[Canute]

Originally Posted by lodestar I totally agree Canute. So when you think about it, the only set which really exists at all is the set of all sets. I would add that this set is reality, all of existence, and it is indeed one thing, that is completely undivided. So this means it must be divided by nothing. SO would you agree with me that the set of all sets is simply one thing divided by nothing, i.e. 1/0?

No, I don't get this idea. I would agree if you said that Reality can be seen as 1 or 0, as something or nothing. Why does the set of all sets have to be divided by 0?

[lodestar]

Originally Posted by Nobody "where positive infinity melds with negative infinity, and the arrow of time flows in both directions at once." The central point between positive and negative infinity is one? That's like saying that 1-1=1...

Please Mr. Nobody, have a look at the number circle and you will begin to understand. The point where positive and negative infinity come together is at 1/0. THe point 1/0 is not the same thing as 1 because 1 is not positive and negative at the same time like 1/0. You will see once you look at the number circle.

http://www.photobucket.com/albums/y9...everything.jpg

trust me

[lodestar]

Originally Posted by Canute No, I don't get this idea. I would agree if you said that Reality can be seen as 1 or 0, as something or nothing. Why does the set of all sets have to be divided by 0?

Ok Canute, it was you who was asking about the irony of truth right? I will answer the question you asked above by explaining to you the irony of truth.

The irony of truth is just contradiction. It is contradiction that is justified. So for example, science has been predicting a complete theory, a TOE, which would be based on non-contradiction, but the irony of truth is that we cannot prove that contradiction is not non-contradictory in a sense. Because afterall, contradiction never contradicts itself. It would appear that to itself, contradiction is consistent. So that is the irony of true paradox, the fact that contradiction is itself consistent. Do you see?

So the irony of truth, that contradiction is consistent, shows up in certain mathematical theorems like the "in"completeness theorem and the axiom of choice. Let's think about the incompleteness theorem for a moment, which states that we cannot have a complete theory unless that theory is also contradictory. Well doesn't the incompletness theorem contradict itself? In other words, how can the incompleteness theorem make a compete statement about incompleteness? It would appear that the incompleteness theorem itself is complete, in contradiction of itself.

Now, Kurt Godel never realized that the "in"completeness theorem was making a consistently contradictory statement about itself. If he did, he would have realized my discovery, that consistent contradiction is what allows reality to exist at all. So the irony of truth is this realization that reality is based on consistent contradiction and this is exemplified by mathematical theorems like the "in"completeness theorem and the axiom of choice.

So in my theory, the theory of 1/0, reality is based on consistent contradiction. This means that for every short-sighted law there is a law that negates this law in order to make an absolution of irony. So for every property of the universe, there is a counterpart. So while we perceive time to move forward, there is a reverse universe in theory that counter-balances our universe by flowing backwards. So when we consider both forwards and reverse running universes, we realize that everything is composed of both positive and negative aspects. So alltogether, everything is both positive AND negative, and this is just like the irony of truth.

So that is one reason why the set of all sets has to be 1/0. Because 1/0 is the only number that is both positive and negative. It is as complex and simple as that. Do you see?

-lodestar







So the irony of truth is JUSTIFIED contradiction, for it is contradiction which actually allows everything to exist. "Why is this?" You ask. Well, it's because everything is both positive and negative. In other words, everything is just like the number 1/0

[Canute]

Well, I don't agree about the incompleteness theorem. There is nothing paradoxical about it as far as I can see. I'd agree that the proof it is confusingly self-referential, but it is a proof.

As I mentioned before I agree with Chuang Tsu that 'true words are paradoxical', and this idea is presumably connected to what you are suggesting. Wheeler has also suggested that a great truth would be one for which its logical complement is also a great truth and so will consist of both thesis and anti-thesis in a sort of contradictory and complementary way.

So, for example, relating this to the ToE issue, for Chuang Tsu and those who share his view it would be incorrect to state that the universe arises from nothing, and incorrect to say that it arises from something. These statements are logical complements and it is not the case that one is true and one false. The Buddha teaches that it is incorrect to say that one or the other, neither or both statements are true. Nagarjuna agrees, stating that all positive metaphysical views are indefensible, including these two. The philosopher Francis Bradley proves this in his Appearance and Reality

You seem to be approaching the same position but I feel these people explain the point a little better, and justify it from first principles rather than just state it. I've been trying to discover if you've hit on the same truth or whether the likeness is a coincidence, but I can't figure that out yet.

Canute

[protheory]

But anyway, if your theory proposes that it is a theory of everything, nothing, and anything, then why can you simply turn around and say this is everything? Why wouldn't it equally be just nothing, or anything for that matter? I know, it is because you say that everything contains anything and nothing. But if you say everything contains anything and nothing then that also means that nothing can contain anything and everything. So when you say that everything contains anything and nothing then we cannot deside if everything is really anything at all. Therefore your theory is just the same as a theory of nothing, or at least we cannot tell if it is a theory about anything at all. That is, until you employ the optimistic principle...

This ties in perfectly with my new idea actually, I think that the concept of Pro theory is sound actually and also accurate but the only trouble we seem to be having is pinning it down from a human aspect isn't it, perhaps using the optimistic principle like you say.

This is really frustrating for me to try to explain in words, I can see it all in my head perfectly but when I try to make it into words it seems to do my thoughts no justice, I've got a lot more to say about this though so I'll try to get my new definitions and ideas written down soon, I just need time to think some more and then convert the mind's eye into words.

Well anyway, that's what I know due to optimism. I'm anxious to see what new thought you've thought about. If I give you ideas I hope they are only natural to you. You seem like a really positive person to me and it shows in the way you describe things. I know that you have given me a lot of reflection back on my own theory, and I really appreciate the fact. I always love taking a good trip through nature to resolve my ideas. Besides which, nature shows us everything via definition. peace bro

Thanks again for your own positive attitude Lodestar, this is truly wonderful to me for I have the same attitude too, it's just that I'm not used to people actually understanding Pro theory and so I'm a bit overwhelmed to be honest

I've made a start on my new idea and so hopefully it will become clearer as the days pass and the thoughts accumulate.

Peace.

Pro

[protheory]

Excellent! So now you have appreciated and understood the greatest absolute value, the epitome of all mathematics, the point of everything, which is everything itself, where positive infinity melds with negative infinity, and the arrow of time flows in both directions at once. Now that you have understood this point of everything's culmination, others will begin to understand as well. You are helping pave the way to the heightening of mankind's awareness. This understanding is the very unfolding of mankind's destiny.

Hi again Lodestar, I'm sorry I've not replied before but I've been thinking a great deal lately about Pro theory and your theory of 1/0 too trying to think of how to communicate what I want to say.


I understand completely what you're saying here, I too believe in the ultimate positive choice, I've been enlightened too and I've seen the ultimate beauty of everything.


I also understand what you say about the unfolding of mankind's destiny.

So if you think about it, 1/0 is like the amount of time in eternity, or you could say the amount of energy in all of existence. So this is a marvelous discovery, because now we know that the laws of thermodynamics are irrelevant in a sense, for afterall, the amount of energy that exists in entirety is 1/0, and this amount is limitless. With limitless energy this would imply that literally everything is possible and indeed everything will come to be in time. So you can predict everything, for everything will come to be in time!

I understand what you mean about anything and everything being possible, and I understand the limitless nature of everything, I'm not too sure about the laws of thermodynamics though, I do believe they're useful but perhaps not really with regards to a TOE in this case as any law implies something that is unchanging, or at least not likely to change in this sense.

Also think about this, if 1/0 can be thought of as the limit of limitlessness, or as the timelessness of time, then it would seem that time and energy are but a pretense, to everything. THat means that the amount of energy contained in time is beyond infinite, which means we can exceed the speed of light if we can draw the energy of time, whose limitless reserve is 1/0. These are just some of the revelations you will gain the more you understand this most important, misunderstood, and ultimately empowering number.

I understand and agree that the speed of light can be theoretically exceeded too and I have written as much on my site's relativity page.

Good, keep on thinking. You have impressed me very much with your ability to perceive raw understanding and the implicate irony of truth. I just thought of a new idea the other day actually which relates to your theory. Imagine there are three versions of everything, and each version has a different meaning unto itself. There is everything that is nothing, everything that is anything, and everything that is everything. Everything that is everything is everything, the number 1/0. Everything that is anything is anything, the number 0/0. And everything that is nothing is nothing, the number 0. So you see, we can have your three potentials and have them each hold a different meaning so that all meanings are true. So 0 is meaningless, 1/0 is meaningfull, and 0/0 is both and/or neither. Ok, well I'm going to go now. I'm super psyched that you really understand my theory. You can see that it is very much like your theory and so both of us have discovered the same thing essentially. The only difference is that my theory breaks up the three potentials so that each one has a true meaning, and this is called employing the optimistic principle, which is a true physical principle that causes the arrow of time to move forward instead of backward (based on our definition). It's the same thing as choosing the axiom of choice. Remember that. Keep up the good work and tell me whatever you end up finding out. I'm excited to see. sincerely, lodestar

I thanks you sincerely for your compliments to me here that means a lot to me you know.


What you say here about the three versions of everything is very similar to what I have been pondering these last few days and nights, I will elaborate further in my protheory.com thread I think as this is the Russell's Paradox thread and I fear we may be going slightly off topic.


I totally understand the optimistic principle of which you speak and the only reason that I don't usually employ this same idea in my posts is because I often feel that we should try to focus first on the ultimate nature of everything first, and use the optimistic principle later when we've all agreed on what the true TOE is or might be.


Regards.


Pro

[protheory]

Originally Posted by Lodestar So in my theory, the theory of 1/0, reality is based on consistent contradiction. This means that for every short-sighted law there is a law that negates this law in order to make an absolution of irony. So for every property of the universe, there is a counterpart. So while we perceive time to move forward, there is a reverse universe in theory that counter-balances our universe by flowing backwards. So when we consider both forwards and reverse running universes, we realize that everything is composed of both positive and negative aspects. So alltogether, everything is both positive AND negative, and this is just like the irony of truth. So that is one reason why the set of all sets has to be 1/0. Because 1/0 is the only number that is both positive and negative. It is as complex and simple as that. Do you see?

I see what you mean here lodestar, everything is composed of opposites regardless of which theory we happen to be studying or what we try to "prove" there will always be an opposite...simple

The only difference between this idea and Pro theory is that my theory includes neutrality too isn't it, or at least as far as I can see.

It seems to me that where I might say "All that be is 123" you own version is the symbol 1/0 but we mean the same kind of thing essentially, we're just using different descriptions aren't we.

[protheory]

Originally Posted by Canute As I mentioned before I agree with Chuang Tsu that 'true words are paradoxical', and this idea is presumably connected to what you are suggesting.

I think there is definitely a connection here Canute, after all I think I've stated before that knowledge is continually recycled throughout the generations, it seems highly likely that the knowledge stays the same (as such) but that the method of communication is the only real definable difference.

So, for example, relating this to the ToE issue, for Chuang Tsu and those who share his view it would be incorrect to state that the universe arises from nothing, and incorrect to say that it arises from something. These statements are logical complements and it is not the case that one is true and one false. The Buddha teaches that it is incorrect to say that one or the other, neither or both statements are true.

This is Pro theory by any other name, at least that's what I see, it's the unprovable and unstoppable loop of change/everything isn't it.

I feel that this is what I am trying to communicate (albeit using different wording) when I say "I simultaneously oppose, agree with and neutralise all criticism ad infinitum."

You seem to be approaching the same position but I feel these people explain the point a little better, and justify it from first principles rather than just state it. I've been trying to discover if you've hit on the same truth or whether the likeness is a coincidence, but I can't figure that out yet. Canute

Hopefully what I've said above might shed some light on this for you.

I just think that every generation of humans has a slightly different interpretation of the same three potentials, and that regardless of what method we use to communicate our ideas the three potentials are the same so to speak, just worded differently perhaps giving the illusion of a relative "difference."

Pro

[protheory]

All that be is 123

Three things, three levels, and three theories...

I think that we need three levels to provide an accurate explanation of the three possible potentials of everything, nothing and also most importantly neutrality.

Everybody knows that when you make a decision you either choose one path or the other, you have left and you also have right, you have male and female, up and down...the list is literally endless isn't it.

I don't mind or dispute this principle but I feel that it is extremely important not to forget about neutrality, I feel that this is where we've been going wrong all this time, in a western knowledge sense I suppose this would be since Newton proposed an equal and opposite reaction for every action.

This seems profound doesn't it, two opposites, good and evil, forwards and backwards, everything and nothing, and particularly from a scientific point of view it rings true doesn't it.

This is fine for everyday life, perhaps in reality (whatever that is) we don't need to account for neutrality as in a human sense neutrality is the point between opposites, it is neither good nor evil, it is neutral between the two.

Pro Theory

As I've just said, opposites seem to work for the majority of the time but in actual fact there is also the theoretical possibility for neutrality too, even though it may seem not worth considering as by its very definition it is unknowable.

I think that if we are ever to be truly "accurate" in our knowledge we need to account for neutrality also, if we want to be pedantically accurate about everything, nothing AND neutral.

If you doubt this important point then try to "prove" Pro theory "wrong" and I will use neutrality as the third option to loop all criticism, this is not my idea of somehow proving myself right, it's just my way of trying to communicate the neutral possibility within the accepted view of everything as opposites.


The Axiom of Choice

This third way or middle path is the reason why I don't talk about the positive path at the current moment, I believe in and follow the positive path at all times in my life but I felt that if I were to state this first without us all agreeing on a TOE or in the case of Pro theory a TOE, theory of nothing plus neutral, it might obscure the three potentials message and shift the focus onto something singular.

I actually think that the axiom of positive choice is a part of everything but that it comes after the three potentials definition, it's a part of Pro theory but only one of the three possible parts.

I don't mind making the positive choice later on in time when we've all established the true nature of everything and nothing and neutral but I feel that until this is achieved I must try to explain my three potentials argument...THEN the positive decision can be used and accepted, and promoted as the correct way to live your life.

Completeness

What I'm trying to communicate here is that there's nothing wrong with positivity but that we can't truly make that choice as the true path until we know what everything, nothing and neutral is.

I think that seeing as Pro theory is now accepted as a theory of three potentials, rather than just a TOE the definition of which is singular in the popular imagination as Lodestar kindly pointed out, that Pro theory is even more "accurate" than I thought it was.

I also think that now I understand that the concept of a TOE is singular that my theory is actually even better than a TOE, more accurate than any possible TOE could ever hope to be, due to the looping proof it provides within itself which I've stated many times before.

Russel's Paradox

And so this is why I propose three simultaneous potential answers to Russell's Paradox rather than something singular as others may choose to do.

I don't particularly dispute that there can be one singular answer to the paradox, that's fine if you want to choose one of two opposites and ignore neutrality, an example of which would be "R's paradox is/must be wrong/right because..."

I'm just trying to show that theoretically there is three choices/potentials/ideas/theories etcetera.

You can change the words around if you want to, you can agree, disagree and nothing if you like, I just think that it's important to understand three things before we choose to make the positive choice.

Three Theories

So I feel that ultimately we have three theories, namely a theory of everything, a theory of nothing, and a theory of neutral, this is ultimate accuracy in my view and if we accept and understand this we can THEN make the choice.

I have been thinking that Pro theory is a part of the three possible theories, but that there's two more theories possible too.

The School of the Future

I imagine a primary school of the future, the children are taught that there are three levels to all things, the most literal level is Pro theory which is a theory of everything, nothing and neutral, including its seemingly meaningless loop of proof, not proof and neutrality.

The next level is less literal and more practical, it's the opposites level, the idea that there is left and right, good and evil, up and down, and the children are taught that this is the everyday level, more practical than the literal level of Pro theory and at this opposites level one may make a choice between opposite potentials.

Then there's the third level, this level is singular, the idea that 2 plus 2 equals 4, the idea that my name is Pro (singularly), and that positivity is the best way to try and live your life, and the idea that Russell's Paradox is provable singularly.

The Children's Choice

Now that we have explained how all things work and may form this leaves the choice up to the individual child, imagine a conversation in the playground between children, one may say "Well I take the literal Pro theory view but I also don't plus neutral simultaneously."

Another child might say "Fair enough but I choose the opposites view on this and I choose my own path of either good or evil in my life" and a third child might simply say "Well, I'm choosing the singular view and I'm hungry, shall we go for dinner."

This way we give the children the choice and the knowledge with which to make an informed choice, we don't hold anything back or try to tell them anything unchanging such as "If you do this then such and such will definitely happen" we just help them to understand the three theoretical choices for themselves openly and honestly.

I hope that this post makes my ideas somewhat clearer to everybody, I have a lot more to say but I basically think we need to agree on our ideas before we are able to make an informed choice, whether for good or bad, understanding or not understanding...

Pro

[lodestar]

Thank you for your post Canute. Yes, the point I am making about the irony of truth sounds a lot like what those philosophers are talking about. Allow me to show you how I did justify this irony from first principles as opposed to just stating it.

I derived the irony of truth from the first principle that you cannot prove that contradiction is not non-contradictory. For example, if a contradiction is always a contradiction then it never contradicts itelf (by always contradicting itself). Do you see what I'm saying? It's the irony of true paradox. So in other words, we can prove that contradiction is consistent. So by realizing that contradiction is consistent we have derived the irony of truth from the irony of truth itself. So the irony of truth is derived from itself, and thus it is self-proven and self-evident - it is a first principle. Do you agree?

Now as far as the incompleteness theorem, the incompleteness theorem is a consistent contradiction of itself and let me explain why. The incompleteness theorem says that you COMPLETELY cannot have a complete theory. So in order for the incompletness theorem to make a COMPLETE statement about INCOMPLETENESS the theory itself is acting like a complete theory, in which case it is contradicting itself. But remember, by contradicting itself the theory proves that it is correct. So the question then becomes, is it really complete or incomplete?

That question is like the axiom of choice. The axiom of choice essentially says that we can interpret everything in one of two opposite ways, and this especially applies to the incompleteness theorem. So by the axiom of choice we can choose what the incompleteness theorem really means. Either it means we cannot have a complete theory (because it would be consistently contradictory), or that we can have a complete theory (because it would be consistently contradictory). So you can see that this choice is a spiritual question of optimistic/pessimistic belief, and inherent value. This implicate choice is why the TOE has to do with spiritual character, and heartfelt belief, because we have to be optimistic when we encounter the irony of truth, otherwise we will be left in confusion, since the irony shows us the ironic truth that contradiction is consistent. Generally science considers that contradiction is false and consistency is true, so what is consistent contradiction??? Is it true or false? That is the axiom of choice. You can choose to consider that the irony is false or that it is true, and those who choose that it is true will find happiness and be able to predict everything. Those who choose that the irony is false will be in their own despair and be able to predict nothing.

So that is the whole irony of truth and the choice that it gives us. The irony of truth is self-evident and derived from the fact that contradiction is self-consistent. It is the first principle of everything. We can view this consistency of contradiction with either pessimism or optimism, and that is the axiom of choice. Depending on how we view it we may be able to predict nothing or everything, we may become happy or sad. It is for us to decide, and our hearts guide us toward the right decision.

Now if you think about 1/0, you will realize that it is the absolution of the great irony of truth. THat is because 1/0 is the point where negative infinity and positive infinity become the same thing, thus the absolution of irony. So we could also derive the irony of truth from the number 1/0 if we wanted to. Also when you think about the fact that 1/0 is the numerical value and The Meaning of ALL you realize that this value is immensely great, so great we cannot fathom. In other words, 1/0 is the LIMIT of LIMITLESSNESS, and from this irony the irony of truth is self-derived. Also, if we consider that TIME itself is TIMELESS, which is true by definition, then from this irony the irony of truth is self-derived. So the irony of truth is the definition of time and everything itself. It is just contradiction that is consistent, and it is literally derived from everything, because it is everything.

Now isn't that funny?

Originally Posted by Canute Well, I don't agree about the incompleteness theorem. There is nothing paradoxical about it as far as I can see. I'd agree that the proof it is confusingly self-referential, but it is a proof. As I mentioned before I agree with Chuang Tsu that 'true words are paradoxical', and this idea is presumably connected to what you are suggesting. Wheeler has also suggested that a great truth would be one for which its logical complement is also a great truth and so will consist of both thesis and anti-thesis in a sort of contradictory and complementary way. So, for example, relating this to the ToE issue, for Chuang Tsu and those who share his view it would be incorrect to state that the universe arises from nothing, and incorrect to say that it arises from something. These statements are logical complements and it is not the case that one is true and one false. The Buddha teaches that it is incorrect to say that one or the other, neither or both statements are true. Nagarjuna agrees, stating that all positive metaphysical views are indefensible, including these two. The philosopher Francis Bradley proves this in his Appearance and Reality You seem to be approaching the same position but I feel these people explain the point a little better, and justify it from first principles rather than just state it. I've been trying to discover if you've hit on the same truth or whether the likeness is a coincidence, but I can't figure that out yet. Canute