T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Eric, let me digress. I was thinking my own notes and ideas wrong, when I stated the infinite being low entropy would have less power than the finite, please excuse me. You are correct in stating the absolute infinite is the greatest or highest power of all universal motion, as the finite would have no road to travel without the infinite quantum linear waves always being present in the finite. This was my original metaphysical position, when cognizing the quantum mechanics of mind, and is also what I had noted of the infinite/finite wave density. Even though the infinite be low entropy motion, it still functions as the low entropy equilibriator power of all finite quantum high entropy linear, angular motion. Even though low entropy, this field has considerable effect on my nightlife, even here in Florida. This field is the one most ignored by standard model physics, and very little modeled and understood by quantum mechanics. It's only sensibly logical that it does exist, as part of the eather field of fields, because we see it every night as the cold dark thermal motion/energy, whatever. My logic knows it exists by following the quantum universal decay model to its edge of light cone transition to such infinity linear wave motion reality, say 10^137 years hence, at least by Hawking's old calculations. So sorry if I threw you a wrong curve ball, I'm only human. Try to re-ignite those principles again.

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.[True, I completely agree.]

You say there is nothing beyond infinity, it is absolute. But you also say, although it birth's finite, it is lesser than finite.[Not lesser than finite___that it is lower entropy than finite and would exert a lesser power than the finite, but I've since corrected it to the finite couldn't even quantumly function without the field mechanics of linear wave infinity.] So, if I'm not mistaken, you are trying to show that the finite is the greater of the two. Greater than absolute.[Again, just my mistake of mis-thinking my own work.]

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?[If we just logically see the entire expansion of 10^137 years of finite radiation inflation, how big would this make finiteness at the edge of the pseudo-boundary line of absolute infinite linear only motion. It's logically so huge at that stage, I can hardly consider infinity being any larger, even though I know it is. So how big is infinity? I can't answer that, but I can logically realize if our local area of infinity takes up a minimum of 10^137 years of radiation space, any other possible universe, of any consequence would have to be as big, bigger, or somewhat smaller, but say it was 10^96 years of universal decay in size, the consequences to us would be completely unknowable, as the light slows down and goes out long before the end of quantum angular motion's complete exhaustion. We would never have any way of knowing about any possible other universes in another area of infinity, because reasonable plausible light cones would never be visable, so I just see no sense in such speculation, do you?]

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.[I agree, but the final theory must agree to the laws of physics, and I think it possible for them to agree completely with metaphysics and a lot of the laws of mythos should agree with the laws of logos, also, if properly and thoroughly thought out.]

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

The root, the trunk, and the branches can all be explained logically.[Very true.]

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.[As I explained above, I have.]

What this is, I've already explained.

Eric

P.S. "Finite" is not just about a beginning and end, in terms of time.[There are two distinct time fields of the one___one infinite, the other finite relative, known to me as classical thermal.]

Hey, I think we may get there...

Keep up the great work,
Lloyd

[Lloyd Gillespie]

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. [True.]

Nobody, this is one of the many reasons a finite thermal singularity is required to explain a true vacuum, among many other quantum motions, i.e., gravity, true area of quantimization, true inflation, universal equilibrium, the union of quantum and relative theories, your theory of fractionalization, among many others I can't at the moment think of. More later...

regards,
Lloyd

[Eric]

Hey Lode,

We only subtley disagree. Absolutely nothing does not exist. So it is not there to define. But we have to define it, by way of our assumption that it does exist. We have to remove our assumption. Simply saying it is undefined will not do when it comes to perfect logic.

Also, the definition that "absolutely nothing is impossible", is in fact, of logical necessity. Wheeler is slightly off on his "law of no law". The definition outside of the absolute, is just to remove our assumption of something that does not exist. But inside the absolute "absolutely nothing is impossible". This definition has to be there (inside) for everything to be possible.

When you say "everything is possible", you are describing "potential". This of course is different than the Absolute. It contains potential but is not potential. It is.

And finally, in my view of things, the 0 has a definite place inside the 1. It is not absolutely nothing, but a 0 that is greater than the 0 we use everyday, and is the exact opposite of the 1. It has no inside.

Eric

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Lodestar, very true post, and I also like John Wheeler's work about the best of all the physicists, especially his interpretation of the law you mention, and also his assessment of the self-circuitry of the universe___quite brilliant for his day, and even today. Now I'd like to mention a few ideas about 1/0=E. I will state emphatically, this is the foundation for an entirely new mathematics___The Mathematics of The Wholes and Parts. Let me show you what I've come up with:
first; Let 1 = electron singularity.
Let 0 = electron's zero spin state at finite/infinite field transformation stage, say 10^39 years hence.
Let E = entropy of its released energy/motion.
I would write this as, One 1 electron singularity, divided by its 0 zero spin state equals its final entropy into the linear infinite low entropy motion of the absolute quantum state E.
second; Let 1 = the infinite absolute singularity.
Let 0 equal the nearest to absolute thermal Kelvin possible and still allow one degree of linear motion.
Let E = Everything finite possible for infinity to create.
I would write this as, The absolute infinite space matter/energy 1 divided by nearest zero thermo-hydro-dynamic motion 0 creates everything finite possible for infinity to create E.
third; Let 1 = The finite singularity.
Let 0 = the infinite's spin motion evolution 10^127 years hence at first singularity.
Let E = The entropy of spin at relative velocity, producing first quantimized particles, internal collapse into extreme gravity of extreme thermalicity, radiation, then say 10^10 years hence, explosion.
I would write this as, The first 1 finite singularity divided by 0 the infinite's highest spin motion at first singularity equals and produces the finite space-time angular/linear motion universe E.

Now, there are three extremely important stages of universal evolution and decay states, that this new higher logic mathematical formula can be put to. This being a new whole to parts, and parts to whole mathematics, is at present, a logical expander math. In order for it to be computerized, it must be rationalized with cardinal and ordinal numbers, of huge classification, to be scientifically useful by computers and mathcad, yet is at present extremely useful for theoretical thinking and its already proven expansion abilities of logic. Now, many will say this is just the high jinx of word play. I assure you and others it is quite thoroughly thought out logic, with real correspondences to back it up. Let me know what you think of first rough efforts. I think the possibility of this formula uniting both the laws of "mythos" and the laws of "logos" has much potential, then maybe Michael and I can stop disputing. I see the whole problem of mental differences, as the sliding scaler time wave difference, between infinity's and finite's differences and understandings of the entire universe's true scientific life cycle. Oh, and on a final note, since its a math of wholes and parts, it is now possible to accomplish what Whitehead and Russel failed to do, truly unite logic and math, full circle...

regards,
Lloyd

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

[Nobody]

Just for the record, Michael et al.: I don't imply that nothing or non existence exists. The point is that the ancients and modern scientists who aim to unify the forces into "one" and proclaim the universe is one, propose an absolute theory based on "one." I remain to proclaim that the absolute "one" doesn't exist and believing that it does is the same as saying that non existence exists. There can be no absolute one.

The magnetism, Lode, was mentioned a while back I remember, and the response is the same. The separation of North and South is what makes the magnet, not the absolute combination. Absolutely combining North and South renders a non-dimensional point, which is neither North nor South, so only by separating the two poles (Yin and Yang) can you have a magnet.

[Eric]

Hi Lloyd,

Just a couple of things I've noticed.

We would never have any way of knowing about any possible other universes in another area of infinity, because reasonable plausible light cones would never be visable, so I just see no sense in such speculation, do you?

I don't think there is an actual "area" of infinity. Any finite value(s) is actually infinite. The idea that there is a break in this rule at any place, even the entire universe, is misleading. Multi-verse is a no-go.

Infinty is infinity is infinity, as it were. I didn't mean any disrespect in stating earlier, that "I'm looking at infinity from outside itself and I think you're looking at it from inside".

I'm looking at infinity from the standpoint of the absolute, which is greater than infinity. I'm looking inwards from there.

There are some basic principles at work (or in play), that we first have to establish, before we can see that math and physics agree. I'm glad you see this as being more wholistic than classic science.

Without discussing anything else for the moment, the principle of infinity and finite, say it all about what the universe really is.

The universe "appears" (finite event horizons) to exist, but it doesn't "actually" exist (infinity never arriving at a point). Again, infinity ruling finite.

But infinity is ruled by something greater. That which actually exists (the absolute) and the one thing that does not exist (absolutely nothing).

Absolute > infinity > finite.

There's so much more to the fundamental principles, before we even get to the physics or math, but I'll stop here.

Eric

PS: I'm much into Wheeler also. I feature a quote of his, along with Einstein and Hawking on the cover page of my paper.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

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.

Hi Nobody. The reason I rejected extreme infinite low entropy, as I did consider it, was that my logic eventually told me everything could be worked out without such exaggerations, and also to stay within the proven laws of physics' thermodynamics. Can there be such a thing as extreme infinite low entropy? I can theorize it but it throws the equilibrium of the thermal universe way off. Just imagine 10^-999 below Kelvin___Would infinity instantly create a singularity and explode? I don't like the physics___the universe doesn't take any shortcuts___it's a long slow thermal process, as is evident by the low entropy of infinity's 3.7k known thermal___below that outside the finite heat universe, but not so far as to upset the evolution of the natural universe. The way I see it...

regards,
Lloyd

[lodestar]

Just for the record, Michael et al.: I don't imply that nothing or non existence exists. The point is that the ancients and modern scientists who aim to unify the forces into "one" and proclaim the universe is one, propose an absolute theory based on "one." I remain to proclaim that the absolute "one" doesn't exist and believing that it does is the same as saying that non existence exists. There can be no absolute one.

you have never justified why there can be no absolute 1. Afterall, what about 1/0? You are forgetting that number now aren't you?

The separation of North and South is what makes the magnet, not the absolute combination. Absolutely combining North and South renders a non-dimensional point, which is neither North nor South, so only by separating the two poles (Yin and Yang) can you have a magnet.

No, the combination of north and south is what makes a magnet. You never have seen a magnet made by seperating north and south, have you? They are always combined aren't they?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

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.. [Nobody, when you look at Einstein's world through straight classical thermalicity, you would see nothing more than high speed{light velocity}thermodynamics. Relativity would me no more than high speed{light speed}spin going through radiation entropy.]

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.[All is absolute motion when looked at thermally.]

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 nowhere in particular is true, but I assure the absolute universe is under my feet, and above my head.]

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.[Laws conform nothing. Laws exist only as observations of actuals. My mind sees infinity connecting everything, with its linear wave field eather, subjective and objective, mind and body.]

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.[If you can thoroughly understand the infinite space matter/energy and its uncreated motion of thermo-hydro-dynamics and all thermalicity, such ideas fade.{by hydro, I simply mean compression/implosion}]

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.[Refer to my post to Lode today. Also, I should mention absolute motion is a sliding time scaler wave factor___as you have said, all is changing, but all can still be absolute. Absolute is only a quality of existence___I exist___you exist___the universe exists___period. Try biting yourself again...]

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.[We simply have different interpretations of absolute. Absolutely all is change. Changes, changes, changes; these things too shall pass away. The Chinese made a lot of mistakes. Radiation is the absolute unchangeable___it always radiates___even in absolute infinity. Radiation is all the above absolutes.]

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?[I associate analog with electricity. Infinite motion, being linear, won't support electricity___that comes later in the first singularity's quantimization factory.]

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.[Try seeing the entire motion universe as classical thermal motion, and the lense of pereption is cleansed.]

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.[Again, classical thermal motion of the entire universe requires no relatives, tis straight absolute thermalicity___hot and cold___cold and hot motions.]

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. [Again, all thermal motions are absolute, IMHO.]

Thanks for the sparring,
regards,
Lloyd

[lodestar]

We only subtley disagree. Absolutely nothing does not exist. So it is not there to define. But we have to define it, by way of our assumption that it does exist. We have to remove our assumption. Simply saying it is undefined will not do when it comes to perfect logic.

I disagree, because perfect logic actually says that if everything is defined then nothing is undefined. Furthermore, I never naturally assumed that nothing existed.

Also, the definition that "absolutely nothing is impossible", is in fact, of logical necessity. Wheeler is slightly off on his "law of no law". The definition outside of the absolute, is just to remove our assumption of something that does not exist. But inside the absolute "absolutely nothing is impossible". This definition has to be there (inside) for everything to be possible.

Yes, absolutely nothing is impossible. I agree that is a perfectly true definition. It doesn't change the fact that nothing is still undefined, and everything is defined, for everything must be defined as that is the definition of the TOE and the goal of TOE quest. That's how I have succeeded because I have done it. I have successfully and correctly defined everything in a mathematical and physical framework because I realized the truth in the number 1/0 which all other mathematicians were afraid of.

When you say "everything is possible", you are describing "potential". This of course is different than the Absolute. It contains potential but is not potential. It is.

good point. What I meant to say was that everything is not just possible, it is destined. In other words, everything has already happened or everything will come to be in time.

And finally, in my view of things, the 0 has a definite place inside the 1. It is not absolutely nothing, but a 0 that is greater than the 0 we use everyday, and is the exact opposite of the 1. It has no inside.

Eric

I agree, nothing has no inside, that is why it is undefined. To say it is undefined means the same thing as to say there is nothing inside of it. Now the threshold, or the event horizon of zero, is 1/infinity. Such a concept does exist, that's why you can skip over the zero (or the 1/0) and travel faster than the speed of light. Similarly that's why the universe started after an instantaneous period of inflation instead of starting at an actual zero point. That is why the information was not destroyed, because 1/infinity forms a shell around zero. So yes, I believe our theories are still in agreement, but one of the zeros your using I think is what I call 1/infinity. Am I correct for thinking this?

thanks for the conversation
-lodestar