Singular thinking and its captivating condition.

[labelwench]

Your response to various posters remains interesting to me, Fredrick.

Interestingly, it is now my turn to being a bit shocked reading your words, Lorrina, but of course with the assumption that our words are just passing each other, with each of us simply misunderstanding the other. Am I correct reading that you are asking for evidence in order to acknowledge a theory?

Can one even formulate a theory without the input of the evidence of their senses, regardless of how that input may be interpreted by the one formulating the theory?

If true, that would be an error. It would be like putting the horse before the cart. The cart is the theory, the horse makes it real. Wanting the theory itself be real is an invalid request, because that would be asking the cart to be a living being. What is real is real, but the theory is only based on what is real; it is never real itself. Theories can never be real; just like carts are highly handy, theories are only about what is real — they help us make better use of/understand our reality.

My understanding, albeit limited, would be that a theory is based upon something, which we then set out to verify. The evidence either supports or defeats the theory, which remains a theory only for the duaration of this process. Some theories have remained unproved/disproved for a long period.


Forgive me to compound this with the following point of our not completely seeing eye2eye yet: it is not that I am saying that abstracts are the same for everyone, but I am countering your position (and, please, let me know if that is indeed your provided position) that abstracts can always be something different (of however small amount or feeling) for different people/animals/beings.

I'm not certain that I have stated any position, merely my observations and subjective understandings of them. Why do I need to forgive either of your interpretation or that it may differ from mine? Both are compatible to me.

In reality, I am trying to convey the rather complex message that abstracts can mimic all there is and even then some: 1/ that what is the same for all, 2/ that what is different to all, 3/ that what is partially different to all, and 4/ abstracts for the sake of abstracts. I just want to make sure that, if one rejects just one of these, then the conversation is not about what I am trying to convey.

I neither accept nor reject any of the above, though I may be uncertain as to your exact meaning and how you relate them.

Using art as the abstract entity, I can state that this word contains a self-based property. A portrait or a statue is always material-based, but what makes it art is not material based (even when art cannot be created without using material, for instance, when a person is singing he or she is still using vocal chords). What makes it art is the delivery showing something that is not-just-the-material. We can declare that the painting is 1/ indeed a painting for all, 2/ portraying a person/object that can be interpreted differently by most, or 3/ portraying a person/object that will be interpreted only slightly differently by most, and 4/ that it can be a piece of art that is not an object/person, but rather a piece of art for the sake of it being art.

If I want, next, to get to an overall level about art, I can state that art is always an expression. We can argue long and short about the quality and significance of the presented expression, but all will agree that art is an expression. Funny enough, we even have artists that are impressionists, something that appears a contradiction, yet the impressionists express their impression, still. All art is an expression. So, if I were to declare something about the ToE, I would use that word from the world of art: expression. The word impression has no place at the ToE, even when impressions can be vital aspects for any artist to make his or her work of art. At the ToE, one could discuss the specific parts of art, most likely especially those aspects of art that contradict each other, yet each aspect must then be qualified as aspects and not themselves as being 'all' at the ToE level.

If I were to use the abstract infinity, then I can follow a similar set-up. We can state that the definition of infinity can be agreed on by all. But infinities come in different versions, so we have infinities towards the largest of largest, and infinities of the smallest reality. What this tells me is that the larger overarching abstract word for infinity is Scale. If I were to state something about the ToE with infinity in mind, I'd use the word Scale, because it is of a more-overarching reality.

Of course one can declare Scale as appointing the balance instead of 'the largest and the smallest', but I would consider that a bonus to this word, not reason for disagreement.

Just from these two examples I'd have a view on the ToE: the universe is a place of expressions and they occur at different scales. There will be some kind of balance within all these expressions, yet balancing can occur at the local level and at the overall level; in effect, I claim balancing occurs at many different levels. At the overall level, I claim there is no single balance between all expressions (they are not related within a single universal balance), but only among all expressions (overall neutral charge in which specific expressions of charge occur). There is no single scale to the universe, except the scale we all agreed on, which is the scale of the definition. This can be read as the acknowledgment that all comes in some specific kind of scale.

I find the above paragraph quite interesting.

Bringing this back to the word 'everything': it has a defined meaning for us all, and it is something all agree on. Yet when we discuss the specific everything for each individual, we will bump into differences most likely within a few seconds/minutes. So, in the end, the only thing left standing is the definition or the abstract.

Yes. It ever comes back to definitions and how we may define and communicate them to each other.

Company has arrived, so I must go. I shall contemplate on the apparent confusion that my style of communication brings to our exchange.

Regards,

Lorrina

Facts can be part of theories; the more the better.

A theory can never equal a fact. It supersedes facts, even when it must be considered of a lesser actuality.

This all means that discussing a theory of everything cannot just be about measurements, but must be about what a theory is as well: an abstract delivery.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The Science of Intelligence...

"How can the background independent and background dependent primary states of RM and QM__Thoroughly Forbidding Quantum Cloning__Account for the Quantum Cloning Absolutely Required for All and Any Bio-Life States...?"

"How can a background independence of primary actions later produce the quantum state ideas of background dependent ideas, maths and theories__without contradicting the primary state actions...?"

"How can either symmetry or asymmetry state change to their opposites, yet they must...?"

"How can positive and negative charges come from a single source of one...?"

"The background independent simultaneity of symmetric and asymmetric super-positionality of first-actions, of the primary state space changes of the absolute fundamental substance..."

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I know that disagreement is fundamental at the overall level, Lloyd, because at heart there is a disconnection between sides. So to proclaim the ToE, one cannot take in the spot of disagreement, rather the spot of overarching knowledge is the only spot to find the ToE.

How many times must you be reminded__I'm not looking for a ToE__A theory of everything is ludicrous, as that would take the impossible agreement of humans__Never gonna' happen...

Now Facts of Science, since it has rules of engagement, like any game, that's possible__And Only The Facts Are Possible__as they don't require human agreement, just a set of rules to measure the Facts by__Since human agreement is long established in Science__It's called Method__It Works...!!! Since the Scientific Method has been around for thousands of years__It simply happens to be the only rules of the game possible to be respected__As it relies on Non-Contradiction of its Math, Measurement and Logic... But, I think that leaves you out, because you can't respect the rules of science, Fredrick__as far as I can see...

But thinking you're gonna' get others to agree to some other personal abstract theory__Forget It__It ain't a happening...

I seem to have found a stubborn disagree-er in you, Lloyd, and I am not going to change that. I have no problem there, because each time you present a perspective on how we can disagree, I am able to provide the perspective from one level up.

A few levels down, you mean...

But it surprised me how long you were able to take in this position without many others walking away from your side; your contradictions should have awakened others long ago.

Ahh, you judge falsely again, my dear boy__There are no contradictions in my positions, as they be only investigative models, with a few facts dispersed throughout. If you'd followed Tim's and my ideas, in his thread, you'd realize this... Since you've accused me of contradictions__Please point to one, and I'll gladly show you why it's not a contradiction... I am well aware of every word and idea I converse about__ya know...???

Of course, you proclaim contradictions are always there, and there we would be saying the same thing (at that level).

No, again you mis-quote my ideas__I say contradictions exist in many ideas, but certainly not all, and far from it, but clarity of scientific method__which you reject, is the only method known to man, not to argue and contradict, as the math and logic automatically finds the exact truths__If Scientific Method Be Granted Its Rightful Position...

Next, you disagree with me when I present the level that is one level up from the level of your statement.

Fredrick, unless you use the standard scientific method, established for millennia, you are always presenting at levels below what is possible to successful discussion__Always...

That is funny (and I hope you can agree to that, too).

If you want the thread to be funny, then turn it to comedy, but on second thought, it is...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Our converations have gotten me possessed enough during previous sessions, Lloyd. I had to learn that you are very strong in creating oppositions or virtual oppositions — a quality I admire. Yet, if you allow me to counter you personally, I have not seen you use your strength much for self-reflection.

My self-reflection is on all the time, full time... I use it where necessary...

If we keep discussing everything at a flat level, Lloyd, then we will not complete the most-important-conversation-about-what-is-most-important ever.

I always respond Flat to the Flat, Fredrick__Which you always are...

Please, don't see this as an acknowledgment that the ToE is that important; it isn't. What makes it important is that important people didn't get it. Once acknowledged, the ToE will get a sideline in the history books. It won't say that Lloyd Gillespie, c.s. were discussing the ToE to the death of their egos, but it will say something to the fact that Einstein, c.s., despite having close to all they needed to know, were not able to conclude what those with far poorer sets of data were capable of achieving millenia before them.

Certainly, you jest...

You must be willing to discuss the various positions in an overall 3D creation.

I discuss no-thing as creation__Creation is a logically provable fallacy... And 3D or 4D is my choice, not you imposing on my mental space...

If not, then there is no conversation. Bring me down to anything 2D, and we'll never get to the ToE.

Fredrick, there's no bringing you down, when you require being brought up to speed__The speed of a real scientific method... Again, I have no interest in a ToE, of the sort discussed here on TQ...

Don't ask me to express everything within one set of structures, because that is not where the ToE action is.

No one is asking any such thing of you Fredrick__Just to simply speak the truth, but if you wish to speak to me, I only discuss scientific issues, within the parameters of scientific methods, models and theories...

If you say that I said the ToE was incompleteness, and then show I am arguing for completeness now, then you have a point. But as you know, the truth is found within the framework to which that particular truth belongs.

Self-contradictions belong to no particular framework/concept/method of truth...

So, don't start picking and choosing words; that only makes for a flat conversation.

Fredrick, who do you think you are to tell others what to do__God...???

I should possibly just acknowledge having read your posts from this moment on; right now, we are not improving our standing, Lloyd.

Pretty hard to improve a standing, when you offer no-thing solid, to stand on...

Your first post explains no-thing of what your position is, Fredrick... As a matter of fact, no-thing you've so far stated, does...

Unless you use an accepted scientific method, it's not possible to converse...

Setting up impossibilities of communication is useless...

I've asked you before Fredrick; "Where's your theory...???"

[labelwench]

How many times must you be reminded__I'm not looking for a ToE__A theory of everything is ludicrous, as that would take the impossible agreement of humans__Never gonna' happen...

Now Facts of Science, since it has rules of engagement, like any game, that's possible__And Only The Facts Are Possible__as they don't require human agreement, just a set of rules to measure the Facts by__Since human agreement is long established in Sceince__It's called Method__It Works...!!! Since the Scientific Method has been around for thousands of years__It simply happens to be the only rules of the game possible to be respected__As it relies on Non-Contradiction of its Math, Measurement and Logic... But, I think that leaves you out, because you can't respect the rules of science, Fredrick__as far as I can see...

But thinking you're gonna' get others to agree to some other personal abstract theory__Forget It__It ain't a happening...


A few levels down, you mean...


Ahh, you judge falsely again, my dear boy__There are no contradictions in my positions, as they be only investigative models, with a few facts dispersed throughout. If you'd followed Tim's and my ideas, in his thread, you'd realize this... Since you've accused me of contradictions__Please point to one, and I'll gladly show you why it's not a contradiction... I am well aware of every word and idea I converse about__ya know...???


No, again you mis-quote my ideas__I say contradictions exist in many ideas, but certainly not all, and far from it, but clarity of scientific method__which you reject, is the only method known to man, not to argue and contradict, as the math and logic automatically finds the exact truths__If Sceintific Method Be Granted Its Rightful Position...


Fredrick, unless you use the standard scientific method, established for millennia, you are always presenting at levels below what is possible to successful discussion__Always...


If you want the thread to be funny, then turn it to comedy, but on second thought, it is...

Ummmmmmmm,........Lloyd.........,

I know you are busy dissing Fredrick, and he's a big boy and can likely handle himself, but thought I should mention that your spell check isn't working .......credibility issue, you know......(I think Fredrick notices details.....)

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Ummmmmmmm,........Lloyd.........,

I know you are busy dissing Fredrick, and he's a big boy and can likely handle himself, but thought I should mention that your spell check isn't working .......credibility issue, you know......(I think Fredrick notices details.....)

Yeah, my fingers ain't a working on that word Science or Scientific lately...

Thanks Lorrina...

[austintorn@aol.com]

The Pyramids Completed

I notice a useful system
Of opposition-plus-transition
Operating at various levels of the universe,
This being the first one of the five pyramids:


F o r c e s

Strong vs. Weak
opposition
plus the
Magnetic<—>Electric
transition.

The Strong promote stability;
The Weak promotes changeability.

Their balance promotes progress,
For events have to be orderly enough
To take form,
But not so much frozen
That they cannot change.

The Magnetic and the Electric
Transition each into the other,
In the self-regenerating wave.

(We’re not worried about
The Electroweak unification,
Since those Big Bang days are gone,
But one could still see
The Electroweak as in opposition
To the Strong.)

Gravity, a kind of secondary force/effect,
Would be the blending of the 4 forces.


B e i n g

Space vs. Matter
oppposition
plus the
Past—>Future
transition.

While space and matter are indeed similar,
The thinness and the lumps are a contrast,
Granting us a notion of the
‘What’ in the ‘Where’.

Time could go backwards,
But it usually doesn’t,
Due to there being so many
More states of disorder than order;
So, for practical purposes,
The transition occurs as
Past —> (now) —> Future,
Granting us the passing of
The ‘Then’ into the ‘When’
Via the present—now.

Time is more or less
The movement of
The appearances of Matter
Through Space.

The blend of all this is
The essence of life: one’s being,
Which is the ‘Who’.

The ‘Why’, I propose,
Is that, since Nothing
Could not be (stay),
Something has to be,
Yet it must amount to Nil,
As there can be no other mover prime.

The ‘How’ would be
The necesary production of opposites
From the simplest, unstable state:
Nothing,
Which could be known as
The opposite virtual pairs emitted,
Or, as like Hawking,
The positive kinetic energy of stuff
Ever being canceled out
By the negative potential energy of gravity.

There is more to this
‘Being’ opposition-transition,

Which is found by
The further combining the fields,
Such as Space and Past becoming Remembrance,
Matter and Past becoming History,
Space and Future becoming Wishes.
Matter and Future becoming Progress,
With, then, further combining, on up, etc.,
As one may predict…

History and Progression leading
To a Change-in-Structure,
Remembrance and Wishes leading
To a change-in-outlook,
Remembrance and History leading to Learning,
Progress and Wishes leading to Vision,

Onto Direction in life, Creating,
Growth. and Planning.


T h e E t e r n a l , I n f i n i t e U n i v e r s e (the All)

Positive vs. Minus Polarity
opposition
(In the form of charge)
plus the
Mass<—>Energy
transition.

(Not sure—I’m just making this one up now)

4D space-time
Is like an infinite number of 3D Spaces
Stacked upon one another,
Which I call the 4D Hypercube.

It hard to visualize 4D,
But one can generalize it
From a stack of pancakes.

So, in seeing this 4D Hypercube
Of 3D Spaces,
One can visualize
That Time is the difference of Space(s),
It serving as both motion and energy.

And that Space is
The difference of Time,
This being distance.

Energy/mass is basically curved space.

3D Space is infinite and is therefore
The bounding “surface”
Of the finite 4D Hypercube.

The exterior of infinite largeness
Bounds the infinitely small interior
Of infinite smallness,
An inescapable consequence of closure—
Closure being the level of existence
Where the large
Becomes indistinguishable
From the small,
Both merging into
The singularity of Totality: zero.

Imagine an enormous sphere in space,
Growing progressively more immense.
As long as its volume remains finite,
It is a three-dimensional object
With a two-dimensional surface.

When its volume reaches infinity,
Its three-dimensional interior
Is now the surface by which it is bounded.

The sphere becomes inverted,
Just as infinite smallness
And largeness are inverted.

The largest, via dispersal,
And the smallest, via compaction,
Are the same vacant ends
Of Totality’s spectrum: zippo.

The two halves of Totality,
Delineated by polarity (charge),
Nullify all of existence,
In the overview.

This is because the only
Possible Prime Mover
That is infinite and eternal
Is Nothing,
Requiring nothing prior to itself.

Yet, it is so unstable
That it cannot absolutely exist,
Even for an instant.

And so it is that we reside here,
In a Balance of Opposites,
Necessarily at the mid-point
Of the largest and smallest infinities.

The two 3-D quantities
Of 4D hypervolume are

distance^3
(Space)

And

time-distance^2
(Energy)

Energy moves through space.

The space of our universe
Is three-dimensional
Because this is
The only dimension
Whose volume is
Compositionally consistent
Through all levels of infinite size
While forming the surface
Of its own hypervolume.

Time is the dimension that bounds,
Not extends,
Three-dimensional space.

Unit hypervolume
Is the internal product
Of time and space,
But it is also the product
Of energy and distance.

The speed of light
Is the dimensional equivalent
Between space and time.

Energy density
Is the 4th-dimensional slope of space.

Just as Planck’s constant is
The four-dimensional quantization of photons,
Elementary charge is the four-dimensional
Quantization of particles.

Photons are
The encapsulation of time by space;
Particle fields
Are the encapsulation of space by time.

Note that I have not really mentioned
Anything other than space
Or what could be an aspect
Or reduced to space,
Such as its curvature.


S t a b l e E x i s t e n c e:

AntiMatter(-) vs. UncleMatter(+)
opposition
plus the
Photons<—>electrons/positrons
transtions of light<—>matter

There are only two stable matter particles,
The electron(+) and the proton (+),
Because there are only
Two ways to make them.
(A photon is neutral since its has both
A positive and a negative aspect).


F i n i t e E x i s t e n c e

Largest Infinity vs. Smallest Infinity
opposition
plus the
Past Eternity<—>Future Eternity
transition

Yes, the no-origin Totality
May use its future in the present,
For it is its own precursor.