paradigm shift for emptiness

[AntonioLao]

Thank you very much. I'm now preparing a longer reply with more questions but less answers.

[AntonioLao]

The Intelligence of Intelligence

From an epistemological point of view I cannot understand just how personal can your proof be except proving it for yourself or to yourself? That is comparing your own intelligence with itself. In mathematics, the word 'RATIO' is simply a comparison of two things of the same physical dimension while the word 'RATE' is used to compare two different physical dimensions, for example, distance over time to give a rate for defining speed. On the other hand, human beings can have multiple aspects of intelligence. See this at http://www.co-intelligence.org/multiIntelligence.htm
Three of the mysteries of 'RATIO' in physics are the experimental comparison of proton mass to electron mass which come out approximately 1836, the comparison of muon mass to electron mass about 200, and the 3rd dimensionless constant is no other than the fine structure constant approximately equals 1 divided by 137 rounded to the nearest whole number. Concerning 'RATIO' my question for you is what is the value of the dimensionless coupling constant comparing intelligence with intelligence? I have more questions.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

[SIZE=3][COLOR=#00b050][COLOR=#00b050]From an epistemological point of view I cannot understand just how personal can your proof be except proving it for yourself or to yourself? That is comparing your own intelligence with itself. In mathematics, the word 'RATIO' is simply a comparison of two things of the same physical dimension while the word 'RATE' is used to compare two different physical dimensions, for example, distance over time to give a rate for defining speed. On the other hand, human beings can have multiple aspects of intelligence. See this at http://www.co-intelligence.org/multiIntelligence.htm
Three of the mysteries of 'RATIO' in physics are the experimental comparison of proton mass to electron mass which come out approximately 1836, the comparison of muon mass to electron mass about 200, and the 3rd dimensionless constant is no other than the fine structure constant approximately equals 1 divided by 137 rounded to the nearest whole number. Concerning 'RATIO' my question for you is what is the value of the dimensionless coupling constant comparing intelligence with intelligence? I have more questions.

26 and counting Antonio__Do you actually take this seriously...???
The Standard Model


The Standard Model of particle physics contains 19 arbitrary dimensionless constants describing the masses of the particles and the strengths of the electroweak and strong forces. This was before neutrinos were discovered to have nonzero mass, and before a quantity called the theta angle was found to be indistinguishable from zero. After the discovery of neutrino mass, and omitting the theta angle, Baez (2002) noted that the new Standard Model requires 25 fundamental dimensionless constants, whose numerical values are, to the best of present understanding, arbitrary. These are the:

• Fine structure constant;
• Strong coupling constant;
• Masses of the fundamental particles (relative to the Planck mass), namely the six quarks, the six leptons, the Higgs boson, the W boson, and the Z boson;
• Four parameters of the CKM matrix, describing how quarks oscillate between different forms;
• Four parameters of the Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata matrix, which does the same thing for neutrinos.

One more fundamental constant is required for gravity, the:

• Cosmological constant (in terms of Planck units) of Einstein's equations for general relativity.

Thus, there are 26 dimensionless fundamental physical constants. More constants will presumably be needed to describe the properties of dark matter. If the description of dark energy requires more than the cosmological constant, yet more constants will be needed.

Concerning 'RATIO' my question for you is what is the value of the dimensionless coupling constant comparing intelligence with intelligence? I have more questions.

In short__Depth of meaning...

People/men have always thought they know the intelligence of their intelligence__They do not, or we wouldn't be still hunting for it__So, the biggest mistake men, more than women, make is to think they are wiser than themselves... This involves the question of__What is the intelligence of intelligence truly about...??? This boils down to__What is the thinking of thinking__or; What is the science of pure modal thought...???

The coupling constants, dimensionless or not, is the depths of our modal understanding, from the basic modal meaning, to basic modal intelligence, and finally to the most basic of all__our modal logical muse. You see, the article above lists 26 coupling constants now required to partially function the standard model__and even before we go there__the basic mind of fundamental thought has a triple triadic system of required coupling constants__though never truly dimensionless__as they must pass the real photonic gathered informations from one modal state to the next higher modal state/s and also be capable of returning the same to be reprocessed all over again by still other modal states of abduction, induction and deduction...

So, physics has a considerable distance to travel__just to understand its own modal understanding__of the real, necessary and true modal mechanics of the mind of scientific thinking__before even attempting to make real sense of the standard model's 26 possible coupling constants...

What about this fundamental set of 3*3*3^3...? That's 81 coupling constants required, just for fundamental modal thinking about fundamental thinking...??? Oh sure__you can say that one of the coupling constants supplies the needs for many of these same coupling functions__But, and this is a big But__Why do these fundamental modal states of thinking, all carry different informations__and how would any sensibly concieved set number of the original 12 to 19, presently 26__supply the complex mechanics of our known and required independent, yet perceptually and conceptually divisible and later unitable brain states...???

Standard physics__QM and RM are in well over their heads, right at the git-go of their own brain mechanics__when all modal states are truly and necessarily figured in... It's high time to expand physics minds to understanding the science of their own 'thinkers'(minds, intelligences, meanings, understandings, logics, modes or whatever...)

I don't know Antonio__But, I see far more questions_than answers...

Btw Antonio, your article LINK refers to modal psychology, and I'm speaking about modal logic, as per philosophy's historical study of it...

[AntonioLao]

There are only 4 coupling constants of elementary particle physics. The reason why there are only 4 fundamental forces. The values of these constants are used to compare the different strength of the forces during interactions at a given temperature. It is validated by experiments that at low temperatures the strengths are different but at higher and higher temperatures and shorter and shorter distances these 4 values converge to one single value, which high energy particle physicists called the coupling constant of the singular superforce. But no experiment can yet reach this ultra high temperature or ultra short distance. The limits being set at the Planck parameters.

My question for you is whether there is a coupling constant for comparing intelligence with intelligence or comparing the effectiveness of various forms of multiple intelligences?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

It's far more complex than that, Antonio...

Superficiality will never describe the Universe, neither will complexity__Only 'The Generality of Genericity'__'The Mean Way' is capable of the explanation and total understanding__All are looking for...

My question for you is whether there is a coupling constant for comparing intelligence with intelligence or comparing the effectiveness of various forms of multiple intelligences?

Antonio, throw away the pseudo-psychologies, and study the real modal logics...

The coupling and de-coupling constants are our choice of free-wills over belief defeasings, and rationality...

Beliefs are impossible of ever becoming certainties, rationalisms or logical truths__Only rational sources supply logical certainties__Never the beliefs...

You can know your beliefs__But never fully rationalize them, even if you believe them to be rational__It's just simple defeasible belief__or an infinite regress to the many logical impossibilities...

P.s.
Antonio, it is absolutely known the hyper-fine structure of the hydrogen atom is thus far__Absolutely unmeasurable as to individual emissions, i.e., individual photons are unmeasurable__The Absolute Measurement Problem...!!! LINK...

However, at present no emitter is available that can be focused to address a particular ion from a sequence.

Intelligence is a tool of the mind/brain__a simple essence agency tool__It processes what it can, and not what it can't__the epistemological limits must be respected...

Linguistic and mathematical systems can not answer for the 'Metaphor of Wisdom'__Only the 'Generality of Genericity' can__Due to simplicity being incapable of answering absolute complexity__'The True State of Wisdom'__There exists no possible algorithm to do so, imo...

E = MC^2 is the closest so far__Then it leaves us wanting greater simplicity of its complexity, and greater complexity of its simplicity...

Just as a kicker__I think gravity is electro-magnetic-gravity__I don't think there's anything missing__The mass-gap is true infinitesimal photon mass, imo...

[AntonioLao]

Lingering subtle contradictions prevent me from making any more sense of your continued postings. Your persistence in maligning many accepted workable ideas of science allows me to suspect that you have grossly misinterpreted all these ideas simply by lack of understanding. Your insistence on pure math and pure logic indicate also your lack of understanding of the meaning of the words "purity of ideas." I have decided to stop questioning your ideas and as a final effort to present my own position, please look up my new thread on "Laws of Measureability."

[Lloyd Gillespie]

When the going gets tough__The tough quit going, ha...???

I stated the truth__you just don't like the truth...

Science is limited__It must admit its limits...!!!

[ggullet]

On the one hand, in Eastern philosophy the word "empty"

empty is void of direction

[melanie]

The mistake you make is thinking its a single thing__It's many fields within the greater existing field__yet, it's isomorphic...

But that's just it Lloyd - It is a single thing, but this thing is really no thing.


For example, where is a tree until there is a conscious observer observing it?
Who does this consciousness belong to? Who labels this imaged visionary object ''a tree''
We just don't know do we......or do we?

How do we know a tree exists, since the eye cannot see itself, so who's knowing and seeing?

No one never sees a tree. So if no one never sees a tree, its logical to say that a tree does not exist.
Ahh, but you 'know' there is a tree, so who knows?

In saying there is no 'thing' as a tree, the 'thing' that is negated is known.

Apart from the 'things' known, there is no 'thing'

The 'thing' that is known, is not what you think it is.

Is there any difference between thinking and knowing?

The ''Singularity'' contains all apparent other minds, because it is infinite and boundless.

Information is all there really is.

No-thing really exists, only the information about "things" exist.

What we perceive as a physical reality is simply the processing of that information into a persistent illusion of a physical existence
transmitted by the ''hocus-pocus'' of the guage boson informing our minds what we are supposed to be perceiving.

All the information about any conceivable reality all exists as potential within the quantum universe.
It only awaits the interaction with an observer to be realized.

So where did this ''Information'' come from.
Where does any information come from?
The only thing in existence that can perceive, generate, store or create information is the mind.

Information that is perceived by the mind was created by the mind.
The gauge boson does not really exist, only the information being transferred exists.
The quantum universe does not really exist, anymore than the gauge boson exists.
The quantum universe is the information it carries.
And what is Information?
Information is conceptualized truth created, generated, stored and transmitted by the entangled minds of the singularity.
Information is thought.


The singularity is the consciousness of all entangled minds and thoughts generated by the mind is its essence.
The singularity is our consciousness and our individual minds entangled together are the singularity.
It has no existence independent of the minds that entangle to create it.

And each of our individual minds provide a different perspective to the collective consciousness of the singularity.
Each mind is a degree of freedom that adds its own conceptualizations of truth to the whole of the singularity.

Each mind generates its own information describing its illusion of truth that is transmitted to every other entangled mind creating a persistent four dimensional holographic shared illusion of reality.

Which is constantly evolving.


The Singularity is Infinite, Unbound, and Eternal.

It cannot exist as an "Is" but only as a metaphysical potential continually evolving,
and our individual minds create the dimensions of our own evolution.
Forever conceptualizing, generating, storing, transmitting, and processing our thoughts into an illusion of Reality.


Every conceptualized truth has just as much validity as any other.
All truths are equal and have an equal potential to be realized.
They all exist equally within the entangled minds of the singularity,
it is only our own apprehensions and expectations that discriminate between them.


Our minds provide the infinite degrees of freedom of ''The One Consciousness'' of the singularity.
And each of our minds provides another, and different, degree of freedom to the singularity.

The singularity is Consciousness,
and what each mind envisions, what each mind can imagine, what each mind can create,
what each mind believes, adds potential to our degrees of freedom.

It is only our own egotistical nature that presumes one intellect is superior to any other.
All are of equal importance to the singularity, and none would have any meaning without all the others.

Fundamentally we are all Solipsist within our own minds, and what we perceive to be ''The Truth''
we then assume must be the truth for all.
It is our own solipsism that has each of us trapped within our own minds creating our own ''Reality''
and blinding us to the essence of what the truth really is.

I think that's what Steve's talking about Lloyd.

Reality is Information processed by an Observer.
You are the Observer for your own Reality.


_________________



"It's up to you to choose grand beliefs, wondrous convictions, noble
purposes and lofty ideals. Then recognizing yourself as the final
source of all your meaning, belief and conviction will not degrade
into apathy and lack of meaning."
Gene Zimmer

Excerpt from: Reality, Belief and The Mind.