The Dance of Shiva

[Fredrick]

Yes - especially if we all end in agreement on a ToE.

I am working with Robert on various forum structures which would allow us to work on any ToE piece, come back to it later, and/or reference pieces of agreement. This might end up being "wikish" - at least in function if not in style.

Meanwhile, where's the Cat?

That is a great plan, JAK. Keep me informed, so I can keep an eye on how it is being conceptualized/how it progresses. I already thought the quiet time this week had to do with activities behind (beyond) the screen. But it is also summer time, so I wouldn't be surprised if some of the others are taking a break. I think we can all agree in the end, on the condition that it will be a collection of views and perspectives, each supported by scientific data and possibly other information. In other words, it will not be a single (singular) agreement.

Each person has to make that jump from looking for something singular to seeing the more complex format themselves, but I bet once several proclaim to actually see it and not just a single person whose scientific background has some holes in it, then people would automatically be more inclined to actively look for it.

I do not know where Felix is. Possibly he is vacationing in Catalonia, or visiting his uncle in St. Catarina, or just taking a long time before returning from the Catwalk.

[JAK]

...
I do not know where Felix is. Possibly he is vacationing in Catalonia, or visiting his uncle in St. Catarina, or just taking a long time before returning from the Catwalk.

Maybe we should call him ...

Here, kitty, kitty, kitty ...

[Fredrick]

JAK and Felix,

I have posted this at An Idea and Time Tubes and Cones as well:

I have another comment to make, kind of wrapping up the conceptual information I provided earlier. As you know I am using ordinary concepts to describe the underlying concepts of our physical universe. The good part about that approach is that we can look at the information without having preconceptions that can easily lead us astray. If I were to write something about gravity, you may have a different idea about what gravity is in your mind than I, and it may be a really long conversation before we would find out. So, using different concepts, such as 'family' and 'family members,' that can still be used to show the underlying relationships of everything is quite helpful.

The not so good part is that using other concepts are always translations. As such they are not the actual parts/behaviors we are talking about, but only similar parts/behaviors. Still, and I believe this is possibly most important, any words and any data we use are translations of the actual universe. So while using other examples removes us once from the subject matter, our language already contains that same removal (of once) as well; and that doesn't mean a compounding of the issue, because it is the same action that just requires an alert mind.

Having said that, here is a further completion of the family concept.

Having just one concept of family (father, mother, daughter, son) does not capture the physical reality fully. We need at least a second set of family right next to the first set to capture the dynamics of our universe. Just like the word We can describe every human being on this planet, this does not immediately show the conflicts we are seemingly in all the time, as if just one concept of We is all peace and love. So, we need to move one level down to where there are at least two concepts of We. These two concepts are not in agreement with each other, even when both follow the same conceptual information. The reasons for both We's to be in disagreement can be something as silly as language, looks, and manners.

The overall concept of everything is a pyramid, but the pyramid only captures the basic set of relationships. Adding other pyramids, in any which location in relationship to the first, is a requirement to get to the whole picture. I hope you understand that 10 million pyramids, all in positions that are slightly different, would together create a globe of positions. And a globe, of course, can conceptually be viewed as a pyramid.

[JAK]

...The not so good part is that using other concepts are always translations. As such they are not the actual parts/behaviors we are talking about, but only similar parts/behaviors. Still, and I believe this is possibly most important, any words and any data we use are translations of the actual universe. So while using other examples removes us once from the subject matter, our language already contains that same removal (of once) as well; and that doesn't mean a compounding of the issue, because it is the same action that just requires an alert mind.

Having said that, here is a further completion of the family concept. ...

Fredrick, in that last sentence, did you mean "completion" or "complication"? I whole-heartedly agree that language is a poor communicator of reality, and analogies heap more confusion onto the issues at hand, but it's all we've got unless you can do this telepathically. (And you'll need to be a powerful transmitter, 'cuz my receiver ain't too good ;-)

Fredrick, what is the most compelling evidence for your pyramid model? Where does it "outshine" the current, standard model?

(And where'd that dang cat run off to agin?)

[Fredrick]

Fredrick, in that last sentence, did you mean "completion" or "complication"? I whole-heartedly agree that language is a poor communicator of reality, and analogies heap more confusion onto the issues at hand, but it's all we've got unless you can do this telepathically. (And you'll need to be a powerful transmitter, 'cuz my receiver ain't too good ;-)

Fredrick, what is the most compelling evidence for your pyramid model? Where does it "outshine" the current, standard model?

(And where'd that dang cat run off to agin?)

I meant completion, JAK, because a single pyramid does not show reality fully, even when the single pyramid captures all. The pyramid is a concept, and having a multitude of these concepts together, we'd get a globe of positions. And that's where the cat licks its own tail, because a globe can be viewed as a pyramid of North Pole, South pole, and spin (East-West).

The most compelling evidence I have is that any mathematical system contains the number 0, except for the singular model (which I claim is not a mathematical model). I have mathematical evidence that zero is part and parcel of any mathematical system. That translates into a standard for our universe of multitudes (and not of singularity). Any time some one wants to point to a singularity, I can point to another position of at least some importance, downgrading the 'singularity' to a non-singularity in an absolute sense.

So now you know where Felix is.

[JAK]

... The most compelling evidence I have is that any mathematical system contains the number 0 ...

Strangely, a magnetic field around an object is actually more of a doughnut shape - a torus which appears as an O when seen from above.

A bit off your point, but it struck me as I read your post.

[Fredrick]

Strangely, a magnetic field around an object is actually more of a doughnut shape - a torus which appears as an O when seen from above.

A bit off your point, but it struck me as I read your post.

You are the magnetic specialist, JAK. But it is good you see that 'nothing' can very well be part of the picture. For a doughnut would not be a doughnut if it weren't for the hole.

[Felix Schrodinger]

I have another comment to make, kind of wrapping up the conceptual information I provided earlier. As you know I am using ordinary concepts to describe the underlying concepts of our physical universe. The good part about that approach is that we can look at the information without having preconceptions that can easily lead us astray. If I were to write something about gravity, you may have a different idea about what gravity is in your mind than I, and it may be a really long conversation before we would find out. So, using different concepts, such as 'family' and 'family members,' that can still be used to show the underlying relationships of everything is quite helpful.

Hi Folks

Sorry, I've been away for a while

Fredrick - your comment above leads into an area which has interested me for some time - how does the process of interaction work?

My own thinking is that we first investigate a matter which interests us; we then come up with some ideas of our own which may be original or adapted from others. These are examined against the arguments and information gathered from others; that which we find agreeable we subsume and that which does not fit with our model we reject - unless it shows that our position is untenable.

This appears to be the same system which is used by most scientists in their quest for truth - or rather the quest for something that will further the line they have already decided to take! I think we all subscribe to this methodology and I make no apology for doing it myself.

What do you think?

regards
Felix

[Fredrick]

Hi Folks

Sorry, I've been away for a while

Fredrick - your comment above leads into an area which has interested me for some time - how does the process of interaction work?

My own thinking is that we first investigate a matter which interests us; we then come up with some ideas of our own which may be original or adapted from others. These are examined against the arguments and information gathered from others; that which we find agreeable we subsume and that which does not fit with our model we reject - unless it shows that our position is untenable.

This appears to be the same system which is used by most scientists in their quest for truth - or rather the quest for something that will further the line they have already decided to take! I think we all subscribe to this methodology and I make no apology for doing it myself.

What do you think?

regards
Felix

Hi Felix,

I think you should never have to apologize when telling others on what premises you function. I would consider that an honor if you want to share that with me/others.

It is difficult to consider words and communication using the same toe-formats as in physics, but I think communication functions more or less on the same grounds.

The prime position is the self-based position. That is not an absolute position, because we are influenced by evertyhing around us - even to the point we do not know who is the original speaker of certain words anymore. Yet, the basis is first of all the position the self takes in.

Next, we are confronted with a problem in communication, because we can never take in the other person's position of self. Communication therefore needs to be full-comprehensive before we can actually speak of a bridge between two people; that is something that can get achieved, but it is difficult.

Also, the vehicles are not fully reliable; two people speaking the same language may not mean the same thing when using the same word. Insertion of foreign words in English, for instance, make for a more colorful but also further confusing result. Galaxy, for instance, translates into: Milky Way (you recognize the word lact- in galaxy as also found in lactosis pointing to the word Milk). But we use the word Milky Way only for our own galaxy, and we use the word galaxies only when talking about the other Milky Ways.

Each word stands on its own, but each word can get changed from society to society, from one time period with one meaning to another time period with another meaning. Sick is a good example. For me, I see Einstein's relativity in there. The meaning of a word depends on the user(s).

By using different concepts, I think it is possible to avoid the confusion of meanings also associated with certain words. I will use one example:

If I use the word god then another person will automatically know what I mean. However, the other person only knows his or her own version of god. It is a very loaded word, and I always try to avoid it, replace it with the potential. Where god is by many seen as a conscious entity, the word potential simply allows for that specific interpretation, but gives us the freedom as well to consider it a non-conscious state.

As an experiment: imagine god as an old man with a white beard. Let this image sink in and contemplate it for a moment. Feel your (re)actions while seeing god as described.

Then, replace the image, and see god as a young non-white woman. Again, sit on it for a while and feel how you respond to it.

Then, replace the image, and see god as the being that existed five million years ago, the moment where humans and apes slowly split away from each other genetically. Meditate on this image for a while and experience what this brings up inside of you. I am fine if you want to consider this being either as male or as female.

I'd like to hear your response, and I'd like to hear if you can come up with other examples of visualization of god that are interesting.

[Felix Schrodinger]

I'd like to hear your response, and I'd like to hear if you can come up with other examples of visualization of god that are interesting.

Hi Fredrick

Thus far, I have shied away from any religious concepts on the TOE site but the title of my article should be enough of a clue to allow anyone to determine my sympathies - if not principles. Richard Dawkins would describe me as a 'Deist' and the closest I can get to a description of the one true god is Brahma which explains my interest in eastern philosophies and use of Shiva in the title of my TOE. I have just ordered, from Amazon, The Tao of Physics by Frijof Capra which is based on the links between eastern religion/philosophy and modern physics. My approach to religion is exactly the same as for scientific, moral or philosophical issues: examine each concept and accept those that fit comfortably with your principles. I have no faith - only the conclusions I have reached through rational thought and argument.

yours
Felix