T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[Eric]

Hi Lloyd,

Yup, why assume anything, when you're looking for a theory of everything.

Why assume physical, why assume finite, and why assume infinite can't be seen from outside of itself?

Why assume that a dimesnionless points means only what it has been stated to mean?

Why assume that science has any absolute, which in fact, it doesn't.

Why assume the universe exists and the absolute is non-existent?

Yes, the (A)bsolute is beyond science, but it is not beyond logic. And logic, beyond the methodologies of philosophy and its subsets of sciences, is the greatest tool (along with experience and imagination) of all.

So what is the greatest assumption of all. That's where the logic begins.

Eric

[Lloyd Gillespie]

That's what I thought, just another mystic. Why not answer the question?___I absolutely know you can not. Define the absolute, beyond infinity. I assume nothing___I know the finite absolute truths of science___all else is bs___prove different.............

regards,

Hi Lloyd,

Yup, why assume anything, when you're looking for a theory of everything.[Not looking___found.]

Why assume physical, why assume finite, and why assume infinite can't be seen from outside of itself?[Why assume your own insanity?]

Why assume that a dimesnionless points means only what it has been stated to mean?[I can write better jokes than that........]

Why assume that science has any absolute, which in fact, it doesn't.[I am not fond of liars... A good christian/buddhist, whatever, like you shouldn't lie.]

Why assume the universe exists and the absolute is non-existent?[Why don't you just come right clean and say, you are god? I'm just a little ol' human being.]

Yes, the (A)bsolute is beyond science, but it is not beyond logic. And logic, beyond the methodologies of philosophy and its subsets of sciences, is the greatest tool (along with experience and imagination) of all.[Just pure religion___your own private language___remember Wittgenstein's mistake...]

So what is the greatest assumption of all. That's where the logic begins.[Try logic of science Eric___instead of logic of logic___you only fool yourself with self-created dillusions and paradoxes___i.e., logic of logic. Oh, interpreted___that's childish foolishness...]

Eric

Enjoy,

p.s.
"The Absolute," been there, done that___it sucks...

[lodestar]

I agree with what you're saying in principle and it isn't complex.

Maybe more succinctly, you would say there is not absolutely nothing outside of absolutely everything. Everything being the absolute object, expressed in numbers as 1/0. The only subtle problem I have with it, is that it makes a secondary statement about everything that has to occur within everything. Doesn't it say that 1 (everything) is indivisble?

I would say that there is nothing outside of everything and there is not anything outside of everything. That is simply true because nothing is undefined. Everything does contain everything, and it is still divided by nothing. All this means is that everything contains itself (This solves Russell's paradox incidentally). Everything contains itself, that which is divided by nothing.

Again, I agree with this in prinicple. They are opposites and contingent upon each other, but are they equals? Isn't one of them greater than the other? Doesn't one have a different postion and function than the other?

Nothing and everything are both opposite and equal. They share the similarity of exact difference in other words. This is the irony of truth, the fact that opposites are the exact same and the exact opposite. So in other words, we can not prove that everything is different than nothing, except as a matter of principle. THat is how belief, or "optimism," is part of the theory of everything. We have an optimistic belief that everything is not nothing, for we know that the only real difference between them is a matter of principle. That is why we say that everything is defined and nothing is undefined.

Nothing is greater than everything because everything is the greatest number. So nothing must also be smaller than everything. In other words, nothing is less than everything and nothing is greater than everything. That is because everything is everything. This is another perfect example of the irony of truth. It is true because of the fact that nothing is undefined and everything is defined.

0>1/0
0<1/0

again, this paradox makes sense when you consider that everything is defined and nothing is undefined

When I say "IS", I'm refering to something beyond time, space, and mass. I personally don't think the universe has happened or is happening. A "happening" is a finite event horizon that we have never proved and won't.
As I've stated to Lloyd and he seems to agree, infinite rules finite. This means the universe is only a state of potential of "will happen". It will never arrive at happen. The universe isn't actual. But what do we care? If we sense that it is, that should be good enough.

I actually agree with this point of your theory. We do not live in everything per se because if we did then the speed of light would really be 1/0. That is the highest dimension where our minds exist. So really our minds are the only thing that exists. Everything else is just 0/0. Now 0/0 is anything, so given an absolute amount of time 0/0 will arrive at everything. The only thing it will never arrive at by definition is nothing. That is why I say that everything will come to be in time. What I mean is, in absolute time. So 1/0 is eternal. It is the timelessness of time and it exists outside of time itself.

Doesn't negative pass by 0 on it's way to positive? And what is an "infinitely small point"? There isn't one.

there is effectively an infinitely small point, represented by planck distance. Negative would pass directly through 0 on it's way to positive if planck distance were 0. Since planck distance is not 0 it means that negative makes a quantum leap over 0 on it's way to positive. In other words, it goes directly from -1/infinity to +1/infinity. Note, these are only effective infinities. That is the shell around 0 which I was talking about. That explains the period of expansion which occurred right after the big bang and it also describes why it is possible to surpass the speed of light (by making a quantum leap over it).

Here's a quick alternative. Place an absolute 0 at the center of an absolute 1. Have the 1 focused in at it's center and the 0 reflecting out from the center. Call this actual reality.

Yeah I agree. The space between 0 and 1/0 is 0/0.

Then ask yourself what happens between a reflection and a focus.

Anything right? Or in other words, our apparent reality.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi all,

I am a finite singularity, an individual. I am no bigger. I am not infinite or eternal. My brain, mind to most of you, is finite with an infinite capacity imagination. I use logic finitely to control my wild imagination within reasonable laws of physics and life. I can use logic as trickster. I usually choose to use it scientifically, logically and sexually. I realize my 'mind' possesses the infinite low entropy motion/energy of equilibriation, many of you consider 'soul.' I know this is not the real me, but the infinite absolute low entropy energy/motion of the universe, passing through the finite me___just a pure non-charged linear field___the low entropy equilibriator of all quantum motion___including me. It is eternal___not me. I am finite! A finite human singularity! Hell___oooooooooooo.............

Sincerely,
Lloyd

[Eric]

Got your hammer out again there Lloyd? You have to go to your room now. Be patient, life does go on.

Anything right? Or in other words, our apparent reality.

Yes, with the emphasis on "apparent". That's why I say that the finite is what appears to happen, while the infinite that rules it, says it doesn't actually happen. Therefore, "will happen". A universe of potential only.

These two dimensionless points and the center, being actual existence. The universe being apparent existence, and the only thing that does not exist is absolutely nothing.

One other thing Lode, think about everything being inside of everything. If an absolute is inside of itself, then it is outside of itself as well. That means it becomes relative. It can't be in two places at once. If we want to talk about a 0 inside a 1 or a 0/1 inside a 1/0, we can then talk about an absolute that is not inside of itself, but contains a "false" absolute inside of itself at it's center.

There's a world of difference. One absolute is true and the other false. When we look inside we find the false one, which points outward all the way to the true one. All the way past everything.

Eric

[Nobody]

Lloyd,

Based on physics, you're absolutely correct regarding an absolute finite singularity expanding into infinite space. An all-inclusive energy of absolute motion and temperature brought down to nearest-possible zero, etc., etc., but that/those absolutes aren't as you're well aware what I'm referring to. I said before that I don't argue relativity with relativists concerning observable evidence, but I compare it to the visible-light spectrum and that which is beyond that range - in effect invisible but following proportionate laws.

You remind me of Setterfield in that both hypotheses conform to present evidence, which is understandable, but neither extend that evidence to logically conclude the result of the implications of the evidence. You have a low-entropy infinity and he has the zpe, but both neglect the means whereby low-entropy infinity and zpe can result outside of the "known" universe.

If we invoke the Uncertainty Principle and pinpoint an absolute position of any particle, velocity is then infinite proportionate to the exactness of the measurement. We can then invoke an infinite number of monopolar non-dimensional points as representing central axes that emit photons "travelling" at an infinite speed, proportionate to the obvious decrease in Planck's constant, which create the fundamental electron/positron-hydrogen atom through photonic interactions/collisions - needless to say it is not localized or finite, but obviously occurs "everywhere." So there is no inflation or big bang necessary because we are invoking an eternal process within the absolute perspectives of one static infinite space, which equals zero kelvin; and no space-time at all, which equals zero kelvin.

The relative speed that you touched upon is buried within the zero and one, which Setterfield suggests is dependent upon the rate of absorption and emission of photons through what he refers to as virtual particles that can account for the cmbr as they annihilate in lieu of being accounted for from a pre-existent big bang occurence. Yet, what is not inferred is that the creation of those particles themselves is due to photonic interactions based on the zero-point monopoles. It is a one-sided definition, just as is your definition of low entropy from only inside the singularity outward toward infinity.

1-1=0 in the form of the finite false vacuum plus the infinite true vacuum (finite measurement inclusive) cancelling to zero leaves the unchangeable true vacuum. And this doesn't negate reality or existence, just proposes an alternate view based on the illusory means of motion incrementally recreating "particles" through static/non-existent space. This latter view never presupposes a literal, localized space-time for any finite singularities to materialize, but being based on empirical studies of photonic interactions at a particularly high temperature, extends that evidence to infinite proportions to logically conclude that your state of low entropy contains infinite power instead of merely the finite power of the finite high-entropy singularity.

The redshifting, what I propose is Zeno-paradoxical, results from only one scenario of an infinite number which is based upon the energy density that redshifts the light. The denser the medium, the more the light redshifts, and the cause is illusory time dilation instead of distance through literal expansion.

[Nobody]

"If you believe that 1/0 can never be reached, then perhaps you'd like to tell me what will happen to the universe when it reaches an absolute rate of expansion?"

Lode, a literal expansion of the universe is an impossibility, so any theory based on a literal expansion of a singularity placed somewhere in particular fails.

As for the instantaneous propagation of information, it must be based on a mediumless medium, which is only possible by proposing the center of any and all points equals zero. The point A and B likened to a solid/static pole, when turned at one end the other end turns simultaneously, as opposed to one end being struck which sends a wave through the pole at a relative speed. The central/absolute point of both point A and B, being zero/indentical, need not travel anywhere at any speed because they are both in the same exact position - Uncertainty nullified and rendered absolutely certain.

[Nobody]

Just as an aside to clarify confined infinite mass and charge dependent upon relativistic energy.

Would you say, Lloyd, that the following implies free quarks?

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Phy...?id=1106970241

[lodestar]

"If you believe that 1/0 can never be reached, then perhaps you'd like to tell me what will happen to the universe when it reaches an absolute rate of expansion?"

Lode, a literal expansion of the universe is an impossibility, so any theory based on a literal expansion of a singularity placed somewhere in particular fails.

You don't have to take the word expansion literally. It's just an interpretation of the data. I don't want to get into a purely semantical argument. So call it time dilation instead if you want, since that's what you like. So allow me to rephrase the question. If you believe that 1/0 can never be reached then what will happen to the universe when time dilation reaches an absolute rate? The answer is that you cannot predict what would happen unless you consider the real physical implications of 1/0. So call it expansion, call it time dilation, either way you can't understand where the universe is heading to unless you understand 1/0.

[lodestar]

One other thing Lode, think about everything being inside of everything. If an absolute is inside of itself, then it is outside of itself as well. That means it becomes relative. It can't be in two places at once.

I agree, everything cannot really be in two places at once, because that would be redundant. That's like calling 1/0 2/0. It's true, but redundant.

Now I admit, it's also redundant to say that everything contains everything. However, it is necessary to solve Russell's paradox. And furthermore if everything contains everything then it all exists at one point. So that means it is absolute. Since everything only contains itself, that which is defined, it is the definition of absolute existence. Nothing doesn't necessarely contain or not contain itself since nothing is undefined, and that is the definition of absolute non-existence.

There's a world of difference. One absolute is true and the other false. When we look inside we find the false one, which points outward all the way to the true one. All the way past everything.

Eric[/quote]