[protheory]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

"existence is NOT based on purely sensory observations but on the very make of Humankind its self."

I can ask how else can you deduce the above, other than by sensory observations? You refer to energy and matter as being real, only because you have sensed their effects. If you didn't sense them, there would be no way to claim they existed.

The absolute is the opposite of relative - standard dictionary definition - and the proposition is that the absolute universe is the same everywhere, which is the same state as being the same nowhere. Without relative reference points, things don't exist, and the absolute state of non-existence has two abstract reference points: primarily, expansive and contractive; a forward extension and simultaneous backward retraction. Simply explained as 1-1=0. The "0" is the non-existent state of the universe, but holds the necessarily-abstract perspectives of "1" and "-1" and all the fractions in between, which are the basis for relativity and evolution to function.

I've been reading some of my old notes I found recently and I think pretty much the same thing. My own idea is that if we "humans" observe the universe (whatever that is) we will see 3 distinct potentials within its formation but only relative to our own "existence" so to speak.

[protheory]

Also, the idea of nothing producing 'something' (in this case loosely defined as the opposite to nothing) is pretty much the idea behind Big Bang theory. The Big Bang being the opposite to the Big Crunch implies that before the Big Bang there was a singularity or 'nothing' so to speak.

I've made a few videos about this idea here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQmvjZVbMJs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_qp8Kvtfss

I apologise for the rough introduction quality of these clips but I'm still getting used to being on camera

Thses videos are just filmed off the top of my head talking to camera, if anybody has any questions they would like me to answer or try to explain on camera please let me know

[N0B0DY]

"My own idea is that if we "humans" observe the universe (whatever that is) we will see 3 distinct potentials within its formation but only relative to our own "existence" so to speak."

Spoken like a champion I would say, Pro, and your videos are pretty good too.

I there there are a few physicists who would agree that time is the prevalent factor in determining reality. If time is matter in motion through space, and there is no such thing as time to the universe, there is no such thing as matter and motion. It's all relative to individual standpoints, that produce the +-=, and as Alan Guth might say, "all mass plus all gravity equals zero."

Perhaps someone like yourself might grasp the gist of one equalling zero, in the sense that when we refer to one we are referring to positive, negative and neutral which equals zero. It's sort of like the universal state being synonymous to one photon or graviton, and existence manifests when it is divided into positive, negative and neutral charges.

The universe, as you said, "whatever that is," is the ultimate question. Perhaps like the elusive zero, it is undefined until defined by extracted measurements.

[theunify]

Perhaps, the only way to know for sure whether or not we can define Zero, we can assign a Variable, so that X=0.

We see that negative X and the reciprical of X are null. This is the exeption and not the rule and only gets disputed at the Big-bang.

Welcome to Toequest North, add whatever you'd like to our discussion of this topic.

[north]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

"existence is NOT based on purely sensory observations but on the very make of Humankind its self."

my point is that BEFORE we evolved senses , we were made up of energy/matter. we don't NEED sensory observations to tell us this , we are OF IT (matter/energy) there is no way around it.

do I sense the firing of neurons? , no , but yet it still happens.

the absolute Universe in no way implies that it is in the same state everywhere.

all that steady-state condition of the Universe implies is that , it is not expanding but it is evolving.

how so? I'm reasonably sure that before " relative " came into the picture , in thought , that the Universe just simply carried on as it does.

the absolute state of non-existence has NO reference points whats so ever physically.

your thinking is much too much mathematically based. mathematics is nice , but without the physical existence of things , there is NOTHING , ABSOLUETLY NOTHING for mathematics to measure is there?

[N0B0DY]

Exactly, north, there is nothing to measure except for abstract phenomena which is governed by the senses.

The "absolute" is noumenal which is non-existent. It is objective reality "as it really is"; The relative is phenomenal which exists abstractly through the functioning of subjective "reality."

There is no "before" the senses evolved, which are required to acquire your knowledge of firing neurons. Evolution is an illusion of time based on relativity. Both Einstein and Darwin were brilliant in developing their theories because all existence is observed to be relative and changing.

Nevertheless, not only can the observable universe be created in 6 days, but in under 6 nanoseconds. Yet, you wouldn't realize it for billions of years.

So there are no "somethings." We just refer to phenomena as things, like "relative reference points."

[north]

[quote=N0B0DY;33253]

Exactly, north, there is nothing to measure except for abstract phenomena which is governed by the senses.

I disagree it is the energy/matter which governs the senses. the energy/matter is not abstract at all. it is the core/ the essence , the existence of the senses in the first place.

The "absolute" is noumenal which is non-existent.

I disagree

the noumenal does exist and it, depending on the person( hence those that are more in-tune with Nature than others) communicates with that person.

look at the Russian Dimitri Mendeleev he furthered the chemical periodic table( 1896) by

understanding the chemical structure of elements.

It is objective reality "as it really is"; The relative is phenomenal which exists abstractly through the functioning of subjective "reality."

but the " subjective reality " is based on the " objective reality ".

There is no "before" the senses evolved, which are required to acquire your knowledge of firing neurons. Evolution is an illusion of time based on relativity. Both Einstein and Darwin were brilliant in developing their theories because all existence is observed to be relative and changing.

so if you were to be completely unaware of Einstein and Darwin , you say that no change is happening?

I find that hard to believe

Nevertheless, not only can the observable universe be created in 6 days, but in under 6 nanoseconds. Yet, you wouldn't realize it for billions of years.

but how far does light travel in six days? and how do you explain galaxies that are hundreds , let alone millions and billions of light years away?

So there are no "somethings." We just refer to phenomena as things, like "relative reference points."

but the " relative reference points " are of something.

[N0B0DY]

We're both free to agree to disagree, north, but it should be based on solid premises.

Being aware or unaware of Einstein and Darwin is not a factor in the relative functioning of abstract phenomena. They both only realized to lesser or greater extent that the observable universe is based on relativity and change over time and based their theories on it. Abstract change is eternal, providing their are observers to observe it.

The reference points are not made of anything because the universe in its entirety can't be made of anything - "everything" is made of space, and space doesn't exist because there are no spaces possible existing between other space. Its like, but not accurately, one solid space that I equate to non-existence which is broken only by the illusory time it takes to process information.

The distant galaxies are inside your head, but you don't realize this because you absorb and process only a certain amount of photons over time. If you were to absorb and had the capability to process the entire spectrum, you wouldn't see/sense the galaxies because you would be the galaxies - they wouldn't exist at all. The abstract reference points, through which "photons" are absorbed and emitted, are not really anywhere because they are made of spatial motion which can't really exist - re: my premise above. So the photons are abstractly created, based on the infinite number of possible velocities relative to absolute speed/no speed, according to the infinite number of possible wavelengths and amplitudes.

[north]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

We're both free to agree to disagree, north, but it should be based on solid premises.

I disagree

observers are irrelavant.

for if observers are the essence of change , what of before our existence ? since our very existence is based on change.

agreed

would have such a confusion of spectrums that you would have no hope of sorting one object(s) from another.

observers?

based on observers right?

[N0B0DY]

I'm not saying that observers are the essence of change, but that potential change is the essence of all observers and observations. The abstract changes, which are eternal, are the observers and the observed which means you will never die unless "you" transcend eternity by becoming absolutely unconscious.

To understand my point, we have to think of non-existence as being the same as absolute fullness instead of the opposite which only applies to relative terms of things and lack of things. Like a room full of things whereby you take all the things out of it and say that there is nothing in the room is not what is meant by non existence. What is meant by it is stacking so much stuff into the room that there is absolutely no space left in the room. The room no longer exists because there is no room for anything else to enter or for anything to move in the room.

Similarly, the universal fullness of space renders existence impossible based on what you said, "our very existence is based on change."

I'm sure you will disagree with my explanation of how abstract change occurs, so however you wish to view it is fine.

Perhaps googling potential energy and conservative forces, and correlating them with consciousness and subconsciousness would be useful.