Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY  The problem is that some mathematicians claim they are the same number - no inaccuracy, but absolutely the same.
Synonymously, there are some folks who equate the infinite and absolute. I thought you were one of them, but apparently I am mistaken.[No, you are correct.]
The implications are such that the relative functioning of the universe can be equated as a whole in motion. Whereas if they are not the same, then relativity remains to be illusory, and the static absolute cannot be broken up into literal relative velocities. |
I already posted my best response and lost it. I'll try again. The whole problem comes down to the one/1, and for over two years, my Buddhist friend and I tried to resolve this most complex of problems, and failed. Let us try.
If we reduce our investigations to the one/1 universal fundamental substance, first, and not include any other ideas to enter, we may get to the bottom of our semantics/linguistic mis-interpretations, for the mechanics of one/1 is the hugest hurdle to overcome. First, let's look at what we both mean by the unmoving mover. You say it can't be and I say it can, because I see it in my a-priori logic, and can show it with probability decay math, if projected far enough into the future, to understand the universe's one dynamics of unmoving and moving. 1.The whole infinite unbounded finiteness, by any definition possible, must be
"everything___the all". If the whole be the everything FS, it is all unmoving, because it fills all semantical and linguistic definition possible, therefore, it is overall unmoving, by its very definition of having no definitional outside other, whether one wants to include more universes within or not, its overall virtual container of the infinite absolute, is unmoving in its space, as it is all of space, though this container's innards, is the finite unbounded moving, and by this very definition moves the unmoving infinite absolute container of no real container, but only within. 2.The everything I mean, may be in your mind, be the virtual nothing container of no container, you are referring to. You would have to continue the difinition characteristics, from your perspective, at this most deep of motion dynamics. I see no conflict in the unmoving moving dynamics of the whole one/1 universe.
Maybe this will help resolve your mathematical investigations, also. As to me, they are nothing but sematical and linguistic understandings, meanings and ideas of
"everything" and
"nothing", and nothing being impossible of meaning, existance or reality. When we eliminate nothing, as having no true definition, as all is filled with the fundamental moving unmoving substance, we are left with truly defining
"everything___the only true all one/1, which is truly many infinitesimally, density dependent, parts of the one total universe, capable of all scientifically described motions, and the one extra of pass through abilities, such as gamma rays___super-fast-photons? No...? This I state as fusing and defusing photon abilities, in order to build all the universe's other particles___real photonic matter, even at the infinitesimally smallest densities, or frequencies. And the frequencies, once evolved, control the entire dynamic evolution, as a universal clock, turning randomness into uniformity." Much more complex, but you have the physics knowledge to fill in the pieces...
Lloyd