there is no toe

[coyote]

what do I think? It varies. Do thoughts have weight? Is the nucleaus of an atom made up of a thought? Many thoughts? An entire life?

Matter exists, existence is a reality. Though we can shape our reality to a certain degree we can only react to things that we cannot change. If there were no reality I would be living in a field full of critters by a waterfall, with rainbow trees and ....
This is how I know there is a reality that is outside my mind. Because life is not ideal.

Sometimes things happen to me that prove there is a reality by their very violence, or you could say 'extreme reality'.

The weight I give those incidents and the memory of them is what I can change.
It's what we all can change.

It is because of these incidents that I seek broader knowledge.
To save me from the pain, to give me a reason to live and not let the bad guys win.

What do you think? DO you shape your reality? Or do you shape your reaction to it?

[harmonygirl]

michael, the way I understood infinity was to stare at the blue sky and try to see the blackness of the universe (I know its there somewhere!). I did this when I was 12 or so (I was an original child). It communicates vastness at first, but I think you begin to understand infinite on an emotional level.
coyote, I think you shape both, your reality and your reaction to it.
I think the TOE has to do with harmonic resonance, but I am just guessing.

[Mohan.C]

yes ur table may not b infinite and time may also not be infinite BUT in first case it is finite as long as u are an observer from outside the table ...both being 3 D objects... u compare one infinite with the other and infinity and infinite no longer is apparant. think of a case if u (observer) were a line i.e. a 1 D object. in that case even the face of the table wud have been an infinity for u, infact if u moved u wud not hav been able to declare wheather its the plane of face of ur table or the plane of some leg of the table.

u r right about time also. time is finite if i talk about strong nuclear reactions ..as i m an observer outside the nucleus ... but again time is eternal for an observer inside the nucleus..the nucleaus had no begining for her/him and no end..it was jsut eternal. and similarly universe is eternal for v observer till we find a way to come out of the universe and see it from outside.
wut u r trying to say is complletely right but the problem is in the proper definition of the system and the observer. infinity changes the moment u change one of them ..but the gud point is u can always go to a refernce frame which cancells the infinity... u take a stick instead of a point to measure the length of a rod and thus make the rod finite (which was obviously infinite for the point).

I agree with u. but infiniy is relative. so every particle in the universe has its own right to explain infinity in its own right. is it possible to check all the definitions

[mkirkpatrick]

michael, the way I understood infinity was to stare at the blue sky and try to see the blackness of the universe (I know its there somewhere!). I did this when I was 12 or so (I was an original child). It communicates vastness at first, but I think you begin to understand infinite on an emotional level.
coyote, I think you shape both, your reality and your reaction to it.
I think the TOE has to do with harmonic resonance, but I am just guessing.

There is most certainly harmonic resonance,I agree totally with that.

kind regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi All,

Mathematically, infinity to the power of infinity is a doable arithematic if we at least use real large numbers, such as a googol to the power of a googol, i.e., a one plus one hundred zeroes - or to expand it further trillions of googols. No amount of computers on earth could linearly do such a math, yet it is logically, mentally doable. If the arithmetic is doable, and logic dictates it is then infinity is absolutely infinite, and no amount of false relativity or relativising can change this hard math fact.

The problem with all of post-modernism's thinking is its rudimentary faults in its foundational math and logic. The rudimentary problems stem from the facts that Einstein's special theory of relativity, Heisenberg's and other's quantum mechanics, and Godel's incompletenesses can not be mathematically proved, yet infinity can. And all the above mentioned theories either had to falsely subtract or add infinity to create their false assumptions. Most of the world is still doing it. The things we absolutely do know are absolute space, i.e., infinity, and finite matter. We absolutely know nothing of absolute relativity, quantum mechanics, or incompleteness, except their incompletenesses. We have absolutely known infinite space and finite matter since Heraclitus and earlier. No amount of false relativity, quantum mechanics, or Godelian phraseology can change this. Arithmetic rules the only truth we can possibly absolutely know!

There is no known method to mathematically measure relativity, quantum states or incompletenesses of. The measurements of, and even gravity's true nature, are beyond our known observable abilities. All the measuring instruments change with the velocities, making them unmeasureable in any of the frames of reference thus far known to us. So we must seek the TOE answers elswhere. The TOE is much clearer viewed from a universal perspective down, instead of parts principles up. John Wheeler already showed this as early as the eighties, with his objective cartoon of the big eyeball looking at a pre-big-bang observation of the universal infinite state of absolute infinite time. This same eyeball can also go beyond all known theories, to its infinite now space and objectively view all present known cognitions and conceptions. If so, what is this infinite now space eyeball?

All that's required to realize the above is to theorize a psychological cyclatron and step behind, and or beyond Einstein, Heisenberg, and Godel.

Check out Geoff Haselhurst's site for a general overview of quantum mechanics history and newest ideas:
Geoff Haselhurst