T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[N0B0DY]

Nobody, I stopped considering the "Great White Pumpkin", the talking/thinking head in the sky, when I was 13. I now know the world and universe as the "randomness of evolution", the state of no mind producing spirit and mind in the bio-era.

How about the Great White Hole, as opposed to the Great Black Hole awaiting the universe? Ponder...if the mind/soul/ego creates reality, a negation of the ego erases the ill-effects of the random evolutionary process that everyone so easily claims is progress.

If time and space, required for evolution, is transcended the evolutionary process has already taken its full course. All the information from this process is not lost, but rather all knowledge of every-conceivable outcome results in order to create perfection - in lieu of the imperfect attempting to perfect what cannot be known through time.

"Spirit and matter___The greater can always produce the lesser. The lesser can never produce the greater. Matter is scientifically the greater substance than spirit. This is true even to spiritists." me

In the East, spirit and matter are one and the same. So it depends on the outlook I guess. In my mind, spirit is substrate to the physical - the macro is made up of the micro - and even the infinitesimal, the ingredients of matter, is physical and vice-versa.

[mkirkpatrick]

There is just allthing,that fills the total of all consciousness within the absolute being of
all thing.Nothing is an idea about "nobody being at home"you can keep knocking,but you
are wasting your time,there will never ,ever be an answer.

Nothing is an idea that keeps intellectuals busy going round in circles,forming little
nothings as they go,a form of mental masturbation for those who can spend their grant
money on exorcising the zeros.



regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Relativity as an absolute, which is what I gathered from Lloyd's and Dave's inference of absolute motion, is more than less absurd in my mind because they are contradictory terms. Sort of like "the only constant is change."

Nobody, to my mind you are confusing the state of relativity and absolute. Just as Einstein considered relative as the abstract mode in which we can think, [not have to, and not what the real world/universe is], about the universe, and absolute is the real world. The real world moves/exists both relatively and absolutely, according to what observer position one chooses to view it. Relative is not an absolute value, it's simply an abstract value of observation, to understand motion, if motion acted other than absolute over time, which it does. If viewed relatively, as Einstein chose to do, then over time, [and I might add exaggerated time and motions], [not the actual evolutionary matter motions of universal evolution], the universe could be condensed into the abstract understanding of one's mind, and it also produced the absolutely true formula of E=MC^2. Otherwise, it's rather difficult to classically deal with the real universally complex motions, to make clear sense to others. Relativity is the abstract short-cut to explain absolute motion and matter more easily. In order to get them straight, without any seeming paradoxes, one must realize the true value uses of relative and absolute, in all the sciences. The real world does not act relatively, anywhere___there's no such motion, except people exaggerating false relativity onto it. The real world and universe acts only absolutely, over and in matter's motions of our self-observed measured mind time [distances of matter's motions]. Most have the hardest time getting their minds around the different concepts of relative and absolute motions. And as to your last statement, "the only constant is change", is absolutely true. The problem of observer positions prevents us from having any absolutely true universal reference position, unless you accept my logical projection of the cesium atom's decay, cmbr, and the eventual decay model of the entire finite universe into its initial ground state of thermally equilibriated matter motion's entropy[the finite large decayed to the infinitely smallest motion, and the infinitely largest and thinnest mass density]. Otherwise, your forced into word circles, with no prime mover, of the singularities of anyone's ideas and theories..

Regards,
Lloyd

[Lloyd Gillespie]

How about the Great White Hole, as opposed to the Great Black Hole awaiting the universe? Ponder...if the mind/soul/ego creates reality, a negation of the ego erases the ill-effects of the random evolutionary process that everyone so easily claims is progress.

There is no negation of the ego. The ego is either immature or mature...

If time and space, required for evolution, is transcended the evolutionary process has already taken its full course. All the information from this process is not lost, but rather all knowledge of every-conceivable outcome results in order to create perfection - in lieu of the imperfect attempting to perfect what cannot be known through time.

The imperfect is only trying to understand nature, not perfect it... Perfection may be a good by-product though...

"Spirit and matter___The greater can always produce the lesser. The lesser can never produce the greater. Matter is scientifically the greater substance than spirit. This is true even to spiritists." me

In the East, spirit and matter are one and the same. So it depends on the outlook I guess. In my mind, spirit is substrate to the physical - the macro is made up of the micro - and even the infinitesimal, the ingredients of matter, is physical and vice-versa.

Spirit and matter are one and the same, but it's quite important to the arguments, of which is prime. If spirit were prime, what's it made of? They may say energy. In that case what creates energy? This is where the East is stymied. In science, energy is never prime, energy requires matter first, and motion second, to create any type of energy... These both require a prime mover, and of course my reply is therms, the eternally, infinitely required state of all matter motions, in initial prime states. Of course, this does not apply to large matter states, except as a secondary thermal action___all matter in motion rediates heat...

Regards,
Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

Lloyd,

I understand your argument, but I still think you’re mixing relative concepts with the absolute state that can’t exist. They are relative because motion and heat are based on time, which is based on spatial constructs, (consider Zeno’s incremental time and space). Space and time are required for any and all measurements, and are only possible to observers who calculate those measurements. Some have argued, “yes, but observers have come and gone and the universe still exists.” Which is true, but only because observers remain to calculate measurements through time.

As a whole, a measurement from point A to point 0.0000000A, or a measurement from 0 K to 0.0000000K, has a non-existent starting point whereby the measurement is erased completely backwards in time - the whole of the measurement never existed in the first place because all measurements are simultaneously negated outside of relativity. In fact, every absolute point of existence must have a static, non-thermal, non-material origin in order for motion, heat, matter to be accurately calculated. For example: measuring a pound can only be accurately weighed if you use zero as the starting point - even if you’re a wise guy and say that you can measure a pound starting from .5 or 1 pounds, the starting of the measurement of the substance in question requires an absolute origin of non-existence.

To make the Uncertainty Principle certain, only a measurement of zero, 0 K, is applicable in absolute terms and that erases all partial notions of speed because velocity increases proportionately to a reduction in Planck measurements. Then our common notions of motion, heat, matter, etc., are proportionate to our inaccurate measurements - they are all based on a slowing down of the decay rate of atomic structures that are absolutely outside of time - without time, there is no decay rate. Everything decays in no time at all, but the mind can’t process that information at that rate of speed. Which leads to the conclusion that the mind, working infinitely slower than the universal mind, creates the reality you seem to be clinging to.

[Eric]

I don't get what you mean, Eric. Initial existence without time is like a cake without ingredients.

Initial existence can't come into being. If it could, there might be a time in which it did, but it can't.

Initial existence either is or is not. "No existence" can not EXIST. It is impossible. No existence is absolutely nothing. It doesn't exist.

Something absolute does.

Not that you would, but don't gloss over this. Argue it concisely if you can.

Exactly my argument, Eric. Both 1 and 0 don't and can't exist.

Forget about this 1 and 0. We both know they're BS.

I don't think this is true, again, because a "1" can be doubled, halved, etc.; but the 0 can't.

I'm refering to an entirely different 1. Clear your mind of the other 1. This 1 is not derived from infinity, but represents the initial existence that isn't derived from anything whatsoever. The "Absolute something" is singular. It can't be multiplied, divided, added to, or subracted from.

Unconventional is fine. What do you propose?

The fake 1 and 0 are outside of each other, with infinity between them and outside of them both. They come from and collapse to infinity without ever being.

The REAL 1 has no outside, just like the Absolute it represents. There is no absolutely nothing out there. There is no "out there". No "come from".

A REAL 0 can then be put INSIDE of this REAL 1.

I'll stop here for now.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

You know Nobody, a wise man long ago made a profound statement; "The TAO is unknowable." Of course we all know that to be Laotzsu. It took me years to figure out what he was talking about. I was always inferring it into my mind as with the outside Christian God. Finally I realized he was talking about the "I" being, me. It is the "I" that is unknowable, because it is always changing, just as when we interact with others and evolve. If the "I" were truly knowable, then we'd just be a stuck ego, as many are. The changing "I" always sees the world anew, and does not get mired down in the abstract thoughts of others... Now with you, you seem to take facts of the real and absolute world and abstract them, by choice. For what good reason, I have no idea. But, what purpose does it serve to purposely interpret absolute and relative as you do? I agree the abstract math never reaches infinity in either direction, however, you or Eric never show why this has any importance, since the infintesimal is below h and the infinite is beyond anything except rational probability math. We could develop scaler, not scalar, functions approaching both infinities, but what would we be describing, we don't already have a very good idea of? You say the absolute state can't exist, with no evidence whatsoever. True there is no mathematics to describe this state, but it's quite evident to any sensible logic state. A math that can't prove itself, can't prove the absolute state of anything, anyway, so why even try to use math in this area? Logic is always available where math fails, and the tests of the experiments are available all around us. The world is absolutely real to me, and you show no evidence it isn't except loose abstract ideas, that seem to be self-imprinted on you and Eric's neural networks. Anyone can imprint false abstract ideas into their memory spaces, yet, it never becomes real, no matter how long one repeats it.

The real and absolute world and universe is as we find and see it___period. Relative, other than its known abstractnesses, and kin, is just plain foolishness. There is nothing in the cognitive objective world of true perception you can prove relative, that math and evidence can not prove absolutely real. So I see no logic to your reply, except my agreement with both of you that we need a better math, say some sort of scaler function extension math approaching real infinities, in both directions. IMO, zero is one infinite zero[an undefined fictitious integer, other than mathematical limit, and always positive], and infinity is always one absolute infinity. One finiteness divided toward infinity, or multiplied toward infinity, always meets in the same one equilibriated infinity, whether math can show it or not, that's unimportant to me. My logic of the absolute facts is all I care about___the sensibly described facts...

The foolishness about the universe not being present without an observer is pure abstract subjective stupidity___period. The world and universe exists, has existed and will exist long before and after stupid egoistic humans disappear. Your argument below also mentioned relative because motion and heat are based on time. Time has nothing to do with the real matter motions of the universe, it's just our convenient measuring divise, and what we see as distance matter moves. Time is not an absolute, it is a secondary result of matter motion, and heat also is a secondary result of matter motion. Spatial constructs exist only in peoples abstract spaces, it's nothing to do with the real universe. I think Zeno's a bit out of date, don't you? Most of your post has no science to reply to. If you could be more attuned to science when you post, maybe we could get somewhere...

Your second paragraph makes no sense, what-so-ever.
Your third paragraph is just plain inane.

regards,

Lloyd,

I understand your argument, but I still think you’re mixing relative concepts with the absolute state that can’t exist. They are relative because motion and heat are based on time, which is based on spatial constructs, (consider Zeno’s incremental time and space). Space and time are required for any and all measurements, and are only possible to observers who calculate those measurements. Some have argued, “yes, but observers have come and gone and the universe still exists.” Which is true, but only because observers remain to calculate measurements through time.

As a whole, a measurement from point A to point 0.0000000A, or a measurement from 0 K to 0.0000000K, has a non-existent starting point whereby the measurement is erased completely backwards in time - the whole of the measurement never existed in the first place because all measurements are simultaneously negated outside of relativity. In fact, every absolute point of existence must have a static, non-thermal, non-material origin in order for motion, heat, matter to be accurately calculated. For example: measuring a pound can only be accurately weighed if you use zero as the starting point - even if you’re a wise guy and say that you can measure a pound starting from .5 or 1 pounds, the starting of the measurement of the substance in question requires an absolute origin of non-existence.

To make the Uncertainty Principle certain, only a measurement of zero, 0 K, is applicable in absolute terms and that erases all partial notions of speed because velocity increases proportionately to a reduction in Planck measurements. Then our common notions of motion, heat, matter, etc., are proportionate to our inaccurate measurements - they are all based on a slowing down of the decay rate of atomic structures that are absolutely outside of time - without time, there is no decay rate. Everything decays in no time at all, but the mind can’t process that information at that rate of speed. Which leads to the conclusion that the mind, working infinitely slower than the universal mind, creates the reality you seem to be clinging to.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

This 1 is not derived from infinity, but represents the initial existence that isn't derived from anything whatsoever. The "Absolute something" is singular. It can't be multiplied, divided, added to, or subracted from.

Ahhh...Eric, sounds to me like it's immobile. Scientifically, immobile is identical to doesn't exist...

regards,

[N0B0DY]

Eric,

As Lloyd indirectly pointed out, all measurements are within the "1" you refer to, but in that context the absolute 1 is synonymous to the 0 - it must be static/immobile and hence not exist.

When you say, "something absolute does"(exist), it right there doesn't because it is you who is proclaim it. Without observers, there can be no differentiation to the whole, and without differentiation there can be no existence. So....something relative, many relative things, exist, but not something absolute. Again, "the only absolute is change" is contradictory and creates unecessary paradoxes.

Lloyd,

You're going on for miles about you being on the side of scientific proof, while my lack of it places me in a padded room, but if you look over what we're actually saying we're not too far off the same track.

I've said a few times here that empirical science and math can only go so far, and that from that basis we can use a logical means of extending evidence to reach our conclusions. Ask any scientist and they should say that science is a corrective process, so stating absolutes as you do like science has a hold on reality seems like a faux pas in that regard, don't you think?

With that said, we don't have to delve into the infinitesimal or see beyond the infinite "expanse" of the universe. We can simply know that relativity works on all scales for anything to function or any effect to be produced. The absolute I'm referring to is 0 k, and we both should know that 0 k doesn't exist. So why argue for absolutes in a relative universe, instead of agreeing that the universe simply doesn't exist outside of a relative timeframe and framework?

If we can agree on that point, then maybe we can argue about any such thing as literal motion in an infinite universe. Like travelling a million light years in deep space doesn't get you anywhere at all because, far from being anachronistic, Zeno's time always remains at zero.

[Eric]

I'm not fooled by movement. It goes around in circles. You can dismiss absolute or misinterpret it as infinite, but you will never arrive at a point.