Hello everyone.
Discussion with TRoc has convinced me that any truly 'complete' TOE theory must ultimately have 'philosophical' meaning for the 'minds', as well as 'physical' meaning for the 'brains', of we poor humans! So I have started THIS 3rd ASSOCIATE thread to run 'in parallel' with the TOE thread and the OTHER associated threads ("mathematical/number-theory" and "physical-theory-comparisons" and etc.).
As for those OTHER associated threads, the title is self-explanatory; and it is left to the discretion and common sense of any would-be contributor to keep relevant and to the point as far as is consistent with fruitful, wide-ranging discussion of any philosophical aspects that 'fall' out of our TOE as we slowly grind towards its 'completion' (hopefully!).
'Philosophy' loosely translates as 'lover of contemplation/thinking/reasoning'; so good luck....good thinking...and....ENJOY!
RealityCheck.
.
Hi RealityCheck and TRoc,
Of course you all realize this fundamental point about a Theory of Everything... It is ultimately the quest for the "Philosopher's Stone". The Theory of Everything will enable all to transmute base metal into precious metal and of course unlock the secrets of the Universe guaranteeing "immortality"... he he he! Careful all who tread here! Newton did and went mad. You must choose wisely.
A secular explanation from Answers.com...
Philosopher's Stone
Like it or not... this is a band of Wizards and Witches all intent on Alchemical Wisdom
Beware blasphemers, you are warned.. "Seek ye the Grail?" "Whom does the Grail serve?"
"Answer and die."
Cheers
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Hermes and the other philosophers say that if a man has this knowledge for a thousand years and had to nourish seven thousand people daily, he would still have enough, and Senior (Ibn Umail) says that such a man is as rich as the man who possesses the philosopher's stone from which you can get, and so give, fire to whomever you wish" Unfortunately this science of "God" and secret of the philosophers is despised by fools who do not know what it is and for that reason there will always be poverty and unhappiness in the World. The Philosophers Stone... Peter Marshall |
Of course you all realize this fundamental point about a Theory of Everything... It is ultimately the quest for the "Philosopher's Stone". The Theory of Everything will enable all to transmute base metal into precious metal and of course unlock the secrets of the Universe guaranteeing "immortality"... he he he! Careful all who tread here! Newton did and went mad. You must choose wisely.
QUOTE
"If ... there is some end of the things we do, which we desire for its own sake (everything else being desired for the sake of this), ... clearly this must be the good and the chief good. Will not the knowledge of it, then, have a great influence on life? Shall we not, like archers who have a mark to aim at, be more likely to hit upon what is right?" --Nichomachean Ethics, I 1.
A secular explanation from Answers.com...
Philosopher's Stone
Like it or not... this is a band of Wizards and Witches all intent on Alchemical Wisdom
Beware blasphemers, you are warned.. "Seek ye the Grail?" "Whom does the Grail serve?""Answer and die."
Cheers
Hi Good Elf (and everyone).
All that you have brought to our attention, GE, has to do with 'motives', 'aims', 'intents' etc. of THE PHILOSOPHER; it has nothing to say about THE PHILOSOPHICAL KNOWLEDGE 'itself' that is acquired as a result of the PHILOSOPHICAL JOURNEY/PROCESS.
Meaning, GE, that perhaps in this thread we should leave the 'personal applications' of 'knowledge/understanding' to each individual's discretion/philosophy of life; and concentrate mainly on the 'objective' communicable-'knowledge/understanding' aspects per se...at least until we have some sort of 'consensus' as to the 'true/right' (whoa!) philosophy, hehehe.
Anyhow, that's my two-cent's worth at this stage, GE, everyone. Good luck and good thinking!
RC.
.
All that you have brought to our attention, GE, has to do with 'motives', 'aims', 'intents' etc. of THE PHILOSOPHER; it has nothing to say about THE PHILOSOPHICAL KNOWLEDGE 'itself' that is acquired as a result of the PHILOSOPHICAL JOURNEY/PROCESS.
Meaning, GE, that perhaps in this thread we should leave the 'personal applications' of 'knowledge/understanding' to each individual's discretion/philosophy of life; and concentrate mainly on the 'objective' communicable-'knowledge/understanding' aspects per se...at least until we have some sort of 'consensus' as to the 'true/right' (whoa!) philosophy, hehehe.
Anyhow, that's my two-cent's worth at this stage, GE, everyone. Good luck and good thinking!
RC.
.
Hi RealityCheck and TRoc,
In as much each of us brings his own motives to the table, each of us must face them "alone". In the real world there are no "Round Tables". I doubt if any around here are going to wield "Excalibur" to unify this table... he he he!
In as much each of us brings his own motives to the table, each of us must face them "alone". In the real world there are no "Round Tables". I doubt if any around here are going to wield "Excalibur" to unify this table... he he he!
QUOTE (Excalibur the Movie+)
You will be the land,
And the land will be you.
If you fail, the land will perish;
If you thrive, the land will blossom.
~Merlin
Lovely story because it is about the greatness and the evil in the heart of man. A Theory of Everything will give the possessor a great "power", but of good or of evil remains to be seen. Like all Science in it's purity a TOE is neither... it is man that gives it greatness or taints it's power. I am a glass "half-full" type of guy... rather than a "half-empty" one. In one Legend Arthur "sleeps" until he is needed again.
Hitler was of the opinion that this "power" could be used for evil. He was wrong... or was he?
I think that's enough from me.
Good luck with this project.
Cheers
And the land will be you.
If you fail, the land will perish;
If you thrive, the land will blossom.
~Merlin
Lovely story because it is about the greatness and the evil in the heart of man. A Theory of Everything will give the possessor a great "power", but of good or of evil remains to be seen. Like all Science in it's purity a TOE is neither... it is man that gives it greatness or taints it's power. I am a glass "half-full" type of guy... rather than a "half-empty" one. In one Legend Arthur "sleeps" until he is needed again.
Hitler was of the opinion that this "power" could be used for evil. He was wrong... or was he?
I think that's enough from me.
Good luck with this project.Cheers
All,
Indeed Good Elf, there are many philosophical threads of fear that we can weave upon reflection upon the idea of a true, complete "How Things Work" understanding. It will bring great changes, and will, inevitably, create great "bad things" when applied by "bad people". This fear, though, is another duality; whatever positive manifestations come about will have to "battle" against the negative. This is the cosmic "balance of power", and it has been going on since we began. It will continue with, or without, any advancements we make.
We currently (and for some time) have all the information necessary to do this. We have the tires, the engine, the gas, and the body. All we need is the transmission - the quantum gears the will produce a continuous torque - to transform our energy to the road, where we can put it to use. We need to weed the great Ego that has infiltrated our Learn/Teach system. We have already subjected the evolution of humanity to the halting forces of over-specialization. There is NO way we can pass down usable information to our children, except that they specialize. What has happened to the Philosopher? Where is the Generalist? Who other than a Generalist is going to "generalize" all of the data that we have accumulated in the vaults of Universities and Libraries into one cohesive idea? What was the "Ph" for in PhD? They have forgotten and abandoned the great value of applying logic to intuition. (making intuition primary) Of course, not ALL, but it is predominate in Science today.
Onward..
TRoc
Indeed Good Elf, there are many philosophical threads of fear that we can weave upon reflection upon the idea of a true, complete "How Things Work" understanding. It will bring great changes, and will, inevitably, create great "bad things" when applied by "bad people". This fear, though, is another duality; whatever positive manifestations come about will have to "battle" against the negative. This is the cosmic "balance of power", and it has been going on since we began. It will continue with, or without, any advancements we make.
We currently (and for some time) have all the information necessary to do this. We have the tires, the engine, the gas, and the body. All we need is the transmission - the quantum gears the will produce a continuous torque - to transform our energy to the road, where we can put it to use. We need to weed the great Ego that has infiltrated our Learn/Teach system. We have already subjected the evolution of humanity to the halting forces of over-specialization. There is NO way we can pass down usable information to our children, except that they specialize. What has happened to the Philosopher? Where is the Generalist? Who other than a Generalist is going to "generalize" all of the data that we have accumulated in the vaults of Universities and Libraries into one cohesive idea? What was the "Ph" for in PhD? They have forgotten and abandoned the great value of applying logic to intuition. (making intuition primary) Of course, not ALL, but it is predominate in Science today.
Onward..
TRoc
Hi TRoc,
I am not warning people off. As you have said there is a great deal of "over specialization" without the width of comprehension of what we do. As I said Hitler tried it and it did him no good. Personally his downfall was all about him... not the 60 million dead that surrounded him. There will be fools that may hand a "weapon" into the waiting arms of another "Hitler" and feel not the slightest moral twinge saying they are doing their duty. There is nothing to fear... in the long haul we may need to learn a lesson first and perhaps pay a price. The warning is for those who are not "pure at heart"... he he he!
I am not warning people off. As you have said there is a great deal of "over specialization" without the width of comprehension of what we do. As I said Hitler tried it and it did him no good. Personally his downfall was all about him... not the 60 million dead that surrounded him. There will be fools that may hand a "weapon" into the waiting arms of another "Hitler" and feel not the slightest moral twinge saying they are doing their duty. There is nothing to fear... in the long haul we may need to learn a lesson first and perhaps pay a price. The warning is for those who are not "pure at heart"... he he he!
QUOTE (TRoc Posted on Oct 14 2005+ 03:10 AM)
Onward..
Cheers
Cheers
And which of us does not sit now before a bookshelf of our lost ambitions without realizing they are lost. Why, the young and the older who have not forgotten.
Knowledge of "A theory of everything" certainly has philosophical implications, but talking of weapons and/or philosophers stones has nothing to do with it, a TOE will not bring any great change to us, apart from knowledge itself, simply because knowledge and application of knowledge are vastly different things.
An up and coming junction-
JUNCTION
#1.
We should NOT eliminate the possibility that the total "bulk" did not change/evolve to become our universe. It could still be there. We could be an embedded/sprouted universe in this "bulk" that we perceive/observe to have operating instructions/rules/laws/structures/particles which could be different then the in the "bulk".
#2.
The words that we use will influence the development of our logic. I hate the word "sphere" because it automatically includes 3d.
We should eliminate the possibility that our universe could have have gone through a 2d stage or even that "a 2d spot" can be oriented/folded/rotated/spin which would make us perceive 3d/etc.
I know that I could have used a diferent word. (string/branes/membranes/wave)
JUNCTION
#1.
We should NOT eliminate the possibility that the total "bulk" did not change/evolve to become our universe. It could still be there. We could be an embedded/sprouted universe in this "bulk" that we perceive/observe to have operating instructions/rules/laws/structures/particles which could be different then the in the "bulk".
#2.
The words that we use will influence the development of our logic. I hate the word "sphere" because it automatically includes 3d.
We should eliminate the possibility that our universe could have have gone through a 2d stage or even that "a 2d spot" can be oriented/folded/rotated/spin which would make us perceive 3d/etc.
I know that I could have used a diferent word. (string/branes/membranes/wave)
simply because knowledge and application of knowledge are vastly different things
Fortunately, there are people who are good at math who have the possibility of framing this hopefully forthcoming "TOE" knowledge into workable formulas that will make it easier for the experimenters/tech/users.
Jal
QUOTE
TRUE VOID ‘PRIMARY VACUUM’ BULK. This absolute frame ‘true bulk’ is thus the INFINITE AND UNBOUNDED ‘FLAT’ UNIVERSAL SOURCE AND SUBSTANCE OF BALANCED-ENERGY-LOCATION ‘absolute points’. Each and every ‘absolute point’ LOCATION within this true-bulk ‘primary vacuum energy’ matrix is naturally and logically ‘connected’ to/from every other such location via a....
JUNCTION
#1.
We should NOT eliminate the possibility that the total "bulk" did not change/evolve to become our universe. It could still be there. We could be an embedded/sprouted universe in this "bulk" that we perceive/observe to have operating instructions/rules/laws/structures/particles which could be different then the in the "bulk".
#2.
The words that we use will influence the development of our logic. I hate the word "sphere" because it automatically includes 3d.
We should eliminate the possibility that our universe could have have gone through a 2d stage or even that "a 2d spot" can be oriented/folded/rotated/spin which would make us perceive 3d/etc.
I know that I could have used a diferent word. (string/branes/membranes/wave)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| TRUE VOID ‘PRIMARY VACUUM’ BULK. This absolute frame ‘true bulk’ is thus the INFINITE AND UNBOUNDED ‘FLAT’ UNIVERSAL SOURCE AND SUBSTANCE OF BALANCED-ENERGY-LOCATION ‘absolute points’. Each and every ‘absolute point’ LOCATION within this true-bulk ‘primary vacuum energy’ matrix is naturally and logically ‘connected’ to/from every other such location via a.... |
JUNCTION
#1.
We should NOT eliminate the possibility that the total "bulk" did not change/evolve to become our universe. It could still be there. We could be an embedded/sprouted universe in this "bulk" that we perceive/observe to have operating instructions/rules/laws/structures/particles which could be different then the in the "bulk".
#2.
The words that we use will influence the development of our logic. I hate the word "sphere" because it automatically includes 3d.
We should eliminate the possibility that our universe could have have gone through a 2d stage or even that "a 2d spot" can be oriented/folded/rotated/spin which would make us perceive 3d/etc.
I know that I could have used a diferent word. (string/branes/membranes/wave)
simply because knowledge and application of knowledge are vastly different things
Fortunately, there are people who are good at math who have the possibility of framing this hopefully forthcoming "TOE" knowledge into workable formulas that will make it easier for the experimenters/tech/users.
Jal
Sorry, but I hate the name "Theory Of Everything"
How can you use this name for a theory that only covers a small part of the key questions?. Many of "the big questions" are not covered by TOE, among others:
- Human brain, how it works? (What is conscience, intelligence, ...?). TOE does not seem to be useful on order to solve this question.
- What happened "before" big bang?. (universe starting from "nothing" is not an acceptable answer. Nor "it was always there" is. And TOE will not provide a third alternative. But we would like to know the real sense of existence, and TOE will cover only a part of the story (the most trivial part)
- The origin of live. TOE is not interested in this area.
Defiinitively, you can call it "Unified theory of physics", or "Quantum relativity", or any other definition that you prefer, but not "theory of everything".
How can you use this name for a theory that only covers a small part of the key questions?. Many of "the big questions" are not covered by TOE, among others:
- Human brain, how it works? (What is conscience, intelligence, ...?). TOE does not seem to be useful on order to solve this question.
- What happened "before" big bang?. (universe starting from "nothing" is not an acceptable answer. Nor "it was always there" is. And TOE will not provide a third alternative. But we would like to know the real sense of existence, and TOE will cover only a part of the story (the most trivial part)
- The origin of live. TOE is not interested in this area.
Defiinitively, you can call it "Unified theory of physics", or "Quantum relativity", or any other definition that you prefer, but not "theory of everything".
I accept your qualifiers. It is still a worthwhile project.
Jal
Jal
QUOTE ("Guest_javier"+)
Sorry, but I hate the name "Theory Of Everything"
How can you use this name for a theory that only covers a small part of the key questions?. Many of "the big questions" are not covered by TOE, among others:
- Human brain, how it works? (What is conscience, intelligence, ...?). TOE does not seem to be useful on order to solve this question.
- What happened "before" big bang?. (universe starting from "nothing" is not an acceptable answer. Nor "it was always there" is. And TOE will not provide a third alternative. But we would like to know the real sense of existence, and TOE will cover only a part of the story (the most trivial part)
- The origin of live. TOE is not interested in this area.
Defiinitively, you can call it "Unified theory of physics", or "Quantum relativity", or any other definition that you prefer, but not "theory of everything".
I agree. Whatever it's called, it should explicitly refer to an explanation of the structure of the physical universe, and, therefore, its most useful philosophical aspects would be those pertaining to the philosophy of science.
How can you use this name for a theory that only covers a small part of the key questions?. Many of "the big questions" are not covered by TOE, among others:
- Human brain, how it works? (What is conscience, intelligence, ...?). TOE does not seem to be useful on order to solve this question.
- What happened "before" big bang?. (universe starting from "nothing" is not an acceptable answer. Nor "it was always there" is. And TOE will not provide a third alternative. But we would like to know the real sense of existence, and TOE will cover only a part of the story (the most trivial part)
- The origin of live. TOE is not interested in this area.
Defiinitively, you can call it "Unified theory of physics", or "Quantum relativity", or any other definition that you prefer, but not "theory of everything".
I agree. Whatever it's called, it should explicitly refer to an explanation of the structure of the physical universe, and, therefore, its most useful philosophical aspects would be those pertaining to the philosophy of science.
Quote from Wikipedia:
A theory of everything (TOE) is a theory of theoretical physics and mathematics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena.
Initially, the term was used with an ironic connotation to refer to various overgeneralized theories.
For example, a great-grandfather of Ijon Tichy — a character from a cycle of Stanisław Lem's science fiction stories of 1960s — was known to work on "General Theory of Everything" (Polish: "Ogólna Teoria Wszystkiego").
Over time, the term stuck in popularizations of quantum physics to describe a theory that would unify the theories of the four fundamental interactions of nature.
Unquote.
Guess it's OK to stick to it.
A theory of everything (TOE) is a theory of theoretical physics and mathematics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena.
Initially, the term was used with an ironic connotation to refer to various overgeneralized theories.
For example, a great-grandfather of Ijon Tichy — a character from a cycle of Stanisław Lem's science fiction stories of 1960s — was known to work on "General Theory of Everything" (Polish: "Ogólna Teoria Wszystkiego").
Over time, the term stuck in popularizations of quantum physics to describe a theory that would unify the theories of the four fundamental interactions of nature.
Unquote.
Guess it's OK to stick to it.
Sorry, forgot to log in, guest reply was me
Tor
Tor
I agree with the idea that the name "Theory of Everything" sucks.
It still smacks of metaphysical overtones, and has the noob connotations of Science 101 classes. Fortunately, as the ToE reaches completion and condensation, condescension will be removed from the name. A more proper, mature, and specific nomenclature will stick in the history books.
M-theory: does the "M" stand for math, mother, music, or magic?
Math is the map, but the map is not the land.
It still smacks of metaphysical overtones, and has the noob connotations of Science 101 classes. Fortunately, as the ToE reaches completion and condensation, condescension will be removed from the name. A more proper, mature, and specific nomenclature will stick in the history books.
M-theory: does the "M" stand for math, mother, music, or magic?
Math is the map, but the map is not the land.
QUOTE (ourmanflint+Oct 14 2005, 12:49 PM)
Knowledge of "A theory of everything" certainly has philosophical implications, but talking of weapons and/or philosophers stones has nothing to do with it, a TOE will not bring any great change to us, apart from knowledge itself, simply because knowledge and application of knowledge are vastly different things.
Good point, but when the ToE does enter the realm of applied physics, then technology, and then economics, consumerism, and politics-- the great power of a ToE will indeed bring great change to us.
Ethics has long been a part of philosophy, as philopsophy likes to step above the crowd of knowledgeable passers-by in the city streets and contemplate from the glass office tower above the mobs below.
Power can corrupt, and great power can corrupt greatly. A charismatic leader's ability to inspire, energize, and even mobilize the sheepish masses, like Hitler did, becomes a sociological study of one type of power.
Theoretical knowledge in sub-atomic physics became deadly practical knowledge resulting in that heinous mushroom cloud over Hiroshima.
M-theory or ToE may mathematically describe and paint a picture of worlds far older than philosophy, but the philosophical issues have been around much longer than the current mathematical models. The ethical use of arcane knowledge and power is an old subject. As is the awareness that it is we ourselves, and our "intents", the great "Ego needing to be weeded out of our learning/teaching systems", that all need to be theorized on, and put into practice.
Twelve step programs and sundry (or sun-dried
) practices may be elemental steps in the "right" direction, but there is a long way to go yet. Our society is greatly heterogeneous, all mixed up of differing lifestyles and priorities, and it is naively utopian to expect a smooth greater whole that is ethically pure and noble.
Still, what a great irony it will be to have a working ToE in the hands of a schizophrenic and greedy few.
Case in point, imagine George W. holding the Philospher's stone in hand.
"Don't worry, folks, this is not a nukular bomb."
Good point, but when the ToE does enter the realm of applied physics, then technology, and then economics, consumerism, and politics-- the great power of a ToE will indeed bring great change to us.
Ethics has long been a part of philosophy, as philopsophy likes to step above the crowd of knowledgeable passers-by in the city streets and contemplate from the glass office tower above the mobs below.
Power can corrupt, and great power can corrupt greatly. A charismatic leader's ability to inspire, energize, and even mobilize the sheepish masses, like Hitler did, becomes a sociological study of one type of power.
Theoretical knowledge in sub-atomic physics became deadly practical knowledge resulting in that heinous mushroom cloud over Hiroshima.
M-theory or ToE may mathematically describe and paint a picture of worlds far older than philosophy, but the philosophical issues have been around much longer than the current mathematical models. The ethical use of arcane knowledge and power is an old subject. As is the awareness that it is we ourselves, and our "intents", the great "Ego needing to be weeded out of our learning/teaching systems", that all need to be theorized on, and put into practice.
Twelve step programs and sundry (or sun-dried
) practices may be elemental steps in the "right" direction, but there is a long way to go yet. Our society is greatly heterogeneous, all mixed up of differing lifestyles and priorities, and it is naively utopian to expect a smooth greater whole that is ethically pure and noble.Still, what a great irony it will be to have a working ToE in the hands of a schizophrenic and greedy few.
Case in point, imagine George W. holding the Philospher's stone in hand.
"Don't worry, folks, this is not a nukular bomb."
We must realize though that we do not completely know ourselves and that the addition of knowledge will undoubtedly show us who we really are. That is the danger of knowledge since it can bring an inherent unhappiness to even the best of things if we know that there is something out there that is better. A "theory of everything" is something that will bring a great change to the world. It will destroy everything that the world currently works on since we won't have to work all that hard to get the things we want.
In not having to work for the things we want we will undoubtedly look farther afield to find something that challenges us. Is it worth the future being a boring droll place to know the ToE? We ourselves may find that the search for the answers is fun but what happens when there is nothing left to search for? The rules will always change with the input and what is possible. Imagine someone from the Dark Ages coming to our time and seeing the corruption of the youth and the laziness of the adults. What would they think? I imagine that they would see that our moving away from being able to directly get the things that we want by our own independent actions caused this decay.
A theory of everything to me isn't such a good thing because unless it is shared with everyone, with every person, child, and thing then it will only make those who have it that much more in control. We must not just become remote viewers of the possible outcomes of what we are researching. Our job just isn't to satisfy our selfish pursuit of fulfillment because if we do then we are just what Hitler was. The only difference would be that we aren't as highly visible to the rest of the world but we are just as bad. In the same vein I don't believe that we should stop researching because of the potential for harmful or not good outcomes. We are the architects of human life and the future(baring a big comet slamming into the earth) and it is our job to figure out what colors go good together.
We must be more than just scientists and more than just philosophers. We must be doer's and movers of the world. A theory of everything sounds nice but what are the implications for man and his future. Of course I am supposing you are a man before you are a scientist when you wake up in the morning(that goes for you as well ladies).
In not having to work for the things we want we will undoubtedly look farther afield to find something that challenges us. Is it worth the future being a boring droll place to know the ToE? We ourselves may find that the search for the answers is fun but what happens when there is nothing left to search for? The rules will always change with the input and what is possible. Imagine someone from the Dark Ages coming to our time and seeing the corruption of the youth and the laziness of the adults. What would they think? I imagine that they would see that our moving away from being able to directly get the things that we want by our own independent actions caused this decay.
A theory of everything to me isn't such a good thing because unless it is shared with everyone, with every person, child, and thing then it will only make those who have it that much more in control. We must not just become remote viewers of the possible outcomes of what we are researching. Our job just isn't to satisfy our selfish pursuit of fulfillment because if we do then we are just what Hitler was. The only difference would be that we aren't as highly visible to the rest of the world but we are just as bad. In the same vein I don't believe that we should stop researching because of the potential for harmful or not good outcomes. We are the architects of human life and the future(baring a big comet slamming into the earth) and it is our job to figure out what colors go good together.
We must be more than just scientists and more than just philosophers. We must be doer's and movers of the world. A theory of everything sounds nice but what are the implications for man and his future. Of course I am supposing you are a man before you are a scientist when you wake up in the morning(that goes for you as well ladies).
Darklingknight,
Very well put Sir Darkling. I would like to comment on some of your post.
Quote "In not having to work for the things we want we will undoubtedly look farther afield to find something that challenges us. Is it worth the future being a boring droll place to know the ToE? We ourselves may find that the search for the answers is fun but what happens when there is nothing left to search for?"
Could it be that we could finally have a united focus on peace and happiness? There will be many years of study yet to come, piecing things together, and rewriting (simplifying) the texts. But ultimately, I agree that we will have a huge collective freeing up of our searching minds' energy. Can you imagine if the same Theory that unites physics also can be philosophically, psychologically, and spiritually uniting? Many people have a hard time with "the end of science" as we know it, yet it was but a short time (Earth scale) ago that the collective human mind, fed up with abuses of the institutionalized churches, sent forth a new branch of professional seekers: Science. This "sending out" requires the potential for a "calling in"of the question. It will still leave the greatest questions as to What came before "the beginning", and What is our personal Why (dharma); these will require still "faith" (a fundamental human emotion). But having a universal "road map" will undoubtedly make things easier for all.
Quote "A theory of everything to me isn't such a good thing because unless it is shared with everyone, with every person, child, and thing then it will only make those who have it that much more in control. We must not just become remote viewers of the possible outcomes of what we are researching."
Absolutely! This is what has pushed my small group (PathFinder Research) to go forward with sharing what we have, even though we know there is much more that can (and will) be constructed from what we are about to release. Indeed, if it were not for the Internet (and esp. this Forum), we would fear that any attempt to share this (through standard Journal publication) would/could be controlled and/or silenced. This is not to say that we won't seek those channels, because we live in this world that demands we "pay our bills", and what we have accomplished has taken years of "spare time" work. We are going to attempt simultaneous release of this Theory though Official Scientific, Public Scientific (here), Religious/Spiritual, and "Popular" channels. This is no easy task, and requires a small amount of timing changes, which will appear to be "stalling" or worse. I apologize for this, but it is unavoidable.
TRoc
Very well put Sir Darkling. I would like to comment on some of your post.
Quote "In not having to work for the things we want we will undoubtedly look farther afield to find something that challenges us. Is it worth the future being a boring droll place to know the ToE? We ourselves may find that the search for the answers is fun but what happens when there is nothing left to search for?"
Could it be that we could finally have a united focus on peace and happiness? There will be many years of study yet to come, piecing things together, and rewriting (simplifying) the texts. But ultimately, I agree that we will have a huge collective freeing up of our searching minds' energy. Can you imagine if the same Theory that unites physics also can be philosophically, psychologically, and spiritually uniting? Many people have a hard time with "the end of science" as we know it, yet it was but a short time (Earth scale) ago that the collective human mind, fed up with abuses of the institutionalized churches, sent forth a new branch of professional seekers: Science. This "sending out" requires the potential for a "calling in"of the question. It will still leave the greatest questions as to What came before "the beginning", and What is our personal Why (dharma); these will require still "faith" (a fundamental human emotion). But having a universal "road map" will undoubtedly make things easier for all.
Quote "A theory of everything to me isn't such a good thing because unless it is shared with everyone, with every person, child, and thing then it will only make those who have it that much more in control. We must not just become remote viewers of the possible outcomes of what we are researching."
Absolutely! This is what has pushed my small group (PathFinder Research) to go forward with sharing what we have, even though we know there is much more that can (and will) be constructed from what we are about to release. Indeed, if it were not for the Internet (and esp. this Forum), we would fear that any attempt to share this (through standard Journal publication) would/could be controlled and/or silenced. This is not to say that we won't seek those channels, because we live in this world that demands we "pay our bills", and what we have accomplished has taken years of "spare time" work. We are going to attempt simultaneous release of this Theory though Official Scientific, Public Scientific (here), Religious/Spiritual, and "Popular" channels. This is no easy task, and requires a small amount of timing changes, which will appear to be "stalling" or worse. I apologize for this, but it is unavoidable.
TRoc
Hello everyone, fascinating topic!
As for my two cents, I find it hard to believe that a TOE would even remotely stall physics research, I think it would work more like a catalyst, as I would assume the implications would be simply staggering.
I mean, the theory itself would be a long equation and would as a sort of mathematical map of the physical laws of the universe, but it would be sort of like looking at a map of texas and seeing that Austin is here, Dallas is there, but you don't know how to get between the two points or what benefits would be gleaned from the journey. I mean if it's a theory of Everything, it would be so thorough it would be like exploring the universe itself...
Or I could be just some crackpot.
As for my two cents, I find it hard to believe that a TOE would even remotely stall physics research, I think it would work more like a catalyst, as I would assume the implications would be simply staggering.
I mean, the theory itself would be a long equation and would as a sort of mathematical map of the physical laws of the universe, but it would be sort of like looking at a map of texas and seeing that Austin is here, Dallas is there, but you don't know how to get between the two points or what benefits would be gleaned from the journey. I mean if it's a theory of Everything, it would be so thorough it would be like exploring the universe itself...
Or I could be just some crackpot.
Ignorance is bliss!
When I was young, I thought that I was the center of the universe. As I grew older I became aware that there was more than me so I lost my central position. The next awakening came when I learned that the earth was not the center of the firmament. It was relegated to a secondary role in the scheme of things. Our sun was not even that important.
To make matters worst a fellow by the name of Einstein said that space and time are not fixed. Space bends and stretches.
He even said that E=mc^2. Matter is energy. There is only a tiny bit of matter, 10^80 particles, in the universe. Most of the universe is built of spacetime.
What I am to do?
When I was young, I thought that when I walked into a room and closed the door that nothing could get in. How wrong I was. I learnt that all kinds of radio waves, which I couldn’t see, were going right through the walls and right through me. We learned how to manipulate those things and we got TV and everything else.
Now, I have to accept that there is something else that goes right through everything and that we are moving through it without noticing it—space. We still have to discover what space is made of and how it affects all of the particles and those invisible photons. After all, if space can be bent and if space can expand, then there must be some kind of structure.
I really don’t want to give up another cherished belief. Now, I‘ve got to accept that this nothing thing called space is causing all kinds of thing to be what they are.
Take the Inverse Square Law, I must accept that this nothing space can have a structure that makes this true.
If we double the distance from the point of origin then at the receiving end the area is squared. In other words, if space has a structure then, each unit of space must have two in/out on each face so that there are 4 paths to reach the receiving end because there are 4 receiving units at the receiving end.
Horror upon horror, if this can be demonstrated, then that mean all of the inverse square rules depend on the shape of space.
Hummm!, maybe that is not so bad.
Since the earth has been moving through space for at least 4 billion years it has not encountered any variations of the 4 paths nor any variations in the size of the spots. The earth has not gone through any area of space that did not have the ability of receiving light from x,y,z. Surely, going through an area of space that cannot receive light from one of the direction would spell catastrophe for earth. If the earth was to go through an area of space where the spots were twice the size then gravity etc. would be affected and the earth would be destroyed. The earth would double in size etc.
Geee! Maybe… space is more important than matter?
I wish I was young again and that I had that ignorant bliss. Thinking hurts. Thinking keeps pushing/moving me around the universe. It’s not very comforting.
I want to be part of the old establishment. I want to believe that the earth is still the center of the universe and that space is nothing. I don’t want to be pushed around any more.
jal
When I was young, I thought that I was the center of the universe. As I grew older I became aware that there was more than me so I lost my central position. The next awakening came when I learned that the earth was not the center of the firmament. It was relegated to a secondary role in the scheme of things. Our sun was not even that important.
To make matters worst a fellow by the name of Einstein said that space and time are not fixed. Space bends and stretches.
He even said that E=mc^2. Matter is energy. There is only a tiny bit of matter, 10^80 particles, in the universe. Most of the universe is built of spacetime.
What I am to do?
When I was young, I thought that when I walked into a room and closed the door that nothing could get in. How wrong I was. I learnt that all kinds of radio waves, which I couldn’t see, were going right through the walls and right through me. We learned how to manipulate those things and we got TV and everything else.
Now, I have to accept that there is something else that goes right through everything and that we are moving through it without noticing it—space. We still have to discover what space is made of and how it affects all of the particles and those invisible photons. After all, if space can be bent and if space can expand, then there must be some kind of structure.
I really don’t want to give up another cherished belief. Now, I‘ve got to accept that this nothing thing called space is causing all kinds of thing to be what they are.
Take the Inverse Square Law, I must accept that this nothing space can have a structure that makes this true.
If we double the distance from the point of origin then at the receiving end the area is squared. In other words, if space has a structure then, each unit of space must have two in/out on each face so that there are 4 paths to reach the receiving end because there are 4 receiving units at the receiving end.
Horror upon horror, if this can be demonstrated, then that mean all of the inverse square rules depend on the shape of space.
Hummm!, maybe that is not so bad.
Since the earth has been moving through space for at least 4 billion years it has not encountered any variations of the 4 paths nor any variations in the size of the spots. The earth has not gone through any area of space that did not have the ability of receiving light from x,y,z. Surely, going through an area of space that cannot receive light from one of the direction would spell catastrophe for earth. If the earth was to go through an area of space where the spots were twice the size then gravity etc. would be affected and the earth would be destroyed. The earth would double in size etc.
Geee! Maybe… space is more important than matter?
I wish I was young again and that I had that ignorant bliss. Thinking hurts. Thinking keeps pushing/moving me around the universe. It’s not very comforting.
I want to be part of the old establishment. I want to believe that the earth is still the center of the universe and that space is nothing. I don’t want to be pushed around any more.
jal
Hi!
Gee! It looks like that nothing/space has got some kind of shape/topology. Does this mean that I must consider that nothing has an influence on the "real" world?
I guess that any TOE will have to find what is the structure of space and how it makes things the way they are. Things like (ISL), INVERSE SQUARE LAW and UNCERTAINTY and that maybe the cause of so many rules/laws is really "THE BIG NOTHING/SPACE".
Read the following:
A cosmic hall of mirrors
Jal
Gee! It looks like that nothing/space has got some kind of shape/topology. Does this mean that I must consider that nothing has an influence on the "real" world?
I guess that any TOE will have to find what is the structure of space and how it makes things the way they are. Things like (ISL), INVERSE SQUARE LAW and UNCERTAINTY and that maybe the cause of so many rules/laws is really "THE BIG NOTHING/SPACE".
Read the following:
A cosmic hall of mirrors
QUOTE
...These spaces are somewhat easier to understand than a dodecahedral space, but they require higher values of the density: Ω < 1.015 for octahedral spaces and Ω < 1.025 for tetrahedral spaces, compared with Ω < 1.009 for dodecahedral spaces. However, these values are still compatible with the WMAP data. Furthermore, Steiner and co-workers found that the signal for pairs of matched circles could have be missed by current analyses of the cosmic microwave background due to various measurement effects that damage or even destroy the temperature matching.
Jal
I believe there will never ever be a true theory of everything, only a never ending succession of "models" which over time will better approximate the "real truth"
In our Universe/Hyperuniverse there may be many highly evolved intelligences, billions of years in our advance who are still periodically altering/introducing new models in this eternal quest!
In our Universe/Hyperuniverse there may be many highly evolved intelligences, billions of years in our advance who are still periodically altering/introducing new models in this eternal quest!
I think the philosophical implications for any TOE will be startlingly apparent once a good toe is found. A strong anthropic inclusion is a sure way to allow the layman and unscientific to marvel at such a deep complex discovery. As all priests say- its easier to see the manifestations of God [Like...Man. Or insect.] than it is to see God himself. The initial one-point creation of the cosmos will always be a mystery, though we may deduce a grand mechanism to explain the created.
In ancient times, the priest and the scientist were one. Its good that now they are seperate but at the end of the day, we are all one.
In ancient times, the priest and the scientist were one. Its good that now they are seperate but at the end of the day, we are all one.
Philosophical implications of a TOE..
For present purposes I suggest a TOE should be like a map - just something you use to find out where you are, nothing more and nothing less.
-C2.
For present purposes I suggest a TOE should be like a map - just something you use to find out where you are, nothing more and nothing less.
-C2.
QUOTE (TRoc+Oct 14 2005, 03:10 AM)
Who other than a Generalist is going to "generalize" all of the data that we have accumulated in the vaults of Universities and Libraries into one cohesive idea? What was the "Ph" for in PhD? They have forgotten and abandoned the great value of applying logic to intuition. (making intuition primary) Of course, not ALL, but it is predominate in Science today.
An excellent description of the fundamental problem, going all the way back to Parmenides.
An excellent description of the fundamental problem, going all the way back to Parmenides.
Hi Folks,
Sorry about posting two times in a row, I don't find a button to edit my previous post.
I first wanted to add that I find a lot of your comments about the philosophical implications of a "TOE" quite insightful. It definitely has a more meaningful potential to mankind, than is commonly considered.
As a "Generalist" (I printed up a certificate for my office and it looks marvelous), I would have to say that "a complete theory" (ACT) boils down to an understanding of the Absolute & Relative, which are "applicables" in science, philosophy, and religions.
I will gloss over it for the moment and just say that the Absolute has no outside and the Relative has no inside, and "everything" in between is secondary, but explainable and not unimportant. I'll add that the Absolute & Relative are "provable" and the Absolute tells us why we are, and the Relative tells us what we are – most generally speaking.
Parmenides actually established the Absolute philosophically, 2500 years ago. He is rightfully considered the father of philosophy (by Plato & Aristotle) and metaphysics, but his discovery was never held onto and followed up upon.
He was the original generalist.
Also, I posted a little something on the TOE project thread, using infinity and > infinity as the most and least divisible simultaneously.
(now I get the edit button, I guess it's time-sensitive)
Sorry about posting two times in a row, I don't find a button to edit my previous post.
I first wanted to add that I find a lot of your comments about the philosophical implications of a "TOE" quite insightful. It definitely has a more meaningful potential to mankind, than is commonly considered.
As a "Generalist" (I printed up a certificate for my office and it looks marvelous), I would have to say that "a complete theory" (ACT) boils down to an understanding of the Absolute & Relative, which are "applicables" in science, philosophy, and religions.
I will gloss over it for the moment and just say that the Absolute has no outside and the Relative has no inside, and "everything" in between is secondary, but explainable and not unimportant. I'll add that the Absolute & Relative are "provable" and the Absolute tells us why we are, and the Relative tells us what we are – most generally speaking.
Parmenides actually established the Absolute philosophically, 2500 years ago. He is rightfully considered the father of philosophy (by Plato & Aristotle) and metaphysics, but his discovery was never held onto and followed up upon.
He was the original generalist.
Also, I posted a little something on the TOE project thread, using infinity and > infinity as the most and least divisible simultaneously.
(now I get the edit button, I guess it's time-sensitive)
One other thing about philosophy and its validity as a testable discipline. It's more testable than science gives it credit for. It's their limit of the definition of "testable" that gets in the way.
Here's one silly little example. Let's say my philosophy is that its all about me. The universe revolves around me and its all a product of my imagination. I and what I say, are absolute. Not a terribly uncommon condition actually.
Is this a testable premise? You bet it is (given time). It will of course, prove to be false, at least to the other witnesses of the test and hopfully to me in time.
Here's one silly little example. Let's say my philosophy is that its all about me. The universe revolves around me and its all a product of my imagination. I and what I say, are absolute. Not a terribly uncommon condition actually.
Is this a testable premise? You bet it is (given time). It will of course, prove to be false, at least to the other witnesses of the test and hopfully to me in time.
.
======= STAGE-I results IMPLICATIONS for PHILOSOPHY =======
Apparently, the FIRST identifiable and self-determining entity is NOT “nothingness”.
Rather, it appears to be a balanced or ‘physically passive’ omni-directional infinite potential for orientational tendency; said tendency being ‘manifest’ only if such tendency can actually ‘transpire’ through some ‘physical factor’ (yet to be identified in STAGE-II) acting upon any one or more heretofore balanced direction-line ‘coincidence centre(s)’.....so as to ‘effectively orient’, or otherwise make physically ‘active’, that centre’s inherent ‘directional impetus’ energy....and do so in a ‘preferred’ direction along whichever happens to be the now-unbalanced ‘directional-duality-line or ‘energy filament’ running through that centre that is affected by that as yet unidentified unbalancing ‘physical factor’....whatever it may turn out to be according to our STAGE-II results.
Therefore, to put it succinctly as possible:
"NOTHINGNESS" NEVER WAS.....NOR EVER CAN BE an a-priori physical condition....
.....that is, of course, UNLESS some OTHER as yet unidentified physical entity is found that may cause us to relegate OMNI-DIRECTION POTENTIAL to a merely SECONDARY or otherwise ‘derived/dependent’ physical entity. Until such can be identified, philosophers are necessarily obliged to now consider/discuss the present stage-I implications/aspects arising from the ‘omni-direction’ logic flow as already described, defined and otherwise outlined in the TOE & SUMMARY threads.
SOME OBVIOUS ASPECTS FOR PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION
For the purposes of further philosophical discussion of the INFINITE SCALAR of ‘omni-direction’ potential, it should be borne in mind that NO SINGLE’ CENTRE is implied.
Natural self-VECTORING of omni-direction potential, into INFINITESIMALLY thin ‘directional’ DUALITY lines of ‘orientation’ of potential action, go in all possible directions from/through any possible location in any possible frame, thus creating a correspondingly infinite MATRIX of ‘omni-directional CENTRES OF COINCIDENCE ‘LOCATIONS’ which may be either ‘effectively’ balanced or ‘effectively’ unbalanced (the nature/cause of the latter ‘unbalanced’ STATE being currently the subject of the STAGE-II Question & Answer Session still under way in our TOE Q&A thread).
Just because our ‘physics’ does not indicate anything OTHER than omni-direction as ‘a-priori’ physical entity, it does not mean that PHILOSOPHERS (who are less ‘constrained’ by ‘physics’) cannot happen serendipitously upon such a thing during our project’s progress, however unlikely it may seem at this stage. So we should all keep our minds ‘open’......
.....HOWEVER.....for any other candidate for ‘a-priori entity’ status to be put ‘ahead’ of, or even just ‘abreast’ of, omni-direction, it MUST EVENTUALLY be VALIDATED by/within a logically consistent framework that ‘corresponds’ with the observed reality around us on a ‘consistent’, ‘repeatable’ and ‘predictable’ basis (since, obviously, there is no point in ANY philosophical/logical system that is ‘whimsical’ in basis and/or effect as far as reality is concerned....simply because in that case no ‘reality rules’ can then be said to obtain except those of the ad hoc ‘philosophical system’ ITSELF....which then becomes the opposite of ‘physical system’, and so will disqualify itself from further consideration by our present scientific theorising process.
So for the moment at least, philosophy must follow, absorb and otherwise ‘integrate’ all STAGE-I ‘physical implications’ which may have so far arisen for and discussed in any and all of our associate TOE topic threads.
Stage-I physical/mathematical etc implications will be posted TOMORROW under the relevant topic headings for SPECIFIC discussion according to their respective TOPIC HEADING ambits.
PLEASE NOTE WELL: ALL the above ‘implications’ plus anything else input by participants under any of the other associate threads is FAIR GAME for PHILOSOPHERS to discuss HERE in this thread......AND OF COURSE, there may also be ‘overlap’ and ‘cross-pollination’ between/among any and all these associate threads...however, please try not to do so ‘gratuitously’; ie, any such overflow/cross-pollination should be STRICTLY PERTINENT to the discussions therein....meaning that they should be NECESSARY to the elucidation of points/descriptions/explanations being made under those particular TOPIC discussions.
Good luck and good thinking philosophers all!
RealityCheck.
======= STAGE-I results IMPLICATIONS for PHILOSOPHY =======
Apparently, the FIRST identifiable and self-determining entity is NOT “nothingness”.
Rather, it appears to be a balanced or ‘physically passive’ omni-directional infinite potential for orientational tendency; said tendency being ‘manifest’ only if such tendency can actually ‘transpire’ through some ‘physical factor’ (yet to be identified in STAGE-II) acting upon any one or more heretofore balanced direction-line ‘coincidence centre(s)’.....so as to ‘effectively orient’, or otherwise make physically ‘active’, that centre’s inherent ‘directional impetus’ energy....and do so in a ‘preferred’ direction along whichever happens to be the now-unbalanced ‘directional-duality-line or ‘energy filament’ running through that centre that is affected by that as yet unidentified unbalancing ‘physical factor’....whatever it may turn out to be according to our STAGE-II results.
Therefore, to put it succinctly as possible:
"NOTHINGNESS" NEVER WAS.....NOR EVER CAN BE an a-priori physical condition....
.....that is, of course, UNLESS some OTHER as yet unidentified physical entity is found that may cause us to relegate OMNI-DIRECTION POTENTIAL to a merely SECONDARY or otherwise ‘derived/dependent’ physical entity. Until such can be identified, philosophers are necessarily obliged to now consider/discuss the present stage-I implications/aspects arising from the ‘omni-direction’ logic flow as already described, defined and otherwise outlined in the TOE & SUMMARY threads.
SOME OBVIOUS ASPECTS FOR PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION
For the purposes of further philosophical discussion of the INFINITE SCALAR of ‘omni-direction’ potential, it should be borne in mind that NO SINGLE’ CENTRE is implied.
Natural self-VECTORING of omni-direction potential, into INFINITESIMALLY thin ‘directional’ DUALITY lines of ‘orientation’ of potential action, go in all possible directions from/through any possible location in any possible frame, thus creating a correspondingly infinite MATRIX of ‘omni-directional CENTRES OF COINCIDENCE ‘LOCATIONS’ which may be either ‘effectively’ balanced or ‘effectively’ unbalanced (the nature/cause of the latter ‘unbalanced’ STATE being currently the subject of the STAGE-II Question & Answer Session still under way in our TOE Q&A thread).
Just because our ‘physics’ does not indicate anything OTHER than omni-direction as ‘a-priori’ physical entity, it does not mean that PHILOSOPHERS (who are less ‘constrained’ by ‘physics’) cannot happen serendipitously upon such a thing during our project’s progress, however unlikely it may seem at this stage. So we should all keep our minds ‘open’......
.....HOWEVER.....for any other candidate for ‘a-priori entity’ status to be put ‘ahead’ of, or even just ‘abreast’ of, omni-direction, it MUST EVENTUALLY be VALIDATED by/within a logically consistent framework that ‘corresponds’ with the observed reality around us on a ‘consistent’, ‘repeatable’ and ‘predictable’ basis (since, obviously, there is no point in ANY philosophical/logical system that is ‘whimsical’ in basis and/or effect as far as reality is concerned....simply because in that case no ‘reality rules’ can then be said to obtain except those of the ad hoc ‘philosophical system’ ITSELF....which then becomes the opposite of ‘physical system’, and so will disqualify itself from further consideration by our present scientific theorising process.
So for the moment at least, philosophy must follow, absorb and otherwise ‘integrate’ all STAGE-I ‘physical implications’ which may have so far arisen for and discussed in any and all of our associate TOE topic threads.
Stage-I physical/mathematical etc implications will be posted TOMORROW under the relevant topic headings for SPECIFIC discussion according to their respective TOPIC HEADING ambits.
PLEASE NOTE WELL: ALL the above ‘implications’ plus anything else input by participants under any of the other associate threads is FAIR GAME for PHILOSOPHERS to discuss HERE in this thread......AND OF COURSE, there may also be ‘overlap’ and ‘cross-pollination’ between/among any and all these associate threads...however, please try not to do so ‘gratuitously’; ie, any such overflow/cross-pollination should be STRICTLY PERTINENT to the discussions therein....meaning that they should be NECESSARY to the elucidation of points/descriptions/explanations being made under those particular TOPIC discussions.
Good luck and good thinking philosophers all!
RealityCheck.
RC,
OK, back to the philosophy thread. I'll definitely leave the main one alone for this discussion. Let me see if I can better sum up what you're working with, in developing Stage 2. Not better than you, but better than I have, related to what you have pointed out.
Omni-direction is a-priori. All is caused by this infinite principle. All includes location, a connection between locations, an interaction along this connection, and an arena for this to occur within.
So far, all of these aspects are infinite. Then a preference of distance, direction, and charge get introduced. In essence, a finite embodiment of the infinite. The infinite contains the potential for the finite, which is then actualized.
Is this what you are working with for Stage 2?
Eric
OK, back to the philosophy thread. I'll definitely leave the main one alone for this discussion. Let me see if I can better sum up what you're working with, in developing Stage 2. Not better than you, but better than I have, related to what you have pointed out.
Omni-direction is a-priori. All is caused by this infinite principle. All includes location, a connection between locations, an interaction along this connection, and an arena for this to occur within.
So far, all of these aspects are infinite. Then a preference of distance, direction, and charge get introduced. In essence, a finite embodiment of the infinite. The infinite contains the potential for the finite, which is then actualized.
Is this what you are working with for Stage 2?
Eric
QUOTE (Eric England+Sep 15 2006, 03:53 PM)
RC,
OK, back to the philosophy thread. I'll definitely leave the main one alone for this discussion. Let me see if I can better sum up what you're working with, in developing Stage 2. Not better than you, but better than I have, related to what you have pointed out.
Omni-direction is a-priori. All is caused by this infinite principle. All includes location, a connection between locations, an interaction along this connection, and an arena for this to occur within.
So far, all of these aspects are infinite. Then a preference of distance, direction, and charge get introduced. In essence, a finite embodiment of the infinite. The infinite contains the potential for the finite, which is then actualized.
Is this what you are working with for Stage 2?
Eric
Hi Eric England.
Excellently concise....thanks! However, one point needs clarifying, and that is the question of 'arena' and its 'provenance'.
I have bolded the relevant sections of your 'nutshell' above of stage-I situation, which treats what I think is a very important, if not crucial, point which if it is not understood from the get-go, will cause all sorts of 'non-sequiturs' down the track for many people's logic/concept flows. Therefore I would like if I may 'modify' your precis thus:
Omni-direction is a-priori, and as such IS and EMBODIES and ENCOMPASSES or otherwise CONSTITUTES, IN TOTO AND IN ORIGINS, the 'source', 'substance' and 'context' for ITSELF AND ALL/EVERYTHING that follows from its INHERENT ATTRIBUTES/PROPERTIES, including 'arena' for 'manifestation/action' of said inherent attributes/properties.. All is caused by this infinite principle. All includes location, a connection between locations, an interaction along this connection. [section deleted....subsumed in 'expanded' opening statement].
I hope this crucial aspect is made clear: that the coincidence-locations matrix is generated by the omni-direction concept ALREADY WITHIN ITS OWN AMBIT as THE 'potential' UNIVERSAL 'context/arena'....and that the said matrix is merely the 'constantly' and 'instantaneously' generated 'manifestation' (or as you put it, "actualization") of that potential....to give what we may 'perceive' as a 'physical' SPACE/ARENA or PRIMARY VACUUM or TRUE VOID whose 'physical substance' is effectively the infinity of coincidence-locations generated moment-to-moment from/by our identified infinite and a-priori omni-direction potential.
Your further thoughts?.....and that includes YOU, everyone! hehehe.
I'll catch up with you again as soon as I get these other implications finalised and posted for the other threads...but damn.....'tempus fugit' when you ain't got much to spare! hehehe.
Cheers!
RealityCheck.
.
OK, back to the philosophy thread. I'll definitely leave the main one alone for this discussion. Let me see if I can better sum up what you're working with, in developing Stage 2. Not better than you, but better than I have, related to what you have pointed out.
Omni-direction is a-priori. All is caused by this infinite principle. All includes location, a connection between locations, an interaction along this connection, and an arena for this to occur within.
So far, all of these aspects are infinite. Then a preference of distance, direction, and charge get introduced. In essence, a finite embodiment of the infinite. The infinite contains the potential for the finite, which is then actualized.
Is this what you are working with for Stage 2?
Eric
Hi Eric England.
Excellently concise....thanks! However, one point needs clarifying, and that is the question of 'arena' and its 'provenance'.
I have bolded the relevant sections of your 'nutshell' above of stage-I situation, which treats what I think is a very important, if not crucial, point which if it is not understood from the get-go, will cause all sorts of 'non-sequiturs' down the track for many people's logic/concept flows. Therefore I would like if I may 'modify' your precis thus:
Omni-direction is a-priori, and as such IS and EMBODIES and ENCOMPASSES or otherwise CONSTITUTES, IN TOTO AND IN ORIGINS, the 'source', 'substance' and 'context' for ITSELF AND ALL/EVERYTHING that follows from its INHERENT ATTRIBUTES/PROPERTIES, including 'arena' for 'manifestation/action' of said inherent attributes/properties.. All is caused by this infinite principle. All includes location, a connection between locations, an interaction along this connection. [section deleted....subsumed in 'expanded' opening statement].
I hope this crucial aspect is made clear: that the coincidence-locations matrix is generated by the omni-direction concept ALREADY WITHIN ITS OWN AMBIT as THE 'potential' UNIVERSAL 'context/arena'....and that the said matrix is merely the 'constantly' and 'instantaneously' generated 'manifestation' (or as you put it, "actualization") of that potential....to give what we may 'perceive' as a 'physical' SPACE/ARENA or PRIMARY VACUUM or TRUE VOID whose 'physical substance' is effectively the infinity of coincidence-locations generated moment-to-moment from/by our identified infinite and a-priori omni-direction potential.
Your further thoughts?.....and that includes YOU, everyone! hehehe.
I'll catch up with you again as soon as I get these other implications finalised and posted for the other threads...but damn.....'tempus fugit' when you ain't got much to spare! hehehe.
Cheers!
RealityCheck.
.
Hi Everyone
I like to simplify
All of that the discussion of part I is about is ... reaching a consensus that "OUR BEGINNING CAME FROM SOMETHING THAT HAD EVERYTHING POSSIBLE CONTAINED WITHIN IT."
I see the second section dealing with "breaking away".
The final result is what we have.
jal
I like to simplify
All of that the discussion of part I is about is ... reaching a consensus that "OUR BEGINNING CAME FROM SOMETHING THAT HAD EVERYTHING POSSIBLE CONTAINED WITHIN IT."
I see the second section dealing with "breaking away".
The final result is what we have.
jal
QUOTE (jal+Sep 15 2006, 10:07 PM)
Hi Everyone
I like to simplify
All of that the discussion of part I is about is ... reaching a consensus that "OUR BEGINNING CAME FROM SOMETHING THAT HAD EVERYTHING POSSIBLE CONTAINED WITHIN IT."
I see the second section dealing with "breaking away".
The final result is what we have.
jal
*sigh*...how I envy all you guys being able to put things so succinctly....you all put me to shame! hehehe. And you're right, the 'breakout' is imminent....if I can ever get to posting those damned OTHER-thread implications for you all to consider before you DO all 'break out'! hehehe.
BTW, jal, I replied to your equally succinct and apposite observation in the "THEORY OF EVERYTHING BEGUN...." thread.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
I like to simplify
All of that the discussion of part I is about is ... reaching a consensus that "OUR BEGINNING CAME FROM SOMETHING THAT HAD EVERYTHING POSSIBLE CONTAINED WITHIN IT."
I see the second section dealing with "breaking away".
The final result is what we have.
jal
*sigh*...how I envy all you guys being able to put things so succinctly....you all put me to shame! hehehe. And you're right, the 'breakout' is imminent....if I can ever get to posting those damned OTHER-thread implications for you all to consider before you DO all 'break out'! hehehe.
BTW, jal, I replied to your equally succinct and apposite observation in the "THEORY OF EVERYTHING BEGUN...." thread.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Hi RC,
You may call me Eric or Erk, Earlick, Earwax, etc.
So let's see, I summed it up by saying the infinite principle of omni-direction "causes" all. You are correcting it to add "is" all. I think this is correct.
Omni-direction is and causes all. It is the principle, the field, and the arena; by which, upon which, and within which all occurs. Is this more correct?
Now, what I think should be a clarification of Jal's post.
So let's see, I summed it up by saying the infinite principle of omni-direction "causes" all. You are correcting it to add "is" all. I think this is correct.
Omni-direction is and causes all. It is the principle, the field, and the arena; by which, upon which, and within which all occurs. Is this more correct?
Now, what I think should be a clarification of Jal's post.
"OUR BEGINNING CAME FROM SOMETHING THAT HAD EVERYTHING POSSIBLE CONTAINED WITHIN IT."
Our beginning (if there was) came from something that contains everything possible, including itself. Is this more correct?
I'm a generalist who likes to be specific. I can't help myself.
Erk
You may call me Eric or Erk, Earlick, Earwax, etc.
QUOTE
"Excellently concise....thanks! However, one point needs clarifying, and that is the question of 'arena' and its 'provenance'.
So let's see, I summed it up by saying the infinite principle of omni-direction "causes" all. You are correcting it to add "is" all. I think this is correct.
Omni-direction is and causes all. It is the principle, the field, and the arena; by which, upon which, and within which all occurs. Is this more correct?
Now, what I think should be a clarification of Jal's post.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Excellently concise....thanks! However, one point needs clarifying, and that is the question of 'arena' and its 'provenance'. |
So let's see, I summed it up by saying the infinite principle of omni-direction "causes" all. You are correcting it to add "is" all. I think this is correct.
Omni-direction is and causes all. It is the principle, the field, and the arena; by which, upon which, and within which all occurs. Is this more correct?
Now, what I think should be a clarification of Jal's post.
"OUR BEGINNING CAME FROM SOMETHING THAT HAD EVERYTHING POSSIBLE CONTAINED WITHIN IT."
Our beginning (if there was) came from something that contains everything possible, including itself. Is this more correct?
I'm a generalist who likes to be specific. I can't help myself.
Erk
QUOTE (Eric England+Sep 16 2006, 04:42 AM)
Hi RC,
You may call me Eric or Erk, Earlick, Earwax, etc.
"Excellently concise....thanks! However, one point needs clarifying, and that is the question of 'arena' and its 'provenance'.
So let's see, I summed it up by saying the infinite principle of omni-direction "causes" all. You are correcting it to add "is" all. I think this is correct.
Omni-direction is and causes all. It is the principle, the field, and the arena; of which, by which, upon which, and within which all occurs. Is this more correct?
Thanks, "Eric". [I usually try to keep to the registered names because they are unique identifiers and obviate the need for further 'targeting' qualifiers when addressing more than one "Eric" etc....of whom there may be more than one at any one time here. But until I strike such difficulties, then Eric it is!]
And yes, again you've stated our identified 'a-priori state' position quite neatly...with my only addendum being as shown/added in bold in your above statement; ie: "of which"....
.....to stress that omni-direction potential, as the infinite 'always there' physical entity per se, ALSO constitutes (again, by virtue of its a-priori status) THE UNIVERSAL 'substance' FROM WHICH all is made up OF....as 'actualized' via coincidence-location matrix in its 'balanced' or 'unbalanced' configurations (the latter 'antics' of said matrix to be identified via stage-II session currently under way).
And with that, we have a rather 'neat' little statement of status to be going on with for the next stage considerations. Thanks Eric!
Now, what I think should be a clarification of Jal's post.
"OUR BEGINNING CAME FROM SOMETHING THAT HAD EVERYTHING POSSIBLE CONTAINED WITHIN IT."
Our beginning (if there was) came from something that contains everything possible, including itself. Is this more correct?
I'm a generalist who likes to be specific. I can't help myself.
Erk
No need to apologise for any 'personal traits' here, mate...we all contribute our respective unique/individual 'special forte' inputs/talents to this project.....for it will take ALL KINDS to 'thrash out' the best and most 'complete' TOE that we possibly can! hehehe.
As to "Beginning(s)": Yes!...I missed that...thanks again!...such a 'concept has NOT yet arisen (ie, there has been no 'logic trail' leading either towards or away from 'ETERNAL/TEMPORAL/CYCLIC etc' for our incipient 'universe' AS A WHOLE!). Talk about having to WATCH EVERY WORD WE UTTER! hehehe.
Jal, Eric and all....putative "Beginning(s)" for THE GREATER universe, both per se and as a whole, can only be part of our project's lexicon/glossary IF/WHEN AND ONLY IF/WHEN some stage in our process/logic ITSELF determines that it must be applied/used pursuant to any such stage's 'resolution' of this concept for universal beginnings...or NOT, as the case may turn out to be by project's end.
Well!...from only these few 'reworks' of ours, jal, Eric, I can see that many more 'cosmological concepts/definitions' will be coming 'anew' through this project of ours....like some sort of 'rewiring' for the conventional science/philosophy language/descriptors....just as it should be for a project boasting to 'start from scratch', heh? hehehe!
Catch up to you all soon.
RC.
.
You may call me Eric or Erk, Earlick, Earwax, etc.
QUOTE (RC+)
"Excellently concise....thanks! However, one point needs clarifying, and that is the question of 'arena' and its 'provenance'.
So let's see, I summed it up by saying the infinite principle of omni-direction "causes" all. You are correcting it to add "is" all. I think this is correct.
Omni-direction is and causes all. It is the principle, the field, and the arena; of which, by which, upon which, and within which all occurs. Is this more correct?
Thanks, "Eric". [I usually try to keep to the registered names because they are unique identifiers and obviate the need for further 'targeting' qualifiers when addressing more than one "Eric" etc....of whom there may be more than one at any one time here. But until I strike such difficulties, then Eric it is!]
And yes, again you've stated our identified 'a-priori state' position quite neatly...with my only addendum being as shown/added in bold in your above statement; ie: "of which"....
.....to stress that omni-direction potential, as the infinite 'always there' physical entity per se, ALSO constitutes (again, by virtue of its a-priori status) THE UNIVERSAL 'substance' FROM WHICH all is made up OF....as 'actualized' via coincidence-location matrix in its 'balanced' or 'unbalanced' configurations (the latter 'antics' of said matrix to be identified via stage-II session currently under way).
And with that, we have a rather 'neat' little statement of status to be going on with for the next stage considerations. Thanks Eric!
QUOTE (Eric England+Sep 16 2006, 04:42 AM)
Now, what I think should be a clarification of Jal's post.
QUOTE (jal+)
"OUR BEGINNING CAME FROM SOMETHING THAT HAD EVERYTHING POSSIBLE CONTAINED WITHIN IT."
Our beginning (if there was) came from something that contains everything possible, including itself. Is this more correct?
I'm a generalist who likes to be specific. I can't help myself.
Erk
No need to apologise for any 'personal traits' here, mate...we all contribute our respective unique/individual 'special forte' inputs/talents to this project.....for it will take ALL KINDS to 'thrash out' the best and most 'complete' TOE that we possibly can! hehehe.
As to "Beginning(s)": Yes!...I missed that...thanks again!...such a 'concept has NOT yet arisen (ie, there has been no 'logic trail' leading either towards or away from 'ETERNAL/TEMPORAL/CYCLIC etc' for our incipient 'universe' AS A WHOLE!). Talk about having to WATCH EVERY WORD WE UTTER! hehehe.
Jal, Eric and all....putative "Beginning(s)" for THE GREATER universe, both per se and as a whole, can only be part of our project's lexicon/glossary IF/WHEN AND ONLY IF/WHEN some stage in our process/logic ITSELF determines that it must be applied/used pursuant to any such stage's 'resolution' of this concept for universal beginnings...or NOT, as the case may turn out to be by project's end.
Well!...from only these few 'reworks' of ours, jal, Eric, I can see that many more 'cosmological concepts/definitions' will be coming 'anew' through this project of ours....like some sort of 'rewiring' for the conventional science/philosophy language/descriptors....just as it should be for a project boasting to 'start from scratch', heh? hehehe!
Catch up to you all soon.
RC.
.
Interesting reading.
The BIG beginning does not affect us. It could be the other universes. The SMALL beginning is ours.
"OUR BEGINNING CAME FROM SOMETHING THAT HAD EVERYTHING POSSIBLE CONTAINED WITHIN IT."
jal
The BIG beginning does not affect us. It could be the other universes. The SMALL beginning is ours.
"OUR BEGINNING CAME FROM SOMETHING THAT HAD EVERYTHING POSSIBLE CONTAINED WITHIN IT."
jal
Omni-direction is and causes all. It is the principle, field, and arena; of, by, upon, and within which all occurs.
It is, at, within, and without everywhere. It is infinite location for all to occur, but is it a principle "by which", all can occur? Does the infinite "imply" the duality of the finite? Can it show preference for distance, direction, and charge?
It is, at, within, and without everywhere. It is infinite location for all to occur, but is it a principle "by which", all can occur? Does the infinite "imply" the duality of the finite? Can it show preference for distance, direction, and charge?
QUOTE (jal+Sep 16 2006, 02:36 PM)
Interesting reading.
The BIG beginning does not affect us. It could be the other universes. The SMALL beginning is ours.
"OUR BEGINNING CAME FROM SOMETHING THAT HAD EVERYTHING POSSIBLE CONTAINED WITHIN IT."
jal
Yes jal...you've just hit on yet another area where many conversations go cross-purpose...in this case, it's the DIFFERENCE between THE 'NON-LOCAL' or 'BULK' UNIVERSE IN TOTO...and the 'observable' universe IN LOCI, eh?
OK folks, as jal points out, from now on in these discussions, whenever we invoke the 'universal term' in any statement/explanation etc, we must BE CLEAR as to PRECISELY WHICH "universal context" our statements refer!...whether to 'LOCAL' universe(s)....or to 'BULK' UNIVERSE [perhaps we should, apart from prefacing relevant statements with "local/global" to set the scene for said statements, we may also use 'capitals' when denoting the 'BULK' UNIVERSE and 'lower-case' when meaning the 'local' universe?
Thanks, jal...very important/critical aspect to prevent confusion. Thanks.
Hi Wanderer,
The "physicality" of infinite omni-direction and its finite implications, would necessarily include spatial extent and the time it does or does not take, to transverse spatial extent. Spatial extent would necessarily include, that which is both inside and outside of mass.
In infinite omni-direction there is no reason to assume space-time, but only space and time. Mass, space, and time would be three equal but different expressions, of infinity. No one taking precedent over another, with all three intermingling infinitely.
In finding a logical trail to the finite expressions of the infinite, it may or may not show time to be one dimensional. The only way time can be be an expression of a fourth dimension, is if it can be shown the speed of light is finite (a constant). The fourth dimension is considered to be a right angle to the other three. The idea that this is something more than a simple change in direction is dubious.
As a matter of fact, the only way mass, space, and time can be considered finite; is to locate a finite matrix of centers, that exists within an infinite omni-directional principle that, has no center(s) at all.
The hunt in this process is to find constants of mass, space, and time based on infinity. To find a preference of direction, distance, and charge. A preference which creates lines of transmission that have a finite length and width, between the centers of things that have a finite extent, which have surfaces of a finite thickness.
Eric
The BIG beginning does not affect us. It could be the other universes. The SMALL beginning is ours.
"OUR BEGINNING CAME FROM SOMETHING THAT HAD EVERYTHING POSSIBLE CONTAINED WITHIN IT."
jal
Yes jal...you've just hit on yet another area where many conversations go cross-purpose...in this case, it's the DIFFERENCE between THE 'NON-LOCAL' or 'BULK' UNIVERSE IN TOTO...and the 'observable' universe IN LOCI, eh?
OK folks, as jal points out, from now on in these discussions, whenever we invoke the 'universal term' in any statement/explanation etc, we must BE CLEAR as to PRECISELY WHICH "universal context" our statements refer!...whether to 'LOCAL' universe(s)....or to 'BULK' UNIVERSE [perhaps we should, apart from prefacing relevant statements with "local/global" to set the scene for said statements, we may also use 'capitals' when denoting the 'BULK' UNIVERSE and 'lower-case' when meaning the 'local' universe?
Thanks, jal...very important/critical aspect to prevent confusion. Thanks.
QUOTE (Eric England+Sep 16 2006, 03:29 PM)
Omni-direction is and causes all. It is the principle, field, and arena; of, by, upon, and within which all occurs.
It is, at, within, and without everywhere. It is infinite location for all to occur, but is it a principle "by which", all can occur? Does the infinite "imply" the duality of the finite? Can it show preference for distance, direction, and charge?
Good point. Well, what after all IS 'finiteness', if NOT 'localisability'? And we have THAT being instantaneously-generated 'in spades'....in the form of an infinite matrix of direction-coincidence-'locations' where omni-direction orientational-duality-lines form localisations of 'preferred oriented/impetus' properties/effects by/from the 'infinite' scalar to/through the 'finite' vector (IF, of course, such 'locations' may BE 'unbalanced' to the extent that a 'preferred orientation' for omni-direction can BE so 'vectorised' via/at such locations...something which stage-II inputs will help us resolve, I hope!). Will that answer for the moment, until I have more time to get into all your observations more thoroughly, Eric?
Meanwhile, everyone...please feel free to answer Eric or each others' queries! I have no monopoly on ANY of these conversations! hehehe. Cheers!
RC.
.
It is, at, within, and without everywhere. It is infinite location for all to occur, but is it a principle "by which", all can occur? Does the infinite "imply" the duality of the finite? Can it show preference for distance, direction, and charge?
Good point. Well, what after all IS 'finiteness', if NOT 'localisability'? And we have THAT being instantaneously-generated 'in spades'....in the form of an infinite matrix of direction-coincidence-'locations' where omni-direction orientational-duality-lines form localisations of 'preferred oriented/impetus' properties/effects by/from the 'infinite' scalar to/through the 'finite' vector (IF, of course, such 'locations' may BE 'unbalanced' to the extent that a 'preferred orientation' for omni-direction can BE so 'vectorised' via/at such locations...something which stage-II inputs will help us resolve, I hope!). Will that answer for the moment, until I have more time to get into all your observations more thoroughly, Eric?
Meanwhile, everyone...please feel free to answer Eric or each others' queries! I have no monopoly on ANY of these conversations! hehehe. Cheers!
RC.
.
Let me take an even broader view at this point, in summarizing Stage One, and see if it rings true.
Nothing can never be so there is somthing. This something is the principle of omni-direction. Omni-direction is infinity about infinite centers. Infinite direction at infinite centers, that are in infinite directions, at infinite distance.
Introducing matrix, prefered distance, direction, and charge; is to go from infinite to finite, by establishing a logical connection. Is it possible to go from a global infinite to a local finite, by a logical trail? The finite is the "observable", but what value should we give to the observable? Can we state that although all locations are infinite, that finite quantities and qualities exist at finite locations?
Is the "tangible", proof of something or the illusion of something?
Nothing can never be so there is somthing. This something is the principle of omni-direction. Omni-direction is infinity about infinite centers. Infinite direction at infinite centers, that are in infinite directions, at infinite distance.
Introducing matrix, prefered distance, direction, and charge; is to go from infinite to finite, by establishing a logical connection. Is it possible to go from a global infinite to a local finite, by a logical trail? The finite is the "observable", but what value should we give to the observable? Can we state that although all locations are infinite, that finite quantities and qualities exist at finite locations?
Is the "tangible", proof of something or the illusion of something?
I want to change the last line to read – is the "tangible", proof of something physical or proof of the illusion of something physical?
QUOTE
I asked because omnidirectionality seems to imply spacetime. The "VOID" mentioned consists of "an infinite, omnidirection-lines coincident-point/location MATRIX generated by omni-direction VECTOR lines".
I have little idea what this means but wouldn't 'omni-direction vector lines' have to be extended in spacetime? Or do the words 'coincident-point' here mean that this matrix would be spatially unextended?
I have little idea what this means but wouldn't 'omni-direction vector lines' have to be extended in spacetime? Or do the words 'coincident-point' here mean that this matrix would be spatially unextended?
Hi Wanderer,
The "physicality" of infinite omni-direction and its finite implications, would necessarily include spatial extent and the time it does or does not take, to transverse spatial extent. Spatial extent would necessarily include, that which is both inside and outside of mass.
In infinite omni-direction there is no reason to assume space-time, but only space and time. Mass, space, and time would be three equal but different expressions, of infinity. No one taking precedent over another, with all three intermingling infinitely.
In finding a logical trail to the finite expressions of the infinite, it may or may not show time to be one dimensional. The only way time can be be an expression of a fourth dimension, is if it can be shown the speed of light is finite (a constant). The fourth dimension is considered to be a right angle to the other three. The idea that this is something more than a simple change in direction is dubious.
As a matter of fact, the only way mass, space, and time can be considered finite; is to locate a finite matrix of centers, that exists within an infinite omni-directional principle that, has no center(s) at all.
The hunt in this process is to find constants of mass, space, and time based on infinity. To find a preference of direction, distance, and charge. A preference which creates lines of transmission that have a finite length and width, between the centers of things that have a finite extent, which have surfaces of a finite thickness.
Eric
Hi Eric England!
I'm here.... but I don't know what I can add.
A lot of words are used.... and from that I try to get an understanding.
Therefore,.... everything possible is = 100% potential.
I expect that more words are needed ..... supplied by all of you.
jal
I'm here.... but I don't know what I can add.
A lot of words are used.... and from that I try to get an understanding.
QUOTE
The BIG beginning does not affect us. It could be the other universes. The SMALL beginning is ours.
"OUR BEGINNING CAME FROM SOMETHING THAT HAD EVERYTHING POSSIBLE CONTAINED WITHIN IT."
"OUR BEGINNING CAME FROM SOMETHING THAT HAD EVERYTHING POSSIBLE CONTAINED WITHIN IT."
Therefore,.... everything possible is = 100% potential.
I expect that more words are needed ..... supplied by all of you.
jal
Hi jal,
I'm glad you came over. RC is way too busy, all things considered, to have that thread not be what he wants it to be.
Yes, more words are needed, supplied by anyone. They have to be rigorously concise, and logically connected with no gaps.
So I gather, you are further clarifying 100% potential, as not limited to a description of infinite omni-direction, but to include everything possible. This is a better ground to discuss.
To keep consistent with what has been stated in Stage One, everything possible might be all, other than nothing. But what would state that "all" is possible. Maybe something else, other than nothing, is not possible.
This, however, is the concise statement that says you are right. "Absolutely nothing is impossible."
To make a concise argument that "nothingness" never was or will be, and that something is being, in this case infinite omni-direction, actually requires one other step of logic that has been skipped.
Why can an a-priori absolute nothing never be? It's an out to a possible TOE, to say something didn't come from nothing, but it has to be shown as to why, absolute nothing is impossible. Why it doesn't exist.
The step that has been skipped is this.
If absolute nothing EXISTED, there wouldn't be absolute nothing. Or in other words, if non-existence EXISTED, there wouldn't be non-existence.
Again, "absolutely nothing is impossible" = 100% potential.
However, all we know at this point, is what does NOT exist. Now we introduce "something" and call it infinite omni-direction. I would suggest, though, that it should be called "something absolute". An absolute without an outside contingent. Something other than relative. Omni-direction certainly seems absolute, but let's take a look. Can infinity be absolute?
Anybody have any thoughts on how infinity can be absolute?
Anybody have any thoughts on how potential can become "actual"?
I'm glad you came over. RC is way too busy, all things considered, to have that thread not be what he wants it to be.
Yes, more words are needed, supplied by anyone. They have to be rigorously concise, and logically connected with no gaps.
QUOTE
Therefore,.... everything possible is = 100% potential.
So I gather, you are further clarifying 100% potential, as not limited to a description of infinite omni-direction, but to include everything possible. This is a better ground to discuss.
To keep consistent with what has been stated in Stage One, everything possible might be all, other than nothing. But what would state that "all" is possible. Maybe something else, other than nothing, is not possible.
This, however, is the concise statement that says you are right. "Absolutely nothing is impossible."
To make a concise argument that "nothingness" never was or will be, and that something is being, in this case infinite omni-direction, actually requires one other step of logic that has been skipped.
Why can an a-priori absolute nothing never be? It's an out to a possible TOE, to say something didn't come from nothing, but it has to be shown as to why, absolute nothing is impossible. Why it doesn't exist.
The step that has been skipped is this.
If absolute nothing EXISTED, there wouldn't be absolute nothing. Or in other words, if non-existence EXISTED, there wouldn't be non-existence.
Again, "absolutely nothing is impossible" = 100% potential.
However, all we know at this point, is what does NOT exist. Now we introduce "something" and call it infinite omni-direction. I would suggest, though, that it should be called "something absolute". An absolute without an outside contingent. Something other than relative. Omni-direction certainly seems absolute, but let's take a look. Can infinity be absolute?
Anybody have any thoughts on how infinity can be absolute?
Anybody have any thoughts on how potential can become "actual"?
Hi Eric England!
I'm probably a bad one to start this discussion with.
The background/bulk/infinite can be dynamic but in balance which could also be interpreted as being nothing or being everything.
Variations from.... (which we could presume to be zero or to be infinity) would result in our universe which would be differentiated from the bulk/original.
A mechanism which would allow this separation/variation from the initial condition is what will be attempted for the second phase.
I think that it will only be then that we will be able to "look back" and put a better definition on the original condition and on the 100% that we came from.
jal
I'm probably a bad one to start this discussion with.
QUOTE
how potential can become "actual"?
The background/bulk/infinite can be dynamic but in balance which could also be interpreted as being nothing or being everything.
Variations from.... (which we could presume to be zero or to be infinity) would result in our universe which would be differentiated from the bulk/original.
A mechanism which would allow this separation/variation from the initial condition is what will be attempted for the second phase.
I think that it will only be then that we will be able to "look back" and put a better definition on the original condition and on the 100% that we came from.
jal
.
jal, Eric.
Excellent observations/reasoning, guys! Very helpful to all.
And YES, as soon as I'm freed from my present distractions (let it be tomorrow!!!), I shall get done with the stage-I implications; and a couple of weeks thereafter will begin the input phase of STAGE-II.
Whereby, as jal has reminded us, the 'mechanism' will hopefully be identified that will get us from infinite-scalar/infinitessimal-vector 'PASSIVE/BALANCED' (energy? impetus?)...to....finite LOCATION 'quanta' of ACTIVE/IMBALANCES in the inherent direction-orientation properties/effects etc. at those locations.
That's when the fun REALLY begins! hehehe.
And also when, as I said earlier, our glossary/definitions efforts can have anything to really work on in some sort of 'context'; as so far identified in our process.
Cheers and hope to get my end in order a.s.a.p! hehehe.
RC.
.
jal, Eric.
Excellent observations/reasoning, guys! Very helpful to all.
And YES, as soon as I'm freed from my present distractions (let it be tomorrow!!!), I shall get done with the stage-I implications; and a couple of weeks thereafter will begin the input phase of STAGE-II.
Whereby, as jal has reminded us, the 'mechanism' will hopefully be identified that will get us from infinite-scalar/infinitessimal-vector 'PASSIVE/BALANCED' (energy? impetus?)...to....finite LOCATION 'quanta' of ACTIVE/IMBALANCES in the inherent direction-orientation properties/effects etc. at those locations.
That's when the fun REALLY begins! hehehe.
And also when, as I said earlier, our glossary/definitions efforts can have anything to really work on in some sort of 'context'; as so far identified in our process.
Cheers and hope to get my end in order a.s.a.p! hehehe.
RC.
.
Hello, Philosophers, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit!
Specifically, Eric England: Please take my “folly” expression as a joke; that’s why I attached a to it!
Well, I’m moving my post over, as linked here Theory of Everything begun from absolute concept (PhysOrgEU; September 20); so, please feel free to comment on it, at your convenience.
However, for your consideration and discussion herein, I do have some comments (point by point) on your post above; as quoted below:
2] Do you mean “absolutely nothing is impossible” at the beginning of the “big bang,” or as the Universe as it is today?
As it is today, the Universe gives rise to Everything in it; that’s why we’re attempting to define it as the Infinity, as it is in a state of permanent dynamic equilibrium; as explained in the link above.
As Jal’s Universe = 100% potential (or energy), it is also an incomplete definition.
Quantum mechanically, if we would extrapolate Einstein’s E=Mc^2, the fundamental elements of the Universe are composed of the Energy-containing particles; and all particles of matter have a Mass, enabling all elements to collide and interact with each other, so as to form more complex compounds or entities in the Universe above and beyond, including the Evolution of Life on Earth; as explained in the STEM matrix concept, linked above.
3] Yes, Infinity is an absolute or permanent state of dynamic equilibrium of the STEM matrix; as explained in 2] above.
4] The elemental or chemical reactivity of particles or elements as energized by the potential they contain, gives rise to the more complex or actual physical STEM entities; as explained in 2] above.
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 9/21/6usct1:15a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Specifically, Eric England: Please take my “folly” expression as a joke; that’s why I attached a
to it!Well, I’m moving my post over, as linked here Theory of Everything begun from absolute concept (PhysOrgEU; September 20); so, please feel free to comment on it, at your convenience.
However, for your consideration and discussion herein, I do have some comments (point by point) on your post above; as quoted below:
QUOTE
If absolute nothing EXISTED, there wouldn't be absolute nothing. Or in other words, if non-existence EXISTED, there wouldn't be non-existence[1].
Again, "absolutely nothing is impossible" = 100% potential[2].
However, all we know at this point, is what does NOT exist. Now we introduce "something" and call it infinite omni-direction. I would suggest, though, that it should be called "something absolute". An absolute without an outside contingent. Something other than relative. Omni-direction certainly seems absolute, but let's take a look. Can infinity be absolute?
Anybody have any thoughts on how infinity can be absolute[3]?
Anybody have any thoughts on how potential can become "actual"[4]?
1] This is a confusing metaphysical statement?! Again, "absolutely nothing is impossible" = 100% potential[2].
However, all we know at this point, is what does NOT exist. Now we introduce "something" and call it infinite omni-direction. I would suggest, though, that it should be called "something absolute". An absolute without an outside contingent. Something other than relative. Omni-direction certainly seems absolute, but let's take a look. Can infinity be absolute?
Anybody have any thoughts on how infinity can be absolute[3]?
Anybody have any thoughts on how potential can become "actual"[4]?
2] Do you mean “absolutely nothing is impossible” at the beginning of the “big bang,” or as the Universe as it is today?
As it is today, the Universe gives rise to Everything in it; that’s why we’re attempting to define it as the Infinity, as it is in a state of permanent dynamic equilibrium; as explained in the link above.
As Jal’s Universe = 100% potential (or energy), it is also an incomplete definition.
Quantum mechanically, if we would extrapolate Einstein’s E=Mc^2, the fundamental elements of the Universe are composed of the Energy-containing particles; and all particles of matter have a Mass, enabling all elements to collide and interact with each other, so as to form more complex compounds or entities in the Universe above and beyond, including the Evolution of Life on Earth; as explained in the STEM matrix concept, linked above.
3] Yes, Infinity is an absolute or permanent state of dynamic equilibrium of the STEM matrix; as explained in 2] above.
4] The elemental or chemical reactivity of particles or elements as energized by the potential they contain, gives rise to the more complex or actual physical STEM entities; as explained in 2] above.
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 9/21/6usct1:15a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Hi Eric - nice to be chatting again - Canute
You say that "In infinite omni-direction there is no reason to assume space-time, but only space and time."
I find this confusing. Is spacetime fundamental or omni-direction?
To me there seems a clear choice when it comes to postulating something fundamental. Either it exists in spacetime, in which case spacetime is fundamental, or it does not, in which case it is not a physical concept. Or am I missing something?
Wanderer
You say that "In infinite omni-direction there is no reason to assume space-time, but only space and time."
I find this confusing. Is spacetime fundamental or omni-direction?
To me there seems a clear choice when it comes to postulating something fundamental. Either it exists in spacetime, in which case spacetime is fundamental, or it does not, in which case it is not a physical concept. Or am I missing something?
Wanderer
QUOTE (Wanderer+Sep 21 2006, 11:06 AM)
Hi Eric - nice to be chatting again - Canute
You say that "In infinite omni-direction there is no reason to assume space-time, but only space and time."
I find this confusing. Is spacetime fundamental or omni-direction?
To me there seems a clear choice when it comes to postulating something fundamental. Either it exists in spacetime, in which case spacetime is fundamental, or it does not, in which case it is not a physical concept. Or am I missing something?
Wanderer
Hi Wanderer, everyone.
Just a reminder that our novel project is aimed at minimising any premature and/or ad hoc inputs to the self-determining logic trail as commenced/indicated by the 'independent theorising process' ITSELF.
So it should be borne in mind that AS YET, that self-determining logic trail has NOT YET 'identifed' such things as SPACETIME and many other 'concepts/constructs' we CURRENTLY bandy about in conventional theorising results that are the thinking/lexicon legacies of 'partial' and 'relative' theories whose ad hoc inputs are mostly responsible for the current 'confused' lexicon/explanations in this field.
So please familiarise yourselves with the stage-I results and implications (latter to be posted soon!) and, while being free to discuss whatever you please as 'background' and 'stage-input refining' discussions, according to our 'independent' approach, one MUST NOT LIMIT/DEFINE anything we HAVE so far identified, by invoking/introducing or applying CONVENTIONAL concepts that have not had their counterparts/equivalents 'identified' in our 'self-developing' process.
This will avoid 'cross-purpose' confusion and leave our process to get to whatever concepts/results it will get to ON IT'S OWN, and without undue interference by human CONVENTIONS coming from current 'confused' theories/terminologies. See?
By all means, discuss 'spacetime' or any other 'abstract/conventional' ideas/concepts, but please do not REQUIRE anything that we HAVE identified to be DIRECTLY TRANSITIONABLE, DEFINABLE or DE-LIMITABLE by/to any ideas/concepts not yet OBVIOUS to our self-determined logic 'justified' process perspective so far. Thanks!
Good luck and carry on, everyone! Excellent stuff!
RC.
.
You say that "In infinite omni-direction there is no reason to assume space-time, but only space and time."
I find this confusing. Is spacetime fundamental or omni-direction?
To me there seems a clear choice when it comes to postulating something fundamental. Either it exists in spacetime, in which case spacetime is fundamental, or it does not, in which case it is not a physical concept. Or am I missing something?
Wanderer
Hi Wanderer, everyone.
Just a reminder that our novel project is aimed at minimising any premature and/or ad hoc inputs to the self-determining logic trail as commenced/indicated by the 'independent theorising process' ITSELF.
So it should be borne in mind that AS YET, that self-determining logic trail has NOT YET 'identifed' such things as SPACETIME and many other 'concepts/constructs' we CURRENTLY bandy about in conventional theorising results that are the thinking/lexicon legacies of 'partial' and 'relative' theories whose ad hoc inputs are mostly responsible for the current 'confused' lexicon/explanations in this field.
So please familiarise yourselves with the stage-I results and implications (latter to be posted soon!) and, while being free to discuss whatever you please as 'background' and 'stage-input refining' discussions, according to our 'independent' approach, one MUST NOT LIMIT/DEFINE anything we HAVE so far identified, by invoking/introducing or applying CONVENTIONAL concepts that have not had their counterparts/equivalents 'identified' in our 'self-developing' process.
This will avoid 'cross-purpose' confusion and leave our process to get to whatever concepts/results it will get to ON IT'S OWN, and without undue interference by human CONVENTIONS coming from current 'confused' theories/terminologies. See?
By all means, discuss 'spacetime' or any other 'abstract/conventional' ideas/concepts, but please do not REQUIRE anything that we HAVE identified to be DIRECTLY TRANSITIONABLE, DEFINABLE or DE-LIMITABLE by/to any ideas/concepts not yet OBVIOUS to our self-determined logic 'justified' process perspective so far. Thanks!
Good luck and carry on, everyone! Excellent stuff!
RC.
.
Hi all,
Hope you don’t mind me putting a view forward.
I’m not sure I have got anything from the four pages I’ve read so far … no proper direction yet.
An idea comes in … a couple of replies … then something else … etc.
I am a bit fed up with peoples TOE not addressing the beginning properly.
Firstly, we need to just decide on three things:
1. everything came from nothing.
2. everything came from everything.
3. something else.
Once this has been decided we can then move on.
Obviously, my choice is everything from nothing … that’s why it’s first on the list.
He is my reason simplistically stated:
Nothing is a paradox … it has two states … but nothing has so find a singular state.
So nothing bounces between the two states … who knows how many times … but I can definitely say this bouncing took no time because time does not exist yet … we are talking about the entity nothing.
Nothing eventually finds an equilibrium point; thereby creating a third state ( the magic triplicate).
This third state is totally perfect and full of energy from all the bouncing …
I’ll leave it there for the moment … your thoughts please.
Cheers
Hope you don’t mind me putting a view forward.
I’m not sure I have got anything from the four pages I’ve read so far … no proper direction yet.
An idea comes in … a couple of replies … then something else … etc.
I am a bit fed up with peoples TOE not addressing the beginning properly.
Firstly, we need to just decide on three things:
1. everything came from nothing.
2. everything came from everything.
3. something else.
Once this has been decided we can then move on.
Obviously, my choice is everything from nothing … that’s why it’s first on the list.
He is my reason simplistically stated:
Nothing is a paradox … it has two states … but nothing has so find a singular state.
So nothing bounces between the two states … who knows how many times … but I can definitely say this bouncing took no time because time does not exist yet … we are talking about the entity nothing.
Nothing eventually finds an equilibrium point; thereby creating a third state ( the magic triplicate).
This third state is totally perfect and full of energy from all the bouncing …
I’ll leave it there for the moment … your thoughts please.
Cheers
Thanks to everyone for "wandering" over here. Oh boy, I'm in big trouble now.
Howdy there Wanderer,
In this TOE project, it was determined before I found this forum, that nothing can never be and that infinite omni-direction is a-priori. So the fundament we're working with is omni-direction.
Howdy there Wanderer,
In this TOE project, it was determined before I found this forum, that nothing can never be and that infinite omni-direction is a-priori. So the fundament we're working with is omni-direction.
To me there seems a clear choice when it comes to postulating something fundamental. Either it exists in spacetime, in which case spacetime is fundamental, or it does not, in which case it is not a physical concept. Or am I missing something?
Infinite omni-direction has been postulated, as to not exist within anything but itself. It has been stated as being the "principle" of potential, by which all might be actualized. It is both inside and outside, of anything that is finite. It has been postulated there is a finite matrix of centers, connected by finite lines of transmission, allowing finite extents with finite surfaces, to express preferences of direction, distance, and charge.
Finite preferences of distance and direction can apply to anything. The reason they apply to mass, space, and time is because of "charge". Each is "charged" with a role to play in a tangible universe. Each can also have a + or – charge.
Walk into a room that gives you a positive sense of space and time, then introduce an "attractive mass" into the room, and suddenly the same room either seems too big or small, and time either speeds up or down, depending on whether you have a positive or negative attitude about the relationship you've encountered, with an attractive mass that might have just become repulsive.
I still think a logical link between infinite and finite has not be established.
_________________
Hi Mong,
Sorry for the pissiness.
How is #1 a confusing metaphysical statement?
Excellent question. "Absolutely nothing is impossible", is a fact within the a-priori. There is no outside whatsoever, to the a-priori. I'm not implying a big bang, however.
Excellent question. "Absolutely nothing is impossible", is a fact within the a-priori. There is no outside whatsoever, to the a-priori. I'm not implying a big bang, however.
As it is today, the Universe gives rise to Everything in it; that’s why we’re attempting to define it as the Infinity, as it is in a state of permanent dynamic equilibrium; as explained in the link above.
We haven't determined the universe gives rise to anything, including itself. Infinity can not give rise to anything. The only way something can give rise, is to have a departure point and arrival point. Infinity has neither.
Infinity by itself, is not and can not cause, a matrix. The only possible definition of infinity is "that which does not actually happen". I say "only" while leaving room for argument. An "event horizon", none of which have been shown to exist, is the juncture of the finite components of the "universe", at any "point". This point, however, is no more about mass within spacetime (space and time), than it is about them being within mass.
Now matter how this finite point is arranged, to arrive at it from infinte or from "here", has not be logically established.
___________________
Hi jal,
Infinity by itself, is not and can not cause, a matrix. The only possible definition of infinity is "that which does not actually happen". I say "only" while leaving room for argument. An "event horizon", none of which have been shown to exist, is the juncture of the finite components of the "universe", at any "point". This point, however, is no more about mass within spacetime (space and time), than it is about them being within mass.
Now matter how this finite point is arranged, to arrive at it from infinte or from "here", has not be logically established.
___________________
Hi jal,
The background/bulk/infinite can be dynamic but in balance which could also be interpreted as being nothing or being everything.
This is not consistent with what RC stated as "nothing can never be".
0 can not be directly related to infinity as "or". 0 is between –/+ in an infinite scale. The scale is not absolute, nor is the 0.
____________________
Hey Janus,
So sorry to hear you're fed up. I choose #3.
_____________________
To all of you,
Eric
QUOTE
I find this confusing. Is spacetime fundamental or omni-direction?
Howdy there Wanderer,
In this TOE project, it was determined before I found this forum, that nothing can never be and that infinite omni-direction is a-priori. So the fundament we're working with is omni-direction.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I find this confusing. Is spacetime fundamental or omni-direction? |
Howdy there Wanderer,
In this TOE project, it was determined before I found this forum, that nothing can never be and that infinite omni-direction is a-priori. So the fundament we're working with is omni-direction.
To me there seems a clear choice when it comes to postulating something fundamental. Either it exists in spacetime, in which case spacetime is fundamental, or it does not, in which case it is not a physical concept. Or am I missing something?
Infinite omni-direction has been postulated, as to not exist within anything but itself. It has been stated as being the "principle" of potential, by which all might be actualized. It is both inside and outside, of anything that is finite. It has been postulated there is a finite matrix of centers, connected by finite lines of transmission, allowing finite extents with finite surfaces, to express preferences of direction, distance, and charge.
Finite preferences of distance and direction can apply to anything. The reason they apply to mass, space, and time is because of "charge". Each is "charged" with a role to play in a tangible universe. Each can also have a + or – charge.
Walk into a room that gives you a positive sense of space and time, then introduce an "attractive mass" into the room, and suddenly the same room either seems too big or small, and time either speeds up or down, depending on whether you have a positive or negative attitude about the relationship you've encountered, with an attractive mass that might have just become repulsive.
I still think a logical link between infinite and finite has not be established.
_________________
Hi Mong,
Sorry for the pissiness.
How is #1 a confusing metaphysical statement?
QUOTE
Do you mean “absolutely nothing is impossible” at the beginning of the “big bang,” or as the Universe as it is today?
Excellent question. "Absolutely nothing is impossible", is a fact within the a-priori. There is no outside whatsoever, to the a-priori. I'm not implying a big bang, however.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do you mean “absolutely nothing is impossible” at the beginning of the “big bang,” or as the Universe as it is today? |
Excellent question. "Absolutely nothing is impossible", is a fact within the a-priori. There is no outside whatsoever, to the a-priori. I'm not implying a big bang, however.
As it is today, the Universe gives rise to Everything in it; that’s why we’re attempting to define it as the Infinity, as it is in a state of permanent dynamic equilibrium; as explained in the link above.
We haven't determined the universe gives rise to anything, including itself. Infinity can not give rise to anything. The only way something can give rise, is to have a departure point and arrival point. Infinity has neither.
QUOTE
3] Yes, Infinity is an absolute or permanent state of dynamic equilibrium of the STEM matrix; as explained in 2] above.
Infinity by itself, is not and can not cause, a matrix. The only possible definition of infinity is "that which does not actually happen". I say "only" while leaving room for argument. An "event horizon", none of which have been shown to exist, is the juncture of the finite components of the "universe", at any "point". This point, however, is no more about mass within spacetime (space and time), than it is about them being within mass.
Now matter how this finite point is arranged, to arrive at it from infinte or from "here", has not be logically established.
___________________
Hi jal,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 3] Yes, Infinity is an absolute or permanent state of dynamic equilibrium of the STEM matrix; as explained in 2] above. |
Infinity by itself, is not and can not cause, a matrix. The only possible definition of infinity is "that which does not actually happen". I say "only" while leaving room for argument. An "event horizon", none of which have been shown to exist, is the juncture of the finite components of the "universe", at any "point". This point, however, is no more about mass within spacetime (space and time), than it is about them being within mass.
Now matter how this finite point is arranged, to arrive at it from infinte or from "here", has not be logically established.
___________________
Hi jal,
The background/bulk/infinite can be dynamic but in balance which could also be interpreted as being nothing or being everything.
This is not consistent with what RC stated as "nothing can never be".
QUOTE
Variations from.... (which we could presume to be zero or to be infinity) would result in our universe which would be differentiated from the bulk/original.
0 can not be directly related to infinity as "or". 0 is between –/+ in an infinite scale. The scale is not absolute, nor is the 0.
____________________
Hey Janus,
So sorry to hear you're fed up. I choose #3.
_____________________
To all of you,
Eric
I'm a newbie here, but I thought I'd add my two cents. It's a way of elimating time as a dimension:
Time has two directions. The observer's arrow of time goes from past events to future events. On the other hand, these events go from being in the future to being in the past, so the arrow of time for the observed goes from the future to the past. To the hands of the clock, the face is going counterclockwise.
The three dimensional frame of reference is not moving along an additional dimension. This subjective coordinate system is interacting with other such frames.
If we were to build a clock-like device to characterize motion, it would have many hands, going in both directions and the cumulative action would cancel out in a general equilibrium. With the concept of time, most of these hands are combined into the face, with a few going in one direction as coordinates for the reference point. Time is a component of motion, not the basis for it.
The unit of time goes from beginning to end, but the process of time is going toward the beginning of the next, leaving the old. The hour on the clock starts in the future and the hand passes from its beginning to its end and then moves on to the next, leaving the previous hour in the past. Days go from dawn to dusk, as the sun moves from east to west, but the reality is that the earth is rotating west to east and the sunlight is moving on to other time zones. Our individual lives are units of time going from beginning to end, while the process of living goes on to the next generation, shedding the old like dead skin.
Compare it to a factory. The product moves from start to finish, but the production line is facing the other way, consuming raw material and expelling finished product. This relationship of the process and the unit is one of perspective. A unit at one level is a process at another and vice versa. What matters to the process isn't so much the end product, as it is the energy produced, in wages and profits, calories burned, etc, that propels the process forward, consuming more material.
Reality consists of energy recording information. As the amount of energy remains the same, old information is erased as new is recorded. Objective reality is the energy. Time is a function of the subjective information, as past and future do not physically exist because the energy to manifest them is currently tied up in the present. If another moment were to exist, it would require its own energy and so would not be on a continuum with our reality.
Time is not so much a projection out from the present event, as it is a coming together of factors to define what is present. The past being those influences which define current order and the future is determined by the energy to motivate that order. When order is an open set, it absorbs fresh energy, defining it and adapting to it, so that the future is a continuation of the past. When order is a closed set, the energy accumulates elsewhere and the future becomes a reaction to the past. Evolution and revolution. Essentially it is an version of the top down order/bottom up process relationship of Complexity Theory. Compare order, complexity and chaos, to past, present and future.
One definition of the arrow of time is that of decreasing usable energy and increasing entropy in a closed system. Keep in mind though, that a "closed system" is a unit and these processes are the aging of this unit.
This concept of time having two directions doesn't really propose anything new. It just examines what is accepted, in a little further detail. The general essence of relativity is that since there is no absolute frame of reference, all position and motion can only be measured with reference to all other bodies in motion. Say that since you are your own center of reference, do you move down the road, or is the road passing under you. Without thinking it through, this might seem silly, given the road is attached to the earth, but in a situation where the bodies approach similar size, it begins to make more sense. Now apply this to the concept of time. Since you are the center of your own reality, are you traveling through time, from past events to future ones, or is it that you, being the reference point, are still and it is these events which are passing you by, going from the future into the past? Isn't the road essentially an analogy for ones path in life?
Time has two directions. The observer's arrow of time goes from past events to future events. On the other hand, these events go from being in the future to being in the past, so the arrow of time for the observed goes from the future to the past. To the hands of the clock, the face is going counterclockwise.
The three dimensional frame of reference is not moving along an additional dimension. This subjective coordinate system is interacting with other such frames.
If we were to build a clock-like device to characterize motion, it would have many hands, going in both directions and the cumulative action would cancel out in a general equilibrium. With the concept of time, most of these hands are combined into the face, with a few going in one direction as coordinates for the reference point. Time is a component of motion, not the basis for it.
The unit of time goes from beginning to end, but the process of time is going toward the beginning of the next, leaving the old. The hour on the clock starts in the future and the hand passes from its beginning to its end and then moves on to the next, leaving the previous hour in the past. Days go from dawn to dusk, as the sun moves from east to west, but the reality is that the earth is rotating west to east and the sunlight is moving on to other time zones. Our individual lives are units of time going from beginning to end, while the process of living goes on to the next generation, shedding the old like dead skin.
Compare it to a factory. The product moves from start to finish, but the production line is facing the other way, consuming raw material and expelling finished product. This relationship of the process and the unit is one of perspective. A unit at one level is a process at another and vice versa. What matters to the process isn't so much the end product, as it is the energy produced, in wages and profits, calories burned, etc, that propels the process forward, consuming more material.
Reality consists of energy recording information. As the amount of energy remains the same, old information is erased as new is recorded. Objective reality is the energy. Time is a function of the subjective information, as past and future do not physically exist because the energy to manifest them is currently tied up in the present. If another moment were to exist, it would require its own energy and so would not be on a continuum with our reality.
Time is not so much a projection out from the present event, as it is a coming together of factors to define what is present. The past being those influences which define current order and the future is determined by the energy to motivate that order. When order is an open set, it absorbs fresh energy, defining it and adapting to it, so that the future is a continuation of the past. When order is a closed set, the energy accumulates elsewhere and the future becomes a reaction to the past. Evolution and revolution. Essentially it is an version of the top down order/bottom up process relationship of Complexity Theory. Compare order, complexity and chaos, to past, present and future.
One definition of the arrow of time is that of decreasing usable energy and increasing entropy in a closed system. Keep in mind though, that a "closed system" is a unit and these processes are the aging of this unit.
This concept of time having two directions doesn't really propose anything new. It just examines what is accepted, in a little further detail. The general essence of relativity is that since there is no absolute frame of reference, all position and motion can only be measured with reference to all other bodies in motion. Say that since you are your own center of reference, do you move down the road, or is the road passing under you. Without thinking it through, this might seem silly, given the road is attached to the earth, but in a situation where the bodies approach similar size, it begins to make more sense. Now apply this to the concept of time. Since you are the center of your own reality, are you traveling through time, from past events to future ones, or is it that you, being the reference point, are still and it is these events which are passing you by, going from the future into the past? Isn't the road essentially an analogy for ones path in life?
Hi Brodix,
Let me make an observation about time, energy, and infinity.
First energy. There seems to be a theme that energy is more fundamental that anything else. As though it powers the universe and matter happens in spacetime. Something like that anyway. But energy is just the wave form of a particle form, of "mass". When the particle gets blurry we call it energy and when the energy gets distinct, we call it a particle. String theory seems to think it goes beyond this, by saying there a vibrating lines. Cheese balls, string cheese, it's all the same.
Next infinity. As I stated before, "it is that which doesn't actually happen". It doesn't contain or have, a departure or arrival point. All points in an infinite scale that has no beginning or end, are also infinite in their own right. There is no inherent possibility of dimension, direction, or charge.
And time. The arrow of time, which is widely considered to go in one direction, dragging with it what seems to become the present and past, has a very simple reason why it appears the way it does. Time as an expression of the infinite (which doesn't actually happen), puts the universe in a perpetual state of potential, of "will happen". There is nothing about the universe, that science can say "has happened" or "is happening". As I mentioned before, event horizons (actual happenings) have yet to be located.
Time is one aspect of fourth dimensional thinking. Scientists give the arrow of time the value of a constant, as well as they give the speed of light the value of a constant. But they also admit, that is not definite that either one are constant, i.e. finite, and that because of this, it can not be said that either one are one-dimensional. It's all a can or worms (ummm... worms), that lead us back to trying to understand infinity, omni-direction, and what is "finite", why and how, etc.
Eric
Let me make an observation about time, energy, and infinity.
First energy. There seems to be a theme that energy is more fundamental that anything else. As though it powers the universe and matter happens in spacetime. Something like that anyway. But energy is just the wave form of a particle form, of "mass". When the particle gets blurry we call it energy and when the energy gets distinct, we call it a particle. String theory seems to think it goes beyond this, by saying there a vibrating lines. Cheese balls, string cheese, it's all the same.
Next infinity. As I stated before, "it is that which doesn't actually happen". It doesn't contain or have, a departure or arrival point. All points in an infinite scale that has no beginning or end, are also infinite in their own right. There is no inherent possibility of dimension, direction, or charge.
And time. The arrow of time, which is widely considered to go in one direction, dragging with it what seems to become the present and past, has a very simple reason why it appears the way it does. Time as an expression of the infinite (which doesn't actually happen), puts the universe in a perpetual state of potential, of "will happen". There is nothing about the universe, that science can say "has happened" or "is happening". As I mentioned before, event horizons (actual happenings) have yet to be located.
Time is one aspect of fourth dimensional thinking. Scientists give the arrow of time the value of a constant, as well as they give the speed of light the value of a constant. But they also admit, that is not definite that either one are constant, i.e. finite, and that because of this, it can not be said that either one are one-dimensional. It's all a can or worms (ummm... worms), that lead us back to trying to understand infinity, omni-direction, and what is "finite", why and how, etc.
Eric
Hello, Philosophers, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit!
Specifically, Eric England: No apology necessary; but thanks anyway!
The scientific answer is yes; this is because the dynamic Universe did give rise to the human Life and Mind or Consciousness on Earth.
However, metaphysicians would subscribe that Consciousness is the Universe; and therefore, they would argue that Consciousness did exist in the absence of an Observer!
So, as your statement above has had implied to me: How could “absolute nothing” give rise to “nothingness” in the Universe?!
Specifically, Eric England: No apology necessary; but thanks anyway!
QUOTE
If absolute nothing EXISTED, there wouldn't be absolute nothing. Or in other words, if non-existence EXISTED, there wouldn't be non-existence.
1) This statement reminded me of a typical Consciousness or Existence vs. Observer conundrum: In the absence of an Observer—ie, the Evolution of our human Life and Mind on Earth—does the Universe or Consciousness exist?The scientific answer is yes; this is because the dynamic Universe did give rise to the human Life and Mind or Consciousness on Earth.
However, metaphysicians would subscribe that Consciousness is the Universe; and therefore, they would argue that Consciousness did exist in the absence of an Observer!
So, as your statement above has had implied to me: How could “absolute nothing” give rise to “nothingness” in the Universe?!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If absolute nothing EXISTED, there wouldn't be absolute nothing. Or in other words, if non-existence EXISTED, there wouldn't be non-existence. |
1) This statement reminded me of a typical Consciousness or Existence vs. Observer conundrum: In the absence of an Observer—ie, the Evolution of our human Life and Mind on Earth—does the Universe or Consciousness exist?
The scientific answer is yes; this is because the dynamic Universe did give rise to the human Life and Mind or Consciousness on Earth.
However, metaphysicians would subscribe that Consciousness is the Universe; and therefore, they would argue that Consciousness did exist in the absence of an Observer!
So, as your statement above has had implied to me: How could “absolute nothing” give rise to “nothingness” in the Universe?!
"Absolutely nothing is impossible", is a fact within the a-priori.
2) I would agree to that; so we should kill off the “big bang” theory; and the “string” theory as well?
.
My question was, does this fundamental thing 'omnidirection' imply spacetime or not. I'm not suggesting that spacetime is or is not fundamental, just confirming that there is not a hidden assumption in the idea of omnidirection. If omnidirection implies spacetime then we might as well take spacetime to be fundamental. If it does not then we need to figure how omnidirection gives rise to spacetime. At the moment we seem to having our cake and eating it, as my grandma used to say.
The scientific answer is yes; this is because the dynamic Universe did give rise to the human Life and Mind or Consciousness on Earth.
However, metaphysicians would subscribe that Consciousness is the Universe; and therefore, they would argue that Consciousness did exist in the absence of an Observer!
So, as your statement above has had implied to me: How could “absolute nothing” give rise to “nothingness” in the Universe?!
"Absolutely nothing is impossible", is a fact within the a-priori.
2) I would agree to that; so we should kill off the “big bang” theory; and the “string” theory as well?
QUOTE
Infinity can not give rise to anything. The only way something can give rise, is to have a departure point and arrival point. Infinity has neither.
3) Good catch; Infinity should mean the dynamism or dynamic equilibrium of the Universe?!QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Infinity can not give rise to anything. The only way something can give rise, is to have a departure point and arrival point. Infinity has neither. |
3) Good catch; Infinity should mean the dynamism or dynamic equilibrium of the Universe?!
Infinity by itself, is not and can not cause, a matrix.
4) That is right; Infinity is the dynamic equilibrium of a matrix, that we now call the Universe or the STEM matrix of unbound space, time, energy, and matter entities?!
Quantum mechanically, the “time” or “spacetime” is only a metaphor; in reality, there is no such thing as time; it is only a representation of measurement or coordinate in the STEM matrices—all the energy-containing matters, which are actively interacting with each other, and evolving into evermore complex entities, in the boundless dynamic Universe above and beyond—and in the Life entities as the “biological clock” as defined by Biochemistry (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience). In Physics, we also have the “atomic clock” as defined by the decaying process of an Element of choice as a standard; this is because all elements degrade differently in their each own unique spacetimes.
Furthermore, my understanding of an “event horizon” is that it is an “imaginary point,” at which point or the spacetime, all STEM entities would be disintegrated, transformed into energies, and absorbed by a “black hole”—wherein there lies another “imaginary point,” which is usually located at the center of a swirling galaxy?!
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 9/22/6usct12:21a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Infinity by itself, is not and can not cause, a matrix.
4) That is right; Infinity is the dynamic equilibrium of a matrix, that we now call the Universe or the STEM matrix of unbound space, time, energy, and matter entities?!
Quantum mechanically, the “time” or “spacetime” is only a metaphor; in reality, there is no such thing as time; it is only a representation of measurement or coordinate in the STEM matrices—all the energy-containing matters, which are actively interacting with each other, and evolving into evermore complex entities, in the boundless dynamic Universe above and beyond—and in the Life entities as the “biological clock” as defined by Biochemistry (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience). In Physics, we also have the “atomic clock” as defined by the decaying process of an Element of choice as a standard; this is because all elements degrade differently in their each own unique spacetimes.
Furthermore, my understanding of an “event horizon” is that it is an “imaginary point,” at which point or the spacetime, all STEM entities would be disintegrated, transformed into energies, and absorbed by a “black hole”—wherein there lies another “imaginary point,” which is usually located at the center of a swirling galaxy?!
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 9/22/6usct12:21a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 21 2006, 07:03 PM)
.
QUOTE
Just a reminder that our novel project is aimed at minimising any premature and/or ad hoc inputs to the self-determining logic trail as commenced/indicated by the 'independent theorising process' ITSELF.
So it should be borne in mind that AS YET, that self-determining logic trail has NOT YET 'identifed' such things as SPACETIME
So it should be borne in mind that AS YET, that self-determining logic trail has NOT YET 'identifed' such things as SPACETIME
My question was, does this fundamental thing 'omnidirection' imply spacetime or not. I'm not suggesting that spacetime is or is not fundamental, just confirming that there is not a hidden assumption in the idea of omnidirection. If omnidirection implies spacetime then we might as well take spacetime to be fundamental. If it does not then we need to figure how omnidirection gives rise to spacetime. At the moment we seem to having our cake and eating it, as my grandma used to say.
Mong H Tan, PhD and all!
This process that we are doing may not contain all of you way of thinking.
I hope that you are prepared to get new insights and to compromise.
We might not even want to use some of your expressions.
jal
This process that we are doing may not contain all of you way of thinking.
I hope that you are prepared to get new insights and to compromise.
We might not even want to use some of your expressions.
jal
Hello, Philosophers, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit!
Here is my proposed definition: The Universe is an infinite state of dynamic equilibrium, whereby the STEM matrices of space, time, energy, and matter interactions, give rise to Everything in it; in continuum, ad infinitum.
As for Wanderer’s rightly question of “omnidirection,” we might just have to scrap it, and replace it with “infinite dynamic equilibrium” as I suggested above?! The Universe is just too big a piece of cake for any metaphysician-philosophers to have it, and eat it, too?!
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 9/22/6usct11:09a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
QUOTE
We might not even want to use some of your expressions.
Good point, Jal! That’s why the other day when I first joined in, I suggested that we might have to redefine the conclusion of this Stage One discussions; as more new inputs are coming in for consideration.Here is my proposed definition: The Universe is an infinite state of dynamic equilibrium, whereby the STEM matrices of space, time, energy, and matter interactions, give rise to Everything in it; in continuum, ad infinitum.
As for Wanderer’s rightly question of “omnidirection,” we might just have to scrap it, and replace it with “infinite dynamic equilibrium” as I suggested above?! The Universe is just too big a piece of cake for any metaphysician-philosophers to have it, and eat it, too?!
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 9/22/6usct11:09a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Mong H Tan, PhD
I do not have your background... therefore the word STEM is neutral and does not give me any insight.
I going to stay simple since the results of what is done here will need to be condensed/simplified/explained and understood by "simple people".
There is also the possibility that the dynamics are not there.... "a solid" with no room to move....that would be "equilibrium"
simple jal
I do not have your background... therefore the word STEM is neutral and does not give me any insight.
I going to stay simple since the results of what is done here will need to be condensed/simplified/explained and understood by "simple people".
QUOTE
The Universe is an infinite state of dynamic equilibrium
There is also the possibility that the dynamics are not there.... "a solid" with no room to move....that would be "equilibrium"
simple jal
Hello, Philosophers, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit!
Specifically, Jal: STEM = space, time, energy, matter. It is a catchy acronym; all capitalized, so as to differentiate it from “stem” of the stem cells.
As you know, stem cells are the multi-potential cells in our body; when appropriate biochemical cues are given, they would grow into any cell types of our choice, experimentally; and in nature.
Therefore, analogically, in the dynamic Universe, the STEM entities would give rise to even more complex entities, as those that we are seeing today, in Cosmology.
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 9/22/6usct11:55a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Specifically, Jal: STEM = space, time, energy, matter. It is a catchy acronym; all capitalized, so as to differentiate it from “stem” of the stem cells.
As you know, stem cells are the multi-potential cells in our body; when appropriate biochemical cues are given, they would grow into any cell types of our choice, experimentally; and in nature.
Therefore, analogically, in the dynamic Universe, the STEM entities would give rise to even more complex entities, as those that we are seeing today, in Cosmology.
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 9/22/6usct11:55a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Mong,
"Absolutely nothing is impossible" being within the a-priori, does not mean it is just inside the universe, necessarily. A-priori doesn't necessarily mean the universe. With that said, absolute nothing is imposslbe. This does not negate "nothingness", however. There are two forms of "existent" nothing that I won't elaborate on, which are the relatively absolute form "no-thing" and the relative form "relatively nothing." The former being outside the universe and the latter being within it.
"Absolutely nothing is impossible" being within the a-priori, does not mean it is just inside the universe, necessarily. A-priori doesn't necessarily mean the universe. With that said, absolute nothing is imposslbe. This does not negate "nothingness", however. There are two forms of "existent" nothing that I won't elaborate on, which are the relatively absolute form "no-thing" and the relative form "relatively nothing." The former being outside the universe and the latter being within it.
2) I would agree to that; so we should kill off the “big bang” theory; and the “string” theory as well?
Yes.
Infinity does not have a dynamic.
Infinity does not have a dynamic.
4) That is right; Infinity is the dynamic equilibrium of a matrix, that we now call the Universe or the STEM matrix of unbound space, time, energy, and matter entities?!
Infinity does not have a matrix, a dynamic, or a preference for STEM. It contains none of this information.
An event horizon is any theory of observable finiteness, that we can not prove to an absolute degree of certainty, and in this inability to prove it, we run into the implication of infinities that are problematic. Any view of the universe is included in this.
jal,
An event horizon is any theory of observable finiteness, that we can not prove to an absolute degree of certainty, and in this inability to prove it, we run into the implication of infinities that are problematic. Any view of the universe is included in this.
jal,
There is also the possibility that the dynamics are not there.... "a solid" with no room to move....that would be "equilibrium"
Yes. But an "infinte" solid?
Wanderer,
Agreed. Omni-direction or equalibrium does not imply anything by itself. There is something missing. Good old grandma. I called her "Nana". A brilliant, but matriarchal bitch of an English woman was she.
0 is between –/+ in an infinite scale. The scale is not absolute, nor is the 0.
Hi Eric England
Thanks for the brush-off.
Did you not understand what I was saying?
At the very beginning there were two states of nothing … that is the paradox.
By putting ‘nothing’ between plus and minus, you have taken a big leap forward … this is what everyone is doing and not giving proper status to ‘nothing’.
Just because mathematics chose to ignore ‘negative nothing’ does not mean it is not there.
Eg:
All the negative numbers are inverses of all the whole numbers.
Zero is a whole number so the inverse must negative zero.
Aside … I do despair at times when modern mathematics finds a paradox … then just goes and ignores it … so what if the mathematics still seems to work with the paradox … is there anyone looking for the special case … no.
I have found a paradox ( I can’t be the first) … that even someone with the most basic mathematics and simple logic can understand … yet you choose to ignore it and move onto something else.
I have also found another paradox with inverses … this one is also very simple to understand.
An inverse is equivalent to a reflection transformation.
Now, I just want show that, that is an illusion … there are two states to the inverse … a paradox.
I draw you attention to the well known optical illusion of the figure of a bust … looking head on, the face looks just like any other sculpture … but closer inspection shows that it is actually a concave face … that is, a face tuned inside out (the bust is sometimes shown rotating to get the full effect).
Put more simply the inverse of a sphere is still a sphere but turned inside out … by just looking at the sphere we cannot tell which state the sphere is at.
The only way we can tell is by increasing the radius:
If we increase the radius of the normal sphere the sphere gets bigger.
But if we increase the radius of an inverse sphere it gets smaller.
Aside … perhaps you’d like to figure out where the centre of an inverse sphere is … and then contemplate, if big bang really happened where the central starting point was … then contemplate whether we are in the macro or micro.
My two states of nothing are akin to the normal sphere and the inverse sphere.
‘Nothing’ is going between both states … eventually finding an equilibrium point but bursting with energy.
I think you have dismissed ‘nothing’ a bit too quickly.
Cheers
QUOTE
So, as your statement above has had implied to me: How could “absolute nothing” give rise to “nothingness” in the Universe?!
"Absolutely nothing is impossible" being within the a-priori, does not mean it is just inside the universe, necessarily. A-priori doesn't necessarily mean the universe. With that said, absolute nothing is imposslbe. This does not negate "nothingness", however. There are two forms of "existent" nothing that I won't elaborate on, which are the relatively absolute form "no-thing" and the relative form "relatively nothing." The former being outside the universe and the latter being within it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So, as your statement above has had implied to me: How could “absolute nothing” give rise to “nothingness” in the Universe?! |
"Absolutely nothing is impossible" being within the a-priori, does not mean it is just inside the universe, necessarily. A-priori doesn't necessarily mean the universe. With that said, absolute nothing is imposslbe. This does not negate "nothingness", however. There are two forms of "existent" nothing that I won't elaborate on, which are the relatively absolute form "no-thing" and the relative form "relatively nothing." The former being outside the universe and the latter being within it.
2) I would agree to that; so we should kill off the “big bang” theory; and the “string” theory as well?
Yes.
QUOTE
3) Good catch; Infinity should mean the dynamism or dynamic equilibrium of the Universe?!
Infinity does not have a dynamic.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 3) Good catch; Infinity should mean the dynamism or dynamic equilibrium of the Universe?! |
Infinity does not have a dynamic.
4) That is right; Infinity is the dynamic equilibrium of a matrix, that we now call the Universe or the STEM matrix of unbound space, time, energy, and matter entities?!
Infinity does not have a matrix, a dynamic, or a preference for STEM. It contains none of this information.
QUOTE
Furthermore, my understanding of an “event horizon” is that it is an “imaginary point,” at which point or the spacetime, all STEM entities would be disintegrated, transformed into energies, and absorbed by a “black hole”—wherein there lies another “imaginary point,” which is usually located at the center of a swirling galaxy?!
An event horizon is any theory of observable finiteness, that we can not prove to an absolute degree of certainty, and in this inability to prove it, we run into the implication of infinities that are problematic. Any view of the universe is included in this.
jal,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Furthermore, my understanding of an “event horizon” is that it is an “imaginary point,” at which point or the spacetime, all STEM entities would be disintegrated, transformed into energies, and absorbed by a “black hole”—wherein there lies another “imaginary point,” which is usually located at the center of a swirling galaxy?! |
An event horizon is any theory of observable finiteness, that we can not prove to an absolute degree of certainty, and in this inability to prove it, we run into the implication of infinities that are problematic. Any view of the universe is included in this.
jal,
There is also the possibility that the dynamics are not there.... "a solid" with no room to move....that would be "equilibrium"
Yes. But an "infinte" solid?
Wanderer,
QUOTE
My question was, does this fundamental thing 'omnidirection' imply spacetime or not. I'm not suggesting that spacetime is or is not fundamental, just confirming that there is not a hidden assumption in the idea of omnidirection. If omnidirection implies spacetime then we might as well take spacetime to be fundamental. If it does not then we need to figure how omnidirection gives rise to spacetime. At the moment we seem to having our cake and eating it, as my grandma used to say.
Agreed. Omni-direction or equalibrium does not imply anything by itself. There is something missing. Good old grandma. I called her "Nana". A brilliant, but matriarchal bitch of an English woman was she.
QUOTE (Eric England+Sep 22 2006, 01:10 AM)
0 is between –/+ in an infinite scale. The scale is not absolute, nor is the 0.
Hi Eric England
Thanks for the brush-off.
Did you not understand what I was saying?
At the very beginning there were two states of nothing … that is the paradox.
By putting ‘nothing’ between plus and minus, you have taken a big leap forward … this is what everyone is doing and not giving proper status to ‘nothing’.
Just because mathematics chose to ignore ‘negative nothing’ does not mean it is not there.
Eg:
All the negative numbers are inverses of all the whole numbers.
Zero is a whole number so the inverse must negative zero.
Aside … I do despair at times when modern mathematics finds a paradox … then just goes and ignores it … so what if the mathematics still seems to work with the paradox … is there anyone looking for the special case … no.
I have found a paradox ( I can’t be the first) … that even someone with the most basic mathematics and simple logic can understand … yet you choose to ignore it and move onto something else.
I have also found another paradox with inverses … this one is also very simple to understand.
An inverse is equivalent to a reflection transformation.
Now, I just want show that, that is an illusion … there are two states to the inverse … a paradox.
I draw you attention to the well known optical illusion of the figure of a bust … looking head on, the face looks just like any other sculpture … but closer inspection shows that it is actually a concave face … that is, a face tuned inside out (the bust is sometimes shown rotating to get the full effect).
Put more simply the inverse of a sphere is still a sphere but turned inside out … by just looking at the sphere we cannot tell which state the sphere is at.
The only way we can tell is by increasing the radius:
If we increase the radius of the normal sphere the sphere gets bigger.
But if we increase the radius of an inverse sphere it gets smaller.
Aside … perhaps you’d like to figure out where the centre of an inverse sphere is … and then contemplate, if big bang really happened where the central starting point was … then contemplate whether we are in the macro or micro.
My two states of nothing are akin to the normal sphere and the inverse sphere.
‘Nothing’ is going between both states … eventually finding an equilibrium point but bursting with energy.
I think you have dismissed ‘nothing’ a bit too quickly.
Cheers
Hi Janus,
No, a brush-off would have been to ignore you.
I just said I was sorry you were fed up. Sarcastically to be sure, but a reaction isn't a brush-off.
So then you introduce the "holy grail".
I just said I was sorry you were fed up. Sarcastically to be sure, but a reaction isn't a brush-off.
So then you introduce the "holy grail".
Firstly, we need to just decide on three things:
1. everything came from nothing.
2. everything came from everything.
3. something else.
I chose #3. Again, no brush-off.
1. What are the two states of nothing?
2. Why does it have to find a singular state?
3. What causes it to bounce back and forth?
4. Did it begin bouncing and then end bouncing?
5. What was it doing before it began?
6. Will it split into two states at some juncture?
7. Did each state contain one half of the energy from bouncing?
8. What were the two states bouncing within?
9. Are you sure you don't want to go with #3?
Eric
No, a brush-off would have been to ignore you.
QUOTE
I am a bit fed up with peoples TOE not addressing the beginning properly.
I just said I was sorry you were fed up. Sarcastically to be sure, but a reaction isn't a brush-off.
So then you introduce the "holy grail".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I am a bit fed up with peoples TOE not addressing the beginning properly. |
I just said I was sorry you were fed up. Sarcastically to be sure, but a reaction isn't a brush-off.
So then you introduce the "holy grail".
Firstly, we need to just decide on three things:
1. everything came from nothing.
2. everything came from everything.
3. something else.
I chose #3. Again, no brush-off.
QUOTE
Obviously, my choice is everything from nothing … that’s why it’s first on the list.
He is my reason simplistically stated:
Nothing is a paradox … it has two states … but nothing has so find a singular state.
So nothing bounces between the two states … who knows how many times … but I can definitely say this bouncing took no time because time does not exist yet … we are talking about the entity nothing.
Nothing eventually finds an equilibrium point; thereby creating a third state ( the magic triplicate).
This third state is totally perfect and full of energy from all the bouncing …
He is my reason simplistically stated:
Nothing is a paradox … it has two states … but nothing has so find a singular state.
So nothing bounces between the two states … who knows how many times … but I can definitely say this bouncing took no time because time does not exist yet … we are talking about the entity nothing.
Nothing eventually finds an equilibrium point; thereby creating a third state ( the magic triplicate).
This third state is totally perfect and full of energy from all the bouncing …
1. What are the two states of nothing?
2. Why does it have to find a singular state?
3. What causes it to bounce back and forth?
4. Did it begin bouncing and then end bouncing?
5. What was it doing before it began?
6. Will it split into two states at some juncture?
7. Did each state contain one half of the energy from bouncing?
8. What were the two states bouncing within?
9. Are you sure you don't want to go with #3?
Eric
Sorry to break this up into two parts, just couldn't handle it in one sitting.
I took a big leap forward? Where was I when I took this leap?
I took a big leap forward? Where was I when I took this leap?
Just because mathematics chose to ignore ‘negative nothing’ does not mean it is not there. All the negative numbers are inverses of all the whole numbers. Zero is a whole number so the inverse must negative zero.
What leads you to believe zero is a positive (whole) number?
You stated there was a paradox and didn't bother to explain what it was. Mind reading is an extra charge.
You stated there was a paradox and didn't bother to explain what it was. Mind reading is an extra charge.
An inverse is equivalent to a reflection transformation. If we increase the radius of the normal sphere the sphere gets bigger. But if we increase the radius of an inverse sphere it gets smaller.
So when you look in your mirror and get a big head, the image in the mirror gets smaller? Wow!
I'm sorry Janus, but the distance between your knowledge and your attitude, seems to be infinite; with no preference as to direction, distance, or charge. Omni-directional ego-centricity, as it were.
But you have inadvertantly done us a favor. You've located the center of the universe.
I dare not go on. Any response is welcome. I may or may not brush you off.
Eric
QUOTE
By putting ‘nothing’ between plus and minus, you have taken a big leap forward … this is what everyone is doing and not giving proper status to ‘nothing’.
I took a big leap forward? Where was I when I took this leap?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| By putting ‘nothing’ between plus and minus, you have taken a big leap forward … this is what everyone is doing and not giving proper status to ‘nothing’. |
I took a big leap forward? Where was I when I took this leap?
Just because mathematics chose to ignore ‘negative nothing’ does not mean it is not there. All the negative numbers are inverses of all the whole numbers. Zero is a whole number so the inverse must negative zero.
What leads you to believe zero is a positive (whole) number?
QUOTE
I have found a paradox ( I can’t be the first) … that even someone with the most basic mathematics and simple logic can understand … yet you choose to ignore it and move onto something else.
You stated there was a paradox and didn't bother to explain what it was. Mind reading is an extra charge.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have found a paradox ( I can’t be the first) … that even someone with the most basic mathematics and simple logic can understand … yet you choose to ignore it and move onto something else. |
You stated there was a paradox and didn't bother to explain what it was. Mind reading is an extra charge.
An inverse is equivalent to a reflection transformation. If we increase the radius of the normal sphere the sphere gets bigger. But if we increase the radius of an inverse sphere it gets smaller.
So when you look in your mirror and get a big head, the image in the mirror gets smaller? Wow!
I'm sorry Janus, but the distance between your knowledge and your attitude, seems to be infinite; with no preference as to direction, distance, or charge. Omni-directional ego-centricity, as it were.
But you have inadvertantly done us a favor. You've located the center of the universe.
I dare not go on. Any response is welcome. I may or may not brush you off.
Eric
Hello, Philosophers, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit!
Specifically, Eric England:
2] I would agree to that “absolute nothing is impossible.”
3] I thought the nature of our Universe is infinite and boundless, hence the Infinity that it is, without any boundaries; so we should kill off the “multiverse” theory, and the “event horizon” as well?!
As such, "nothingness" or even "relatively nothing" cannot exist within the dynamic Universe of the active, interactive, creative STEM matrices or entities—including Life on Earth—as explained in 2] above?!
Specifically, Eric England:
QUOTE
"Absolutely nothing is impossible" being within the a-priori, does not mean it is just inside the universe, necessarily. A-priori doesn't necessarily mean the universe[1]. With that said, absolute nothing is impossible[2]. This does not negate "nothingness", however. There are two forms of "existent" nothing that I won't elaborate on, which are the relatively absolute form "no-thing" and the relative form "relatively nothing." The former being outside the universe and the latter being within it[3].
1] I thought "Absolutely nothing is impossible" is a priori that would establish the nature of our Universe?!2] I would agree to that “absolute nothing is impossible.”
3] I thought the nature of our Universe is infinite and boundless, hence the Infinity that it is, without any boundaries; so we should kill off the “multiverse” theory, and the “event horizon” as well?!
As such, "nothingness" or even "relatively nothing" cannot exist within the dynamic Universe of the active, interactive, creative STEM matrices or entities—including Life on Earth—as explained in 2] above?!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Absolutely nothing is impossible" being within the a-priori, does not mean it is just inside the universe, necessarily. A-priori doesn't necessarily mean the universe[1]. With that said, absolute nothing is impossible[2]. This does not negate "nothingness", however. There are two forms of "existent" nothing that I won't elaborate on, which are the relatively absolute form "no-thing" and the relative form "relatively nothing." The former being outside the universe and the latter being within it[3]. |
1] I thought "Absolutely nothing is impossible" is a priori that would establish the nature of our Universe?!
2] I would agree to that “absolute nothing is impossible.”
3] I thought the nature of our Universe is infinite and boundless, hence the Infinity that it is, without any boundaries; so we should kill off the “multiverse” theory, and the “event horizon” as well?!
As such, "nothingness" or even "relatively nothing" cannot exist within the dynamic Universe of the active, interactive, creative STEM matrices or entities—including Life on Earth—as explained in 2] above?!
Infinity does not have a dynamic. Infinity does not have a matrix, a dynamic, or a preference for STEM. It contains none of this information.
2] I would agree to that “absolute nothing is impossible.”
3] I thought the nature of our Universe is infinite and boundless, hence the Infinity that it is, without any boundaries; so we should kill off the “multiverse” theory, and the “event horizon” as well?!
As such, "nothingness" or even "relatively nothing" cannot exist within the dynamic Universe of the active, interactive, creative STEM matrices or entities—including Life on Earth—as explained in 2] above?!
Infinity does not have a dynamic. Infinity does not have a matrix, a dynamic, or a preference for STEM. It contains none of this information.
4] Okay, how about Infinity as a boundless dimension that would define our dynamic Universe; as explained in 3] above?!
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 9/22/6usct11:07p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 9/22/6usct11:07p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Hi Mong,
Excellent questions.
This is a tricky, but simple one. I thought I had covered it, but maybe not. The other way of saying it is, "absolutely nothing does not exist". In either case, these "facts" are not outside the absolute something. There is no absolute nothing or anything that can be said about it, outside the absolute.
Inside the absolute, however, absolutely nothing is impossible and absolutely nothing does not exist. This is the basis for absolute potential, rather than a lesser infinite potential.
This is a tricky, but simple one. I thought I had covered it, but maybe not. The other way of saying it is, "absolutely nothing does not exist". In either case, these "facts" are not outside the absolute something. There is no absolute nothing or anything that can be said about it, outside the absolute.
Inside the absolute, however, absolutely nothing is impossible and absolutely nothing does not exist. This is the basis for absolute potential, rather than a lesser infinite potential.
3] I thought the nature of our Universe is infinite and boundless, hence the Infinity that it is, without any boundaries; so we should kill off the “multiverse” theory, and the “event horizon” as well?!
Yes to the multi-verse or multi-bang. They are worse than useless. The event horizon is a little different. I would, without getting into it, call it the "tangible illusion".
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." –Einstein
This doesn't speak to the "reality" outside the univese, however.
The only accurate thing that can be said about infinity, is that it doesn't "actually" happen. The dynamism occurs because something "appears" to happen. To achieve this flip-flop between infinite and finite, requires a reflective component.
Janus, you stuck reflection into the conversation, good job.
Excellent questions.
QUOTE
1] I thought "Absolutely nothing is impossible" is a priori that would establish the nature of our Universe?!
This is a tricky, but simple one. I thought I had covered it, but maybe not. The other way of saying it is, "absolutely nothing does not exist". In either case, these "facts" are not outside the absolute something. There is no absolute nothing or anything that can be said about it, outside the absolute.
Inside the absolute, however, absolutely nothing is impossible and absolutely nothing does not exist. This is the basis for absolute potential, rather than a lesser infinite potential.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1] I thought "Absolutely nothing is impossible" is a priori that would establish the nature of our Universe?! |
This is a tricky, but simple one. I thought I had covered it, but maybe not. The other way of saying it is, "absolutely nothing does not exist". In either case, these "facts" are not outside the absolute something. There is no absolute nothing or anything that can be said about it, outside the absolute.
Inside the absolute, however, absolutely nothing is impossible and absolutely nothing does not exist. This is the basis for absolute potential, rather than a lesser infinite potential.
3] I thought the nature of our Universe is infinite and boundless, hence the Infinity that it is, without any boundaries; so we should kill off the “multiverse” theory, and the “event horizon” as well?!
Yes to the multi-verse or multi-bang. They are worse than useless. The event horizon is a little different. I would, without getting into it, call it the "tangible illusion".
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." –Einstein
This doesn't speak to the "reality" outside the univese, however.
QUOTE
4] Okay, how about Infinity as a boundless dimension that would define our dynamic Universe; as explained in 3] above?!
The only accurate thing that can be said about infinity, is that it doesn't "actually" happen. The dynamism occurs because something "appears" to happen. To achieve this flip-flop between infinite and finite, requires a reflective component.
Janus, you stuck reflection into the conversation, good job.
Hi all!
Some exterior thinking by Leonard Susskind.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundam...825305.800.html
Some exterior thinking by Leonard Susskind.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundam...825305.800.html
QUOTE
In order to accept the idea that we live in a hospitable patch of a multiverse, must a physicist trade in that dream of a final theory?
Absolutely not. No more than when physicists discovered that the radii of planetary orbits were not determined by some elegant mathematical equation, or by Kepler's idea of nested Platonic solids. We simply have to reassess which things will be universal consequences of the theory and which will be consequences of cosmic history and local conditions.
Absolutely not. No more than when physicists discovered that the radii of planetary orbits were not determined by some elegant mathematical equation, or by Kepler's idea of nested Platonic solids. We simply have to reassess which things will be universal consequences of the theory and which will be consequences of cosmic history and local conditions.
Hello, Philosophers, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit!
Specifically, Eric England:
2] We cannot assume or assign an absolute potential to the Universe; lest we’ll fall into the anthropomorphic trap of Theology, Creationism, Metaphysics, etc?! The infinite potential comes forth from the STEM entities themselves, upon their constant physico-electrochemical collisions, fusions, fissions, interactions, evolutions, transformations, etc within the Universe?!
Specifically, Eric England:
QUOTE
Inside the absolute, however, absolutely nothing is impossible and absolutely nothing does not exist[1]. This is the basis for absolute potential, rather than a lesser infinite potential[2].
1] Since we are treating the Universe as a fact—observable from within it—and that is where we are now on Earth—a STEM coordinate among the endless, infinite STEM matrices or entities within the Universe—we should accept “absolutely nothing is impossible” as a definition of fact; whereas “absolutely nothing does not exist” is a rhetorical expression, a creation of our own Mind or imagination, and therefore we should kill it off as the multiverse theory?!2] We cannot assume or assign an absolute potential to the Universe; lest we’ll fall into the anthropomorphic trap of Theology, Creationism, Metaphysics, etc?! The infinite potential comes forth from the STEM entities themselves, upon their constant physico-electrochemical collisions, fusions, fissions, interactions, evolutions, transformations, etc within the Universe?!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Inside the absolute, however, absolutely nothing is impossible and absolutely nothing does not exist[1]. This is the basis for absolute potential, rather than a lesser infinite potential[2]. |
1] Since we are treating the Universe as a fact—observable from within it—and that is where we are now on Earth—a STEM coordinate among the endless, infinite STEM matrices or entities within the Universe—we should accept “absolutely nothing is impossible” as a definition of fact; whereas “absolutely nothing does not exist” is a rhetorical expression, a creation of our own Mind or imagination, and therefore we should kill it off as the multiverse theory?!
2] We cannot assume or assign an absolute potential to the Universe; lest we’ll fall into the anthropomorphic trap of Theology, Creationism, Metaphysics, etc?! The infinite potential comes forth from the STEM entities themselves, upon their constant physico-electrochemical collisions, fusions, fissions, interactions, evolutions, transformations, etc within the Universe?!
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."–Einstein[3]. This doesn't speak to the "reality" outside the universe, however[4].
2] We cannot assume or assign an absolute potential to the Universe; lest we’ll fall into the anthropomorphic trap of Theology, Creationism, Metaphysics, etc?! The infinite potential comes forth from the STEM entities themselves, upon their constant physico-electrochemical collisions, fusions, fissions, interactions, evolutions, transformations, etc within the Universe?!
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."–Einstein[3]. This doesn't speak to the "reality" outside the universe, however[4].
3] By modern psychoanalysis and definitions, Einstein’s “reality” was in fact a “memory” of what he had had observed and perceived the reality (primarily Physics) of his times; that’s why he philosophized that his then “memory” of the reality, was an illusion, and a very persistent one—and that’s why he later couldn’t accept the theory of Quantum Mechanics, as the QM contradicted with his then theory of Relativity, or the “memory” of his then “reality,” intellectual and spiritual, as he also proclaimed that God does not play dice with the Universe?!
4] So, we should not entertain any "reality" outside the Universe; as explained in 1] - 3] above?!
5] Infinity should mean the a priori state of the Universe; as explained in 1] - 3] above?!
6] The dynamism should assign to the STEM entities within the Universe; as explained in 1] - 3] above?!
7] So, there shall be no flip-flop impression between Infinity (of the Universe) and Dynamism (or the dynamics of the STEM matrix)?!
As for Jal:
5] Infinity should mean the a priori state of the Universe; as explained in 1] - 3] above?!
6] The dynamism should assign to the STEM entities within the Universe; as explained in 1] - 3] above?!
7] So, there shall be no flip-flop impression between Infinity (of the Universe) and Dynamism (or the dynamics of the STEM matrix)?!
As for Jal:
In order to accept the idea that we live in a hospitable patch of a multiverse, must a physicist trade in that dream of a final theory[8]?
Absolutely not. No more than when physicists discovered that the radii of planetary orbits were not determined by some elegant mathematical equation, or by Kepler's idea of nested Platonic solids. We simply have to reassess which things will be universal consequences of the theory and which will be consequences of cosmic history and local conditions[9].
8] This is a rhetorical as well as metaphysical question; that’s why we have to kill off the multiverse theory, as explained in 1] above.
9] This is the project that we are trying to do; isn’t it?!—well quoted, Jal!
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 9/23/6usct2:34p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
4] So, we should not entertain any "reality" outside the Universe; as explained in 1] - 3] above?!
QUOTE
The only accurate thing that can be said about infinity, is that it doesn't "actually" happen[5]. The dynamism occurs because something "appears" to happen[6]. To achieve this flip-flop between infinite and finite, requires a reflective component[7].
5] Infinity should mean the a priori state of the Universe; as explained in 1] - 3] above?!
6] The dynamism should assign to the STEM entities within the Universe; as explained in 1] - 3] above?!
7] So, there shall be no flip-flop impression between Infinity (of the Universe) and Dynamism (or the dynamics of the STEM matrix)?!
As for Jal:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The only accurate thing that can be said about infinity, is that it doesn't "actually" happen[5]. The dynamism occurs because something "appears" to happen[6]. To achieve this flip-flop between infinite and finite, requires a reflective component[7]. |
5] Infinity should mean the a priori state of the Universe; as explained in 1] - 3] above?!
6] The dynamism should assign to the STEM entities within the Universe; as explained in 1] - 3] above?!
7] So, there shall be no flip-flop impression between Infinity (of the Universe) and Dynamism (or the dynamics of the STEM matrix)?!
As for Jal:
In order to accept the idea that we live in a hospitable patch of a multiverse, must a physicist trade in that dream of a final theory[8]?
Absolutely not. No more than when physicists discovered that the radii of planetary orbits were not determined by some elegant mathematical equation, or by Kepler's idea of nested Platonic solids. We simply have to reassess which things will be universal consequences of the theory and which will be consequences of cosmic history and local conditions[9].
8] This is a rhetorical as well as metaphysical question; that’s why we have to kill off the multiverse theory, as explained in 1] above.
9] This is the project that we are trying to do; isn’t it?!—well quoted, Jal!
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 9/23/6usct2:34p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Hi Mong,
It depends on what you mean by fact. As for obseving from within it, all of my observations are first and foremost from outside of it. Ever been there?
It depends on what you mean by fact. As for obseving from within it, all of my observations are first and foremost from outside of it. Ever been there?
...we should accept “absolutely nothing is impossible” as a definition of fact; whereas “absolutely nothing does not exist” is a rhetorical expression...
Actually, the former is more a statement of potential and the latter is a more a statement of fact. The only thing that does NOT exist is absolutely nothing. What does exist, is not limited to having an equal degree of existence. That which is outside the universe actually exists, and the universe figuratively exists. The actual is the mirror and that which is looking in the mirror, so to speak. The rest is the image. The figurative.
I'm not assigning it to the universe itself. There is more to "reality" than the universe.
I'm not assigning it to the universe itself. There is more to "reality" than the universe.
3] By modern psychoanalysis and definitions, Einstein’s “reality” was in fact a “memory” of what he had had observed and perceived the reality (primarily Physics) of his times
Who told you that?
The big boys are doing, why shouldn't we?
Eric
QUOTE
Since we are treating the Universe as a fact—observable from within it...
It depends on what you mean by fact. As for obseving from within it, all of my observations are first and foremost from outside of it. Ever been there?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Since we are treating the Universe as a fact—observable from within it... |
It depends on what you mean by fact. As for obseving from within it, all of my observations are first and foremost from outside of it. Ever been there?
...we should accept “absolutely nothing is impossible” as a definition of fact; whereas “absolutely nothing does not exist” is a rhetorical expression...
Actually, the former is more a statement of potential and the latter is a more a statement of fact. The only thing that does NOT exist is absolutely nothing. What does exist, is not limited to having an equal degree of existence. That which is outside the universe actually exists, and the universe figuratively exists. The actual is the mirror and that which is looking in the mirror, so to speak. The rest is the image. The figurative.
QUOTE
2] We cannot assume or assign an absolute potential to the Universe; lest we’ll fall into the anthropomorphic trap of Theology, Creationism, Metaphysics, etc?!
I'm not assigning it to the universe itself. There is more to "reality" than the universe.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 2] We cannot assume or assign an absolute potential to the Universe; lest we’ll fall into the anthropomorphic trap of Theology, Creationism, Metaphysics, etc?! |
I'm not assigning it to the universe itself. There is more to "reality" than the universe.
3] By modern psychoanalysis and definitions, Einstein’s “reality” was in fact a “memory” of what he had had observed and perceived the reality (primarily Physics) of his times
Who told you that?
QUOTE
4] So, we should not entertain any "reality" outside the Universe; as explained in 1] - 3] above?!
The big boys are doing, why shouldn't we?
Eric
Hi Eric England,
Sorry that you are having difficulty with the concepts … and am only amusing you … but you are still discounting something too quickly … then concluding … it must be something else.
People with meta-minds do have problems with the simple concepts … so I will persist.
All I have shown so far is the reason ‘nothing’ cannot exist … and what there must be in its place.
You are stuck in an old concept of ‘nothing’ … which will make us discuss cross purposes … thereby it will not be productive.
Your questions answered:
1. What are the two states of nothing?
A. One is the inverse of the other.
2. Why does it have to find a singular state?
A. Nothings job is to be nothing … in your sense of nothing.
3. What causes it to bounce back and forth?
A. Nothing’s job is to be nothing … but which is the proper state? … is it to be infinitely big with nothing inside … or is it to be infinitely small with nothing outside … the paradox.
4. Did it begin bouncing and then end bouncing?
A. If it bounced infinitely we would not be here.
5. What was it doing before it began?
A. Nothings job is to be nothing it was not doing anything else … there is no before.
6. Will it split into two states at some juncture?
A. There is no split … there is no going back … its in a third state … visualise a vesica it is something like that there is nothing outside of the vesica … nothing has completed its task … it is in equilibrium … with virtual/potential energy … the urge or the word … call it what you like.
7. Did each state contain one half of the energy from bouncing?
A. No, the energy is only at the intersection of the two nothings.
Each part will be the beginning of the macro and and micro … that is we have an
A intersection B … where A will be the macro and B will be micro.
8. What were the two states bouncing within?
A. It wasn’t bouncing within anything … no medium … it was just doing its job … trying to be being nothing.
9. Are you sure you don't want to go with #3?
A. If I hear better, of cause I will change my views … but I don’t know of anyone else who has this idea of nothing … some have stated about a recursion from other dimensions but that’s putting the cart before the horse but generally all I hear is nothing is impossible without any real explanation … like yourself.
The problem I am finding from other people with this concept is that I have already started the ball rolling and it interferes with their pet TOE … that is why you are probably trying to dismiss my idea so quickly … you are not being true to the thread.
Your other questions answered:
Q. I took a big leap forward? Where was I when I took this leap?
A You didn’t explain what ‘nothing’ was.
You cannot be so dismissive of something so important as nothing … that was the starting point.
Q. So when you look in your mirror and get a big head, the image in the mirror gets smaller? Wow!
A. Try reading the passage again … the point I was making was that when you look at a sphere you cannot tell whether it is inside out or not … if you don’t like the mathematics disprove it.
As for the centre of the universe perhaps you would like to answer the questions and the reasoning put or use the mirror.
I have a feeling your ideas revolve around a ‘mulit-verse’ and ‘any thing is possible’ concepts; to which I have many reservation … I’ll just state two:
Firstly, there would be no meaning to life or ideas … we would be having this dialog an infinitely different ways where the conclusions would have no value or meaning … somewhere else we will have got it infinitely right and wrong.
Secondly, if anything is possible then why has it not happened already … how old does the universe have to be before wonderful things happen … time travel …changing the future … dialog with the maker of the universe … you understanding the points I am making … you being right and me being right at the same time with different views …etc.
Only using ridicule is no way to disprove something … give me reasons.
Cheers.
Sorry that you are having difficulty with the concepts … and am only amusing you … but you are still discounting something too quickly … then concluding … it must be something else.
People with meta-minds do have problems with the simple concepts … so I will persist.
All I have shown so far is the reason ‘nothing’ cannot exist … and what there must be in its place.
You are stuck in an old concept of ‘nothing’ … which will make us discuss cross purposes … thereby it will not be productive.
Your questions answered:
1. What are the two states of nothing?
A. One is the inverse of the other.
2. Why does it have to find a singular state?
A. Nothings job is to be nothing … in your sense of nothing.
3. What causes it to bounce back and forth?
A. Nothing’s job is to be nothing … but which is the proper state? … is it to be infinitely big with nothing inside … or is it to be infinitely small with nothing outside … the paradox.
4. Did it begin bouncing and then end bouncing?
A. If it bounced infinitely we would not be here.
5. What was it doing before it began?
A. Nothings job is to be nothing it was not doing anything else … there is no before.
6. Will it split into two states at some juncture?
A. There is no split … there is no going back … its in a third state … visualise a vesica it is something like that there is nothing outside of the vesica … nothing has completed its task … it is in equilibrium … with virtual/potential energy … the urge or the word … call it what you like.
7. Did each state contain one half of the energy from bouncing?
A. No, the energy is only at the intersection of the two nothings.
Each part will be the beginning of the macro and and micro … that is we have an
A intersection B … where A will be the macro and B will be micro.
8. What were the two states bouncing within?
A. It wasn’t bouncing within anything … no medium … it was just doing its job … trying to be being nothing.
9. Are you sure you don't want to go with #3?
A. If I hear better, of cause I will change my views … but I don’t know of anyone else who has this idea of nothing … some have stated about a recursion from other dimensions but that’s putting the cart before the horse but generally all I hear is nothing is impossible without any real explanation … like yourself.
The problem I am finding from other people with this concept is that I have already started the ball rolling and it interferes with their pet TOE … that is why you are probably trying to dismiss my idea so quickly … you are not being true to the thread.
Your other questions answered:
Q. I took a big leap forward? Where was I when I took this leap?
A You didn’t explain what ‘nothing’ was.
You cannot be so dismissive of something so important as nothing … that was the starting point.
Q. So when you look in your mirror and get a big head, the image in the mirror gets smaller? Wow!
A. Try reading the passage again … the point I was making was that when you look at a sphere you cannot tell whether it is inside out or not … if you don’t like the mathematics disprove it.
As for the centre of the universe perhaps you would like to answer the questions and the reasoning put or use the mirror.
I have a feeling your ideas revolve around a ‘mulit-verse’ and ‘any thing is possible’ concepts; to which I have many reservation … I’ll just state two:
Firstly, there would be no meaning to life or ideas … we would be having this dialog an infinitely different ways where the conclusions would have no value or meaning … somewhere else we will have got it infinitely right and wrong.
Secondly, if anything is possible then why has it not happened already … how old does the universe have to be before wonderful things happen … time travel …changing the future … dialog with the maker of the universe … you understanding the points I am making … you being right and me being right at the same time with different views …etc.
Only using ridicule is no way to disprove something … give me reasons.
Cheers.
Janus,
First of all, you entered this thread by saying you were fed up with our inability to come up with a starting concept and then gave us your list of starting points.
I said I was sorry you were fed up and chose #3. A little sarcasm and a choice. Not everything from nothing, but somthing else.
Now you say things like...
Amusing me is really stretching it.
Amusing me is really stretching it.
All I have shown so far is the reason ‘nothing’ cannot exist … and what there must be in its place.
You are stuck in an old concept of ‘nothing’ … which will make us discuss cross purposes … thereby it will not be productive.
Did you mean "I" have shown it or "you" have shown it? I know I have shown it, so I guess you're talking about me. You need to explain to the audience why nothing not existing and what there must be in it's place, is an old concept. Find me one reference to this anywhere. I know of one 2,500 years ago, but not one peep out of anyone since. It's always "how can something come from nothing? As though nothing was there in the first place.
So you're saying one is negative and the other positive? Does that mean it bounces between existing and not existing? Or, something else?
So you're saying one is negative and the other positive? Does that mean it bounces between existing and not existing? Or, something else?
2. Why does it have to find a singular state?
A. Nothings job is to be nothing … in your sense of nothing.
In my sense, it has no job. It doesn't exist. There is no nothing. No state whatsoever. This is not the same as nothing is nothing.
I thought you said it was + and – 0, between + and – 1. You've now moved it to the ends of the scale, which has no ends. Nothing or something, can't get infinitely big or small. It never arrives at a size. Never. Period. Nada. Zipitty-do-da.
I thought you said it was + and – 0, between + and – 1. You've now moved it to the ends of the scale, which has no ends. Nothing or something, can't get infinitely big or small. It never arrives at a size. Never. Period. Nada. Zipitty-do-da.
7. Did each state contain one half of the energy from bouncing?
A. No, the energy is only at the intersection of the two nothings.
Each part will be the beginning of the macro and and micro … that is we have an
A intersection B … where A will be the macro and B will be micro.
Was there always a meeting of the nothings? How much of a meeting to begin with? How would you describe the surfaces that create these intersections?
Just because you start a ball rolling doesn't mean it's going to end up in a TOE. A pet TOE. I like the image. On a leash? In a cage? Toe jam for breakfast. Ah, I guess I am starting to get ammused.
Just because you start a ball rolling doesn't mean it's going to end up in a TOE. A pet TOE. I like the image. On a leash? In a cage? Toe jam for breakfast. Ah, I guess I am starting to get ammused.
I have a feeling your ideas revolve around a ‘mulit-verse’ and ‘any thing is possible’ concepts; to which I have many reservation …
I am going to go away now, just slightly ammused. Sad, mostly. Do any of the rest of you know how to give the clueless a clue?
Eric
First of all, you entered this thread by saying you were fed up with our inability to come up with a starting concept and then gave us your list of starting points.
I said I was sorry you were fed up and chose #3. A little sarcasm and a choice. Not everything from nothing, but somthing else.
Now you say things like...
QUOTE
Sorry that you are having difficulty with the concepts … and am only amusing you … but you are still discounting something too quickly … then concluding … it must be something else.
Amusing me is really stretching it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Sorry that you are having difficulty with the concepts … and am only amusing you … but you are still discounting something too quickly … then concluding … it must be something else. |
Amusing me is really stretching it.
All I have shown so far is the reason ‘nothing’ cannot exist … and what there must be in its place.
You are stuck in an old concept of ‘nothing’ … which will make us discuss cross purposes … thereby it will not be productive.
Did you mean "I" have shown it or "you" have shown it? I know I have shown it, so I guess you're talking about me. You need to explain to the audience why nothing not existing and what there must be in it's place, is an old concept. Find me one reference to this anywhere. I know of one 2,500 years ago, but not one peep out of anyone since. It's always "how can something come from nothing? As though nothing was there in the first place.
QUOTE
1. What are the two states of nothing?
A. One is the inverse of the other.
A. One is the inverse of the other.
So you're saying one is negative and the other positive? Does that mean it bounces between existing and not existing? Or, something else?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1. What are the two states of nothing? A. One is the inverse of the other. |
So you're saying one is negative and the other positive? Does that mean it bounces between existing and not existing? Or, something else?
2. Why does it have to find a singular state?
A. Nothings job is to be nothing … in your sense of nothing.
In my sense, it has no job. It doesn't exist. There is no nothing. No state whatsoever. This is not the same as nothing is nothing.
QUOTE
3. What causes it to bounce back and forth?
A. Nothing’s job is to be nothing … but which is the proper state? … is it to be infinitely big with nothing inside … or is it to be infinitely small with nothing outside … the paradox.
A. Nothing’s job is to be nothing … but which is the proper state? … is it to be infinitely big with nothing inside … or is it to be infinitely small with nothing outside … the paradox.
I thought you said it was + and – 0, between + and – 1. You've now moved it to the ends of the scale, which has no ends. Nothing or something, can't get infinitely big or small. It never arrives at a size. Never. Period. Nada. Zipitty-do-da.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 3. What causes it to bounce back and forth? A. Nothing’s job is to be nothing … but which is the proper state? … is it to be infinitely big with nothing inside … or is it to be infinitely small with nothing outside … the paradox. |
I thought you said it was + and – 0, between + and – 1. You've now moved it to the ends of the scale, which has no ends. Nothing or something, can't get infinitely big or small. It never arrives at a size. Never. Period. Nada. Zipitty-do-da.
7. Did each state contain one half of the energy from bouncing?
A. No, the energy is only at the intersection of the two nothings.
Each part will be the beginning of the macro and and micro … that is we have an
A intersection B … where A will be the macro and B will be micro.
Was there always a meeting of the nothings? How much of a meeting to begin with? How would you describe the surfaces that create these intersections?
QUOTE
The problem I am finding from other people with this concept is that I have already started the ball rolling and it interferes with their pet TOE … that is why you are probably trying to dismiss my idea so quickly … you are not being true to the thread.
Just because you start a ball rolling doesn't mean it's going to end up in a TOE. A pet TOE. I like the image. On a leash? In a cage? Toe jam for breakfast. Ah, I guess I am starting to get ammused.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The problem I am finding from other people with this concept is that I have already started the ball rolling and it interferes with their pet TOE … that is why you are probably trying to dismiss my idea so quickly … you are not being true to the thread. |
Just because you start a ball rolling doesn't mean it's going to end up in a TOE. A pet TOE. I like the image. On a leash? In a cage? Toe jam for breakfast. Ah, I guess I am starting to get ammused.
I have a feeling your ideas revolve around a ‘mulit-verse’ and ‘any thing is possible’ concepts; to which I have many reservation …
I am going to go away now, just slightly ammused. Sad, mostly. Do any of the rest of you know how to give the clueless a clue?
Eric
Hello, Philosophers, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit!
Specifically, Eric England: With due respect, I thought I saw a new “can of worms” being opened, as follows:
Have I been talking with a metaphysician? A paranormalist, a psychic, who could see things from outside of the Universe? As Janus rightly felt: You are not being true to the thread—and I also began to question myself: Have I had been misled by your rhetoric all along?!
With the big boys, at least I know their academic credentials and philosophical directions; with you, Sir, before our going any further with this project: Could you please present your credentials, and re-state the purpose of this thread? I thought TOE was a scientific project?! Or, have I joined in the crowd?! Please clarify.
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 9/24/6usct8:36a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Specifically, Eric England: With due respect, I thought I saw a new “can of worms” being opened, as follows:
QUOTE
It depends on what you mean by fact. As for observing from within it, all of my observations are first and foremost from outside of it. Ever been there?
Have I been talking with a metaphysician? A paranormalist, a psychic, who could see things from outside of the Universe? As Janus rightly felt: You are not being true to the thread—and I also began to question myself: Have I had been misled by your rhetoric all along?!
With the big boys, at least I know their academic credentials and philosophical directions; with you, Sir, before our going any further with this project: Could you please present your credentials, and re-state the purpose of this thread? I thought TOE was a scientific project?! Or, have I joined in the crowd?! Please clarify.
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!
Best wishes, Mong 9/24/6usct8:36a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Mong,
The new can of worms that you see being opened, is occuring in this philosophical thread and not the main one.
Staying true to the project, is relative. You brought a viewpoint, Janus brought one, I brought mine, etc. Some of us, even brought an "attitude" to go along with their viewpoint.
The TOE is a scientific project, whether it be in this forum or in the scientific community in general, but only in so far as the limits of science can take it. So far, the big boys are admittedly baffled, and if and when this TOE project gets baffled; there might be a way out that one of us or all of us have developed, by thinking outside the box in this thread.
Eric England – been there, done that, and pissed in my pants but survived.
Now, do you want to respond to my previous post to you, or just cop an attitude? Any attitude I've exhibited, has only been in response to someone else's. Check the thread and you will see this to be true.
We're just playing a game of Q & A with no limits. I've put my lastest questions to both of you on the table, and as soon as the responses don't include an attitude, mine won't either.
Eric
The new can of worms that you see being opened, is occuring in this philosophical thread and not the main one.
Staying true to the project, is relative. You brought a viewpoint, Janus brought one, I brought mine, etc. Some of us, even brought an "attitude" to go along with their viewpoint.
The TOE is a scientific project, whether it be in this forum or in the scientific community in general, but only in so far as the limits of science can take it. So far, the big boys are admittedly baffled, and if and when this TOE project gets baffled; there might be a way out that one of us or all of us have developed, by thinking outside the box in this thread.
QUOTE
Mong H Tan, PhD
Occupation: Writer-Philosopher of Mind, Ethics, Morality
About Me
A critical reader of world-progress issues; aspiring author-publisher; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose interests and works primarily focus on, explore, and integrate the concurrent advances in interdisciplinary science and our primordial psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Occupation: Writer-Philosopher of Mind, Ethics, Morality
About Me
A critical reader of world-progress issues; aspiring author-publisher; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose interests and works primarily focus on, explore, and integrate the concurrent advances in interdisciplinary science and our primordial psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Mong H Tan, PhD Occupation: Writer-Philosopher of Mind, Ethics, Morality About Me A critical reader of world-progress issues; aspiring author-publisher; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose interests and works primarily focus on, explore, and integrate the concurrent advances in interdisciplinary science and our primordial psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively. |
Eric England – been there, done that, and pissed in my pants but survived.
Now, do you want to respond to my previous post to you, or just cop an attitude? Any attitude I've exhibited, has only been in response to someone else's. Check the thread and you will see this to be true.
We're just playing a game of Q & A with no limits. I've put my lastest questions to both of you on the table, and as soon as the responses don't include an attitude, mine won't either.
Eric
Hi Eric England,
Hi All'
Firstly, sorry about my tone … put it down to my inexperience of forums.
One more chance for me … if not successful I’ll leave the thread.
I find defining ‘nothing’ as being extremely important.
All our physics points to a start from ‘nothing’ … except they don’t know how … that is why I wish for some dialog.
Please let me know about that 2500 year old theory of ‘nothing’ … I’ve done some research on ‘nothing’ but it is always depicted as a singular entity … except one find where it was stated that there were four types of ‘nothing’ … but no explanation, which is no help.
Aside … “the right and left eyes of Horus is the Vesica Pisces becoming the symbol for the First Light. First Light occurs at every instant without functioning inside the restraints of time.”
In sacred Geometry … “Zero - 'O' - the sphere of creation.”
Just saying ‘nothing’ was very important in the past.
I’m not saying taking the stories or pictures as literal … but looking further in to the thinking
of the Ancients … a need to interpret their ideas might give us a springboard.
By just stating that ‘nothing’ … does not exist … never did exist … is a cop out … it allows anyone to make a starting point wherever they wish … a theory must be consistent from beginning to end … at least have some ‘natural progression’.
By you saying lets start with an urge (self-selected TRULY a-priori PHYSICAL entity) we can go off in any direction we wish … we’ve fallen into the same old trap … and we are not going to solve anything.
But if we are able to define ‘nothing’ then we will narrow the options and directions that the Toe can go.
Your questions/quotes answered:
Q. So you're saying one is negative and the other positive? Does that mean it bounces between existing and not existing? Or, something else?
A. No, it’s trying to be the state of ‘nothing’ which it finds impossible … firstly trying to find a ‘macro nothing’ … then trying to find a ‘micro nothing’ … eventually finding a third state (an equilibrium state) between the ‘macro nothing’ and ‘micro nothing’ … and all this bouncing between the two states has given it virtual/potential energy.
Now what happens next, gives us a limiting factor … that is the point I am trying to make.
Q. In my sense, it has no job. It doesn't exist. There is no nothing. No state whatsoever. This is not the same as nothing is nothing.
A. In my sense ‘nothing’ is all important … so we differ … big deal … but give your reasons.
Q. I thought you said it was + and – 0, between + and – 1. You've now moved it to the ends of the scale, which has no ends. Nothing or something, can't get infinitely big or small. It never arrives at a size. Never. Period. Nada. Zipitty-do-da.
A. I’ve answered this before … nothing is either an infinitely ‘large Balloon’ (balloon for vision purposes only, before you stick a pin it) with nothing inside of it i.e. an infinite large void … and the inverse of that is an infinitely small point with nothing outside of it … that is the paradox … ‘nothing’ can only exist in the equilibrium state … which now is not ‘nothing’.
Q. Was there always a meeting of the nothings? How much of a meeting to begin with? How would you describe the surfaces that create these intersections?
A. This can only happen once … once the equilibrium state was found … ‘nothing’ no longer existed and became an ‘urge’ … God … call it what you like but our macro and micro worlds were now in place … in a virtual form.
Q. Just because you start a ball rolling doesn't mean it's going to end up in a TOE. A pet TOE. I like the image. On a leash? In a cage? Toe jam for breakfast. Ah, I guess I am starting to get amused.
A. I was stating I might be treading on other peoples TOE’s.
It seems I cannot have a discussion about ‘nothing’ with you, so I was hoping to get some feedback from others … I don’t want to turn it into a slagging match … win some lose some.
Cheers
Hi All'
Firstly, sorry about my tone … put it down to my inexperience of forums.
One more chance for me … if not successful I’ll leave the thread.
I find defining ‘nothing’ as being extremely important.
All our physics points to a start from ‘nothing’ … except they don’t know how … that is why I wish for some dialog.
Please let me know about that 2500 year old theory of ‘nothing’ … I’ve done some research on ‘nothing’ but it is always depicted as a singular entity … except one find where it was stated that there were four types of ‘nothing’ … but no explanation, which is no help.
Aside … “the right and left eyes of Horus is the Vesica Pisces becoming the symbol for the First Light. First Light occurs at every instant without functioning inside the restraints of time.”
In sacred Geometry … “Zero - 'O' - the sphere of creation.”
Just saying ‘nothing’ was very important in the past.
I’m not saying taking the stories or pictures as literal … but looking further in to the thinking
of the Ancients … a need to interpret their ideas might give us a springboard.
By just stating that ‘nothing’ … does not exist … never did exist … is a cop out … it allows anyone to make a starting point wherever they wish … a theory must be consistent from beginning to end … at least have some ‘natural progression’.
By you saying lets start with an urge (self-selected TRULY a-priori PHYSICAL entity) we can go off in any direction we wish … we’ve fallen into the same old trap … and we are not going to solve anything.
But if we are able to define ‘nothing’ then we will narrow the options and directions that the Toe can go.
Your questions/quotes answered:
Q. So you're saying one is negative and the other positive? Does that mean it bounces between existing and not existing? Or, something else?
A. No, it’s trying to be the state of ‘nothing’ which it finds impossible … firstly trying to find a ‘macro nothing’ … then trying to find a ‘micro nothing’ … eventually finding a third state (an equilibrium state) between the ‘macro nothing’ and ‘micro nothing’ … and all this bouncing between the two states has given it virtual/potential energy.
Now what happens next, gives us a limiting factor … that is the point I am trying to make.
Q. In my sense, it has no job. It doesn't exist. There is no nothing. No state whatsoever. This is not the same as nothing is nothing.
A. In my sense ‘nothing’ is all important … so we differ … big deal … but give your reasons.
Q. I thought you said it was + and – 0, between + and – 1. You've now moved it to the ends of the scale, which has no ends. Nothing or something, can't get infinitely big or small. It never arrives at a size. Never. Period. Nada. Zipitty-do-da.
A. I’ve answered this before … nothing is either an infinitely ‘large Balloon’ (balloon for vision purposes only, before you stick a pin it) with nothing inside of it i.e. an infinite large void … and the inverse of that is an infinitely small point with nothing outside of it … that is the paradox … ‘nothing’ can only exist in the equilibrium state … which now is not ‘nothing’.
Q. Was there always a meeting of the nothings? How much of a meeting to begin with? How would you describe the surfaces that create these intersections?
A. This can only happen once … once the equilibrium state was found … ‘nothing’ no longer existed and became an ‘urge’ … God … call it what you like but our macro and micro worlds were now in place … in a virtual form.
Q. Just because you start a ball rolling doesn't mean it's going to end up in a TOE. A pet TOE. I like the image. On a leash? In a cage? Toe jam for breakfast. Ah, I guess I am starting to get amused.
A. I was stating I might be treading on other peoples TOE’s.
It seems I cannot have a discussion about ‘nothing’ with you, so I was hoping to get some feedback from others … I don’t want to turn it into a slagging match … win some lose some.
Cheers
Hi janus, Eric.
Eric-----
Just checked my email and got your query. No, as far as the PROCESS we are embarked upon, no 'stage' or 'concept' is 'pre-determined' by me or anyone else participating. While I myself have a pretty rough idea as to where I would like to go, it all depends on each stage's OUTCOME as finalised/chosen by consensus AFTER each participant has input their 'answer(s)' to that stage....including ME! hehehe. ONLY when an 'answering' physical/logical concept'/mechanism etc IS accepted that way, is there anything 'determined' as far as our progressive TOE results are concerned. For example, at stage-I, ALL inputs were 'tested' by discussion, and the one that self-evidently 'survives' all tests for that stage will be THE 'result' for that stage. It just so happened that MY answer was the one that met ALL the criteria for an independent/absolute 'starting concept'. If it had NOT done so, then someone ELSE's answering concept would have been chosen as the starting one. This will be the same process all the way along. So, while I myself have a 'guiding' role insofar as the CONDUCT of the process is concerned, I have NO say at all as to what the process's OWN LOGIC/DEMANDS will be from one stage to the next. Again, I will input my answers after everybody has put theirs so that I in NO WAY INFLUENCE anyone unduly....so that as much as possible participants will be able to put their ideas without any 'interference' or 'expectations from ME. And once I DO put my own ideas at any stage, that input will have to SURVIVE SCRUTINY and testing by both OTHERS and the self-determining LOGIC-TRAIL of the process ITSELF...which is BY DESIGN 'independent' from anythinfg I or anyone else may WANT to impose on it. I hope that explains some of the 'safeguards' I have designed into this project I started and am moderating as 'minimally' and 'impartially' as humanly possible. My own input will be as vulnerable to 'relegation' as anyone else's...and THAT's exactly how I wanted it! Otherwise what's the point of yet another 'flawed' theorising process predicated and dependent on HUMAN IMPOSITION of boundary/logical conditions which would doom it to 'incompleteness' and 'relativeness' right from the start? hehehe.
Janus----
Regarding 'nothingness' and 'zero':
(1) The mathematical concept of 'zero' is purely one representative of 'position' in a 'number system'. It has no 'physicality' of IT'S OWN as such. It merely REPRESENTS an absence of value in that particular 'position' in a 'number string'...eg, in the decimal systems' 'tens' position, or the 'hundreds' position, or units position etc; OR, even in the binary system's strings "1" or "0" in the 'numerical string'. NO 'physicality at all per se.
(1) The philosophical concept of 'nothingness' is also NOT a 'physical' thing'. It is again merely 'logical' but ABSTRACT REPRESENTATION of some/any ABSENCE, rather than some PRESENCE of anything that could have physical effectivenes ON IT'S OWN...that is, 'NOTHING' means absolutely nothing at all WITHOUT HAVING 'SOMETHING' WITH WHICH TO COMPARE IT TO CONCURRENTLY...and if 'something' DOES 'exist' concurrently WITH 'nothing', then 'NOTHING' on it's OWN does NOT exist as a 'prime' sole concept...because 'something' exists as an EQUAL concurrently....in which case, the concept/need for 'nothingness' is SUPERFLUOUS/REDUNDANT 'physically'....and so automatically relegated to a 'philosophical' speculative abstract that has no existence/significance in anything OTHER than that particular abstract philosophical CONSTRUCT ITSELF. See?
(3) The physical concept of 'nothing' or 'zero' has to do with an 'absence' of 'quantity/effectiveness' once a PARTICULAR PHYSICAL ENTITY/ACTION becomes INEFFECTIVE/INSIGNIFICANT in some particular SCALE or CONSTRUCT under study/measurement as to physically-effective properties/characteristics etc. As to where an ABSOLUTE ABSENCE is involved, then that 'absence' is due to some factor that reduces the particular 'factor' being considered to some 'infinitesimally small' 'QUANTUM' of action/property just BELOW some INHERENTLY ON-OFF type of interactive effectiveness LIMIT/THRESHOLD etc...ABOVE which point that same 'QUANTUM' MAY become effective in interactivity/effect/property etc that will have some ACTIVE PHYSICAL part to play in the phenomena/process of the universal PHYSICS/DYNAMICS.
Anyhow, that's as far as I can 'guide' and 'advise' you, Janus, Eric, everyone. I don't want to say any more in case I unduly influence someone who may in due course have some original input to our process that will ADD TO the 'nothing' concept's physical meaning/effectiveness at some stage in our self-directed process (a process involving the absolute minimum of necessary 'guidance' from me! hehehe).
I hope the above has gone some way towards 'answering' the very pertinent concerns you have quite properly expressed to the forum!...for which, thanks to you both!
BTW, I am winding up some other work/involvements, and will imminently be able to devote more time to our project...and will be posting the implications for the associate threads that I have been foreshadowing (so optimistically) this last week or so! Very soon they WILL be posted. So get ready....good luck....and 'sharpen' your wits, everyone!
Cheers all.
RC.
.
Eric-----
Just checked my email and got your query. No, as far as the PROCESS we are embarked upon, no 'stage' or 'concept' is 'pre-determined' by me or anyone else participating. While I myself have a pretty rough idea as to where I would like to go, it all depends on each stage's OUTCOME as finalised/chosen by consensus AFTER each participant has input their 'answer(s)' to that stage....including ME! hehehe. ONLY when an 'answering' physical/logical concept'/mechanism etc IS accepted that way, is there anything 'determined' as far as our progressive TOE results are concerned. For example, at stage-I, ALL inputs were 'tested' by discussion, and the one that self-evidently 'survives' all tests for that stage will be THE 'result' for that stage. It just so happened that MY answer was the one that met ALL the criteria for an independent/absolute 'starting concept'. If it had NOT done so, then someone ELSE's answering concept would have been chosen as the starting one. This will be the same process all the way along. So, while I myself have a 'guiding' role insofar as the CONDUCT of the process is concerned, I have NO say at all as to what the process's OWN LOGIC/DEMANDS will be from one stage to the next. Again, I will input my answers after everybody has put theirs so that I in NO WAY INFLUENCE anyone unduly....so that as much as possible participants will be able to put their ideas without any 'interference' or 'expectations from ME. And once I DO put my own ideas at any stage, that input will have to SURVIVE SCRUTINY and testing by both OTHERS and the self-determining LOGIC-TRAIL of the process ITSELF...which is BY DESIGN 'independent' from anythinfg I or anyone else may WANT to impose on it. I hope that explains some of the 'safeguards' I have designed into this project I started and am moderating as 'minimally' and 'impartially' as humanly possible. My own input will be as vulnerable to 'relegation' as anyone else's...and THAT's exactly how I wanted it! Otherwise what's the point of yet another 'flawed' theorising process predicated and dependent on HUMAN IMPOSITION of boundary/logical conditions which would doom it to 'incompleteness' and 'relativeness' right from the start? hehehe.
Janus----
Regarding 'nothingness' and 'zero':
(1) The mathematical concept of 'zero' is purely one representative of 'position' in a 'number system'. It has no 'physicality' of IT'S OWN as such. It merely REPRESENTS an absence of value in that particular 'position' in a 'number string'...eg, in the decimal systems' 'tens' position, or the 'hundreds' position, or units position etc; OR, even in the binary system's strings "1" or "0" in the 'numerical string'. NO 'physicality at all per se.
(1) The philosophical concept of 'nothingness' is also NOT a 'physical' thing'. It is again merely 'logical' but ABSTRACT REPRESENTATION of some/any ABSENCE, rather than some PRESENCE of anything that could have physical effectivenes ON IT'S OWN...that is, 'NOTHING' means absolutely nothing at all WITHOUT HAVING 'SOMETHING' WITH WHICH TO COMPARE IT TO CONCURRENTLY...and if 'something' DOES 'exist' concurrently WITH 'nothing', then 'NOTHING' on it's OWN does NOT exist as a 'prime' sole concept...because 'something' exists as an EQUAL concurrently....in which case, the concept/need for 'nothingness' is SUPERFLUOUS/REDUNDANT 'physically'....and so automatically relegated to a 'philosophical' speculative abstract that has no existence/significance in anything OTHER than that particular abstract philosophical CONSTRUCT ITSELF. See?
(3) The physical concept of 'nothing' or 'zero' has to do with an 'absence' of 'quantity/effectiveness' once a PARTICULAR PHYSICAL ENTITY/ACTION becomes INEFFECTIVE/INSIGNIFICANT in some particular SCALE or CONSTRUCT under study/measurement as to physically-effective properties/characteristics etc. As to where an ABSOLUTE ABSENCE is involved, then that 'absence' is due to some factor that reduces the particular 'factor' being considered to some 'infinitesimally small' 'QUANTUM' of action/property just BELOW some INHERENTLY ON-OFF type of interactive effectiveness LIMIT/THRESHOLD etc...ABOVE which point that same 'QUANTUM' MAY become effective in interactivity/effect/property etc that will have some ACTIVE PHYSICAL part to play in the phenomena/process of the universal PHYSICS/DYNAMICS.
Anyhow, that's as far as I can 'guide' and 'advise' you, Janus, Eric, everyone. I don't want to say any more in case I unduly influence someone who may in due course have some original input to our process that will ADD TO the 'nothing' concept's physical meaning/effectiveness at some stage in our self-directed process (a process involving the absolute minimum of necessary 'guidance' from me! hehehe).
I hope the above has gone some way towards 'answering' the very pertinent concerns you have quite properly expressed to the forum!...for which, thanks to you both!
BTW, I am winding up some other work/involvements, and will imminently be able to devote more time to our project...and will be posting the implications for the associate threads that I have been foreshadowing (so optimistically) this last week or so! Very soon they WILL be posted. So get ready....good luck....and 'sharpen' your wits, everyone!
Cheers all.
RC.
.
Hi Janus,
As far as I can tell, you are saying that nothing tried to become something, both infinitely small and big, and in finding it to be impossible, virtual/potential energy was created. This is how everything comes from nothing. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
You're also saying that I said nothing can never be, without explaining why. I said it on page three, but you might have missed it.
Something you may not realize, is that I am in the process of doing two things at the same time. I'm summing up what has been stated in Stage One and am poking holes in it as well. So some of my statements reflect one thing and others another.
I do believe absolutely nothing can never be and I believe I know why. I also believe an absolute something does exist, but I don't believe it's energy (virtual/potential) or infinite omni-direction, or any other expression of infinity.
The absolute something has to be a "point", but not a physical one. Infinity does not come to a point. There is no infinitesimally small or infinitely large point. Infinity just keeps going in both directions.
The absolute point is a "point of principle", but is the principle omni-direction? This "principle point" I believe, faces in. It has no outside within which or towards which, it can face. It is eqaully around its center, so it faces the center from omni-direction. It doesn't face outward in omni-direction. Omni-direction is "all" directions. This is not the same as infinite directions. Infinity nevers arrives at "all".
This greatest principle point is "focused" at it's center, upon a lesser "reflective" principle point. The reflective point has no inside whatsoever. One faces in and the other out, from and to all directions. They are dimensionless points that are not contained within, and do not contain, spatial extent.
Finite horizons of direction, distance, mass, space, and time are in the "reflection". Infinity is also in the reflection.
For now, I'll leave it at that.
As for nothing not existing, being a 2,500 year old realization, it was established by Parmenides. He was considerd by Plato and Socrates as the father of all philosophy. He described what does exist, as a perfect sphere without movement or plurality. He couldn't, however, figure out how to get inside the sphere. We have been bouncing around inside of his sphere, thinking "relatively" ever since.
Hi RC,
I'm glad you didn't take offense. I was just double-checking, what I thought to be the case.
Eric
As far as I can tell, you are saying that nothing tried to become something, both infinitely small and big, and in finding it to be impossible, virtual/potential energy was created. This is how everything comes from nothing. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
You're also saying that I said nothing can never be, without explaining why. I said it on page three, but you might have missed it.
QUOTE
The step that has been skipped is this. If absolute nothing EXISTED, there wouldn't be absolute nothing. Or in other words, if non-existence EXISTED, there wouldn't be non-existence.
Something you may not realize, is that I am in the process of doing two things at the same time. I'm summing up what has been stated in Stage One and am poking holes in it as well. So some of my statements reflect one thing and others another.
I do believe absolutely nothing can never be and I believe I know why. I also believe an absolute something does exist, but I don't believe it's energy (virtual/potential) or infinite omni-direction, or any other expression of infinity.
The absolute something has to be a "point", but not a physical one. Infinity does not come to a point. There is no infinitesimally small or infinitely large point. Infinity just keeps going in both directions.
The absolute point is a "point of principle", but is the principle omni-direction? This "principle point" I believe, faces in. It has no outside within which or towards which, it can face. It is eqaully around its center, so it faces the center from omni-direction. It doesn't face outward in omni-direction. Omni-direction is "all" directions. This is not the same as infinite directions. Infinity nevers arrives at "all".
This greatest principle point is "focused" at it's center, upon a lesser "reflective" principle point. The reflective point has no inside whatsoever. One faces in and the other out, from and to all directions. They are dimensionless points that are not contained within, and do not contain, spatial extent.
Finite horizons of direction, distance, mass, space, and time are in the "reflection". Infinity is also in the reflection.
For now, I'll leave it at that.
As for nothing not existing, being a 2,500 year old realization, it was established by Parmenides. He was considerd by Plato and Socrates as the father of all philosophy. He described what does exist, as a perfect sphere without movement or plurality. He couldn't, however, figure out how to get inside the sphere. We have been bouncing around inside of his sphere, thinking "relatively" ever since.
Hi RC,
I'm glad you didn't take offense. I was just double-checking, what I thought to be the case.
Eric
QUOTE (Eric England+Sep 26 2006, 04:46 PM)
Hi Janus,
As far as I can tell, you are saying that nothing tried to become something, both infinitely small and big, and in finding it to be impossible, virtual/potential energy was created. This is how everything comes from nothing. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
You're also saying that I said nothing can never be, without explaining why. I said it on page three, but you might have missed it.
Something you may not realize, is that I am in the process of doing two things at the same time. I'm summing up what has been stated in Stage One and am poking holes in it as well. So some of my statements reflect one thing and others another.
I do believe absolutely nothing can never be and I believe I know why. I also believe an absolute something does exist, but I don't believe it's energy (virtual/potential) or infinite omni-direction, or any other expression of infinity.
The absolute something has to be a "point", but not a physical one. Infinity does not come to a point. There is no infinitesimally small or infinitely large point. Infinity just keeps going in both directions.
The absolute point is a "point of principle", but is the principle omni-direction? This "principle point" I believe, faces in. It has no outside within which or towards which, it can face. It is eqaully around its center, so it faces the center from omni-direction. It doesn't face outward in omni-direction. Omni-direction is "all" directions. This is not the same as infinite directions. Infinity nevers arrives at "all".
This greatest principle point is "focused" at it's center, upon a lesser "reflective" principle point. The reflective point has no inside whatsoever. One faces in and the other out, from and to all directions. They are dimensionless points that are not contained within, and do not contain, spatial extent.
Finite horizons of direction, distance, mass, space, and time are in the "reflection". Infinity is also in the reflection.
For now, I'll leave it at that.
As for nothing not existing, being a 2,500 year old realization, it was established by Parmenides. He was considerd by Plato and Socrates as the father of all philosophy. He described what does exist, as a perfect sphere without movement or plurality. He couldn't, however, figure out how to get inside the sphere. We have been bouncing around inside of his sphere, thinking "relatively" ever since.
Hi RC,
I'm glad you didn't take offense. I was just double-checking, what I thought to be the case.
Eric
Hi Eric!
No probs. How could any reasonable person take offense at being asked a reasonable question by another reasonable person! hehehe.
BTW, about that pre-existing 'absolute' non-local 'point-in-principle' perspective of yours.
It appears that once you invoke 'faces', or 'in/out' relativities/concepts, it immediately introduces things that imply 'boundaries' to any 'infiniteness' in both inwards/outwards contexts.
So, like that 'perfect sphere' that Parmenides 'couldn't get inside of': Where was Parmenides' 'virtual' PERSPECTIVE? What was the 'outside' that he stood in while trying to figure out how he could get 'inside'.
You see, even 'philosophically' and not 'physically', any such concept as that will necessarily invoke CONTEXT and SPACE and RELATIVITIES between IN and OUT 'positions/perspectives' in a PRE-EXISTING 'bulk context' within which that 'perfect sphere' will then automatically be merely YET ANOTHER OF MANY OTHER POSSIBLE 'perfect spheres' in that 'larger' or 'Bulk' context.
So such LIMITABLE/LOCATABLE IN/OUT points/perspectives associated with some 'point-in-principle' concept that depends on SURROUNDING/FURTHER PRE-EXISTING CONCEPTS will not ITSELF 'answer' as THE 'pre-existing absolute'.
It reminds me of the modern conventional theorising 'dilemma' faced by conventional cosmologists.
On the one hand they see the universe as a finite but 'unbounded' n-dimensional 'hypersphere' of some sort; but THEN must invoke some 'contextual bulk' in order to explain where the 'force' of GRAVITY 'leaks' out to/from so that their 'hypersphere' does not immediately implode/explode (as the case may be).
There's "nothing new under the sun"------at least for CONVENTIONAL theorists, hehehe------since PARMENIDES' day, eh? hehehe.
THAT is why OUR project's theorising approach/technique IS so NOVEL and UNIQUE: it does NOT depend on such 'human perspective' ideas as 'in/out' or 'face' relativities, and 'space' and 'local'/'bulk' etc 'contexts' BEING INVOKED BEFORE our SELF-IDENTIFIED/JUSTIFIED 'STARTING ABSOLUTE' concept ITSELF does it; and ONLY via the logical/physical implications/consequences of the self-indicated logic-trail which is thus begun once that 'starting concept' ITSELF determines what logic trail is to be followed! Hence: no need for ad hoc inputs from us mere mortals, eh! hehehe.
I was a bit rushed for time, but I hope I have explained that OK nonetheless?
Cheers Eric, everyone!
RC.
.
As far as I can tell, you are saying that nothing tried to become something, both infinitely small and big, and in finding it to be impossible, virtual/potential energy was created. This is how everything comes from nothing. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
You're also saying that I said nothing can never be, without explaining why. I said it on page three, but you might have missed it.
Something you may not realize, is that I am in the process of doing two things at the same time. I'm summing up what has been stated in Stage One and am poking holes in it as well. So some of my statements reflect one thing and others another.
I do believe absolutely nothing can never be and I believe I know why. I also believe an absolute something does exist, but I don't believe it's energy (virtual/potential) or infinite omni-direction, or any other expression of infinity.
The absolute something has to be a "point", but not a physical one. Infinity does not come to a point. There is no infinitesimally small or infinitely large point. Infinity just keeps going in both directions.
The absolute point is a "point of principle", but is the principle omni-direction? This "principle point" I believe, faces in. It has no outside within which or towards which, it can face. It is eqaully around its center, so it faces the center from omni-direction. It doesn't face outward in omni-direction. Omni-direction is "all" directions. This is not the same as infinite directions. Infinity nevers arrives at "all".
This greatest principle point is "focused" at it's center, upon a lesser "reflective" principle point. The reflective point has no inside whatsoever. One faces in and the other out, from and to all directions. They are dimensionless points that are not contained within, and do not contain, spatial extent.
Finite horizons of direction, distance, mass, space, and time are in the "reflection". Infinity is also in the reflection.
For now, I'll leave it at that.
As for nothing not existing, being a 2,500 year old realization, it was established by Parmenides. He was considerd by Plato and Socrates as the father of all philosophy. He described what does exist, as a perfect sphere without movement or plurality. He couldn't, however, figure out how to get inside the sphere. We have been bouncing around inside of his sphere, thinking "relatively" ever since.
Hi RC,
I'm glad you didn't take offense. I was just double-checking, what I thought to be the case.
Eric
Hi Eric!
No probs. How could any reasonable person take offense at being asked a reasonable question by another reasonable person! hehehe.
BTW, about that pre-existing 'absolute' non-local 'point-in-principle' perspective of yours.
It appears that once you invoke 'faces', or 'in/out' relativities/concepts, it immediately introduces things that imply 'boundaries' to any 'infiniteness' in both inwards/outwards contexts.
So, like that 'perfect sphere' that Parmenides 'couldn't get inside of': Where was Parmenides' 'virtual' PERSPECTIVE? What was the 'outside' that he stood in while trying to figure out how he could get 'inside'.
You see, even 'philosophically' and not 'physically', any such concept as that will necessarily invoke CONTEXT and SPACE and RELATIVITIES between IN and OUT 'positions/perspectives' in a PRE-EXISTING 'bulk context' within which that 'perfect sphere' will then automatically be merely YET ANOTHER OF MANY OTHER POSSIBLE 'perfect spheres' in that 'larger' or 'Bulk' context.
So such LIMITABLE/LOCATABLE IN/OUT points/perspectives associated with some 'point-in-principle' concept that depends on SURROUNDING/FURTHER PRE-EXISTING CONCEPTS will not ITSELF 'answer' as THE 'pre-existing absolute'.
It reminds me of the modern conventional theorising 'dilemma' faced by conventional cosmologists.
On the one hand they see the universe as a finite but 'unbounded' n-dimensional 'hypersphere' of some sort; but THEN must invoke some 'contextual bulk' in order to explain where the 'force' of GRAVITY 'leaks' out to/from so that their 'hypersphere' does not immediately implode/explode (as the case may be).
There's "nothing new under the sun"------at least for CONVENTIONAL theorists, hehehe------since PARMENIDES' day, eh? hehehe.
THAT is why OUR project's theorising approach/technique IS so NOVEL and UNIQUE: it does NOT depend on such 'human perspective' ideas as 'in/out' or 'face' relativities, and 'space' and 'local'/'bulk' etc 'contexts' BEING INVOKED BEFORE our SELF-IDENTIFIED/JUSTIFIED 'STARTING ABSOLUTE' concept ITSELF does it; and ONLY via the logical/physical implications/consequences of the self-indicated logic-trail which is thus begun once that 'starting concept' ITSELF determines what logic trail is to be followed! Hence: no need for ad hoc inputs from us mere mortals, eh! hehehe.
I was a bit rushed for time, but I hope I have explained that OK nonetheless?
Cheers Eric, everyone!
RC.
.
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.
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.
You see, even 'philosophically' and not 'physically', any such concept as that will necessarily invoke CONTEXT and SPACE and RELATIVITIES between IN and OUT 'positions/perspectives' in a PRE-EXISTING 'bulk context' within which that 'perfect sphere' will then automatically be merely YET ANOTHER OF MANY OTHER POSSIBLE 'perfect spheres' in that 'larger' or 'Bulk' context.
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.
Again, it surrounds, and not the other way around. It is not locatable. There is no field it is within.
THAT is why OUR project's theorising approach/technique IS so NOVEL and UNIQUE: it does NOT depend on such 'human perspective' ideas as 'in/out' or 'face' relativities, and 'space' and 'local'/'bulk' etc 'contexts' BEING INVOKED BEFORE our SELF-IDENTIFIED/JUSTIFIED 'STARTING ABSOLUTE' concept ITSELF does it; and ONLY via the logical/physical implications/consequences of the self-indicated logic-trail which is thus begun once that 'starting concept' ITSELF determines what logic trail is to be followed! Hence: no need for ad hoc inputs from us mere mortals, eh! hehehe.
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
QUOTE
So, like that 'perfect sphere' that Parmenides 'couldn't get inside of': Where was Parmenides' 'virtual' PERSPECTIVE? What was the 'outside' that he stood in while trying to figure out how he could get 'inside'.
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.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So, like that 'perfect sphere' that Parmenides 'couldn't get inside of': Where was Parmenides' 'virtual' PERSPECTIVE? What was the 'outside' that he stood in while trying to figure out how he could get 'inside'. |
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.
You see, even 'philosophically' and not 'physically', any such concept as that will necessarily invoke CONTEXT and SPACE and RELATIVITIES between IN and OUT 'positions/perspectives' in a PRE-EXISTING 'bulk context' within which that 'perfect sphere' will then automatically be merely YET ANOTHER OF MANY OTHER POSSIBLE 'perfect spheres' in that 'larger' or 'Bulk' context.
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.
QUOTE
So such LIMITABLE/LOCATABLE IN/OUT points/perspectives associated with some 'point-in-principle' concept that depends on SURROUNDING/FURTHER PRE-EXISTING CONCEPTS will not ITSELF 'answer' as THE 'pre-existing absolute.
Again, it surrounds, and not the other way around. It is not locatable. There is no field it is within.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So such LIMITABLE/LOCATABLE IN/OUT points/perspectives associated with some 'point-in-principle' concept that depends on SURROUNDING/FURTHER PRE-EXISTING CONCEPTS will not ITSELF 'answer' as THE 'pre-existing absolute. |
Again, it surrounds, and not the other way around. It is not locatable. There is no field it is within.
THAT is why OUR project's theorising approach/technique IS so NOVEL and UNIQUE: it does NOT depend on such 'human perspective' ideas as 'in/out' or 'face' relativities, and 'space' and 'local'/'bulk' etc 'contexts' BEING INVOKED BEFORE our SELF-IDENTIFIED/JUSTIFIED 'STARTING ABSOLUTE' concept ITSELF does it; and ONLY via the logical/physical implications/consequences of the self-indicated logic-trail which is thus begun once that 'starting concept' ITSELF determines what logic trail is to be followed! Hence: no need for ad hoc inputs from us mere mortals, eh! hehehe.
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
QUOTE (Eric England+Sep 29 2006, 04:36 AM)
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.
.
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.
.
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.
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!
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!
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).
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).
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.
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!
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!
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.
.
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.
.
Hi RC,
You've shown max graciousness again. Understood about the website. Yes, I forgot about those other threads where you introduced bulk etc.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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"?
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.
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?
Are you suggesting that I'm suggesting, a suggestion should be suggested, to suggest that someone suggests, we do? Ok, I'll bite. :-)
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.
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
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
.
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.
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.
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
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
.
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.
.
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.
.
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
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
Hi RC, jal, Janus, et al
[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
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
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
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
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
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
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!
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.
.
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.
.
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.
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.
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".
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
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
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.
.
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.
.
RC,
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".
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".
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.
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
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
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?
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?
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
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
Hey Janus,
"My" omni-direction theory, isn't accurate. I'm woking from another basline.
"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.
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
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
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
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
Hi Janus,
I do understand and appraciate your serious attempt, at trying to see how nothing could be the source of something.
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
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
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
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
Janus,
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.
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
QUOTE
We have a communication problem.
When you say ‘negate’ are you saying you will ‘disprove’ my concept … I await your words.
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
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
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.