T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[N0B0DY]

I don't think anyone has explained relative scales more thoroughly than RascalPuff, and he gives simple references that aid an understanding of charges, frameworks and timeframes.

I remember reading of one Koichi Tohei who explains the eastern "ki" concept as always extending outward, never in, and when asked by a mathematician to give a mathematical explanation of "ki," he responded, paraphrased: if something is reduced by half infinitely, it will never become zero.

The finite measurements are based on taking the fractions between zero and one, as whole numbers (aka absolute); the fractions can be decreased and increased infinitely, without ever reaching the largest or smallest; the absolute, as I had mentioned to Fredrick, is not a reaching of the absolute smallest or largest because it is already "reached." The smallest (zero) and the largest (one) not only become the same at that point, but must essentially carry throughout every static point of the illusory progression/evolution of the fractions.

I guess this could bring us to your reference of the light creation, Austin, which would have to take into account light propagating at absolute speed and being reduced by gravity (which are essentially reversible). According to the atomic mass at the point of bonding, the annihilation would produce variable gamma bursts which is what we're observing. It is impossible to "see" matter itself, but see from the carriage of light. So in that light, matter and its evolution through visible light are created by gravity, and the absolute never has to change, which conserves your "nothing begetting nothing." Extremely short-lived "particles" and longer half lives are due to interference of relative velocities, but the absolute always remains at absolute constant (absolute - true - void).

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Prof, I'm not trying to be a smart-alec, but you see the problem with our differences lies in the fact that, due to faith and belief having to do with religious thinking, it is outside the scientific foundations of my thought processes, as I long ago banished these words from my lexicon of linguistic thought processes, as they interfere with scientific logic. It's not I don't agree that you and many others use these words quite legitamently, to your own thinking processes, it's just I do not accept those two words as having linguistic ligitamacy to fundamental thought___therefore, I use cognitive facts and knowing, in their replacement. IMO, the institutions and gov's will still be there and work fine without faith and belief, even if some think they must believe and have faith in them___I do not. I know they exist and work, and would work much better with true fundamental knowledge of their working processes, actions and outcomes, thus allowing much greater improvements.

In fundamental thinking, faith and belief only cloud the issues of facts and knowing___These two words are quite superficial un-necessities in thought, science and their true related personal, global and universal workings. I've never seen anything scientifically real that required faith or belief___The scientifically real just cognitively/perceptively is___and always will be. Many of you believe in the "relative"___I do not. It's just a description of Einstein's and others thinking, and just as easily expressed as absolutely real measure and motion against other absolutely real measure and motion, or absolutely real matter and matter/energy actions and reactions.

When we all learn to abandon this superficial linguistics of realativity/faith/belief, etc., and replace them with sound and fundamental classical linguistics, the world may be able to move forward with a new and much more sound science, and I do not think it possible, until we do. This branch of linguistics was deemed so important to Mohammed, centuries ago, that he actually spent his first 14 years trying to clear the Muslim minds of such deluded ideas, in his earliest teachings about faith and belief. Not that I agree with him, as I do not, but Sayyid Qutb, in his book "Milestones" makes this point very clear, yet most of the world has never discovered this area of the science of fundamental thought. In fundamental thought, we must first decide whether we are going to believe, or know___I chose to know what I know, and know what I do not know, not believe and have faith, thanks just the same. I would think any sound scientist would choose the same path, as It is a choice we must all make about fundamental facts.

And, If my memory serves me correctly, "Matter and energy can neither be created, nor destroyed___only converted." I think Einstein, and maybe others earlier, stated that. We either absolutely know this fundamental law of physics to be true, or we don't. If we know it to be true, which all sound scientists agree it is, then we know absolute fundamental matter and matter/energy___exists eternally. This must be our fundamental thinking, to found sound science on___and, IMO, matter must proceed or exist at the same time as energy. I see co-existance. There is no way out of these fundamental facts. All else is metaphysical mythology.

As to the whole global market system, yes psychology does play a major part, but when psychology is cognitively studied, scientists quickly realize psychology is at base a mechanical process, played out by randomness, uniformity, probabilities and such other uncertain mechanicalness. The Russians seem to be the most advanced, in these studies, though the U.S. and many other countries, are making great strides in cognitive psychological studies, also.

Just my scientific opinions... So sorry, I can't agree with your final two lines...

Lloyd

Hi Lloyd;

There is nothing wrong with logic and cognitive thinking, nor is there anything wrong with faith.

I agree, that saying without faith you would have no reality, might be stretching the point; but I think you have to agree that without faith in the conceptual institutions, would cause their failure.

This would include banking, government, schools, and yes religious organizations, as well as the whole global market.

So I personally think faith has more economic and social value that does logic or cognitive thinking.

Though both are good to have.

Best to you,

Pat

Hi Nobody, not trying to draw blood, but I often do, excuse my ignorance. Sincerely, I enjoy your posts to push my mind to its limits also, and we seem to only disagree on these fundamentals, yet the fundamentals are huge dis-agreements___So I trudge on. Most of what I have to say is answered above, but I will make additional comments on these two paras...

You drew first blood, Lloyd. I was never disrespectful towards you and complimented your efforts at finding the cause of motion.[Thanks] Yet your logic can only reach the absolute point where it must cease,[I can't agree, as logic is eternally growing.] and that point can logically be no different than the absolute universe.[I can't agree, again___The universe is independent of my thinking, yet produced my logic, and is still producing new logic every day. The uncertainty principle continues to completeness___Soon, I think.] So we push each other further and further to reach that point, where we can both see that the absolute universe can't move anywhere because it is already there.[Again, can't agree here. You seem to not realize the fundamental universe/FS can always move through itself, just as any fluid can move through itself. I stated this elsewhere. Take a theoretical look at a FS, that can add to itself, subtract from itself, go beyond itself, through itself, heat itself, cool itself, contract itself, expand itself___or do all the other seeming tricks, the universe actually does do. Sorry, but it does it. I see it. You see it. You're just not thinking it completely through, due to your absolute fundamental choices of thought, i.e., linguistic analyses. It can be the unmoving mover, just by linguistic division of understandings of its extremely complex mechanics___It's infinite side can be the unmoving, while its finite side can be its moving. Redo your fundamental mechanics using any form of absolute fundamental substance, you choose, and you'll see the finer points of the universe's true science actions and reactions. No matter how hard and dense a fundamental substance may be, an infinitesimally finer density fundamental substance can pass clear through it___thus your solid immobility of density becomes mythology. Gamma rays pass through everything___All FS___they, by all scientific deffinitions, must absolutely be matter based waves, to be___High energy, short wave photons? No?]

There can be no superpositions because the universe is all superpositions,[No superpositions required___just real matter/energy positions.] and in my mind we are left with no other alternative than to let it go.[Your ego of matter/energy still chases, even you.] Based on taking the following one step further by asking: coming in from and going out to where?[Coming in from the fundamental infinite dark matter/energy photonic light/dark light, and going back out to this same source, through final fundamental decay of finite matter, is all it takes.] From the absolute fullness of space that can be equated to non existence[Sorry, light matter/energy and dark light is eternally everywhere, in one form or the other___Physics laws of conservation. You certainly have not removed this fact from science, now have You?] when we invoke nothing less than absolute speed,[You said it. I didn't. When you invoke, you create your major false axiom, producing all your other false axioms and seeming false paradoxes, that truly do not exist.] which in turn absolutely reduces space based on the cessation of the logical inverse square law.[That may make great science-fiction Nobody, but it's certainly not science. The logical inverse square law never exceeds its own science based matter velocities, which are always bound by eternal matter density, which is and was more and less, through the universe's total life cycle, and I may add, quite the trillions of trillions of years, according to sound atomic decay maths.]

So, when we all use sound scientific laws of physics, grounded in absolute matter/wave/energy, we can never refute the fundamental book of knowledge's evolution, of such well established, sound laws and realities. Science rules metaphysics___Hands down... All we need do is take our metaphysical egos completely out of the entire picture, and turn the whole ball of wax mechanics, over to fundamental science... Science is the inclusive of metaphysics, not the other way around, as you mistakenly stated, just as secular law is the inclusive law structure, best suited to all sovereign humanity's liberties, than is metaphysical Islam, etc., which happens to be theocractically exclusive, as are all beliefs and faiths... You either don't realize you have tried, through this entire thread to exclude science, or you do realize it, and have miserably failed...

Sorry,
My opinion,
Lloyd

P.S.
Oh BTW, did you not draw first blood, against science, in post #1...? Exclusionionary metaphysics? Science includes metaphysics___Though you may be wrong, I defend your right to wrong opionion, being able to be stated, in most any well meaning secular law society... Many metaphysical societies do not allow this simple liberty...

[Profpat]

Lloyd;

I think you are very smart, not a smart alec.
We'll just disagree on the value of faith.

Science has come close to solving a lot of our tangible problems, I just hope it doesn't become a problem in the future. (ie Cloning, Body harvests, Genetic engineering, Symbionic transplants etc.)

I have a difficult time absorbing what 20th century science has left on my doorstep. Which is the bigger miracle, man stepping on the moon, or us being able to watch it live on TV?

Best to you,

Pat

P.S. You being an engineer, I wonder if you would review my Idea at:
(http://www.toequest.com/forum/yourto...2803-idea.html ) you will have to access the PDF file. Any comments you can post at that thread. THANK YOU!

[N0B0DY]

Fair enough, Lloyd. I'll use my reserved right to opinion and say that metaphysics includes physics, but physics/science cannot include metaphysics.

Physics is bound by the limitations of what is coined physical through observable interactions based on a relatively small part of what is logically an infinite spectrum. I have agreed with both you and Dave on the matter of laws remaining applicable even granting that they remain where scientists have suggested they break down. Yet, metaphysics is based on the first-philosophical substance/frame/spectrum that not only must include the infinite spectrum, but beyond it - like the "whole is greater than the sum of its parts."

RascalPuff had posted a very interesting article: http://www.toequest.com/forum/genera...-einstein.html which sort of shot me in the foot. If you read it, and I'm sure you would understand the implications, I'm sure as well that you will agree with the notion that seems to render the absolute as relative - noting how you in the past have referred to such things as relative absolutes.

The problem with it, and why I would say that it doesn't go deep enough into the "matter," is that it doesn't take into account the neccessary imaginary transitional line which is the non-existent absolute reference frame or point that I am referring to. This is the crux of our disagreements, Lloyd, so consider if you will the following to see if we still disagree:

Imagine, because imagination is very important, two parallel tracks and two trains a mile apart pointing in opposite directions - one at point A facing point B, and the other at point B facing point A. It doesn't matter if one is stationary or both are moving anti-parallel, discounting the reduction in time that they would meet, because we are concerned only with the absolute reference frame and, besides, it is impossible to sense which train would be moving and which one not.

The point is the imaginary line perpendicular to the tracks, drawn across them at the point in space and time where the two trains or two observers would meet perpendicular to the direction of motion. At that point there is a switch from a sense of motion towards to a sense of motion from each observer, and that is the absolute point where motion ceases - as well as all physical laws.

If that point would be in only one place and time, I would concede to your position, but there is an invisible ghost that always remains perpendicular to the tracks as you ride the train. You can't see the ghost, but the ghost can see you with its gamma-ray eyeballs. The absolute frame isn't required to move relative to observed motion, as was and is thought, because it carries throughout due to its imaginary absolute speed.

Therefore, all relative motion must be superpositioned and only observable due to the non-existent point of reference (the imaginary line) that allows for the sense of going towards and moving away from objects. And this can be applied in a particular fashion to consciousness: whereby you are unconscious of the imaginary absolute line; subconscious of the infinitesimal breaks of space and time; and conscious of finite distances over finite times at subluminal velocities.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi again Nobody, just let me point out where I see you erring below...
[quote=N0B0DY;34553]Fair enough, Lloyd. I'll use my reserved right to opinion and say that metaphysics includes physics, but physics/science cannot include metaphysics.[The true definition of metaphysics is of the abstract/relative/ideal, etc., and the abstract can never produce the absolute FS. Tis true metaphysics is first philosophy, but this does not make it the true philosophy, as it certainly is not, when compared to science. Metaphysics is absolutely incapable of ever producing science, due to the fact of being eternally abstract. This is only common sense logic. Now, if you use reason, as the foundation of your thinking, you may run into the troubles I see you making. To avoid such problems, one must use pure logic, the father of all reason. When pure logic is used, one must start with absolute substance, as only substance can produce any type of other substance structures___abstracts are impossible of producing any substances. This is just sensible fundamental science. When you choose first philosophy metaphysics as your fundamental thought processes, you are much more inclined to produce only more metaphysical ideas, and falsely enmesh physical laws into such witch's brew, then include the false assemblies of physical structures. I'm sure you know the dictionary meaning of meta-physics = beyond physics. The trouble lies with the validity of this definition, as not one thing in the universe, is truly beyond the physical. I doubt if our differences can ever be resolved with this factual difference.]
Physics is bound by the limitations of what is coined physical through observable interactions based on a relatively small part of what is logically an infinite spectrum.[As again, this is your definition of physics, and mine is unbounded physical descriptions of physics, relativity, and the unbounded finite/infinite spectrum. We are far apart here.] I have agreed with both you and Dave on the matter of laws remaining applicable even granting that they remain where scientists have suggested they break down.[No reputable scientists have suggested the laws break down, except in speculative moments, when their ideas were running scared. In circumspect, they see their validity.] Yet, metaphysics is based on the first-philosophical substance/frame/spectrum[I'd have to interject here again. First philosophy of the Greek's mature period does not include substance/frame/spectrum in their analyses of. By Aristotle's time, physics, though crude, had clearly separated physics from metaphysics. But, really we'd have to use rennaisance physics and philosophy, then still quite polluted by faith/belief and metaphysics, to begin arriving at any forms of sound science of real substances. As an example, Aristotle thought the heart was the brain, and the brain was the radiator to cool the blood. So, we have a massive historical linguistic problem, between them and us.] that not only must include the infinite spectrum, but beyond it - like the "whole is greater than the sum of its parts."[The whole being greater than the sum of its parts is no violation of physics___It contains the concept "Whole", thus is greater. Metaphysics having superior validity over physics, is a violation of physics, because when respecting the inter-disciplinary studies of all sciences, only the physical universe can contain the whole___which includes metaphysics. The confusion enters, because so many think the mind, thought, consciousness was there at the beginning___That's scientifically impossible, as the metaphysical mind is a pure abstract idea producer, not a substance builder.]
RascalPuff had posted a very interesting article: http://www.toequest.com/forum/general-physics/2935-negative-inertia-machs-principle-einstein.html which sort of shot me in the foot. If you read it, and I'm sure you would understand the implications, I'm sure as well that you will agree with the notion that seems to render the absolute as relative - noting how you in the past have referred to such things as relative absolutes.[Not relative absolutes, per-say, but that relativity, or the relative, can simply be re-stated in absolute terms/language/linguistics, and much more easily understood. I did read RP's post, and it still contains the confusing linguistics of Mach and others, that must be purged, to achieve complete scientific comprehension.]
The problem with it, and why I would say that it doesn't go deep enough into the "matter," is that it doesn't take into account the neccessary imaginary transitional line which is the non-existent absolute reference frame or point that I am referring to.[Most likely because that's purely abstract thinking, and can have no real relation to physical reality. Even much of Einstein's original GR and SR papers contain far too much abstract thinking of reference points to satisfy me. He could have just as easily used moving absolute reference points, and achieved the same results. It's just much easier to work in static math, than dynamic math. Redo Einstein's work in dynamic absolutes, and you'll quickly see what I mean. You will most likely need access to a good many computers, or super-computer, as the variables are immense.] This is the crux of our disagreements, Lloyd, so consider if you will the following to see if we still disagree:
Imagine, because imagination is very important, two parallel tracks and two trains a mile apart pointing in opposite directions - one at point A facing point B, and the other at point B facing point A. It doesn't matter if one is stationary or both are moving anti-parallel, discounting the reduction in time that they would meet, because we are concerned only with the absolute reference frame and, besides, it is impossible to sense which train would be moving and which one not.[Far too abstract, just as Einstein's original papers were. Just do the actual combined velocities we already know, and you'll get your answers. Use absolute moving/dynamic reference points everywhere, and the answers exist. It's just everyone's been too lazy to do real absolute dynamic math. Refer to the true father of all physics___Christiaan Huygens. You'll find his probability math quite helpful. Static math works great for abstract models___It fails miserably for dynamic model truths.]

Continued next post, as was too long...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Contued from previous post...

The point is the imaginary line perpendicular to the tracks, drawn across them at the point in space and time where the two trains or two observers would meet perpendicular to the direction of motion. At that point there is a switch from a sense of motion towards to a sense of motion from each observer, and that is the absolute point where motion ceases - as well as all physical laws.[Your example leaves out far too many of the real velocities involved, as did Einstein's earliest works. This is what creates false abstractions. Motion and the laws of the universe never cease, even at their lowest/highest motion and law space states. Even if true absolute zero were once attainable, FS would have been required to crawl, then that friction heat would cause them to accelerate, and eventually assemble a universe most identical to ours. There may be a few added man-made elements, if this takes place in the future universal decay, but I think man's contribution to universal change is a rather safe almost negligable event.]
If that point would be in only one place and time, I would concede to your position, but there is an invisible ghost that always remains perpendicular to the tracks as you ride the train.[There are many real invisible ghosts, but they are the yet unseeable motions/energies/thermal events and hydrodynamic interactions of the many FS matter actions. RP's post shows a few.] You can't see the ghost, but the ghost can see you with its gamma-ray eyeballs.[Now, you've really jumped off into witchcraft. The universe only sees through bio-era insect/animal/human eyes.] The absolute frame isn't required to move relative to observed motion, as was and is thought, because it carries throughout due to its imaginary absolute speed.[The absolute frame of reference is always a static abstract, because everything is always moving, even the unmoving aspect of FS gets moved by its moving finite entities___from photons to galaxies, due to them moving through it, or the near absolute thermals outside cmbr/finite visible universal edge___The true thermal/matter/energy space beyond finiteness, often called the void, absolutely must also contain visually un-activated thermalized FS___Otherwise, there'd be no possible way to cool all the hot angular momentum and c velocities of.]
Therefore, all relative motion must be superpositioned and only observable due to the non-existent point of reference (the imaginary line) that allows for the sense of going towards and moving away from objects.[You better extract yourself out of Einstein's reference puzzles, and start using modern maths___He did, even though he failed to complete his model.] And this can be applied in a particular fashion to consciousness: whereby you are unconscious of the imaginary absolute line; subconscious of the infinitesimal breaks of space and time; and conscious of finite distances over finite times at subluminal velocities.[You stated, "you", and no not I, you are referring to only yourself. I see the physical mechanics very clearly, in all reference frames possible to use. They are quite clear, when you start with the fundamental physical reality, of real substance and logic___and only when you do... The history of enlightenment and modern philosophy and physics is very clear, in this area. Yes, there are more foolish philosophers and physicists, than honest scientific ones, but the few good ones, win the day, hands down, every time... I suggest looking for the cognitive scientists, in all fields of study, not the metaphysical ones, or the metaphysical side of the physical ones... The physical offers sound fundamental reality.][/quote]

You'll have to go back to the law example I stated in the post yesterday, to make sense of physical reality. I absolutely know abstraction is eternally impossible of producing any physical structure, and so are all real scientists. Abstraction/metaphysics is entertaining, just as is our favorite music, but Science___Never... That's why America has a sound U.S. constitution, as the founding fathers were well aware of the past's metaphysical damage and deaths of world history. Please don't include the pseudo-god we, at present, have for president in this assessment___He will pass... I promise...

Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

To each their own opinion, Lloyd, but you are redefining terms and proclaiming them as truisms.

Why would you think that metaphysics has to produce science/substance, when it already is a science concerned with discerning what the FS is and isn't? The definition is the philosophy that attempts to achieve that goal by extending physical laws to discover what things are made of. It is not suggestive of no substance at all.

It is only my interpretation of metaphysical implications, beyond what is detectible, that equate the one with none. No one else, including the most extreme metaphysicians, have rid the universe of the one also. There is no present logic or math, let alone empirical evidence, that allows for that equation - except for the 0/0=absolute/infinite/finite, because anything multiplied by zero equals zero. Just like this non number, the non state of the universe never changes, and is not required to produce anything except relative abstracts that folks observe and believe to be real.

Your statement: "as not one thing in the universe, is truly beyond the physical" is the point at hand. There is not one "thing" and you are attempting to put things there that have no business being put there, wherever "there" might be. Your logic and thence your reality is based on limited observations - stuff you can see and feel, etc., but the mind/logic can go further than any microscope, telescope or particle accelerator, and the absolute is even beyond the mind. So why force the "universe" to abide by limiting human standards, Lloyd?

Your comments about the brain and heart are a stab at the founders of physics, and I'm sure in a few decades there will those making stabs at you. The source of the brain is at the root of the umbilical cord, as governor of both the heart and brain, and who knows if one day it won't be proposed as being on Uranus. I agree though, that confusion lies in thinking the mind was there at the beginning, but that the cause of the confusion is thinking there was a beginning. Both the mind and body are the same, both eternal, but both abstractions produced through increasing distance and time through a reduction in absolute speed, of which the absolute universe has no choice but to "propagate" at. 0/0 divides the universe into an infinite number of abstract perspectives. It is not a literal break, and the finite "absolutes" are extractions from the abstractions - like "c" for example.

And redoing Einstein's work according to Huygens principle, which is ironically based on abstractions, shows that you missed the point, Lloyd. It has nothing to do with defraction and/or refraction, but with the subtraction of the sum of all relative velocities so that the universal ghost is not only at your window throughout your motion, but every window simultaneously. Your inference is based on relative displacement of multiple frames, but there can logically be no relative displacement if there is one absolute frame of which the net velocity always remains at zero. You gotta think larger, Lloyd, instead of small absolute points moving relative to each other. The perspective of two individuals crossing the street is different than the perspective of the street which is on both sides, and stating "relative absolutes" is like stating the street has to cross the street to get to the other side.

Finally, this is what I mean when I say I think you joke around. You state: "Even if true absolute zero were once attainable, FS would have been required to crawl, then that friction heat would cause them to accelerate, and eventually assemble a universe most identical to ours." And this: "The absolute frame of reference is always a static abstract, because everything is always moving, even the unmoving aspect of FS gets moved by its moving finite entities."

How can I take that seriously, Lloyd? It moves without moving? No, I think that physical science gives you a false sense of physical reality, but as to explaining what that physical reality is, it comes up empty. Whereas at least metaphysics offers a false sense of reality, but explains why it is false.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The Interlude of Life


— Being Nothingness —

Intertwined
With

— The Awe-Full Truth of Paradise Regained —


The zephyr faints, dying in the half-light,
Its caress suspended, as day kisses night,
When, for some instants, stretching into moments,
We are neither here nor there, but in twilight.

We live at this boundary of day and night,
Our selves merging in the blend of twilight:
You and me, me and you; yours, mine, and ours—
The day-gold melts into the jeweled night.

Our parentheses in eternity
Flashes as a twinkling, but’s extended
By time into a phantasmic life dream
That’s existent the same as if it were.

As living pearls we’re strung out right and left,
Lovely and beautiful on the Earth’s breast.
Her bosom heaves, as one by one we’re cleft:
A thousand truths die, until none are left.

A life dream’s like a rainbow, not really there,
A false phenomenon become tangible
Through its being, the true true of the faux true,
Molding a genuine significance.

Say “Farewell!” Heaven’s promise is bereft;
Yet, live with gratitude—be not distressed;
Still, dismiss immortality’s dream;
Accept, with appetite, whatever’s left.

Life’s indeterminate or not, the same
Being brought by the virtual as the true,
The mechanics being as incidental
As why “color” chose its wave frequencies.

I’ve said “Good-bye” to the dream of forever,
‘Though I’m too philosophical to be bitter.
Poignantly resigned, I accept, with hunger
And joy, all that’s left—whatever—with pleasure.

Life’s here, like a virtual particle
Born this side of an event horizon
Of a Black Hole, realized by its presence
In the realm of what’s been radiated.

All’s right with a world without the angels—
Human, we try, we push, we climb, we lust,
We dance, we dream, we feel, and love with zest—
Yes, all this, thanks to the beast within us!

There is no difference of what makes none;
Realism is now playing, the living film:
A reality show in the theater
Of the mind’s eye, with the ‘I’ observing.

So, I drink-in the pleasures of creation,
For what else could be the point of cognition,
If not to absorb all that comes streaming in?
Life’s sensation is the main attraction!

At first it was like a moving picture show,
Attended by mysteries, row upon row,
That were faceless, laughing, in the dark below;
So I laughed, too, and better enjoyed it so.

Nature enters along paths sensory,
As it seeps into rationality,
Then saturates the being with delight—
The greatest taste is of reality.

Life, although anguishing, must be lived fully,
Since, if we’re alive enough to feel its beauty,
Then we’re exposed to the opposite twin—
Yes, Beauty’s other side is Melancholy.

Yet, like a stained-glass window, the faces
Survive the loss of the puzzle pieces,
And still shine, reflecting all that remains,
As time bears us away a few paces.

Opposites are just a different view
Of one fundamental phenomenon—
Light, beauty, and goodness are the inverse
Sides of darkness, ugliness, and evil.

Strive for a dynamic balance—of light
And dark, Yin and Yang, and wrong and right.
Reality is found not in separate actions,
But in related events blended in twilight.

Success blossoms out of a thoughtful dream,
Grown from seeds of what life to you should seem—
Then bears forth fruit healthy and delicious,
In the garden watered by a wishing stream.

In the night lies the healthy breath of morn;
The giant oak sleeps within the acorn;
The flower waits for spring inside the seed;
And so in a vision is one’s life born.

Think positive and thus conquer the strife:
Think of love, health, beauty, adventure, wife.
Beliefs manifest themselves in reality:
If beliefs are halfhearted, then so is life.

The revelation hit me like an hourglass,
One made of the heaviest welded brass—
I rose with a start, my life now begun,
Before more time through me unaware could pass.

In the darkness I alit from the Wiz,
And tried to make sense of this world of His.
Now I’ve found the answer to life’s dark quiz:
One must live this life by what light there is.

I’ve constructed the world that dreams require,
One moulded closer to the heart’s desire.
In this world-body of a soul inspired,
I’ll live life entire before I expire.

Night’s cup is empty, bottomless, and cold,
Until the daylight fills it up with gold.
A life that flows freely brings us beauty,
Else suffering’s truth to us is told

When once I was, my presence full beheld
Spirit, body, heart, and mind all in meld.
More than just the parts, I became the whole,
A human being living life unparalleled.

My blood runs warm with the sun’s heat at noon.
My spirit is swept by the swelling moon.
Air surrounds me. The ocean flows through me.
Earth’s rhythm is always playing my tune.

I pursue the shadows of forms that live
In dreams—perfected ideals that outlive
All the minutes and hours that time devours.
I seek what hope creates, what wishes give.

T’was a time before birth when we were not;
T’will be a time again when we are not.
From Death our life was a borrowed debit—
We spend it, love it, and live it to our credit.

Visions pour forth in positive images,
Thoughts creating life of former mirages,
Ideas developing from the negatives—
Life’s emergent dream ever encourages.

Never struggle against the way things are,
But rather, become the way that things are.
When you give yourself to the moving whole,
Natural currents will carry you quite far.

No ego/self—just interrelation—
Life’s oneness is a complete sensation.
It’s beyond intellectual concepts, thus,
It defies any further description.

[N0B0DY]

Everybody everywhere;
Somebody somewhere;
Anybody anywhere;
Nobody nowhere.

Oh what in this life
can we call our own?
What in this universe
have we really sown?

We continue to strive,
travelling near and far;
the problem appears to be
that we don't know where we are.

Maybe in here:
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/j...csu/powersof10

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Oh again, you do the same thing Nobody___confuse the linguistics. I'm not using opinions, except where I state the science is incomplete. I try to stay grounded in the laws of sound science, where as you stay ungrounded in the psychological laws of metaphysics. Metaphysics was never intended to be the explanation of physics by scientists, just by those who choose to use loose non-scientific abstractions, to failingly explain the universe with unexplainable metaphysics, as when wrongly applied to science___It can't be done, as only the laws of sound physics explain science. You know, it was Husserl, back in the early part of the last century, that explained the differences of the laws of science and logic; and the the laws of metaphysics and psychological interpretations. You just seem to like to dis-respect settled issues of scientific law. Though Husserl was a might off the track with his phenomenology, he certainly was correct about the differences of scientific logic laws, and the loose laws of reason and metaphysical psychology. Let me know when you can scientifically unite the un-unitable laws of logic and psycho-logic...

[quote=N0B0DY;34577]To each their own opinion, Lloyd, but you are redefining terms and proclaiming them as truisms.[The terms I use are true to fundamental science, and I have no interest in metaphysical immaginary ideas, except to see just how far off the scientific road, many minds are capable of wandering. It does help me to center my arguments, more in line with science's irrefutable laws, though, thanks.]

Why would you think that metaphysics has to produce science/substance,[I didn't state that. I said it could never do so.] when it already is a science[Metaphysics is a very loose science based on the opposite set of laws of science, i.e., A can be A and other. A can be B and A. And the excluded middle is allowed___Just the opposite of A is A and never not A. A is B and never not, not B. And the middle is always excluded. This has been the case of scientific understanding from Aristotle's logic, to the present day, and the opposite was first introduced by the master-fraud, S. Freud___Husserl interpreted Freud's psychology, metaphysically. So you see, I do know the history of ideas, and what I'm talking about, thanks anyway.] concerned with discerning what the FS is and isn't?[We're both still working on this exact definition, now aren't we?] The definition is the philosophy that attempts to achieve that goal by extending physical laws[You don't extend physical laws, you discover new ones, as they are written so narrowly, they are un-extendable.] to discover what things are made of.[This takes solid, sound physical experiment, which we are all awaiting.] It is not suggestive of no substance at all.[No, as usual, metaphysical abstracts have no place in sound fundamental science.]

It is only my interpretation of metaphysical implications, beyond what is detectible,[Pure speculation, based on metaphysical abstract exaggeration.] that equate the one with none.[Sorry, absolute farse.] No one else, including the most extreme metaphysicians, have rid the universe of the one also.[And neither have you.] There is no present logic or math, let alone empirical evidence, that allows for that equation[Aaah___It don't exist...?] - except for the 0/0=absolute/infinite/finite,[Only when related to real matter/motion/decay dynamics.] because anything multiplied by zero equals zero.[Really...? Abstracts are beautiful, now aren't they...?] Just like this non number, the non state[Pure non-existing abstraction.] of the universe never changes, and is not required to produce anything except relative abstracts[Very vivid imagination, Nobody. I'll bet you could create very good sci-fi movies___No...?] that folks observe and believe to be real.[You can only observe an abstraction in your mind. Try putting the same abstraction on the empirical table...?]

Your statement: "as not one thing in the universe, is truly beyond the physical" is the point at hand.[How true.] There is not one "thing" and you are attempting to put things there that have no business being put there, wherever "there" might be.[Geee...Last I looked the universe was here.] Your logic and thence your reality is based on limited observations[Yeah...limited to scientific observations, containing some semblance of experimental facts.] - stuff you can see and feel, etc., but the mind/logic can go further than any microscope[True, but to be scientific, it must at minimum, stay with a-priori logic and scientific facts.], telescope or particle accelerator, and the absolute is even beyond the mind.[Your false fundamental belief/faith system, causes this fallacy. Use the laws systems properly, and all things are clear.] So why force the "universe" to abide by limiting human standards, Lloyd?[I'm not forcing anything or anyone to abide by limiting human standards. I'm merely pointing out the differences between two valid thought systems, of 180 degree opposition___Mix them, and you have mush...]

Your comments about the brain and heart are a stab at the founders of physics,[No, just trying to simplify.] and I'm sure in a few decades there will those making stabs at you.[Fine, I feel secure___Thick hide, you know...?] The source of the brain is at the root of the umbilical cord, as governor of both the heart and brain, and who knows if one day it won't be proposed as being on Uranus.[Nice abstract metaphysics again___no science, though.] I agree though, that confusion lies in thinking the mind was there at the beginning,[Good thinking.] but that the cause of the confusion is thinking there was a beginning.[I sure as hell ain't thinking beginning, except first evolutions of motion, existing from eternal matter/motion. Just trying to see how far back we can go___Preferably to the prime mover...] Both the mind and body are the same, both eternal,[Quite a contradiction. You just said they weren't above___No mind at beginning evolution of etermal substance motion.] but both abstractions produced through increasing distance and time through a reduction in absolute speed,[You and Dave really gotta get rid of this absolute speed mythology___It completely ruins and invalidates both your scientific presentations.] of which the absolute universe has no choice but to "propagate" at.[Absolute abstractions sure answer a lot___Don't they?___Not...!] 0/0 divides the universe into an infinite number of abstract perspectives.[Yeah, in your mind___Not anything to do with physical reality, outside your mind...] It is not a literal break, and the finite "absolutes" are extractions from the abstractions - like "c" for example.[Ain't psyco-logic metaphysics a wonderful thing___It allows you to think all you want outside of reality. I'll take sound logic, thanks...]

And redoing Einstein's work according to Huygens principle, which is ironically based on abstractions,[I see you know little about Huygens. FYI, he's the founding father of sound probability math. He taught both Newton and Leibniz.] shows that you missed the point, Lloyd.[No, I quite clearly see the point___sound science and math.] It has nothing to do with defraction and/or refraction, but with the subtraction of the sum of all relative velocities so that the universal ghost is not only at your window throughout your motion, but every window simultaneously.[As I said, you'd make a great sci-fi movie maker.] Your inference is based on relative displacement of multiple frames,[No, I'm not talking about displacing anything. All the parts of the universe fit quite nicely as randomly evolved.] but there can logically be no relative displacement[Relative is too abstract, for me to even begin to entertain, thanks just the same.] if there is one absolute frame[You show me that one experimentally, I'll gladly give you a million dollars.] of which the net velocity always remains at zero.[That's quite a trick to pull off, in a totally moving universe. You seem to forget quite easily, that I do accept part of the I Ching___"Changes, changes, changes, these things too, shall pass away."] You gotta think larger, Lloyd, instead of small absolute points moving relative to each other.[Your definition again, not mine. I've said from post one, I do not accept relative motion, or insignificant points. I only accept true absolute c motion and matter/mass/energy.] The perspective of two individuals crossing the street is different than the perspective of the street which is on both sides, and stating "relative absolutes" is like stating the street has to cross the street to get to the other side.[Re-read what you wrote. I have always said relativity can be expressed in absolute terms___Newtonian, Boltzmanian, Gibbsian, etc..]

Post continued next page...