[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

You were very clear in your delivery, but I have to stand behind my conclusion that the basis of the reality you refer to is abstract as well because I have concluded that all points, phenomena, noumena, are composite. They can only be created by the abstract perspectives of the absolute frame that gives the impression of real relative frames.

In short, the universe doesn't share standards of time, required for "anything" to persist to exist. Although, I can concede that something such as your "self" is real to you and others through energy transfers over time - through observations.

Descartes mentioned that thinking was proof enough for ultimate existence. Even the modern adaptation "I dance therefore I exist" is all I need to find myself embracing the truth on this side of our conversation. However, your words are not in conflict with mine. Your words that specific aspects "can only be created by the abstract perspectives of the absolute frame that gives the impression of real relative frames" is exactly — void two words — what I would say: specific aspects can only be created by the abstract perspectives of the absolute frame that gives the real relative frames. If I understand our conflict correctly then stating that 'our universe exists' is the single aspect in which we differ. I agree that when we start out with Earth —> solar system/galaxy —> universe, that the word universe is then an abstract phenomenon (but earth is not). Vice versa, if we start out with Universe —> materialization processes —> matter, then universe is the real thing, while matter is the generic abstract. I distinguish between using the same aspect in an abstract and in a real way. I know, it can be complicated when language is involved.

In reality, I consider this both a religious and a verbal debate. In religion any position is possible as long as the facts are not undermining the position, and we have lots of freedom to take in whichever position we like. In other words: I do not mind you saying that the universe is non-existent. Yet, from my 'religious' perspective, I feel it is not helping us getting the best grip on the overall picture, either. Still, your words and my words do not disagree in regards to figuring out the full ultimate picture (which includes giving importance to the phenomenon of nothing). I'd like to say more on this being a verbal conflict.

My explanation of us all being engaged in the new Tower of Babel in this thread is based on the old version: ancient tribes who had different ideas about how to build a construct to the sun, and their quarrels making it impossible to set up a single tower. In the end new languages were spoken, each different from the other.

The way I explain this verbal delivery (which was also written about in the bible) is that this was not an actual tower, a construction, but rather a construct — of how the sun fits in within the entire picture. When tribes were getting together, they discussed their ideas about the sun, its passages through the sky, day/night, summer/winter movements, etc. Different ideas competed with one and another, and the tribes were unable to place all information in one single overall concept. In other words: mentally, they could not build a tower to the sun. As we know from Egyptian hieroglyphs, ancient people did (also) communicate in pictorial words with one another, supporting my idea that the tower should be seen as a construct, not an actual construction.

For us it is easy to see that they had a hard time communicating with each other because they had only subjective facts (experienced facts), not objective facts (verifiable facts). Tribes North of the equator would have obtained opposite subjective information from tribes South of the equator, while at the equator neither set of facts could fully be verified.

Add to the mix the option to make the ground underneath our feat absolute dead-center (geocentric) and the option to make the sun the center of it all (heliocentric). Without objective evidence, and all observations receiving similar importance, no overall theory is ever possible. Some of the information has to be incorrect.

We know that between the many suggestions one version was true: the earth is round and spins around its axis once a day, and treks around the sun once a year. We know that prior to the Middle Ages, there have been ancient peoples who already supported a heliocentric explanation (yet, while it was an idea they supported, they could not convince others fully to embrace this as true). We find ourselves in a similar bind. It may therefore be worthwhile to investigate what positions these ancient tribes would have taken in, because we may recognize our own behavior and thinking.

Those who supported the idea of a spinning earth and a sun-centered universe could still not convince others that their position was indeed correct from a local perspective. One of the reasons they could not convince others was the fact that it is pretty difficult to take tribes North towards the tropic of Cancer and South to the tropic of Capricorn in a short span of time, and showing others what trajectories the sun was really following. Nor was it possible to convince others that the sun was the center, and not the earth. Another problem is the complex meaning of words. The story tells us that after being unable to build the tower the various languages appeared. I believe, however, that the hidden complexity of words first became obvious in this mental/verbal conflict. The many different meanings contained within language existed already.

Even the tribes who had it all wrong had a lot of subjective information gathered that could not be denied. Just hearing a different possible explanation is not enough to open up minds. My guess is that the ones with the truly open minds heard what they needed to hear and moved away (from the discussion), while those who had made up their minds about their own version being correct remained till the bitter end. I think the discussion is most interesting in the beginning in as far as actual sharing of information is concerned, while communicating about difficulties contained within the use of language is probably the most interesting remainder afterwards.

From our modern perspective, we can see that the discussion about the position of the sun would have been better served by a discussion about the position of the earth. I believe the discussion by all of us about everything should therefore correctly focus on the phenomenon of nothing, but we should also focus on the format of singularity versus the plural format more (and what that entails for the ultimate picture).

Let me end this long delivery here (sorry about it being so long) with stating that I like words, and though there is no absolute real science to linguistics (only lesser or more professional guesses), I want to use that word 'sun' here, and show how important singularity has been (or may have been) to ancient people alive when words came about.

In Italian the word for sun is sole, quite close to the word solo. In an interesting combination of English, Spanish and Dutch, the word sin can be mentioned as showing a singular position. In English, a sin does not point to something specific, but it is something negative; in Spanish it is more specific, meaning without. In Dutch the word for sin is zonde, the word for without is zonder. These are extremely similar words, while the word for sun is zon (also found within the words zonde and zonder). My overall translation is that the original speakers (and English, Spanish, and Dutch all belong to the Indo-European language group with a single common origin) felt that being selfish is a sin. One is sinful, when going without the other. It is sin-gular in that an overall collective (read: plural) position is abandoned. This singular position can only be obtained when starting out from a collective perspective. The ancient people had an overall picture of everything as being plural in nature.