T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[Eric]

Nobody,

Did you read both of my last posts? Carefully? Maybe it's something I didn't say, I'm not sure.

The infinite univese is inside of the existent, true absolute (1). The universe is also inside of the existent, false absolute (0). "Inside" meaning lesser than, in prinicple. They are actual and the infinite universe or it's seemingly finite components, are not.

There are three levels of existence. Actual, not actual, and not. But the last one is the tricky one. The only thing that does NOT exist, is absolutely nothing.

It is the outside of the one that isn't there. It is also the inside of the 0 that isn't there. The 1 has no outside, even to itself, and the 0 has no inside, even to itself.

Both of these can be reached, but not by thinking in terms of numbers, dimensions, space, time, or mass.

I will stop here, without explaining how they can be reached.

One thing at a time.

Eric

[Lloyd Gillespie]

You guys keep fiddling around, and you might figure out three manifold, three matrix mathematics of an absolute singularity... The Poincare conjecture___it's worth a cool million dollars___if the present math doesn't pan out___now being reviewed by the proper science/math board. There are millions of real dollars being offered for many such conjectures, etc., in math and physics...

regards,

Nobody,

Did you read both of my last posts? Carefully? Maybe it's something I didn't say, I'm not sure.

The infinite univese is inside of the existent, true absolute (1). The universe is also inside of the existent, false absolute (0). "Inside" meaning lesser than, in prinicple. They are actual and the infinite universe or it's seemingly finite components, are not.

There are three levels of existence. Actual, not actual, and not. But the last one is the tricky one. The only thing that does NOT exist, is absolutely nothing.

It is the outside of the one that isn't there. It is also the inside of the 0 that isn't there. The 1 has no outside, even to itself, and the 0 has no inside, even to itself.

Both of these can be reached, but not by thinking in terms of numbers, dimensions, space, time, or mass.

I will stop here, without explaining how they can be reached.

One thing at a time.

Eric

[Nobody]

"It is the outside of the one that isn't there. It is also the inside of the 0 that isn't there. The 1 has no outside, even to itself, and the 0 has no inside, even to itself."

The zero with no inside is fine because that's what it represents, neither positive nor negative, but it is a problem when we proclaim an absolute one has no outside because it represents both positive and negative which creates a dichotomy paradox between existence and non existence.

You're attempting to contain an infinite universe within a circumferenceless container you wish to call "one," but it can't work because infinity goes on forever without ever becoming absolute. So only the zero can represent what is beyond both infinities in order to justify relativity. As it stands now, with the common assumption that "one" can represent a universal container, relativity conflicts/contradicts that notion.

In a sense, you are saying that the "greatest" is more than the "greater." Does that make sense to you?

[lodestar]

Nobody,

If you don't think it's justified there being a larger number than infinity do you also think it's not justified there being a faster speed than c? I believe, according to the theory of "1/0" that the speed of light is not the greatest speed but 1/0 is. In otherwords, the speed 1/0 is instantaneous teleportation. Does that help you understand why my theory uses 1/0 to complete mathematics by representing an absolute largest value? So in my theory 1/0 is the absolute whole, the set of all sets so to speak.

Also let me apologize, I didn't mean to say that 1/0 is positive and negative infinity. I lied. 1/0 is less than negative infinity and greater than positive infinity. So it is the absolute limit of limitlessness, the absolute timelessness of time. It is the absolute, meaning more positive than positive and more negative than negative. That's where it lies on the circle of completely incomplete time.

Everything can even be greater than itself because everything must contain everything. Correct me if I'm wrong, but does your theory say that nothing contains everything?

Eric,

I can agree with you that the 0/1 is definitely not outside the 1/0. It could possibly be though, I suppose. Either way it occupies a non-existancy.

I really like your three components. Your 1, 0, and center are directly equivalent to my 1/0, 0/1, and 0/0. You are exactly right they are the absolute components, the three primal numbers, the pillars of mathematics, which will sufficiently supply all information for math, physics, geometry, philosophy, gravity/antigravity, birth/death, happiness/sadness, destiny/choice, etc. etc. etc.. Oh yes and Change; change is a big one. That is so cool that you thought of that dude. That's freaking awesome. It somewhat reminds me of Pro's theory too.

I agree, 1/0 has no outside (it contains everything), 0/1 has no inside (it contains nothing), and 0/0 is between the two (it contains anything, a state of flux between nothing and everything). This state of flux is what allows change to occurr and what causes time to trip forward. It's basically like a perfectly balanced imbalance which causes constantly changing perpetual motion to propel time through infinite profusion and all possibility.

I agree, the 1/0 and the 0/1 are indivisible, and the 0/0 takes up all space inside of the 1/0. Yes they are differentiated but not separate. That's a good way to put it. I'm really curious what you mean when you say there's a really good reason for this. I usually say something like, "nothing is different than everything but everything is still different." In this case the everything I would be referring to would actually be the center, the 0/0. The 1/0 does not change, it is merely the source of all energy.

Yes, I would totally agree that the 0/1 is in perfect respect to (reflective of) the 1/0. I mean just look at the symbols and you see they are mirror images of eachother! That's why I think you should adopt the 1/0 and 0/1 nomenclature because that way it reflects the symmetry in the symbols themselves. Either way though, we're talking about the same exact thing.

I like your idea of reflecting inward and outward from everything and nothing and in the center is the focus which creates our illusionary reality (illusionary because it is only infinite as defined by the speed of light, and because it is in a state of flux between nothing and everything).

Well shoot man, it looks like you thought of a lot of the same stuff I did. That's kinda cool. We use slightly different symbols, but other than that...

[Nobody]

Lloyd,

If I can prove that 1=0 because there is no such thing as "one" will I get the million? I'll give you half for supporting me along the way.

[lodestar]

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.

Some good comments Nobody but let me offer a defense. I don't agree that there is no outside to 1/0. I believe 1/0 is it's own outside, for everything contains everything. There does not exist anything outside of that. That doesn't mean that 1/0 exists in nothing, okay maybe it does in a sort of sordid sense, but that doesn't mean that 1/0 doesn't exist, it simply means that nothing doesn't exist anyway in the first place. It doesn't mean that everything exists in a place that isn't there, it means that the place that isn't there isn't there.

Also I don't see why you don't think that the forces can be unified to a single force from a single source. 1/0 is the single source for all energy I believe. The amount of energy available to us through better technologies is 1/0 therefore. I mean I'm working on a machine right now to try to create antigravity from magnetism and time, so I personally don't believe that the forces can't be unified or else I wouldn't be trying it. I believe all forces are made out of magnetism because magnetism is the one force that contains yin and yang together.

Also if you cannot surpass a singularity then the big bang never would have happened because I believe the big bang happened as a result of space/time inversal whereby you surpass a singularity by making a quantum leap directly over it. If you believe we can't surpass a singularity then in that case we'll never be able to create technology to allow us to travel faster than the speed of light. If that's true it means we're stuck here to die on this planet. uh uh, i don't believe it. 1/0 gives us more than infinite energy to reach for the stars and even beyond.

I must say though, you have come to a lot of the same revelations by looking at the universe as 0/1 instead of 1/0. I find that rather strange but cool nonetheless. For example, I agree that time is but a pretense (to everything though, not nothing) and all things have already happened, or at least, everything will come to be in time. Time itself is timeless in this respect. We can't tell if everything has already happened or if it will all come to be in time because we don't know where we are in a relative sense to everything, i.e. all timelines and all alternate universes. Either way the amount of possibility in reality is 1/0, not 0. 1/0 is everything (all-possibility) and 0/1 is nothing (impossibility). Don't you agree?

[lodestar]

You guys keep fiddling around, and you might figure out three manifold, three matrix mathematics of an absolute singularity... The Poincare conjecture___it's worth a cool million dollars___if the present math doesn't pan out___now being reviewed by the proper science/math board. There are millions of real dollars being offered for many such conjectures, etc., in math and physics...

regards,

Money is worth nothing. Furthermore everything is free. The value of everything is intrinsic, and if anybody is after a nobel prize they have their values confused because the nobel prize is not worth anything really when you think about it.

[Nobody]

I don't mean to insult your intelligence, or Eric's, or to denigrate what you're trying to build, but your 1/0 and Eric's 1 mixes relative concepts (concepts that can be extended to infinite proportions) with a static absolute (which in physics means non-existent). As a result there are a great number of contradictory statements that can't be overlooked, such as: "the absolute limit of limitlessness" and declaring in one message to Eric that you agree that there is no outside to 1/0, followed by disagreeing with me that there is no outside to 1/0. It is the reason why Einstein went bananas before he died proclaiming that all his work lead him no closer to knowing what a relative measurement of light is.

Light has no speed in particular, it is infinite, until we create our own reality by setting the speed to c relative to observable energy densities which in turn is relative to time dilation/space, which is relative to....etc.. So what you are attempting to do is to cap the infinite, like Einstein, and create an absolute reference frame that simply can't exist in order for relative theories to work - to justify what doesn't need to be justified.

Science abhors a vacuum, dislikes infinities, and seeks to make sense of the world by creating false vacuums and absolutes that are based on the infinite illusion. It works for making planes, rockets and bombs, but it will never reach the point that the mind/logic can reach because it is persuaded by misleading observations that imply such things as big bangs and expansion.

Infinity (relativity) and the absolute don't co-exist, and trying to merge them in a one whole or singularity is fultile because infinity cannot be capped.

[lodestar]

Yes, there is an absolute limit to limitlessness, and it is 1/0, plain and simple. I know it sounds like a contradiction but it is the irony of truth my friend. Just like how the number circle is completely incomplete (due to the hole at zero). I know it's a contradiction to have something be completely incomplete, but it's the irony of truth. It's just like the incompleteness theorem that says you completely cannot have a complete theory. Also, it's like the timelessness of time itself. How can time be timeless? Isn't that a contradiction? Well, it's the irony of truth. Just like how nothing is the exact same thing as everything but the exact opposite. Now how can two things be the exact same and the exact opposite. Well my friend, it's the irony of truth, and it makes perfect sense when you think about it. It's what allows time to go through this cycle of inversal and exversal that we are right now caught in the middle of.

I never said it wasn't contradictory, but it is consistently so. It's consistent contradiction that allows time to exist at all. How can it be consistent and contradictory you ask? Well, again, the irony of truth. It makes perfect sense.

I never disagreed with you that there is no outside to everything. I said that everything contains everything and there is nothing outside of this. So how did I disagree that there is nothing outside of everything? I agree, there is nothing outside of everything! You think this means that everything doesn't exist but what it really means is that everything is all that exists. So we agree but you interpret the meaning to mean that everything doesn't exist, due to the fact that you think that nothing is real. Remember though, nothing is the false absolute (neither positive nor negative). Everything is the true absolute (both positive and negative). It seems like your theory has everything and nothing defined backwards. Both me and Eric agree that everything completely exists and that nothing completely does not exist, and that what we are in right now is an apparent state of existence, caught in a flux between 0/1 and 1/0, sometime after the inversal of time but prior to its inevitable exversal.

[Nobody]

Imagine for a minute a coin with a hole punched in it, the hole representing an absolute vacuum/not space, with the exterior of the coin the connecting vacuum/not space/non existence. You guys are saying that the coin is all there is, but the space-time of the coin is determined by an observer who creates a spectrum based on c and anything outside of that is considered undetectable. The stability and instability of atomic structures is synonymous with the stability and instability of the conscious mind if we are to correlate the subconscious with the subatomic, and consciousness is a very small part of only one particular spectrum all of which are non-existent to the universe.

Without a conscious observer there can be no "coin" because all possible scenarios/realities are "occurring" simultaneously at extreme fastforward, like at infinite speed, like there is nothing preventing everything from having already occurred outside of time. We just don't realize it yet because the mind is stuck in a very limiting timeframe and subconscious state of flux, separated from its pristine simplicity and stillness.

So ultimately, instead of focusing on the coin and declaring that it is "one" absolute existence, I propose declaring the coin at each and every point is identical to the "center" and "outside" which equates to infinite possibilities-probabilities-certainty.