[JAK]

Hi futrethink,

First, sorry for the delay – lots of pressing work issues. I will be more available in about a week.

Next, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe post #14 (#54502) is below

Originally Posted by futrethink

---Introduction to M-theory It did this by asserting that strings are really 1-dimensional slices of a 2-dimensional membrane which is vibrating in 11-dimensional space.
M-theory This means that if one studied supergravity on an eleven-dimensional spacetime that looks like the product of a ten-dimensional spacetime with another very small one-dimensional manifold, one gets the Type IIA supergravity theory. (The underlines are mine.)

Even here with M-theory, you have at least one dimension. And my laws of difference apply even with no dimensions (an imaginary point), so 1 dimension falls in place, too.

Further, even though the math has been popular for 2 decades, there appears to be a serious flaw in relating M-theory to “reality”. This is from your same Wiki source:
“Unfortunately, until we can find a way to mechanically observe higher dimensions (impossible with our current level of technology) M-Theory has a very difficult time making predictions which can be tested in a laboratory. Technologically, it may never be possible for it to be "proven."

Originally Posted by futrethink

---Hypothetical, true. But if you have a starting point of a “0” (something that is, isn’t, is both and nothing.), you have to go somewhere and if, like Pi, you have no end, that gives you more than just 1, 2, 3 or 4, doesn’t it?

Zero represents nothingness or “not”. To declare it implies a set with “something”. For example, 100 means 1 in the “hundreds column”, nothing in the “tens column”, and nothing in the “single digits column”. And our perception is critical. If you read from right to left, the number becomes 001 which is significantly different.

Also, to say that zero is “something that is, isn’t, is both and nothing”, the complexity of thought increases greatly. Each piece of the complexity can be separated and defined. With definition, “not” is used to separate the sets. For example, “‘0’ is” belongs to the superset of everything which has no bounds. It also belongs to various subsets: things which look like a circle, things which are curved, mathematical symbols, etc. Meanwhile, “‘0’ isn’t” belongs to the subset of things which are “not” as are “void”, and “the null set”, and “nil”, and “nada”. Further, it is part of the subset called English language, and the subset of contractions, and the subset of words starting with vowels, etc.

Originally Posted by futrethink

---And, I have already mentioned; just because, you can only see the one side of ‘what is’, doesn’t eliminate the ‘what it’s not’ from existence, just from a perception.

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by futrethink

---True. Dynamic in what perception? We can physically perceive only two dimensions and mentally construct a third dimension, but that doesn’t stop a temporal fourth from existing. Is it really that much of a stretch, to perceive a world that can only physically see/perceive one dimension, mentally construct a second dimension and have a temporal dimension as the third? It is still dynamic, isn’t it?

Being dynamic means exhibiting change. Any dimension showing change is dynamic. Whether a single dimension could exhibit “life” depends upon your definition of life. If a vibrating string is sufficient for your definition of life, then the whole universe is alive based upon vibrating strings. If my definition of life requires climbing toward negative entropy, as Schrödinger claimed, then 1 dimension is likely insufficient for having the attribute of life.

Originally Posted by futrethink

---Actually, from reading Mohan. C's post above, I can see how it might be impossible to figure it out, from our understandings/beliefs of one dimensional concepts.
---A singularity or a “0”. Something that can only perceive itself, has nothing else to perceive around it and has nothing else to perceive its existence; it is perceived, it isn’t perceived, it is both and nothing (it doesn’t exist, because it only believes it can perceive itself and a belief is an objectively nonexistent future probability).

As soon as you use the word “perceive”, you eliminate simplicity. You are flirting with Maxwell’s Demon which is an oxymoron – intelligent action without intelligence.

Originally Posted by futrethink

---How does it perceive that it has changing/a different time outside of what it believes?
---This ‘nonexistent linear perception’ concept, involves understanding how time is; past (what was and always has been), present (what is, being created from the mergence of what was and what might be, but doesn’t actually exist, yet) and future (a possibility, that has no subjective existence, except as a belief and no objective existence to a singular(ity) being that does and doesn’t perceive {think of a person in a coma, a deep/black sleep or a trance} and has no thoughts of time or space.)
---Circular time is often shown as a ball. Shove a rod (linear time) from one outside point to another outside point, but don’t go past the finite edges of the exterior of that ball. Hypothetically, mathematically or within a computer model, you can draw an infinite line past the point of the edges of that ball, from each end of that rod, but that finite ball doesn’t exist on that hypothetical line.
---We can think/believe/guess/hypothesize of a future past the point of the edges of circular time, but that will not make that line an objective reality/existent/real thing, because it will not exist outside the ending point and never has existed before the starting point.
---True. They exist as long as an actively perceiving brain and mind exists. A brain and mind that is actively involving perceptions/concepts and inactively involving perceptions/concepts, at the same time, would be the exception, within existence. The different/is and is not perceptions and concepts still exist, but they aren’t being perceived as different, in any way shape or form, by themselves or others; they just are. So, they are, in a way, no different from any other thing and no differences exist.
---True, but you first have to have a perception of the concepts that the symbols of ‘exception’ and ‘not’ describe, otherwise, your ‘law’ doesn’t even exist and becomes the exception to the rule.
---No perception=no differences.

Futrethink, we need to simplify our dialog. My responses grow as do yours. Further, as the dialog grows, multiple issues come into play. Now we are at M-theory, 1-dimensional perception, circular time, and a brain/mind that appears simultaneously active and inactive. We are beginning to “boil the ocean”, and it becomes difficult to respond. I followed your link to your other forum entry as well as the responses, and responding to any or all of it appears straight-forward to me. Answers and clarity exists for any or all parts of the discussion over there. However, it posed itself as another “ocean to boil”.

It is important that we focus on only one aspect at a time. Otherwise, this becomes unwieldy and unmanageable.

Please select one salient issue from either this thread or your other forum. With that, we can become productive in our pursuit of knowledge.

Thanks!

-JAK