[AntonioLao]

One lingering question is whether God is a mathematician?

[Eric]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

One lingering question is whether God is a mathematician?

Would that be your only lingering question?

The first thing that can be said about God, is that it doesn't have anything whatsoever outside of it (including absolutely nothing).

The second thing that can be said about God, is that it is not inside of itself, because then it would have something outside of itself.

The third thing that can be said about God, is that it is "always being" ALL but itself, because there is not one thing it can leave outside of itself.

And so on and so forth.

There is a fundamental difference between IS and "is being".

As for the subject of this thread, there are two meanings to absolute rest or absolute still. Rest also means "the rest of" and still also means "not ended".

And yes Antonio, don't pay attention to anything I have to say, because it's all coming from my ego. I'm just conjecturing without any logical standpoint whatsoever. Just making it all up to mess with people and show off. I'm pathetic.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

One lingering question is whether God is a mathematician?

Hi Antonio, I think the universe is entirely mathematical, this is true, but your question has best been answered by Guille, in his post 'God'. I concur.

Regards,
Lloyd

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

I think the universe is entirely mathematical

Could this suggest that a nonmathematical universe cannot exist? But what kind of math are we talking about? Is this relative math or absolute math? We all know there is relative physics.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

Could this suggest that a nonmathematical universe cannot exist? But what kind of math are we talking about? Is this relative math or absolute math? We all know there is relative physics.

I would venture to suggest Antonio,that Absolute maths would foot the bill?
After all is there any other?


regards michael.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

... But what kind of math are we talking about? Is this relative math or absolute math? We all know there is relative physics.

And we all know there is relative math. What I have found disturbing, is that the math guys don't freely admit, there is no absolute math as of yet.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by Eric

there is no absolute math as of yet.

Could we keep on searching? The TOE might only be explained by it.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

Could we keep on searching? The TOE might only be explained by it.

Absolutely spot on there Antonio,absolute maths would be maybe,1=on,0=off,10=standby
that would explain the relative illusary universe,its three fold expression.The absolute
maths for absoluteness well--1=all=U=ME=1.


regards michael.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

Could we keep on searching? The TOE might only be explained by it.

Yes. But again, in making that statement there is a bias in favor of mathematics. It is already biased in believing it is more refined than physics, and they in turn are biased towards "metaphysics" or philosophy, and they in turn are be biased towards science.

Beyond the bias and in all cases, there is an ABSOLUTE LOGIC that is missing.

If a TOE is not first and foremost LOGICAL, then in the final analysis it can only be said to be ILLOGICAL.

In any field, we are still mired in RELATIVE LOGIC. What has not been solved, is the relative nature of SOMETHING and NOTHING.

No matter how these are expresed; in number, dimension, substance, etc. they need to be solved before a TOE can proceed.

The fundamental problem is AXIOMATIC ASSUMPTION, that lead to theoroms that supposedly PROVE something. A TOE can NOT begin this way.

There is only one way to begin a TOE and if it's done correctly, then everything else falls into place. It can only begin by DISPELLING the most all-encompassing (root) assumption of them all.

The root assumption being both SOMETHING & NOTHING. Absolute logic dictates that one of them has to be dispelled. One of them has to be rigorously defined as illogical, without making a single assumption.

We know there is something, but we can't rigorously say what it is yet. So what about nothing? Something can't come from nothing. We know this is illogical.

So what needs to be dispelled is NOTHING. By doing this, we then have a non-axiomatic starting point.

Let's logically dispell nothing, shall we? Then we can begin a TOE and put this whole issue "absolutely to rest".

Absolutely spot on there Antonio,absolute maths would be maybe,1=on,0=off,10=standby

Michael,

I respectfully reject the last half of your quote, so I left it out. This first half, however, is quite interesting.

1=ON and 0=OFF are fine. But in relative mathematics the 1 and 0 are outside of each other. They are derivitives of each other.

In absolute mathematics the 0/OFF has to be within the 1/ON. The 1 has to be (in)dependent and the 0 has to be dependent.

The 1 and 0 combined, can then become NOT 1 but NOT 0, or NOT ON but NOT OFF.

Geometrically speaking, a location has to be established for the 0 inside the 1. The location is CENTER. In addition, there is no outside the 1 and no inside the 0.

A couple of other principles have to be established before one can arrive at UNIVERSE, but that's the beginning of the absolute mathematics.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

Could this suggest that a nonmathematical universe cannot exist? But what kind of math are we talking about? Is this relative math or absolute math? We all know there is relative physics.

IMO Antonio, a nonmathematical universe is impossible of existing, yes. I am talking about only an entirely new absolute whole math, about only scientific absolutes, as it's all I'm aware of___there are no scientific relatives, in the universe I witness. It's entirely absolute classical scientific thermal matter motion, and fully mathmatizable.

Regards,
Lloyd

p.s.
As to Eric's post___he doesn't realize the one has action[motion] within. He sees it too metaphysically/ontically___the new whole math must be of fully definable scientific absolutes. A zero with absolutely nothing in the center is magic___it don't exist. Absolute matter exists everywhere___infinitely, eternally. If you had followed all his posts, he's arguing and conjecturing on all sides of the same issue at once___no defining logic.