[Lloyd Gillespie]

Nobody, if you have the most beautiful and loving lady, in the entire world, is she absolutely real, or abstract? If abstract is your answer, tell her your reasoning, and see how far the relationship goes... I think if you start developing deep and truthful conversations with the opposite sex, you may have to start offering more reality in your responses, don't you think...?

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

Lloyd,

The one-degree of freedom is pulled straight out of a magic hat, Lloyd.[No, it's just a simple explanation of why infinity is not finiteness, and why absolute is other than your private definition of.] I'm not kidding.[No-one said you were.] Empirical and theoretical science can only take us so far,[Yet, the only distance we can actually go.] where we then have to use philosophy[No, I think philosophy has been a failed school of thought since 1905 and 1926, i.e., Einstein and Heisenberg.] to extend evidence to render logical conclusions so that science can remain as self-corrective as it is.[I see no evidence of philosophy ever correcting science. I only see where newer physical evidence or/and empiricism have been the self-correctives of science. IMO, logical, sound, physical advances, are the only true advances of real science.] So your continuous proclamations of absolute reality being a result of the logical freedom of infinity to produce finiteness has no affect on me.[Only trying to show you a very simple evolution of reality. The universe either came from the infinite absolute or the finite absolute. Which is your choice? I see the infinite absolute as the only logical position, as the true conservation of matter/energy, can only be supported by infinity over finiteness. Otherwise, finiteness is stuck with an incompleteness equilibrium/equivalence problem of the highest magnitude, i.e., you are left with a universe losing real matter to infinite space, through finite universal decay, which most agree is expanding, and some even that it is accelerating also, yet now you are left with the dis-equilibriated matter/energy position of more matter decaying, than is being replaced, in all such laws of the finite universal law structure. Thus, the infinite is a required entity, to allow the first law of thermodynamics to function properly, in its total and truer universal equilibrium, and only infinity's mechanics does allow this final completed correction to the first law. Without it, you are left with a decaying finite universe, ever headed into absolute dis-equilibrium, much as Poincare' tried, unsuccessfully I might add, to argue years ago. IMO, Poincare' was far more correct than either Boltzmann or Einstein, as pertains to the first law. All of science must re-think the first, second and third laws of thermodynamics' positions, to their true completed whole, and stop basing fundamental physics on their in-completed presently accepted structures.

If you can explain in detail exactly how your mechanics can localize a universal center within an infinite model, I'm all ears.[If you just thoroughly think out all possible mechanics of infinity, in a true correspondence logic with finiteness, infinity can do nothing else.] Otherwise, you're just wasting your time because I know what you mean by contraction, it's not like you're explaining a complex concept in Chinese, and the in-wave mechanics don't work.[Sorry, but the in-wave mechanics work fine, and in no other way possible, as infinity is limited to the initial condition of one degree of freedom, no matter what you otherwise surmise. When using these words, absolute, infinity, initial conditions, they are very confusing, as you can not possibly realize that my mind is functioning from the abstract theoretical on into the absolute physical factual universal mechanics, so I quite readily see why you often mis-interpret my words and ideas, yet I see no language possible to relay the truest of physical mechanics of initial/eternal/infinite/absolute conditions, except by trial and error linguistics. The complexities of the one and the many are too great a simplicity to relay with one linear tongue, if you can understand what I truly mean by this sentence.] There can be no in waves first because there can be no first to the absolute.[You see right here, is where your understanding of the words gets in the way, i.e., your linguistic understanding is totally different than mine, and neither of us knows how to join our divergent understandings of the same concepts, and neither does Fredrick. I have no trouble with first/absolute/in-waves as my mind understands it as the time scalar evolution of abstract understanding of theoretical motions, on into absolute physical motions, the real universe. The only way I can have my mind wrapped around these complex/simple ideas is to hold the abstract theoretical, and the absolute physical, in my mind, as one whole completed reality, of a matter physically produced universe, and the final stage of us, as humans, the abstractors of the information. IMO, philosophy has nothing to do with it, it's all linguistics, only, and our mis-interpretations of eachs' ideas.] Perhaps when you get your philosophy straight, you will see that I have my physics straight, Lloyd.[When we both thoroughly understand eachs' linguistics, we may have a chance of breaking down the walls of truth blocks, on all sides. The linguistic quantum/relative/uncertainty wall is far larger than first assumed.] There is an infinite difference between the infinite and the absolute.[And you see here, I see only a slight semantical linguistic difference in our understandings. Infinite/absolute or absolute/infinite can easily apply to any physical fundamental substance I recognize the universe as being, or being made of. Infinite and absolute have the same and yet different mean ings to me, according to the contexts used, but to go into these linguistic differences is an entire philosophy, that I'd really rather avoid, as it takes us too afar of the subjects at hand. The only thing I see possible, is to be less critical of eachs' linguistics, and concentrate more on the physical subject matter, as the abstract is just how we think, and nothing to do with the real organization of the physical universe we inhabit.]

Infinity pertains to space and eternity pertains to time, and both require localized motion to be measured;[Finiteness is the localized motion of space/infinity/eternity, we can measure.] the absolute is motionless because it is non-local[It is also local.] and as a result all points become the same point,[Only abstractly, physically this makes no sense.] or more accurately all points are the same point.[Again, abstractly true, yet physically ridiculous.] And since that absolute point doesn't and can't ever exist,[Again abstract, absolutely does not exist, it's abstractly existing, only, yet the physical absolute point does always exist.]
spacetime and localized concentrations of mass/energy must remain illusory abstractions.[The only illusory abstractions, are abstractions, that's their definitions___Illusory visions. They can become real when our abstractions correspond with absolute physical reality, though.]

Perhaps you might consider studying the zeroth law, zero-point energy, and zero rest mass more thoroughly to grasp the context of this thread, Lloyd.

Oh, I quite grasp the context of this thread, Nobody. I just quite dis-agree with much of it, yet I see great value in advancing true knowledge with just such abstract skeptical speculations, when I have the patience. It's just I often don't have such patience...

Thanks,
Lloyd