T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Eric, I very much like your idea about a "hierarchy of principles". This should be one of our goals to achieve more accurate deffinition, especially where infinity and absolutes are concerned. Let me express a few differences and maybe additions to your list...

Sheez, go away for a couple of days and there's a lot to catch up on. Good stuff. It gives me great pleasure to find people who are willing to think beyond infinity and the absolute, and do it in a civil and open-minded fashion. Don't let it go to your heads, of course, but even the best of the best aren't doing it.



Yes, but the point you're refering to, can be misleading. All considerations of finite have to be set aside to get to the "principle of infinity". So I'd just like to say "finite is within infinite" and leave it at that for now.[This is very true, absolutely true, and I have written it in my notes as the twin quantum space-time fields. The infinite field of cold is always present in the finite heat field___we witness it nightly___cold___what is it?]



Think about it as a "hierarchy of principles". One "principle" being greater than another. Finite, then infinite, then what? What is the first thing that infinity can't reach?[In my definition and opinion of the facts of physics laws, infinity is the absolute eternal___it's low entropy reaches everywhere, even inside all singularities. At least its field would.] Let's list the hierarchy from the bottom up. It's helpful to visualize the hierarchy as concentric circles. The smallest the finite, then the infinite, then.... [I accept as is.]

1. FINITE – "Appears" to begin or end at "points". (all "observable" qualities & quantities)[Absolutely true.]

2. INFINITE – Doesn't actually begin or end (no points). (no observable qualities & quantities)[A trans-infinite perceptronic logic can penetrate its hidden motions, through understanding all finite universal decay motions___they all must end in infinity and be conserved as part of the infinite field___and as Nobody pointed out to me, as the lowest state of quantum motion, i.e., linear, rotating, imploding, compressive, contractive___these are the states of the quantum infinite set of waves, that were theoretically, mathematically expanded from the finite motions, plus the possible infinite of the whole infinity beyond the finite decay of the universal motions' fields of all its singularities___black holes to electrons___the thinness of this low entropy motion would be dependent on the velocity of final decay motions when they finally meet their turning point by the infinite thermo-hydro-dynamic field's strenght___this I have no way of calculating___I just self-logically know it's there, and can act as the equilibrium container of thermalicity___the simple logic is we know heat expands and cold contracts] [So I'd say I disagree a bit as to observables, as to logic's vision though, through the mathematics of the cesium clock's decay knowledge]

3. EVERYTHING & NO-THING – Not absolute, but "relatively" absolute QUANTITIES. One does not come from the other. No-thing is INSIDE of everything. Not the "source" of the universe, but the boundary infinity never arrives at. [As to this Eric I would disagree, as I see it as all and everything is in infinity, eternally. It is a matter of deffinition of infinity. I define it as the absolute, eternal everything___decayed, and undecayed reality___and the infinite cycle of the twin space-time fields]

4. CONTAINER & CONTENT – Not absolute, but "relatively" absolute QUALITIES. Quality is greater than quantity. The container is perfect. The content gives to perfectly conform to it. [Agreed, as I see it as the thermodynamic equilibrium container of everything]

5. EXISTENCE & ONE – An absolute quality & quantity that are relative to each other. [Absolutely true]

This is the hierarchy of relatives that exist as "aspects" of the ABSOLUTE.[I have tried to make it more absolute with my comments. I may not have succeeded. Let me know.]

I'm going to stop here, let it sink in, be discussed, etc. Then I will reverse them, work from the outside in, and further explain the finite and infinite, and the center around which all these circles exist. I will also explain how the Absolute, which is beyond all desription, doe NOT have anything whatsoever outside of it. [INHO, I must respectfully disagree here. I know the absolute can be described with a virtual trans-infinite logic observer position___I say Laotzu was incomplete. We need to complete the logic of the absolute, which I define as no more than infinity/eternal motion]

Remember though, there all dimesnionless at this point. "Points of principle" have no space between them.[Absolutely agreed]

Very interesting. I think this line of thinking has great value. I have always said infinity is what needs deffinition, more than anything, to create a solid foundation under physics. Let's all try to get our minds around it. Just my quick rough thoughts. Hope I haven't offended...

Respectfully,
Lloyd

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Lode,

I think "undefined" is insufficient for a TOE.

0 can easily be defined, but not outside of the 1. By stating 1/0 you have the 0 & 1 outside of each other. This is a terribly subtle point I'm trying to make, but it's vitally important. Absolutely nothing is even less than 0.

If even one word is spoken about what is outside the 1, it's a step in the wrong direction.

There is not only no outside OF the 1, but also no outside TO the 1.

The 0 is inside the 1, it is located at its center, and it is more than absolutely nothing.

Lloyd,

Well yes, his question is valid, that's why I detailed what is outside of infinity.

If any mention of space, time, mass, field, etc. is included, it too is a step in the wrong direction. The are all finite. Any configuration of finite will always break down approaching infinity. What's outside of infinity has nothing to do with them. It's an entirely higher prinicple of reality. [Not to be argumenative, Eric, or any form of insult, but I feel I must point out the inconsistencies that such a statement introduces to the field of logic. When anyone limits logic to these limits, mysticism can easily creep in. We need sound logic. I will mention my findings, as to the finite approaching the infinite. The infinite can be known by no other means than our absolute knowledge of the finite, since its motions are created by the infinite motions. In order to understand the infinite, we must know her child, absolutely and completely___all she has to offer for finite motion knowledge. I state the finite approaching infinity is a smooth transition from high entropy motion to low entropy motion, through decay and inflation of the finite field of all motions, into the infinite field of low entropy motions, that would self-logically be the lowest, slowest states of motion of a dead cold infinity, i.e., one degree of linear motion/matter. It's just this one degree is always thermalicity, the cold to hot imploding/compressive uncreated quantum linear motion. So, IMO, the finite must be included, for any understanding of the infinite absolute. I would have to agree its a higher/lower value of reality, but as to any principle, I see infinity as having only absolute motion/matter. Our understanding of it must have principles of knowledge to know it, that's for sure, but infinity having principles, I see none___just motion.]

Hope I haven't been too controversial,
Lloyd

p.s.
Eric, when you limit logic to any singularity, you force such logic to create false paradoxes. As Poincare said, "Sigularities in and of themselves are bound to exhibit paradoxes." It's just a self-logical mistake of limiting, without the possibility of correspondence logic or other inferences. It's a mistake to over-limit logic's ability to inter-relate, except to keep subject on track. As long as logic returns to the infinity principles, it works and it's fine, but the principles must be fair to logic's abilities, when free.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

the logic that defines 0 as undefined

Hi Lodestar, I had a post all written up about 1/0=E and accidentally deleted it. I'm to tired after answering all the other posts to redue it today. It was about rationalizing your formula and relating it isomorphically to one I wrote years ago, and couldn't interpret into mathematics until I realized the impact of yours. I'll redue it either later or tomorrow...

later,

To Eric,

In your post about this post, I think you misinterpreted Lode's logic. I think he meant the imcompleteness of present academic logic that has not defined 0, or incorrectly defined it. He'll have to clarify his point, if different...

regards,

[Nobody]

Lloyd,

You had said to Eric that singularities logically impose false paradoxes upon people's minds, but you answered my questions using that logic which ignores the fact that "one" equals zero at the absolute point - T=0. In physics, infinities don't exist, which they logically do, and absolutes are said to exist, which they logically don't. Both the one (two, three, four, etc.) and zero don't exist, and can be illustrated by focusing on the real axis which indicates that neither the "one" nor negative "one" is ever reached. There can be no intrinsic values (charges, inertial mass, energy quanta, spin, etc.) assigned to what I thought we both agreed to as being relative, fractional, infinite reality. So the bottom of Lode's graph would be both positive and negative one, one, aka zero.

Observational finiteness and absolute values (based on our preconceptions of reality), which you have agreed is illogical, don't apply to the absolute universe and requires no observations to draw logical conclusions. G, c, h, again, can't be constants when their finitude is based on finite energy densities.

I agree though with your low-entropy infinity, and that gravity is proportionate to entropy, because gravity plus mass equals zero and both gravity and entropy decreases as mass decreases. The Zeroth Law would indicate that a finite space-time can't expand into absolute zero, hence the illusion of relativity, re your "cold must implode/contract/compress." All systems would necessarily be at thermal equillibrium at absolute zero. So I think the paradox remains as long as we use the logic that equates analog with digital.

You also seem to be attracted to the big bang, which is based on a singularity and pre-supposes the literal existence of a finite absolute "one" verse, but I don't understand how that jibes with an eternal time that is linear. For it to be linear, it would have to be infinite which would contradict the big bang's high-entropy finitude. Unless you're implying that infinity can contract to alter the temperature of a localized space-time.

[Eric]

Lloyd,

What I think you might be missing, is that my view of infinity is from the ouside in. I am not looking at it from inside of itself.

When one asks the ulitmate question and finds the answer, one is not inside of it all, but outside of it all. This does not mean an absence of logic. It does require an "experience" (mystical if you like), but this experience is not without logic.

From out here, there is no problem seeing what infinity and finite truly are.

Simply put, finite is that which "appears" to happen. Infinity is that which doesn not "actually" happen.

Infinity being a greater principle than finite, means that "what appears to happen doesn't actually happen."

Every single viewpoint of the universe, is an "event horizon". From the big bang, to a point, to the number 1. Anything that can be said about the universe, is an "event" that can not be proved to be actual.

As for everything being inside of infinity. It's impossible to get to a "finite something", much less a "finite everything", within infinity. It may "appear" to be possible, but it's not "actually" possible.

The absolute 1 and 0 I'm talking about, are beyond finite, infinite, and everything.

The universe is guided by the principles of finite and infinite, and it reaches no further out than infinite. All the other principle I've mention are beyond the universe.

I think I mentioned this before, but it's worth restating and expounding upon.

1/0 still states 1 is divisible, although I know what you guys mean. You can divide it and still have 1.

But an absolute 1 can not have a relationship to it's own outside, much less to something outside of itself.

The 0, the /, and the statement; are still outside of the 1.

Here's another subtle point. The fact that "Absolutely nothing is impossible" or "absolutely nothing doesn't exist", are also not outside of the 1.

If you think about these two versions of the same statement, being inside of the 1, what do you see?

Inisde of the 1 "all things are possible" and "there is not anything that doesn't exist".

Now you have an absolute basis for "all of existence".

The only thing that does not exist, is absolutely nothing.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Eric, great to see your clarifications of vision. I'll see what I can do below to more closely relate our differences. I don't profess I can, but I usually progress intuitively to a logical coclusion, so bear with my views a while, at least we are discussing the most important aspect, the origin of all quantum/relative motion...

Lloyd,

What I think you might be missing, is that my view of infinity is from the ouside in. I am not looking at it from inside of itself. [I'm very glad to see this, as mine is also.]

When one asks the ulitmate question and finds the answer, one is not inside of it all, but outside of it all. This does not mean an absence of logic. It does require an "experience" (mystical if you like), but this experience is not without logic.[Absolutely agreed.]

From out here, there is no problem seeing what infinity and finite truly are.[I completely agree.]

Simply put, finite is that which "appears" to happen.[I must state that here is where our visions take different observations of the facts or interpretations. IMO, the finite is as absolute a reality as the infinite, when looked at from a purely classical quantum thermodynamic motion point of view. All we're looking at in both quantum space-time fields is thermalicity/motion, as the absolute descriptor___the infinite cold low entropy motion, and the finite hot high entropy motion. It's all motion at the low velocity of infinity or high velocity of the finite, and all can be described simplest with absolute motion measurement. The only absolute motion measurement is radiation___quantum radiation, from the infinite wave density, from the finite electron or stars, etc., it's all measurements of motion, at its basic level. This we can all measure, by our simple senses, or the most accurate instruments___the instruments may be relative in relative quantum finite space-time, but we all absolute know and feel hot and cold___the truest radiation measurement of all motion___finite or infinite. Therefore, I must state that the finite is much more than mere appearance___it is even provable to our senses, and the infinite has no proof, except the correspondence validities of the finite___our only true radiation/motion measuring stick.] Infinity is that which doesn not "actually" happen.[Here I basically agree, but the statement can be taken linguistically falsely by someone seeing the last word "happen"___as infinity doesn't happen___it is the eternal absolute___it has always been___this is what is the final arbitor and equilibriator of all the laws of physics, and makes them make sense, when thoroughly understood. Just a clarification___otherwise, I agree.]

Infinity being a greater principle[Eric, here is where I originally intended to enter a qualifier of deffinition, in my last post about this, and forgot. IMO, infinity is the object under discussion___no principles apply directly of it, itself___the principles are about our logical views of infinity___we infer infinity to our logic to process its properties in our perception. Thus principles of infinity must infer about our personal logical perceptions and direct cognitions. I still like very much your idea of "The Principles of Infinity", but I can only accept principles about such infinity, not coming from infinity's essence/substance.] than finite, means that "what appears to happen doesn't actually happen."[And as to the one being greater than the other, I would say only in size, as one can not exist without the other. It is a continuous, non-stop, scientific re-incarnation cycle of motion. When the cycle is transitioning, and when it is existing in both states___both states' fields and motions are entangling and co-existing___infinitely and eternally. As to what appears, it seems this is a matter of differences in our perception levels until we thoroughly understand each other. This may take some considerable time. I'm willing if you are. I think you are really a bright person. I like your thinking skills.]

Every single viewpoint of the universe, is an "event horizon".[Absolutely agreed.] From the big bang, to a point, to the number 1. Anything that can be said about the universe, is an "event" that can not be proved to be actual.[Here again your infinite observer position of logic perceives the same object differently. You state can not be proved, and I state all is self-evident, self-logical___when viewed and understood completely, i.e., provable, even with the rationalized mathematics of 1/0=E___this I will explain and relate to absolute reality, later. At present, I'd like some background from Lodestar, as to how he discovered the confidence in such a seemingly complex logic formula, yet I have been able to prove my own older logic formula from his. It is more important than you yet realize. It can show the quantum transcendence/transformation of all finite motion into infinity, and back to finiteness___foundationally, logically and is highest order mathematically sound. This will take some explaining, but I assure you, it works. 1/0=E exposes the reality of the two quantum space-time fields of one infinite space, and all its mechanics proofs. My equation, which is isomorphically identical, is the supreme ultimate[yin-yang symbol] divided by quantum motion[y^~] equals the quantum state[Y]. They both state identical rational and logical qualities and quantities of the absolute quantum and quantum states___from finite to infinite and back to finite.]

As for everything being inside of infinity. It's impossible to get to a "finite something", much less a "finite everything", within infinity.[May I point out this is just a misunderstanding of your understanding of mathematics, as relates to both first and second order logic and math. Intergers play tricks with the mind until fully rationalized. Godel is the most famous logician of logic to ever live, and knew full well the many pitfalls of false mathematical reasoning. Most are aware of his incompleteness theorem, although quite misrepresented by most. Few are aware of his completeness theorem, which states first order logic and math is absolutely sound and reasonable for all proofs. So, IMO, again, it is just a matter of perception of understandings' differences. It's plenty possible to reach finite something, and everything___when you realize all can be reduced to classical quantum thermal motion. The picture becomes very clear and simple through classical understanding of the absolute and its absolute singularities___infinitely and finitely.] It may "appear" to be possible, but it's not "actually" possible.[We had a member named Subversion, who stated something very important___"The absolute law of possibility", IMO, he is correct.]

The absolute 1 and 0 I'm talking about, are beyond finite, infinite, and everything.[IMO Eric, nothing at all is beyond infinity___it is the absolute, yet maybe something can be beyond our local area of infinity. I surely don't know, though the possibility exists.]

The universe is guided by the principles of finite and infinite, and it reaches no further out than infinite. All the other principle I've mention are beyond the universe.[Where?]

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi again Eric, thought I make a few comments...

I think I mentioned this before, but it's worth restating and expounding upon.

1/0 still states 1 is divisible, although I know what you guys mean. You can divide it and still have 1.[Absolutely true.]

But an absolute 1 can not have a relationship to it's own outside, much less to something outside of itself.[It's according to the inferrence___if the one be the infinite absolute singularity of one, then this statement is true, but if the absolute 1 be an integer, is this absolutely true? Obviously not. As a simple example, I am 1, you are 1___the inference is to my own 1 inside/outside or 1 inside and 1 outside, and to the 1 you___I rest my case. Self-logic is very tricky, Eric, and then___how does the one singularity of infinity produce finiteness, inside and outside of itself___logic, verdy, verdy tricki?]

The 0, the /, and the statement; are still outside of the 1.[It's all a matter of very tricky perspective and observer positions___many, many.]

Here's another subtle point. The fact that "Absolutely nothing is impossible" or "absolutely nothing doesn't exist", are also not outside of the 1.[Eric, IMO, it is easily possible for absolutely everything to both be inside and outside the 1. Again, perspective of perception. 1 has not been clarrified, qualified or quantified in your statement, which makes it very open to many truth interpretations. Logic statements have to be quite tightly wrapped, not to be mis-interpreted.]

If you think about these two versions of the same statement, being inside of the 1, what do you see?[Again, due to the openness of the 1, many levels of logic are all possible and possibly true___such statements must be more closely wrapped.]

Inisde of the 1 "all things are possible" and "there is not anything that doesn't exist".[So, absolute finiteness, you finally agree___Absolutely Exists?]

Now you have an absolute basis for "all of existence".[Absolutely agreed.]

The only thing that does not exist, is absolutely nothing.[Absolutely agreed.]

[Eric]

Lloyd,

I'm going to leave this one up to Lode and Nobody for now.

You can't be standing outside of infinity, as you say you are.

But an absolute 1 can not have a relationship to it's own outside, much less to something outside of itself.
... if the one be the INFINITE absolute singularity of one, then this statement is true...

Infinity does not arrive. There is no "infinitesimal" or "infinite", anything.

Infinity has complete control over finite. It will not let anything "finite" begin or end. Finite only "appears" to. Appearances can be very deceiving.

"Reality (the universe) is merely a very PERSISTENT illusion." – Einstein

The Absolute is beyond both of them.

Eric

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Nobody, great to see your participation, I enjoy you being the critique of standard realities, as it keeps us on a truer path. Keep up the great work...

Lloyd,

You had said to Eric that singularities logically impose false paradoxes upon people's minds, but you answered my questions using that logic which ignores the fact that "one" equals zero at the absolute point - T=0.[True, but what kind of 0? Thermal or integer, is there any absolute difference?] In physics, infinities don't exist, which they logically do, and absolutes are said to exist, which they logically don't.[Are you absolutely here or not? Try biting your hand until it tells you, you absolutely exist.] Both the one (two, three, four, etc.) and zero don't exist, and can be illustrated by focusing on the real axis which indicates that neither the "one" nor negative "one" is ever reached.[Again, as I've already mentioned to Eric, it's all a matter of perspectives of perceptions and cognitions of different world views, mainly classical and relative. In my vision of reality, they are absolute representations, symbols of the mind's processing abilities to count the absolute bullets wizzing by your absolute head, in war___1,2,3,4, and zero___gun aimed for absolute head shot___jammed.] There can be no intrinsic values (charges, inertial mass, energy quanta, spin, etc.) assigned to what I thought we both agreed to as being relative, fractional, infinite reality. So the bottom of Lode's graph would be both positive and negative one, one, aka zero.[Nobody, if you stick your foot in the sun___what happens? If you jump out of a space ship in high earth orbit___what happens? IMO, the first one burns immediately. The second one first freezes, then burns. These two hells, I think any sane individual must admit___you feel it___this is your most absolutes of all absolutes. Isn't that value? BTW, these two examples have charges, inertial mass, energy quanta, spin, etc. Can you show where I agreed to relative? Fractional, infinite reality, now that I can probably agree to___many people are fractioned___no pun intended. And I can agree to it being a fractional, infinite reality___but this must be massively qualified, quantified and its logic must be more tightly wrapped. Last sentence, true, but do one and zero have intrinsic difference unless the inferences of logic identify the object related to, that you are trying to mathematize?]

Observational finiteness and absolute values (based on our preconceptions of reality), which you have agreed is illogical, don't apply to the absolute universe and requires no observations to draw logical conclusions. G, c, h, again, can't be constants when their finitude is based on finite energy densities.[Nobody, I partly agree, but I do not base my physics on G, c, and h, I use these measurements, but I base my physics on the absolute foundations of infinite space motion/matter thermal absolutes, thermal cmbr, and the accuracy of the cesium atom of radiation thermal motion decay, which has been used since Hawking discovered its reality, some thirty years ago, by some physicists___the soundly accurate ones, anyway.]

I agree though with your low-entropy infinity, and that gravity is proportionate to entropy, because gravity plus mass equals zero and both gravity and entropy decreases as mass decreases. The Zeroth Law would indicate that a finite space-time can't expand into absolute zero, hence the illusion of relativity, re your "cold must implode/contract/compress." All systems would necessarily be at thermal equillibrium at [nearest]absolute zero. So I think the paradox remains as long as we use the logic that equates analog with digital.[Niether analog or digital exist in the infinite quantum wave density of low entropy motion and cold. It's all motion, period. It's just a simple linear quantum motion field. Linear and angular existing together is only a property of the finite field of high entropy motion/heat___the two fields co-exist as the one absolute infinite space, but the motion properties' understandings clear up any seeming paradoxes. It's very difficult to get your head around new concepts, especially a dual matrix quantum space-time fields' reality, but when understood, becomes very clear and easy to interpret and see. Lodestar's 1/0=E formula has been very helpful to my ability to sort out all the logic and mathematics necessary to figure the finite quantum's transition/ascention into the infinite quantum space-time field of low entropy motion/temperature/thermalicity. It also allows one to envision a return voyage of the finite decayed into infinity, from infinity into the quantum motion transition/descention into the finite quantum/relative space-time field of high entropy motion/temperature/thermalicity, through a massive singularity, or many small star singularities, if you prefer.]

You also seem to be attracted to the big bang, which is based on a singularity and pre-supposes the literal existence of a finite absolute "one" verse, but I don't understand how that jibes with an eternal time that is linear. For it to be linear, it would have to be infinite which would contradict the big bang's high-entropy finitude.[Ah..., here's the greatest problem with the present state of standard theory physics___it can't account for thermalicity, i.e., low entropy preceding the false big bang model. This is the main problem with all physics models___there is no complete account of low entropy to high entropy, even a truly working model in any quantum mechanics model___there are always thermal entities un-accounted for___thus depends these theories to ignore these absolute fundamentals of total universal thermalicity/motion.] Unless you're implying that infinity can contract to alter the temperature of a localized space-time. [Nobody, you have practically hit the spike on the head. That is, in a general sense, just what I am implying. The very property of infinity is low entropy linear quantum motion/matter cold. This is the permently existing first field of the universe. The very property of finiteness is high entropy linear/angular quantum motion/matter heat. This is the finitely existing second field of the universe. Lodestar's 1/0=E can be stated as the 0 equaling the zero spin quantum state transition/ascention into the infinite low entropy linear quantum motion state, by dividing the one{1} singularity, say an electron out 10^96 years hence, of radiation decay, thus creating everything___at its base formula level. Simply put; 1 electron divided by the zero spin state equals the formula result of every motion in the entire infinite and finite universe, at it most base level___the finite to the infinite Lorentzian transformation and the infinite to the finite Lorentzian transformation of quantum/relative motions of all thermalicities.]

Thanks for the interest and critique,
Keep up the great work,
Lloyd

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Lloyd,

I'm going to leave this one up to Lode and Nobody for now.

You can't be standing outside of infinity, as you say you are.[That is the position, as I stated, I am using___a classical virtual trans-infinite logic observer of the object___infinity.]



Infinity does not arrive.[I never said it did. I said infinity is the absolute eternal.] There is no "infinitesimal" or "infinite", anything.[Eric, I don't mean to be argumenative, but these statements are not qualified or quantified enough in tightly wrapped logic to not be able to be mis-interpreted by different perspectival perceptions and cognitions. Eric, infinitesimals have existed in mathematics since Leibniz first used rational numbers to represent infinity in his calculus. And infinite lots of things exist, motion, cold, space, time, matter{imo}, etc. I don't see where you are coming from, when you state such unprovable differences. Please explain. I know you are serious, but our perceptions see different infinities. Mine are based on the inventors of higher order logics and maths, such as Charles Sanders Pierce{America's greatest logician/mathematician,}, Tarski, and Georg Cantor, and Kurt Godel. What is your foundation of logic and math? If it is straight natural logic, I highly respect that logic the most.]

Infinity has complete control over finite.[Eric, let me explain why this is impossible, without offending your mystic senses, any more than may be necessary, as I also possess some mystic abilities to get along with my wife and family. Infinity, as we witness it, is a low entropy state of motion, we absolutely know as cold energy/motion. Finiteness, as we witness it, is a high entropy state of motion, we absolutely know as heat energy/motion. Now, I would agree that the infinite is the absolutely most powerful motion in the universe, but due to its low entropy state, it absolutely operates at the slow motion level___only___this is what low entropy is. Thus, even though it can birth finiteness, it can have only minimal influence in equilibriating the thermal motions of the finite, because the high entropy finite is millions of times faster acting than low entropy infinity. True, low entropy infinity visits us every night, as the cold quantum, it doesn't kill us or destroy galaxies___the cold quantum can't even compare to an h-bomb in destructive power, compared to heat's destructive and philanthropic life giving qualities. Infinity is infinitely strong and finitely weak. This is the real story of infinity___the weak quantum state with infinite low entropy power___slow as molasses. Heat wins the race every time___motion rules our world of the finite___infinity cools us off, once in a while.] It will not let anything "finite" begin or end. Finite only "appears" to. Appearances can be very deceiving.[Eric, haven't you noticed all the stars/singularities radiating their own death march toward infinity?]

"Reality (the universe) is merely a very PERSISTENT illusion." – Einstein [Einstein's rarer moments were quite mystic, I agree.]

The Absolute is beyond both of them.[Most scientists, physicists, and mathematicians interpret infinity as the absolute. Most mystics do not, I agree.]

Eric

Hope I haven't offended too much Eric, as you have a fine mind.

Regars,
Lloyd