[N0B0DY]

My interpretation of the theory of everything, the unification of forces, is the theory of nothing because absolute solidity and absolute vacuity - the one and zero - are the same non-existent static state.

I feel my position has been finagled to imply that something is created from nothing, or as you have noted, Fredrick, that my position suggests the universe exists in a non-existent state. Just to be clear on this point, things aren't created and the absolute universe doesn't exist. It would be a miracle if it did.

It can be semi-accurately likened to a blank white canvas (without holes) that already contains all pictures, because white contains all colors and all points are covered. It is synonymous to the state of instantaneous actions as a whole, the one; and the state of no action at all, the zero. There can be no such thing as an absolute universe, the canvas, because separation/differentiation is required for existence to be allotted a rate of energy exchange - motion and time - and the absolute universe can't very well have motion if it can't possibly ever move. Therefore the laws that govern evolution, in the form of linear expansion, angular interactions, momenta, etc., must be abstract. No literal change can occur, in a literal part of the universe that literally compares to an infinite space that must also be part of the universe, etc..

The aristotelian implication of activity being the fundamental substance, must then be a result of the reduction of the aforementioned absolute speed - instantaneity. We have to remember that the evolutionary procession is only a reality to those who observe the effects of those set laws, without those observers there is no time and hence no evolution.

Can we say that anything can happen, by pulling things out of a magic hat? No, because the persistence of existence requires a set of circumstances that allows observations to exist the way they do. Humans are one of them pictures in the canvas, and the rate at which humans detect, interpret and categorize differentiable stimuli at maximum capacity, must be equated with the rate of the energy transfers of evolution in its entirety. So, yes, I'm saying that your mind governs evolution because you can't declare evolution is...whatever, unless you observe, intepret and categorize according to the same rate that you process information. There is no magic here, just logic.

You're right, Lloyd, the absolute speed cannot be validated empirically, which is why I said you revert to mainstream. It is a logical deduction based on extending empirical inverse laws to the absolute level. As strange as it may seem, increasing or decreasing "physical" factors to the absolute level negates both. As opposed to infinitely increasing or decreasing the same, whereby the increase or decrease will never render a null result. As I mentioned before, the incremental motion that macroscopic motion consists of, requires a static medium. This static medium doesn't/can't exist, and is the crux of all "matter" - particles, waves, motion, time, ad nauseam. So what would that equate to, Lloyd?

I think if you're willing to use your head instead of your eyeballs we can figure this all out. It really doesn't have to be all that complex. All matter (your eyeballs and brain), space included, is less than c; and c equals non-existence. Time, existence, stands still at the meeting point of photons and gravitons. The bulk of the pull of gravity on photons is contained within "mass," to the point that we can conclude dim-wittedness creates what is observed as matter and the partial effects of residual gravity - both attraction and repulsion - as electromagnetism in reverse.

Why is nobody on the unicorn, Austin?