[harmonygirl]

Nobody, I am not sure that I agree with your take on nothing being stateless and everything bringing in the duality. Once you define as nothing, you must define in distinction to, no? So you define as 'nothing', you must define as 'not nothing' so that the term 'nothing' has meaning, no? Is then the duality not created with the definition? Or have you lost your Buddha-nature?

[indium]

Originally Posted by Nobody

Thanks to you both.

I think multiplication by zero can be thought of as something zero times. Like one times one equals one time, one times zero equals no times so it's zero.

I'd like to see how you get three when dividing 3 by zero times zero. I don't follow what you mean there.

And the problem I see with including everything as another absolute state is that by its very existence it forms a dichotomy of everything and nothing - there is everything which would be contained by nothing - a dualistic state. Whereas nothing solves that paradox because it is a single state.

Allow me to clarify because I can see how that sounded confusing. I'll use parantheses

(one divided by zero)*zero=one

the zeros cancel out and all you're left with is one

Now let me point out that we can express everything by saying 1/0, or 2/0, or 3/0, or 4/0 etc. etc. That is because 1/0 is the same thing as 2/0, and this should remind you of how 1*0 is the same thing as 2*0. In other words, everything is anything (besides zero) divided by zero. Zero divided by zero is anything. And everthing times zero is anything. Do you see?

It is possible to take something no times in principle, but don't be confused, because nothing never truely exists. I kind of agree with Harmony in this way. There is no such thing as no time.

Therefore it is ok if everything is surrounded by nothing, because nothing does not exist, so everything must be all that there is.

[Nobody]

Indium,

I see what you mean now, but then one divided by zero would equal one thing; and two divided by zero would equal two things basically because you‘re not dividing it at all - it is divided zero times. So you would have to divide infinity by zero in order for it to equal everything - infinity divided zero times remains the same.

I don’t think it applies to multiplication because, unlike division, it defines the initial number of things - how many times we have either something or a particular set of things.

For the other thing, or nothing rather, you can exist in a place that has space, but science doesn’t depict this. It depicts the space-time fabric of the Universe itself as existing in a place that isn’t there. So I for one don’t think that this kind of logic is justifiable.

[indium]

Originally Posted by Nobody

Indium,

I see what you mean now, but then one divided by zero would equal one thing; and two divided by zero would equal two things basically because you‘re not dividing it at all - it is divided zero times. So you would have to divide infinity by zero in order for it to equal everything - infinity divided zero times remains the same.

I thought of a good way to explain what you are confused about. Have you ever heard the phrase "once and for all?" Well there's a reason they don't call it "twice and for all." That is because everything is just 1/0, not 2/0. Everything just happens once. You could say everything is 2/0 if you wanted to, but that is just redundant. In other words, 2/0 is everything, two times redundant. 3/0 is everything three times redundant, and so on. It's the same way that 0 is just nothing one time. If you say zero two times, that's just redundant. So everything is just 1/0, not infinity divided by zero. See?

Originally Posted by Nobody

I don’t think it applies to multiplication because, unlike division, it defines the initial number of things - how many times we have either something or a particular set of things.

I'm a little confused. What is it exactly that you don't think applies to multiplication?

Originally Posted by Nobody

For the other thing, or nothing rather, you can exist in a place that has space, but science doesn’t depict this. It depicts the space-time fabric of the Universe itself as existing in a place that isn’t there. So I for one don’t think that this kind of logic is justifiable.

No matter where you go, time will be there. So space/time does exist everywhere. That is because time itself is made out of energy. The energy of time makes space expand and time go on. The energy of time can be likened to the magnitude of the vector, or arrow, of time. As the expansion of time/space changes, so too does the "free" energy contained in time/space, such that at the end of time, the moment eternity is reached, once and for all, the universe will be expanding so fast (greater than lightspeed at less than planck scales) that the amount of energy contained in one instant of time will actually be 1/0. 1/0 is the amount of energy and time in all of existence, and that's what we call everything. But it doesn't just stop there. After the end of time time still exists, it just goes into reverse mode for a while, as if the arrow of time itself has exceeded the speed of light. When time reverses back to the beginning everything starts over. To understand this you should look at the number circle. Everytime the arrow of time swiches we call it time/space inversal, and that is what the big bang was. At each cycle around the number cicle, everytime time starts over, our particular universe rebegins with the same starting conditions, the same cosmic background radiation. However, the universe won't be exactly the same as time progresses the second time around, because we all have free will to make a myriad of choices, like what color of shirt we want to wear. But we cannot change our natural instinct, the driving force of life, and thus certain things are destined to happen. For example, somebody will always be destined to eventually invent the TOE no matter what color of shirt I wear, and the person's character is always the same in essence. You see, we are all just characters, acting out a grand story that has been retold a million different ways, but the message and meaning of the story is always the same. The meaning of life, freedom, is always the same, but the way we spell it or the language it is spoken in can take on myriad wonderous forms. That is the basis of alternate universes. But in all alternate universes certain things are always destined to happen. For example, there's no abating the universal fate. That is to say, as time continues expanding faster and faster, time is inexorably approaching 1/0. To better understand how this relates please have a look at the number circle which is the ultimate description

ps. ours is not the only universe that cycles through alternations. We can imagine a universe that has a different initial cosmic image that also alternates through all it's possible scenarios. We can even imagine universes where the speed of light is less or greater. It all just depends on why the universe was created to start with. All universes are created by lifeforms, not the other way around (life is eternal and life is the creator). To create a universe, theoretically all you have to do is send something faster than TSOL. But beware, to you all the alternations of the universe you create will occurr in a single instant. That instant is the instant between when your object dissapears and when it reappears in front of itself in space (a space warp). How far your object teleports when you send it faster than the speed of light depends on how much acceleration it has when it crosses the speed of light, and also defines the expansion of the universe you create. A greater acceleration means your object will warp a greater distance than it would for a lesser acceleration. If you make an object warp far enough, it will warp beyond the bounds of the universe, to where space is expanding at greater than TSOL with respect to the place it left, and this will cause your object to end up in an alternate universe. That is how you travel to alternate universes, by exceeding the speed of light and teleporting beyond the bounds of the universe. But we can only travel to alternate universes of our own universe. Well actually, I take that back. If you want to go to a completely different universe where the laws of physics might be different you first have to travel through a black hole at greater than the speed of light. This will cause you to end up in negative space (time will actually be moving backwards while you sit and watch things move from future to past). Once in negative space you should actually be able to travel backwards through the big bang and end up in a higher dimension. Then you can figure out who really made our universe. Good luck

[Nobody]

Indium,

I have no argument with theories of relativity, which all of them are. My argument is in using relative concepts in order to understand the absolute state of the Universe.

Light as an absolute constant does not exist in any way, shape or form, its existence is relative to speed. To itself there can be no such things as time and space, expanding space-time or otherwise.

And I have to disagree with the math again, when you omit the additional multiplication by zero, based on my original argument: saying that one divided by zero equals everything, is the same as saying one equals everything multiplied by zero. It doesn't work unless you replace the one with zero; zero equals everything multiplied by zero.

The true ground state, unlike the proposed energized ground state according to the Uncertainty Principle, is defined by reducing the constant to zero. The result is a Universe of infinite energy density where literal movement is an impossibility, and illusory movement a possibility incrementally over an infinite number of non-dimensional points that can be anywhere because they are literally nowhere at all.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Nobody

Indium,

I have no argument with theories of relativity, which all of them are. My argument is in using relative concepts in order to understand the absolute state of the Universe.

Light as an absolute constant does not exist in any way, shape or form, its existence is relative to speed. To itself there can be no such things as time and space, expanding space-time or otherwise.

And I have to disagree with the math again, when you omit the additional multiplication by zero, based on my original argument: saying that one divided by zero equals everything, is the same as saying one equals everything multiplied by zero. It doesn't work unless you replace the one with zero; zero equals everything multiplied by zero.

The true ground state, unlike the proposed energized ground state according to the Uncertainty Principle, is defined by reducing the constant to zero. The result is a Universe of infinite energy density where literal movement is an impossibility, and illusory movement a possibility incrementally over an infinite number of non-dimensional points that can be anywhere because they are literally nowhere at all.

I would just like to say Mr body how much I enjoyed this post,thank you.
regards michael.

[indium]

Originally Posted by Nobody

Indium,

I have no argument with theories of relativity, which all of them are. My argument is in using relative concepts in order to understand the absolute state of the Universe.

I do not use relative concepts per se. I try to deal with relevancy. I am talking about the absolute pillars of mathematics: nothing, anything, and everything. These are: 0, 0/0, and 1/0 respectively.

Originally Posted by Nobody

And I have to disagree with the math again, when you omit the additional multiplication by zero, based on my original argument: saying that one divided by zero equals everything, is the same as saying one equals everything multiplied by zero. It doesn't work unless you replace the one with zero; zero equals everything multiplied by zero.

No matter what way you look at it, everything times nothing is anything. Observe

(1/0)X0

there are two ways we can go about this operation. If you multiply the numerators you get zero and if you multiply the denominators you get zero so the answer you get is 0/0, which is anything. If you let the zeros cancel (since one is on the top and the other is on the bottom) you get 1 but be careful, we could just as easily have gotten 2 if we started with 2/0 which is the same thing as 1/0 anyway. If you don't believe me that 1/0 is the same as 2/0 just remember that 1*0 is the same as 2*0 so it makes perfect sense that 1/0 is the same as 2/0 (it's just a little redundant, that's all).

So I hope you understand why the number everything times the number nothing is the number anything. If you cannot understand I will explain it again a different way. Good luck

[Nobody]

I aim to please, michael, but I have to concede that zero divided by zero not only equals anything and everything but is equal to one as well because zero is equal to one times zero.

[indium]

Originally Posted by Nobody

I aim to please, michael, but I have to concede that zero divided by zero not only equals anything and everything but is equal to one as well because zero is equal to one times zero.

Yes now you are getting the picture. 0/0 can be equal to anything, not just everything. 1/0 however is always everything. And everything times nothing is anything. (This gives us another rule: anything divided by everything is nothing)

[Guille]

Originally Posted by indium

Yes now you are getting the picture. 0/0 can be equal to anything, not just everything. 1/0 however is always everything. And everything times nothing is anything. (This gives us another rule: anything divided by everything is nothing)

I think this theory is of yours is great and adding these ideas is very good. In some ways, it reminds me to Hegel's absolute dialectics, your talk about everything, anything, nothing... For Hegel, anything was always divided by everything, was always part of everything (everything being any everything, not only all-things, but local everythings like I am part of a city, then a country, then the world, then the solar system..etz), so, mathematically written, for Hegel n (anything, any number) was always divided by 0/1, that is, n=n/(0/1). I thought I should mention this to see if it matches with your theory, does it?