' and waxing/waning universal phenomena. |
There's a universe of difference between starting with the divisible, and starting with something indivisble, which can then lead to the divisible. Are you planning on starting with the relative and finding the absolute? That's exactly what science is doing. Theoretically and physically smashing stuff, to find something that is indivisible. Looking for something that can stand alone. Trying to reconcile GR and QM. Trying to reconcile the finite with the infinite. Trying to take "twos" and turn them into "ones".
Let's see what OUR process AS DESIGNED will bring. We can always modify it LATER ON. But again, that 'physicality' rider is NOT meant to apply to any "background" discussions here or elsewhere...it only applies for the TOE Q&A stages inputs/outputs!
I understand and appreciate being able to have this side discussion. I really do. Most places wouldn't allow a sub-thread like this. That's why I drug everbody over here, so you could work the project the way it was designed.
Eric
RealityCheck
3rd October 2006 - 01:39 AM
QUOTE (Eric England+Oct 3 2006, 12:27 AM)
Hi RC,
I'm not trying to make this thread affect the other thread right now, just seeing if we can lay some groundwork for the possible eventuality. If you or anyone one sees a point being made, it would be nice to speak to it, however. I mean really speak to it directly. No use in letting any approach go around in circles.
Do you see any absolutes around us? If you were to remain consistent with the requirement, then you would have to begin with a "relative concept". With "absolute concept", you are beginning with a reality we don't see around us.
Hasn't "physicality" been the rule of thumb for the "the conventional-confusions-crowd"? You wouldn't per chance, feel unfamiliar with philosophy and be trying to shy away from it, while science is just starting to attempt to embrace it? Hawking has been calling for the "why" for 20 years. Einstein stated it's all an illusion. Many are refering to the mind of God.
There's a universe of difference between starting with the divisible, and starting with something indivisble, which can then lead to the divisible. Are you planning on starting with the relative and finding the absolute? That's exactly what science is doing. Theoretically and physically smashing stuff, to find something that is indivisible. Looking for something that can stand alone. Trying to reconcile GR and QM. Trying to reconcile the finite with the infinite. Trying to take "twos" and turn them into "ones".
I understand and appreciate being able to have this side discussion. I really do. Most places wouldn't allow a sub-thread like this.
That's why I drug everbody over here, so you could work the project the way it was designed.
Eric
With regards to the bolded part in your last paragraph above, Eric: It's MUCH appreciated, I assure you, mate! Thanks from all of us here!
Regarding your other valid concerns/questions:
Well, the conventional approach is backwards from the top down....as you observe with the 'reductionist from relativities to absolutes' approach at the 'colliders'.
So we're trying to do it from the bottom up: 'reverse-reductionists from absolute to relativities'....just to see what happens, hehehe!
And where conventional/professional theorising starts from observed/ad hoc RELATIVE concepts, our approach began with an 'independent' concept IRRESPECTIVE of any and all 'frames' of reference. So in that sense, our starting absolute is just that, absolute INSOFAR as our process has identified it as THE starter concept. So, no, we haven't started from a 'relative' and trying to get to an 'absolute'. We already have our 'absolute'...and we're going to run with it until the logic-trail leads elsewhere!
Basically, at this stage, omni-direction has no 'relativities' EXTERNAL to ITSELF...only possible/likely relativities------or we wouldn't exist at all, eh?----- which must by definition DERIVE from its inherent characteristics/properties....which may include 'divisibility', imbalanceability etc.
And THAT's the sort of thing stage-II is designed to 'begin exploring' and 'identifying'....but still and always having regard to what we observe (our ongoing 'reality test'); so that we do not end up with yet another 'abstract construct' that can be speculated about ad naseum without anything ever being settled physically OR metaphysically...just as is happening conventionally/professionally in the field NOW, eh? hehehe.
And lastly, just because we want to keep the project 'grounded' in SOME reality, it does not mean we 'control' its logic, merely its 'applicability' and relevance OVERALL. So just because our starting concept is something we CAN relate to 'physically' and 'reality-wise', it does not necessarily make it NON-absolute/independent. Our 'reality test' comes AFTER a concept/derivation is proposed....so it's really a 'checks and balances' thing....a reasonable minimum condition which any theorising process must begin with if it's not to go in ALL DIRECTIONS AT ONCE (hehehe) but NEVER get ANYWHERE IN PARTICULAR....as is the status quo in the professional/conventional theorising!
So....while our project is DIFFERENT enough, it is ALSO 'GROUNDED' enough; so that PROFESSIONAL/CONVENTIONAL theorists in the affected fields CANNOT THEN MERELY DISMISS ITS RESULTS as just some MORE 'speculation' based on abstract/ad hoc ideas/processes that bear no relation to observed phenomena.
See what we're trying to avoid while also being 'different' and 'novel'? A difficult balancing act! hehehe. Let's see if we can pull it off, I say!
Cheers for now!
RC.
.
Eric England
3rd October 2006 - 06:01 PM
RC,
QUOTE
So we're trying to do it from the bottom up: 'reverse-reductionists from absolute to relativities'....just to see what happens, hehehe!
It's interesting you say from the bottom up. As I suggested the other day, it seems like you're working from the inside out and I'm thinking from the outside in. So in this case, I'm working from the top down.
As much as it might seem I'm working against you, as I said at the beginning, I found your starting point to be quite refreshing. Consider my comments a "reflection" of your approach, and although they may be finding "faults", I think we are working towards the "middle".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So we're trying to do it from the bottom up: 'reverse-reductionists from absolute to relativities'....just to see what happens, hehehe! |
It's interesting you say from the bottom up. As I suggested the other day, it seems like you're working from the inside out and I'm thinking from the outside in. So in this case, I'm working from the top down.
As much as it might seem I'm working against you, as I said at the beginning, I found your starting point to be quite refreshing. Consider my comments a "reflection" of your approach, and although they may be finding "faults", I think we are working towards the "middle".
... a reasonable minimum condition which any theorising process must begin with if it's not to go in ALL DIRECTIONS AT ONCE... but NEVER get ANYWHERE IN PARTICULAR....as is the status quo in the professional/conventional theorising
This is interestng also. You just described where you don't want to go, as where you're beginning. "Going in all-directions and never arriving at a point"... is "infinite omni-direction".
QUOTE
Basically, at this stage, omni-direction has no 'relativities' EXTERNAL to ITSELF...only possible/likely relativities------or we wouldn't exist at all, eh?----- which must by definition DERIVE from its inherent characteristics/properties....which may include 'divisibility', imbalanceability etc.
Omni-direction has "no-direction" external to itself. They're a pair of relative opposites. Infinity is also a pair of opposites. Towards infinitesimal and towards infinite. These opposites can be incorporated though, no problem. It's not necessarily about "exist or not exist", but something in between. Remember I mentioned, that absolutely nothing is the only thing that does NOT exist?
"Reality is merely an ILLUSION, albeit a very persistent one." – Einstein
Somewhere between no-direction and all-direction is the whole of the illusion. Somewhere between the infinitesimal and the infinite (which are not points) is also the whole of the illusion.
There are other aspects external to the illusion, which affect it, but I'll leave them for later. The main thing you're headed for, in my estimation, is the three "points-in-principle".
All directions in from the greater, to its center. All directions out from the lesser, which is at center. No actual direction at or from center (the center being everywhere). But the lesser point being in respect to the greater (reflecting), allowing for an "illusion" or "image". Blah, blah, blah.
Three principle points that ACTUALLY EXIST, a universe that DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST, and absolutely nothing which DOES NOT EXIST.
The caps are for clarity, not emphasis.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Basically, at this stage, omni-direction has no 'relativities' EXTERNAL to ITSELF...only possible/likely relativities------or we wouldn't exist at all, eh?----- which must by definition DERIVE from its inherent characteristics/properties....which may include 'divisibility', imbalanceability etc. |
Omni-direction has "no-direction" external to itself. They're a pair of relative opposites. Infinity is also a pair of opposites. Towards infinitesimal and towards infinite. These opposites can be incorporated though, no problem. It's not necessarily about "exist or not exist", but something in between. Remember I mentioned, that absolutely nothing is the only thing that does NOT exist?
"Reality is merely an ILLUSION, albeit a very persistent one." – Einstein
Somewhere between no-direction and all-direction is the whole of the illusion. Somewhere between the infinitesimal and the infinite (which are not points) is also the whole of the illusion.
There are other aspects external to the illusion, which affect it, but I'll leave them for later. The main thing you're headed for, in my estimation, is the three "points-in-principle".
All directions in from the greater, to its center. All directions out from the lesser, which is at center. No actual direction at or from center (the center being everywhere). But the lesser point being in respect to the greater (reflecting), allowing for an "illusion" or "image". Blah, blah, blah.
Three principle points that ACTUALLY EXIST, a universe that DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST, and absolutely nothing which DOES NOT EXIST.
The caps are for clarity, not emphasis.
See what we're trying to avoid while also being 'different' and 'novel'? A difficult balancing act! hehehe. Let's see if we can pull it off, I say!
I agree.
Eric
Eric England
5th October 2006 - 04:33 PM
Upon waking this morning, I had a thought.
I've noticed over the years, a tendency for people to reject the idea, that it's all an "illusion". And understanbly so, I might add.
So where does that leave us, if it is an illusion? Just where we've always been; being a very convinced part, of a very convincing illusion. The "very persistent" illusion.
So what would it mean to mankind, to be able to see through and beyond the illusion, while still being a part of it?
Janus
8th October 2006 - 12:52 AM
QUOTE (Eric England+Oct 5 2006, 04:33 PM)
So what would it mean to mankind, to be able to see through and beyond the illusion, while still being a part of it?
Hi Eric et al'
Yes nice idea … I’ve also contemplated whether everything is just an elusion.
Can I just put a picture (simile) to your omi-direction theory … I think this is what you mean … but it is not what is actually happening … let me know.
If we have a jar containing oil and water which has been shaken … it will eventually separate to a layer of water and a layer of oil … lets say the oil pulls in one direction and the water in the opposite … but not enough to pull them apart.
The boundary of the interface is where your reality (illusion of reality) lies.
Unfortunately, this still begs the question of where did the oil and water come from … in the same way … if God created everything … where did God come from.
Re if we are an illusion, and we know we are an elusion … this is the magic ingredient that makes us now real.
In the same way the original observer (called God) … created out of nothing and the inverse of nothing … went through the same process … understanding that it was imaginary … which meant the inverse happened and became real.
My beginning start with the paradox of ‘nothing’ which is imaginary … the vesica again is imaginary … but the intersection is the third state created through the realisation of the ‘I Am’.
In the same way we get our realisation of ‘I Am’ through our brain being in two halves … there is an invisible third state that holds the ‘I Am’
Again, as in everything, there is a paradox … could we make an ‘android’ think it is real … that is build a ‘duel cpu’ similar to our brain … as stated above if you think you are real you become real.
Some philosophy to put on tee-shirts, anywhere, etc:
“You’re not Anybody
Till you Think
You’re Somebody”
“Am I Big?
Am I Small?
I Am All.”
NB:
Free use by any individual for non-profit use only.
For monetary use, ask for conditions first.
Cheers
Eric England
8th October 2006 - 02:53 AM
Hey Janus,
QUOTE
Can I just put a picture (simile) to your omi-direction theory … I think this is what you mean … but it is not what is actually happening … let me know.
"My" omni-direction theory, isn't accurate. I'm woking from another basline.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Can I just put a picture (simile) to your omi-direction theory … I think this is what you mean … but it is not what is actually happening … let me know. |
"My" omni-direction theory, isn't accurate. I'm woking from another basline.
The boundary of the interface is where your reality (illusion of reality) lies.
If you're talking about mine – then it lies between the FOCUS of one dimensional point, TO its center, and the REFLECTION of another dimesionless point, AT its center.
The ILLUSION, is that MOVEMENT at or from CENTER, is possible.
QUOTE
In the same way the original observer (called God) … created out of nothing and the inverse of nothing … went through the same process … understanding that it was imaginary … which meant the inverse happened and became real.
I do believe you have it 180 degrees out of phase. This describes us as believing the universe is real and God is imaginary. What happens when you look in the mirror? You are the source of an inverted image. If you came to the conclusion you were imaginary, would the image in the mirror become real?
I'm not saying that you have to believe God is real and the universe is an illusion, just that in keeping with the question – "So what would it mean to mankind, to be able to see through and beyond the illusion, while still being a part of it?" – you are countering with, "what would it mean to mankind to see through and beyond reality, and see God as an illusion, while still being a part of reality"?
Two very differnt questions, with two very different answers.
Eric
Janus
9th October 2006 - 11:50 PM
Hi Eric
If only we could keep everything to two questions … eh?
I’m just saying … that which the original ‘nothing’ created was imaginary.
But the nature of nothing:
Going from one state … to inverse … to equilibrium … to cognition of ‘I Am’ is the instant when the imaginary turns to a reality.
This is how I’ve pushed my thoughts to this conclusion:
If ‘nothing’ was a single entity … in the sense as everybody understands ‘nothing’ … then there is no way that ‘anything’ could be produced from ‘nothing’ … and this where everybody stops.
Of course I didn’t stop … we come from nothing … so the answer must be around there.
Next step … two ‘nothings’ … this doesn’t seem promising … but eventually saw that ‘nothing’ has two different states … akin to zero which has two states (explained in previous post).
Next, I could see that ‘nothing’ was going to have problems trying to be ‘nothing’.
That is, it could bounce between the two states or find equilibrium between the two states.
Because we are here, then it must have found an equilibrium … which now is a third state … the famous trinity … that is required for things to happen.
Aside … Christians believe that the Trinity existed at the beginning and not after Jesus as man … that is why we have a belief of a three-in-one God … also the Christian ‘fish’ symbol is actually a portion of the vesica … turned into a ‘fish’ to hide the three-in-one concept.
The three-in-one concept can also be understood as:
God as the ‘I am’
Jesus as the macro
Holy Ghost as the micro
Next step is to explain how this imaginary equilibrium undergoes a phase transition in to a reality.
Well firstly, it has to be taken into account that the bouncing between the two states must have created potential energy (virtual energy) … how many times did it bounced? … don’t know.
But there had to be a point of when the equilibrium state had self realisation … and that is when the system became a reality … the potential energy is released via the macro and micro (a big bang of sorts).
The ‘trinity’ is an entity, that once created cannot return to ‘nothing’ and is not part of what we call our universe/cosmos … but is the source of our own reality.
Now at this stage, all that is required is to accept that there is a phase transition between the macro and the micro … that is the macro and the micro are not in the same bubble.
Now if this concept 'nothing' is acceptable, I can continue with what form the potential energy took and how matter gets assembled, including the dimensions.
The bottom line is that we are energy with mind … mind makes us real and also everything else.
Cheers
Eric England
10th October 2006 - 06:15 PM
Hi Janus,
I do understand and appraciate your serious attempt, at trying to see how nothing could be the source of something.
QUOTE
If ‘nothing’ was a single entity … in the sense as everybody understands ‘nothing’ … then there is no way that ‘anything’ could be produced from ‘nothing’ … and this where everybody stops.
I agree. Except for one thing. You are dividing it and I am negating it. By negating it, I don't mean dismissing it, but showing how it could never exist.
You and I do disagree on what the solution is, and I doubt that will ever change.
Eric
Janus
11th October 2006 - 11:42 PM
QUOTE (Eric England+Oct 10 2006, 06:15 PM)
I do understand and appraciate your serious attempt, at
I agree. Except for one thing. You are dividing it and I am negating it. By negating it, I don't mean dismissing it, but showing how it could never exist.
Hi Eric
We have a communication problem.
When you say ‘negate’ are you saying you will ‘disprove’ my concept … I await your words.
It’s just that reading through the thread again, I get the feeling you seem to be misunderstanding the concept and also misinterpreting what I am saying.
My feeling is that you disapprove of the concept … which is totally different … as you and anyone else have plenty of time to find some arguments if you want to disprove it.
Asides … The way in which people are being taught to ‘think’ these days is flawed.
There is a misconception between what a computer/mathematics can solve and what a brain can solve … there is too much reliance on the former and ‘common sense’ has been relegated to no better than a guess … philosophers? No one understands them anyway.
I ask you, give me a computer model that works successfully … that is weather model, economic model, etc. that has come even close to predicting something correctly.
We have fallen into the ‘Turing trap’ … he stated that anything with finite rules can be solved by computer … so why are our computer models producing so much rubbish?
The weather follows simple rules, economics follows simple rules … the variables are all finite … where’s the problem?
We jump straight to the conclusion that it is not solvable … and don’t anybody try either … every problem today becomes a ‘Turing’s halting problem’.
Of course there are things ‘we don't know we don't know’ … but that is today … tomorrow is another day.
On the other hand, a computer you can be given until infinity and it will never solve something it cannot solve … even a monkey with a type writer will solve the problem, given infinite time … probably sooner.
The question is: why are going down this road of ones and zero?
Doesn’t anybody see that we being turned in to philosophical zombies (p-zombies)?
………….
The concept that I have put forward is simple and easy to understand … you cannot negate by saying it is wrong.
Quantum physics states that if a tree falls but no one sees it, then it doesn’t make a noise.
This does not sit well with most people … and has become contentious.
All I’m saying is, if a tree thinks it exists it will make a noise without there being an observer.
Again I have to clarify … you cannot say ‘I don’t exist’ after you have existed … that’s faulty Ancient Greek philosophy … that is: for something to be true the reverse had to be true as well.
And in the same way once ‘nothing’ has found its equilibrium state there is no way of undoing this.
I will state once more:
The task of ‘nothing’ is to be ‘nothing’ … which it found impossible.
You cannot say: ‘nothing’ never existed … it did, but only once … till it found its equilibrium state … then it became something else.
………….
Mathematics is only a model … it’s not what is really happening … and not exact either.
Physics is empirical and only describes effects … its models are not what is really happening.
The Bible speaks in pictures … but it is not what really happened eg: the tree of knowledge was not a tree; the snake was not a snake: the fruit was not a fruit … it just means that Adam and Eve chose knowledge … and so would you, if you’d only known paradise.
If you want the truth philosophise.
Cheers
Eric England
12th October 2006 - 02:32 AM
Janus,
QUOTE
We have a communication problem.
When you say ‘negate’ are you saying you will ‘disprove’ my concept … I await your words.
I'm not refering to disproving your concept at all. I'm simply refering to absolute nothing. You have your idea of how something can come from nothing, and that's fine.
I have my idea of how "absolute nothing" wasn't there to begin with. I don't need to disprove yours and you don't need to disprove mine.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
We have a communication problem. When you say ‘negate’ are you saying you will ‘disprove’ my concept … I await your words. |
I'm not refering to disproving your concept at all. I'm simply refering to absolute nothing. You have your idea of how something can come from nothing, and that's fine.
I have my idea of how "absolute nothing" wasn't there to begin with. I don't need to disprove yours and you don't need to disprove mine.
You cannot say: ‘nothing’ never existed
As for "absolutely nothing" – I have, I do, I will, and I explained it. As for "no-thing", that's a different story.
Again Janus, we don't agree, so what?
Eric
jal
18th October 2006 - 04:52 PM
Good Day!
Maybe? .... moving on to an other point....heheheh
Are we going to keep the speed of light constant?
Think through what "bill of goods" that you have been assuming to be true before answering.
jal
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.