[Nobody]

Don't worry about my thread. If the managers here care it's one thing. I don't really care.

The question you're asking leads to the ultimate conundrum. It seems paradoxical to say a silly thing like an absolute of no absolute, but that's the way to solve it. What is deemed irrelevant - non-existence - is the absolute.

In the philosophical sense we can talk forever in circles about "nothing" existing as a lack of something, or it exists when we say it exists or else we can't say that it exists. Those common arguments isn't what I'm referring to. It is the non-existent sum of all points that renders the entire universe non-existent, but I'm in no way declaring that your reality doesn't exist, which is what most folks think I'm saying. It simply leads to a different way of looking at reality, whereby the laws of all physics are governed by the subconscious which slows down infinite speed in order for us to be conscious of universal constants.

G, h, c are space-time-speed-dependent, but the connecting zero point which serves as the center of both point A and point B is not space-time-speed-dependent because it is at both places at the same time. So what seems to be a contradiction in relative terms is not a contradiction when we consider that the zero point never changes. It never exists, because nothing is not something and nothing can never become something, but the zero point serves as the basis for differentiable spatial points.

[Eric]

Hi Nobody,

Thank you.

What you just explained is one of the most thoughtful takes on existence I've ever read.

It speaks to the illusion of constants, the zero still point, the sub-conscious, etc.

It also speaks to the importance of dealing with nothing rather than dismissing it.

I think the only fundamental thing we differ about, of course, is that you have an absolute 0 inside and outside, and I have no absolute 0 outside of an absolute 1, and an absolutely relative 0 at the center of 1.

What I mean by "absolutely relative" is that the 0 has no inside, but it is "in respect to" (reflective of) the absolute 1 that has no outside.

In other words, the 1 is greater than the 0.

These, of course, are dimensionless points, that are greater in "principle" than spatial extent, mass, time, force, etc.

I won't belabor the "point".

Eric

[lodestar]

To Nobody,

I appreciate discussing the particulars of our theories and I thank you for this last post. Allow me to offer my reply.

Originally Posted by Nobody

Take a look at your graph again, Lode, and you may notice that at the bottom you are suggesting an absolute value results from infinite multiplication. Just like you are suggesting at the other end, that the zero represents the absolute value of infinite division.

No, I am not suggesting that an absolute value results from infinite multiplication. I am suggesting that an absolute value results from absolute multiplication, i.e. multiplication by 1/0. This represents greater than infinite multiplication because 1/0 is technically greater than infinite. Alternatively, you could say that the absolute value of everything results from dividing something by nothing, rendering it totally undivided. This is the state of absolute non-division. 1/0

Originally Posted by nobody

What you are not acknowledging, like everyone else it seems, is non existence. This non existence is ignored because it is deemed irrelevant in science, but it nevertheless directs our attention to the fact that the absolutes we both are proclaiming don't exist. Yet I am arguing with you because I have realized that the absolute I am promoting represents the above fact, whereas yours does not.

The number circle does acknowledge non-existence. That is why it includes the number 0. We acknowledge that non-existence does not exist and it has no value, hence it does occupy a non-existent point on the number circle. We acknowledge on the other hand that "pro"-existence exists, it is called everything, and it has absolute value (a value so great it is both positive and negative). This is the number 1/0. 1/0 is the exact opposite of 0/1. If 0/1 is absolutely nothing then 1/0 is absolutely everything. Your theory fails to acknowledge both of these two absolutes, existence and non-existence. My theory acknowledges both and defines both. If you want to meld the two together, they become 0/0, which is the ambiguous absolute - anything. You see, there are three primal numbers in mathematics which I study, forming a trinity. 0/1, 1/0, and 0/0. These are nothing, everything, and anything respectively.

Originally Posted by nobody

I am promoting a non-existent absolute, the zero, as being both at the bottom of your graph and at the top. That absolute "nothingness" is the connecting non-dimensional point of the inner and outer, and it serves as a guideline for both scientists and mystics who have been adhering to the "one" instead of the none.

but the number circle cannot be complete unless it includes both 0/1 and 1/0. This exemplifies the irony of truth and true paradox.

Originally Posted by nobody

To clarify further, consider logically what happens when we try to imply there is such a thing as a largest and/or smallest number. We make an ass of ourselves because the numbers can increase/decrease infinitely. So there are no such absolute numbers - they don't exist - and for that reason I remain to proclaim the only possible absolute must be represented by that poor and neglected zero.

How is it so complicated? 1/infinity never gets as small as 0/1. Similarly, infinity never gets as big as 1/0. Infinity is limitless but 1/0 is the limit of this limitlessness. So yes, 1/0 is the greatest number, the limit of limitlessness. How do I know? Because 1/0 is both positive and negative. 0 is the opposite, neither positive nor negative. They both lie at extremes of the number circle which revolves negative and positive time. At 0/1 is the inversal of time (the big bang) and at 1/0 will be the exversal of time (exversal will occurr when the universe is expanding at greater than lightspeed at less than planck scales).

Originally Posted by nobody

In other words, those who wish to chase after the "one" absolute will be chasing after it for eternity, whereas the "zero" is already "there" because each and every point of any and all possible measurements is non-dimensional - absolute and non-existent.

You see, our theories are so similar but your theory is stuck on the beauty of nothing not realizing that there is a really beautiful number that actually represents ALL. So your theory is only half complete and your missing the most important half.

1/0 is the greatest number that can possibly exist. 1/0 has all the same properties of 0/1 except they are exact opposites. So if you believe 0/1 is absolute, you must also believe that 1/0 is it's absolute opposite. The difference being that 0/1 represents absolutely nothing and 1/0 represents absolutely everything. So they're the same but opposite. This should not be complicated to understand, and being that you seem pretty smart, I'm sure you can figure it out just as well as I can.


sincerely, Lee

[Nobody]

Eric,

I can really emapthize with you because I argued the same exact points you and Lode are making. I see what you mean when you say there are two absolutes, one being relative to zero and zero being relative to the one, but although the one can be infinitely expansive and/or contractive it can never reach the absolute point where it will not be relative to zero. Which creates a paradox in literal, physical theories that imply existence within non existence.

Alternatively, zero as the non-existent absolute omits the "one." It implies that the literal one implied in science, religion and philosophy is an illusory construct of the two perspectives of the zero point: the one perspective is infinitely expansive; and the other perspective is infinitely contractive. They serve as the basis for relativity, an infinite number of relative measurements and interactions, and as a whole they are declared the "one" verse which arose from a singular point. Observations that support these models force scientists to focus on these observations, because that's what science is understandably, but they also force scientists to disregard the logical means of extracting information that shows the flaws in our present understanding and how misleading observations can be.

When we look at relativity from those two perspectives, two illusory views based on an infinite number of non-dimensional points, we can easily see why both must fluctuate at an infinite rate of speed, and can also conclude that all forms of relative functioning (interactions) are the result of variations of that speed. Like a blank canvass that contains all pictures, infinite speed contains all speeds simultaneously, with zero (no speed at all) as the greatest velocity because it shrinks space-time to absolute zero - the zero point "here" and the zero point "there" are exactly the same, so no "travelling" is necessary. It exemplifies absolute simultaneity.

I agree that consciousness and unification is the key to the toe, but disagree with Michael's and scientists' explanations via the "one." There really can be no absolute one from where I stand, and I guess I have to keep on belaboring.

Thanks for your postings.

[Nobody]

Lode,

Fair enough, Lode, about the multiplication and division of the absolutes, but if we are not dividing the one or the zero, what is the point of the equation? As Lloyd pointed out, the "asbolute" represents both the positive and the negative. It is the measurement itself, regardless of whether or not it is positive or negative.

You said to take a look at the graph, which I did, before I said for you to take another look lol. At the top I can understand the absolute zero is representative of the lowest-possible point of the infinitesimal, but the problem is that the one at the other end is supposed to be representative of the greatest-possible point of the infinite.

The difference is that the bottom "one" implies an existence (a reaching) of the greatest-possible number, but it is an impossibility for that number to exist, whereas declaring that the zero exists at the top of the graph is the same as saying the absolute doesn't exist lol. So the zero is the only non-number that can work around this paradox.

Just curious what point you suggest is at the center of the graph?

[lodestar]

Nobody,

Again thanks for the discussion. We are dividing the one, by nothing. For it to be undivided, that means it must be divided by nothing, which means divided by zero. Now in the case of Eric's theory he uses a 1 instead of 1/0. But if you think about it, if you just put a 1, then it is inevitably implied that it is divided by nothing. Somewhere down the line it has to be.

I don't understand why you say that 1/0 cannot exist? That is the equivalent of saying everything does not exist. I believe it is because you still think that nothing exists and therefore everything can't exist. That is your whole theory.

Originally Posted by nobody

The difference is that the bottom "one" implies an existence (a reaching) of the greatest-possible number, but it is an impossibility for that number to exist, whereas declaring that the zero exists at the top of the graph is the same as saying the absolute doesn't exist lol. So the zero is the only non-number that can work around this paradox.

I never said that 0 exists at the top of the circle. I said that 0 occupies a non-existent point at the top of the circle. In other words, there is a hole in the circle at 0. How do I know this? Because 0 is neither positive nor negative - it does not exist. So in reality the circle is completely incomplete. That's because there is a hole at zero. It's the irony of true paradox. Hey I just thought of something. At 0 there's a hole and at 1/0, a whole. That's kinda funny.

Originally Posted by nobody

Just curious what point you suggest is at the center of the graph?

an excellent question I might add. 0/0 lies in the center
it should be labeled

Now that you mention it I need to redo the whole graph to indicate the hole at 0 and stuff.

peace-out

[Nobody]

My mind is really in a state of flux now, Lode.

I can understand how zero divided by one equals nothing, and how zero divided by zero equals one, because both are justified by both their inverse and on the graph - the one in the center being the measurement from the zero at the top to the center. But the one divided by zero can't be justified by either because for it to be justified, infinity would have to be surpassed resulting in the largest number.

I think that nothing is beyond infinity, it is an impossibility, and when we say everything exists it has to pertain to relativity and never as an absolute whole. So if you were to say that one divided by zero represents both positive and negative infinity I'll agree, but not that it represents the absolute. Because infinity is based on ever-increasing relative measurements, whereas the absolute is static and contradicts what infinity represents. In other words, there can't be an absolute infinity, or an infinite absolute. It's like asking which is more, the greatest or the greater?

[Eric]

Hi Guys,

This is one of the most interesting discussions I've ever witnessed. I knew there was a good reason I entered this thread. It's also a civil discussion. Hooray!

Now in the case of Eric's theory he uses a 1 instead of 1/0. But if you think about it, if you just put a 1, then it is inevitably implied that it is divided by nothing. Somewhere down the line it has to be.

Yes. I never thought of it that way. To put it into perspective, though, remember this.

The 1 and 0 are outside of infinity. The 0 is not outside the 1. And, the 0 is at the CENTER of 1.

These are the three absolute components (1,0,center) that supply all the information needed for mathematics, geometry, and physics; for dimension, space, time, and mass; and for gravity. They also supply all the information needed for finite and infinite, birth and death, consciousness and will, separation and unity, reality and illusion, and change. The list is endless.

Three dimesnionless points. 1 has no outside, 0 has no inside, and the center is the only location inside the 1.

The 1 and 0 are indivisible, and the center where the 0 is located, is everywhere inside the 1. They are differentiated, but not separate. There is a very interesting reason for this, but I won't digress.

The 1 is focused in at its center and the 0 reflects out from the center.

This is because the 0 is in perfect respect to (reflective of) the 1.

To more easily imagine it, one can give them a dimensional quality, while not forgetting that they're non-dimensional.

Think of the 1 as a perfect sphere with no outside. Think of the 0 as a lesser perfect sphere with no inside. Put the 0 at the center of 1.

The 1 is focused in at its center from all directions around it. The 0 reflects outward in all directions from the center.

The universe is an inversion of this reality. It is within the focus and reflection, and is the resultant "image".

"Reality (the universe) is merely and illusion, albeit a very persistent one" – Einstein

The one thing he couldn't describe, is the reality that is greater than the universe.

He certainly eluded to it, every time he refered to "God".

Hawking and others also elude to it.

Eric

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Nobody

In other words, there can't be an absolute infinity, or an infinite absolute.

This is so true. The true definition of infinity (yes, it is my definition) is "that which doesn't actually happen". The absolutes we're talking about are "actual". The universe only "appears" to happen.

The infinite universe only rises to the level of a "sense" of a happening. Even CERN is only a "sensing machine".

Finite event horizons are just something we sense.

The speed of light and the arrow of time as supposed "contstants", only tell us the universe is in a perpetual state of potential, of "will happen". The universe as something that has or is happening, will never be proved.

Eric

[Nobody]

I gotta beg to differ again, Eric, because we are back to square one, or circle one, asking what is outside the one? Where we will say that there is no outside, which is the same as saying the exterior is non-existent, and that implies that the universe exists inside a place that isn't there. So, there can only be infinity based on relative measurements, positive and negative, in all directions, etc., never as an absolute, and for that reason the zero is perfect because it merely represents the non-existent absolute. The one, on the other hand, implies an existent absolute that is impossible to reach.

The zero, which is never reached, serves only to solve the paradox created by a literal interpretation of relative functioning - laws, forces, etc. - which can never be unified as a single force, source, etc.. It would only seem so because the range becomes too short to differentiate observably, but as Zeno might say, it will never reach that absolute singularity. To the contrary, there is much evidence that the universe is fractal and the forces must naturally follow.

Also, the point you made about the universe being in a perpetual state of potential time implies that there is such a thing as time from a universal perspective. I think that a billion years in the past is the present for the universe, a billion years in the future is the present for the universe, and the present moment of this particular timeframe is the present moment for the universe. To say that every conceivable scenario that "will happen" has already happened and is happeneing right "now." We simply don't realize it because the laws that govern this arrow of time persist to exist in our subconscious minds. The universal mind, if you will, need not comply with these limitations.