T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Very good Nobody, some real meat to work with... Thanks... Let me see what I can do with your responses, and maybe we can possibly discover more absolutes than infinite space/motion/and finite matter. For starters, thermalicity is also an infinite absolute... It's absolute attribute is the uncreated creating motion increase of implosion... This absolutely existing motion is the absolute eternal self-initiator of absolutely all infinite and finite universal motion... Thermo-hydro-dynamics is king of infinity... Nobody, I realize you are quite familiar with all the models of quantum and relative physics that have been tossed around over the years, and your position is there are no absolutes to motion, other than absolute motion exists, however; I state there is a way to achieve an absolute understanding of motion, by using perceptronic[future logics], intuisinistic logic, and abduction[probability logic] if we use exaggerations to the maximum rediculousness of the limits of such logics. Only by seeing the absurdities of such exaggerated future, present and past probability logics, can we see the true, nearest absolute, possible logic. Now this may not be perfect absolutely conforming to classical and higher order logic and mathematics, especially since we know the failures of modern guage theories, and solid foundations for such logics and maths. However, again; we can logically deduce the most sensible model of the real absolute universe. Just take thermalicity as an example. If we exaggerate absolute zero to say 10^-99 degrees below 0kelvin, will the universe work? It's self-logically seen it will not. Now go the other direction of heat of any star and exaggerate it to 10^99 times above its present terperatures and will the universe work? It's again self-evident seen it will not. So the absolute must lie in a range between absurdities. This is how I do all my natural logic calculations, to arrive at why the fundamentals of physics may be used as factual within the bounds of the always changing___what are the reasonable limits of changing the fundamentals? I'm sure you've read the same from many physicists' modeling attempts, yet have we truly realized the use of such thinking? I state that if someone is allowed to use logic to its exaggerated scientific limits, much can be discovered.

Now, if you allow a thought experiment of seeing the finite universe as a singularity of undefined motion, how would we discover its absolute motion. We know infinity is undefined absolute motion. Some have attempted to measure the speed of dark, cold and infinite low entropy motion, but we aren't there, so all such measurements fall short, especially when we and our instruments are light speed dependent locked, and we don't know the true speed of light, looked at by an outside observer___a real outside observer does not exist___true enough. But, one can show, from finite observation, how the universe absolutely looks to an outside virtual observer. We know cold and hot are real absolutes of opposite thermal states. We attribute a relative temperature reading to such thermalicity, but we absolutely know by observation and feeling some degree of temperature must describe this phenomenon. There is an absolute sliding scale measure of this temperature___it is the cesium atom's decay signal. Now any number we attribute to it will be arbitrarily relative to G, h, or c, which are themselves relative to all other motions' measurements. This I agree, so we must discover another way to show absolute measurement and motion over conventional means. The only tool available is logic___past, present and future logic___perceptronic, intuitionistic, abductive and exaggerated logics.

So let's look at the absolute macro radiation decay process. Oh, this is another absolute of the universe___radiation decay___proven beyond any reasonable doubt___so isn't hot and cold both absolutes___proven beyond any reasonable doubts. Even though the measurements remain relative to all instruments of absolute accuracy, the fact of existence is beyond question___they exist as real absolutes of constructed quantum/relativity's molecular combinations___no measurements required to measure this, except verifiable sight by microscopes, telescopes, radio-meter signals, etc. So as long as we stay away from physics known measurement techniques, and depend on sight, feeling, sound, touch, smell and taste, inferred into our natural logic alone, can we discover the true and nearest absolute speed of universal motions? I say we certainly can. All we need to measure radiation decay is sight, feeling{touch} sound inferred into our natural logics ability to use all higher orders of logic. All we need do to realize radiation decay, is either to know our own bodies decay, or our self-evident logic of the stars' radiation out into infinity, if the math is done far enough into the future, which has already been done, but we must use natural logic of counting star distances by logic and natural math alone. How can this be accomplished? All we need do is realize there is this drastic thermal difference of hot and cold. Infinity space is known to be cold from being there by way of finite space missions. We also know of cold from simple logic of winter. We know of hot by summers thermal differences of winter. We also know that it is tremendously hot as compared to ice which fire melts quite quickly. Our logical deductions reasonably tell us of the sun's extreme heat, by realizing how far away it is, and doing correspondence logic with the fires we build. Still not very accurate is it? Well let's try for a bit more accuracy.

By simply realizing we can isomorphically see the finite universe as a singularity of motion, within infinite motion, which we absolutely know exist by sight of just looking up. What absolute logic principle can we deduce? This singularity is radiating energy into the infinite from the finite. What are these consequences? Radiating energy is thermal motion. We know we are losing motion to infinity. Any loss of motion to infinity, is a loss of motion of all finiteness. What are these consequences? A loss of motion is a loss of matter density. We know from the natural laws of physics, that a loss of matter density is an inflation of matter. We know it's a loss of gravity. We know it's a loss of the velocity of light speed, since a loss of motion from the singularity requires a loss of some velocity, but since the singularity radiates from everywhere, and loss of motion from everwhere is a loss of motion to everything in the singularity, including the motion of light. So our natural logic knows more about the macro motion actions of the universe than all the scientific instruments of measurement ever divised. Why don't we feel or know any of this? Is natural logic that much smarter than all the world's scientists, cosmologists and physicists?

I'm tired, more later...
Lloyd

True, but what kind of 0? Thermal or integer, is there any absolute difference?

The absolute can't exist, so the greatest possible (temperature or integer or difference) must be equal to zero. The zero merely represents the fact that absolutes don't exist, and hence confirms Einstein's predictions of relativity opposing everything that is classically newtonian in its limiting macroscopic views - mass, space, time, etc..

In other words, if you will, any object/energy quantum/particle is not absolute. It is relatively composed of an infinite number of infinitesimal points that are extended via time increments - of course, monopolar linear time that creates space.

Are you absolutely here or not? Try biting your hand until it tells you, you absolutely exist.

Most folks ask me this, taking my words out of context, but like you said it depends on perspective. Subjectively, and obviously relatively, I am "here," but objectively, from a universal perspective, I am not "here" because there is no such thing as "here" or "there" to a universe that is nowhere in particular.

The Western mind separates mind and body, but when the two are viewed as identical it is the subconscious mind that subatomically structures what is called objective reality and the conscious mind/body must conform to its laws.

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.

Your vision of reality, as is everyone else's, is relative. Absolutely no bullets is not a composite, but Einstein's premise is that once there is an object (in this case a bullet) it is a composite. So the bullet is not a bullet because it is made up of the same substance as space, and space doesn't exist as an absolute because no motion is possible according to that absolute reference frame - that frame doesn't exist. It requires motion and once there is an illusory motion of any kind it is by definition relative. The same applies to inertial mass, which right there contradicts absolute motion. If there is such a thing as absolute motion, mass would be relative to it.

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?

No they don't. Mathematics isn't based on one or zero because it has infinities. Physics doesn't have infinities, one is existence and zero is non existence or undetectable. Absolute one/zero, which don't exist, are illusively fractionalized and from within that infinite timeframe and framework the "absolute/finite" measurements are extracted observably to give the varying impressions of solidity/reality. It's an ass-backward work of art I'd say.

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 one of the above doesn't change, and isn't change relative because it has to occur in infinitesimal increments? I would have to say, again, that the only absolute is unchangeability, and that doesn't exist.

Niether analog or digital exist in the infinite quantum wave density of low entropy motion and cold. It's all motion, period.

Isn't that what analog is, infinite motion; and digital, finite extractions of information from that motion?

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 clears up many paradoxes except the most-fundamental, being the dichotomy paradox of existence and non existence which is what concerns and interests me. The absolute existence is adhered to in lieu of absolute non existence, which by default must be the greater because the absolute point of relative existence must be non-dimensional - i.e., must not exist.

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 can figure out alot from that formula, it's not a bad formula, but what is figured out will necessarily be a relative theory based on a relative means of searching for an absolute that doesn't exist.

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.

I would change every to any motion because every motion simultaneously opposes the Exclusion Principle when pitted against the Uncertainty Principle, two identical quantum states....and substitute the electron with something else since it is based on h for it to exist.

Perhaps a Higg's Boson divided by itself will yield all fractional charges too, no? We're still referring to relative "motions," though.

[Nobody]

I look forward to your presentation Lloyd. I agree that the universe can basically be looked at as a state of flux between extreme hot and cold. For example, the universe started as extreme hot. The number circle is actually a guage of time and temperature. As the universe's expansion progresses time moves forward and the temperature of the universe approahces absolute zero. So according to the number circle, I predict that the temperature of the universe will become "less" than absolute zero whenever time/space goes through an inevitable "exversal" at the end of time when the universe will be expanding so fast that even two points seperated by a planck distance will be expanding away from eachother at greater than the speed of light.

Neither c nor h are constants anyway, Lode, but an increase in Planck would necessarily be a decrease in c because light speed would slow down as a result of additional radiation/energy density. Or do you mean the present 300,000 km/s?

Also, why not "start" with "extreme" infinite low entropy, can there be such a thing(?), and what exactly (absolutely) would be that extreme. I mean, the way I see this stuff, it's almost becoming funny how the two concepts can be thought to mix.

[Nobody]

Dleviwing,

Would it honestly not make more sense to say for the first part, increasing and decreasing; and for the second, decreasing?

I can see what you mean by absolute motion, because there is no such non thing as stillness, but motion occurs in relative increments (supporting infinity) - re Zeno's paradox of time - to exist. The absolute point, or state of motion, doesn't exist - no time, no space, just non-dimensaional non existence at each point.

I think Newton would agree with you, though.

[Eric]

Lloyd,

I did "self-ignite". Pissed my pants though, so the fire was put out. I'm serious.

There is nothing truly mystical (non-logical) about locating the Absolute, and why or how it is uncaused, has no environment, no location, and does not change.

You say there is nothing beyond infinity, it is absolute. But you also say, although it birth's finite, it is lesser than finite. So, if I'm not mistaken, you are trying to show that the finite is the greater of the two. Greater than absolute.

Also, if infinity is the absolute and there is nothing greater than it, since it never arrives anywhere, how do you know? How do you know it's not inside of something else? Can you logically explain this?

There are two ways to look at a "complete theory". One is to stay within the limits of physics and the other is not. That doesn't mean the minute you leave physics, you leave logic behind.

"All sciences, art, and religions are branches of the same tree." –Einstein

The root, the trunk, and the branches can all be explained logically.

The only way to explain it, is to know you've found the outside (greatest), by going one step beyond it, so you know there is no further to go.

What this is, I've already explained.

Eric

P.S. "Finite" is not just about a beginning and end, in terms of time.

[mkirkpatrick]

Prehaps if the name (theory) was dropped and we asked the question,lets all think about
nothing?What do you suppose would be the result?
Would you learn anything usefull from it?Would it enhance and enrich my understanding
of life?

Or would you see it as a kind of intellectual masturbation!Something from something=
yes,something from no-thing =NO.


regards michael.

[Nobody]

Something can't come from nothing, Michael, and the net effect of the absolute universe is zero, not one. So we can logically conclude that there is a non-existent absolute with a relative internal functioning only when measurements are quantized by observers. In essence, the universe doesn't exist until we say that the parts exist.

It seems logical to say that all the parts combined equal the one universe, but because our observations are only a small part of the total and the total negates all parts, each absolute point of any and all parts equals a non-dimensional point which doesn't exist. The ancients said trying to figure out the absolute/God/Tao could drive you mad, and I agree because it implies an existence of non existence.

The present understanding of the universe, the generalized one, btw, suggests that finite spacetime expanded into infinite space through the means of a false vacuum. Yet the external pressure would be infinitely greater than the energy of the false vacuum and no inflation would be possible.

[lodestar]

Again for an accurate paradigm of everything I would encourage everybody to think of a magnet, and magnetism is the best force by the way. A magnet is the unseperable union of a north and a south pole. If you cut a magnet in half do you seperate the two poles? No, you simply form two magnets. That is why magnetism represents the perfect fusion, the ultimate combination of yin and yang, north and south.

Now your theory Nobody relies on the idea that when you combine negative and positive, yin and yang, the net result is nothing. But in magnetism we have a clear example of how two opposites can be combined in an unseperable way, and not cancel eachother out. In other words, the combination of north and south does not result in nothing. We see the same sort of thing in the number 1/0, where positive and negative infinity have become so absolute that they have melded with eachother. The net result is not a cancellation, but a creation of all that you see around you. Everything is the combination of ying and yang, whereas nothing is the lack thereof. Both these ideas are represented ideally in math by the numbers 1/0 and 0/1. Whereas 0/1 represents a lack of positive and negative, and whereas 1/0 represents the simultaneous occurrence of both. That is the correct definition of nothing and everything. It is a difference between the existence and non-existence of the unseperable yin and yang duality.

[mkirkpatrick]

Something can't come from nothing, Michael, and the net effect of the absolute universe is zero, not one. So we can logically conclude that there is a non-existent absolute with a relative internal functioning only when measurements are quantized by observers. In essence, the universe doesn't exist until we say that the parts exist.

It seems logical to say that all the parts combined equal the one universe, but because our observations are only a small part of the total and the total negates all parts, each absolute point of any and all parts equals a non-dimensional point which doesn't exist. The ancients said trying to figure out the absolute/God/Tao could drive you mad, and I agree because it implies an existence of non existence.

The present understanding of the universe, the generalized one, btw, suggests that finite spacetime expanded into infinite space through the means of a false vacuum. Yet the external pressure would be infinitely greater than the energy of the false vacuum and no inflation would be possible.

I agree Nobody,I never said that you can get something from nothing,that would be
absurd would it not?What I said is that you can indeed get something from something,but
from nothing you get nothing-period!

regards michael.

[Eric]

I'm baffled. No I'm not. Yes I am.

It's hard for me to understand, why it's so hard to understand, that something doesn't have to come from nothing, since nothing didn't exist in the first place.

Why all the gymnastics?

The ancients said trying to figure out the absolute/God/Tao could drive you mad, and I agree because it implies an existence of non existence.

The implication of "an existence of non-existence", is what drove them mad.

The solution was right in front of their nose.

Absolutely nothing is impossible – something absolute just is.

Tell you what, I will start a new thread and I will begin it with this concept.

To argue it's premise, you will have to show exactly why non-existence exists. You will have to isolate it as an absotute with no contingent outside of itself, because that's what an absolute is. I'll be working from outside the universe in.

Every single comment will have to exactly reflect, that which it is commenting on. I will be very strict in not allowing any misquotes. This is not something personal, just the way a real agrument that is capable of progress should be done.

One careful step at a time with no assumptions.

Let's see how it goes.

[lodestar]

Absolutely nothing is impossible – something absolute just is.

My point exactly Eric. Absolutely nothing is impossible and absolutely everything is possible. That's what I've been saying since 2005 when I wrote the Law of Laws (which incidentally was already previously discovered by John Wheeler and named the Law of No Laws) which says that no correct law may be designed to say specifically that which is impossible. So in other words, laws that say you can't go faster than a certain speed are automatically bunk just by their nature, not to mention there's a real reason you can go any speed you wish and that is because the ultimate speed in the highest universe we live in is 1/0 not C. So you can't make a law that says specifically what is impossible. As you stated above quite clearly, we can specificallysay that nothing is impossible, but then again nothing is not anything specific now is it? For nothing is undefined. If everything is to be defined, ala a theory of everything, then nothing must be undefined, right? So mathematicians have got it way wrong and the text books of the future have all got to recognize that 1/0 is not the number that is undefined, it is 0 that is undefined.

word is born