T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Seriously, Lloyd, my confusion comes from the mixed messages you're giving me. You say that all separation is illusion, there is only absolute connection, but then say that non-dual is a world problem and that mind/body is factually dual.

There is no confusion here Nobody, the whole is absolutely connected by molecular and sub-molecular structure, and mind/body is factually a dual state of evolution. Your interpretation is one of false-locked non-dual all the way back to matter's initial ground state, and my interpretation is that mind/body is dual, in the fact that body[initial ground state matter] existed completely separate from mind for trillions of trillions of years, then in the bio-era, matter produced mind through its absolute connections of molecular and sub-molecular motions, which exist back to infinite eternity. Like I said, there is no confusion on my part___it's crystal clear___there is only absolute connection, with enough time of matter/motions' evolution. Matter first___bio-era-life second___the dual evolution states of matter/body first and life/mind second...

This is why I proclaim that relative and absolute don't mix, and that both mind and body are different scales of the same substance.

Of course the abstract relative and the substantial absolute don't mix, in the way you are metaphysically trying to join them. They are only joined by the correct understanding of the evolution of matter producing the mind in the bio-era, and realizing mind did not exist in its hocus-pocus state of the false non-dual infinity. And, mind and body are both different scales/states of the same substance___true enough...

What has been called spiritual is invisible, microcosmic, and what has been called physical is visible, macrocosmic. Both are the same, just as the horse, the cart and the rider are made of the same infinitesimal energy.

The microcosmic/spirit is not invisible___we measure it's life force energies with many modern instruments___the simplest example is our life force heat existing as thermodynamic radiation. Many types of brain scans also reveal many of the brains areas of life forces, yet there's still much research to do in these areas. Both matter and spirit are the same, I'm not arguing that. I'm simply stating the eras of their respective evolutions/existences are different, and dual periods and essences in time.

Beyond that is the spirit Musashi so adequately referred to in his "Book of the Void" - true, absolute spirit is nothingness. Everything relative is comparatively physical by scale. In that an infinitesimal quantum is the same exact size as the universe, when compared to quanta that is infinitely smaller.

John Locke stated centuries ago that the mind was a blank sheet of paper, and we filled it in with our abstract and substantial interpretations. The trouble is no-one has looked deep enough into this process to see what is truly happening. The East plays up intuition as a god, and the West just mainly uses intuition to supplement logic, but deeper behind intuition is the self-reflective infinity mirror of imaginal intuition. It is this imaginal intuition we use to decide abstract from substantial. We all use it, but as Godel, in the statement in my signature reveals, we must know what to disreguard, to go on, to be able to develop the skill of correct thinking. This is where most minds fail to cull the false abstract ideas. The mind is infinitely capable of producing just such false ideas, yet all that is needed to be realized is the fact, that the instant the mind veres from the substantial, in its final analyses of ideas, it enters the false abstract processes of the self-deluding mind. Oh, the abstract is fun to play with, but the real world is always the substantial. This is an intuitive choice of the substantial over the abstract, yet you and many others keep trying to install the false relative abstract as the substantial, and I may add, with no possibility of proof___what-so-ever___except the false self-reflections of intuitive imaginations into the ego, created by your own infinite mirror as false ego.

It's not rocket science at all, Lloyd, and it's not pseudo science. It's taking empirical evidence to its logical conclusion, which transcends observations which obviously requires observers.

Empirical evidence taken to its logical conclusion, can never transcend observations of absolute logic. Absolute logic, of this sort, must always be based in the truly substantial, i.e., real substance and its actions, even the real substance/actions of spirit/mind. Ah... transcending observations which obviously requires observers, is your abstract interjection of more of Zeno's non-sensible abstraction, and I may add, most spiritists as well. Another way of putting it is, looking only at your own infinitely mirrored ego into itself.

You see a horse, a cart, a rider, etc., via differentiation, calculation and then categorization through memory, but if all is the same (absolute) existence ceases to be possible.

I see a horse, a cart, a rider, etc., via direct cognitive perception. I calculate only when necessary___this takes no calculation, or at least so slight, I don't recognize it. I categorize with vision logic, not memory. Memory is just storage space. And same to you has far different meaning to me. It is all isomorphic, as I have often stated in other posts. Isomorphic___"the same but different"___an old country saying.

Regards,
Lloyd

p.s.
You know Nobody, most all these ideas have been long settled by many very good philosophers of the past. The one that isn't settled is the body/mind dualism___I say it's dual___you say it's non-dual___as I surmise, from your past posts. As I've said, the solution can be found by using Aiya-Oba's absolute self-evident universal logic law of truth discovery. Absolute logic is the equator of self-contradictions. If we continue to put our contradicting differences in a cauldron, and stir the mixture, the impurities will float to the top. Skim them off, and we have the truths of a TOE, left as the cauldron of truth.

[N0B0DY]

You call yourself a rebel, Lloyd, but you continually refer back to mainstream science time and time again. You revert to a big-bang scenario, which has nil evidence to support it, just because a Christian scientist believed that the universe had a beginning and created a theory to fit that belief at a time when it was, well, believable.

All relative theories, including an evolutionary procession, are based on time. Yet, even Einstein, who created theories of relativity himself, admitted that time (past, present, and future) were illusory abstracts, and space, matter and motion along with it.

There is no time for evolution, Lloyd, to a universe that is “everywhere” at all times. You can walk across the street, because you differentiate yourself from the street, but the universe is already there. And you ARE the universe, but separate yourself with your mind that was created in the "bio era."

I’ll tell you a little bit about my theory, Lloyd. The universe has a body and a brain, just like you, but on an infinitely larger scale. It also has accomplished, in no time, something that you will eventually accomplish as well, which is transcend the imperfections caused by mutations and decay through the gateway at your center of gravity - the zero point.

How is that possible? It is certain because there is nothing to prevent it from occurring - it has already happened in the future. But you don’t realize that because you are “living” in this time, separated from the universe.

I’m not a nirvanic yogi seeking to exist in absolute bliss, as you imply. There is a perfection beyond the gateway of nothingness, that is free from decay caused by time. The bio-era cells never die, and the universal DNA contains information of consequences of all times. So, no, mind does not exist in its non-dual, hocus-pocus, state of absolute infinity. That state doesn’t exist, as we both agree that there is no such thing as absolute unification. It exists through relative interactions, but in the correct fashion, far from the imperfect display of imbalanced individuals of this era.

Relativity, again, is required to exist, and the absolute center of gravity is only the gateway for the mind to recreate reality in the proper fashion. This life is a dream made “real,” created and bound by subatomic and subconscious functioning, and a new dream will be created by transcending the subconscious mind.

You misinterpreted an important point I tried to make, Lloyd. The microcosmic includes that which is beyond scientific instruments. The “spirit” - microcosmic - and the “body” - macrocosmic - together make the individual “mind/soul.” Both spirit and body are the same, and the mind is the differentiator of scales that categorizes things according to past labels. For instance, you know the computer screen is a computer screen because you were told that it is a computer screen. Some people with Alzheimer’s forget who they are, just like you have forgotten who you were as a baby.

So who are “you” really, Lloyd, according to the absolute logical truth that will lead us to the TOE that can't exist?

[mkirkpatrick]

Nobody,I just want to thank you for a really great post,thank you.

regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Nobody, since you seem to contend a theory of nothing exists, and a TOE can't exist, I will attempt to show otherwise. First, I'd like to take your last few sentences to task, since they are the most meaningful to sensible logic. You ask, "Who are you really?" I am no more than the sensible instinctual logic and feelings that I had as a child. I don't know how more basic I can be than that. As an adult, I'm also a dynamic logical realist of philosophy, economics and physics... You mention soul, but I, as child and adult, realize fully my soul was built by my interactions with, mainly, my parents, then siblings, friends, kin and society, in general, and as an adult by the integrity of ethics. I do not accept any such childish foolishness as a natural soul, containing anything more than basic instincts, emotions[volitions] and the base calculators of logic and reason. I can still see my earliest child's self, and it's developing stages, mainly from my parents and grand-parents. From the women I learned the ol' wives tales of what could be considered metaphysical mythologies, mixed with real moral lessons, yet not often taught morally. From the men I learned to think critically, at an early age, as my grandfather was a highly educated logical and reasonable thinker. My father and uncles, on my father's side were all critical thinkers of the same vain as gramps. My mother's kin were all of the metaphysical and prankster vain. I learned what not to be from them, as they all went too far, so did my mother. So if you want to see a magic soul, that's up to you. I see only what was added to John Locke's blank pages of instinctual basics. I know myself very well. I have not forgot my earliest youth. I am just as much child mind, as adult mind. I enjoy a good laugh, just as much as the next person. In public, I joke about everything a lot. I find joking a bit difficult in print, so I come across dead-pan, probably as my public self is dry humor. And if you don't think I am a rebel, you should have followed all the broken bone incidents and troubles this body has survived.

The microcosmic includes that which is beyond scientific instruments. The “spirit” - microcosmic - and the “body” - macrocosmic - together make the individual “mind/soul.” Both spirit and body are the same, and the mind is the differentiator of scales that categorizes things according to past labels.

This statement has no way to verify, so must be ignored by logic, however I could discuss it with illogicality. Since you choose to use such illogicality, I will join you to show the problems I see with it. Let's first take Eric's statement, that you seem to agree with:
Absolute>Infinity>Finite, and I say =<Infinite intuitive imaginal exaggerations>all. Now, I'm using this to show you how easy it is to turn any statement to meaningless illogicality, as Zeno often did. Eric states the absolute must be shown without axiomatic statements, and you seem to agree. Yet, Tarski and many other notable philosophers and mathematicians have shown clearly, that all statements are subject predicate axioms of some form. So, anything about the absolute must be expressed in axioms. The problem becomes defining whether the axioms are true, or false exaggerations. Now, as to your statement of the past such as; "The universe can't exist" and; "mathematics is infintesimal and can't reach the infinite" or; "The infinite series can't reach infinity"; or "nothing beyond everything" and "everything being a point that can't exist." Now, if you don't see the axiomatic contradictions in these and the quoted statements above, of extreme exaggerations and impossibilities of your own words, what's to be done? In the quote above, you have used axiomatic statements of spirit measurement, that can't be proved, to try and prove your metaphysical[because it's beyond physical instrument measurement] point of mind/soul. This type of thinking has no logical qualia in sound fundamental reasoning, so as fact, it must be ignored. It's your personal private belief, and as such is why I say you are mixing physics and metaphysics, when in fact, they are different and dualistic states of different qualia, and yet of the one absolute substance. As far as differentiator, how you work your mind is up to you. Mine works differently...

Relativity, again, is required to exist, and the absolute center of gravity is only the gateway for the mind to recreate reality in the proper fashion. This life is a dream made “real,” created and bound by subatomic and subconscious functioning, and a new dream will be created by transcending the subconscious mind.

Relativity is not required to exist as Einstein clearly stated below, in my signature. Relativity is how we think about the real physical actions of the bomb we will build. When it explodes, that's real classical motion, radiation, wind, and heat. This is where many people are bogged down, relativity is abstract thinking about the real velocities of classical motions, nothing more, nothing less. There is nothing relativity is needed for when you take the time to understand the world classically Newtonian, or thermodynamically Boltzmanian. David describes the world well of classical motions, and I have offered the thermodynamic interpretations of classical motions and actions. Either of these explanations of abstract relativity are sufficient to show the real classical motions of matter and mass. Understand either of these and the exaggerations of relativists goes away. As an example think of Einstein's relativity as you understand it, and I'll fill in the blanks. Take the entire finite universe as single atom___speed it near the speed of light___first at thermal entropy it must radiate almost all mass___as it continues to c all mass has been radiated, except the minimal amount of what can travel at c___relativity to you___absolute classical motion to me___the radiation and light show would be massive beyond belief___real radiation of new changed state matter___just as h-bombs explode, radiate mass, change matter state, and exhibit extremely bright photon light. That example is relativity as absolute classical motion___it's real___the numbers work. god failed___we made the armageddon weapon___we are now evil gods.

There is a perfection beyond the gateway of nothingness, that is free from decay caused by time. The bio-era cells never die, and the universal DNA contains information of consequences of all times. So, no, mind does not exist in its non-dual, hocus-pocus, state of absolute infinity. That state doesn’t exist, as we both agree that there is no such thing as absolute unification. It exists through relative interactions, but in the correct fashion, far from the imperfect display of imbalanced individuals of this era.

Decay is an eternal process of motion___motion can't move without radiation decay. It moves___we are alive and moving creatures. Do you really think bio-era cells exist in hot and cold rocks and gas balls, etc., because that's all that's left after decay? The DNA I may agree with, as dynamic nuclear attribute. OK, mind you agree doesn't exist as absolute infinite. Absolute unification, I think is possible. I say all exists through absolute motion interactions, and imbalanced individuals sure exist, and just as many &#37; as physicsts, as metaphysicists.

The universe has a body and a brain, just like you, but on an infinitely larger scale. It also has accomplished, in no time, something that you will eventually accomplish as well, which is transcend the imperfections caused by mutations and decay through the gateway at your center of gravity - the zero point.

Now, here again you contradict what you stated in the previous post. Above you say the universe has an infinite brain, and above that, that it does not___which is it? As far as to time of accomplishment, I think its 10^137 years, or there abouts. My center of feelings and logic is fine, thanks. The zero point, I'll take up last...

There is no time for evolution, Lloyd, to a universe that is “everywhere” at all times. You can walk across the street, because you differentiate yourself from the street, but the universe is already there. And you ARE the universe, but separate yourself with your mind that was created in the "bio era."

Do you sincerely classify this as science, or mataphysical exaggeration? No separation, I'm right here with my mind, and your mind, in the bio-era, created by the geo-era___there is no mind in the geo-era___it's too cold/hot and nasty...

All relative theories, including an evolutionary procession, are based on time. Yet, even Einstein, who created theories of relativity himself, admitted that time (past, present, and future) were illusory abstracts, and space, matter and motion along with it.

In Einstein's entire life, he said about everything, on all sides of all issues. We can't put much stock in bits and pieces of it, taken out of context...

You call yourself a rebel, Lloyd, but you continually refer back to mainstream science time and time again. You revert to a big-bang scenario, which has nil evidence to support it, just because a Christian scientist believed that the universe had a beginning and created a theory to fit that belief at a time when it was, well, believable.

And you do not refer back to mainstream science? What do we talk about, ducks? As to big-bang, most accept it as the most viable possibility, in one form or another. Who created the idea is moot.

Now, I'd like to offer a thought experiment to understand the fallasies of ZPE, and nothing. Picture yourself at the center of an infinite sized crystal of an infinite number of mirrors in all 360 degrees. The mirrors are not only one dimensional surfaces, but infinite numbers of mirrors behind or within mirrors, ad infinitum to all eternity. As you use your intuitive imagination and logic, you can see the workings of the entire universe, from the sub-quantum to the macro-cosmological. You can know everything just by looking into the imaginal infinite mirror to the factual logical by looking into the finite bound logic or judgement mirrors. There is nothing that is not possible of being represented in one of the infinite mirrors, from every word in the english, to every idea possible in the eternal infinite absolute universe. You are granted the omniscient powers of observation and all of wisdom logic's abilities. This is a good representation of how the mind actually works, except, if you ponder all the universal self-contradictions, these infinite mirrors of the mind allow, you can and will have to figure the differences between fact and fiction. How? Your own simple natural given logic and judgement calculators are of finite nature, they interpret the world of reality. Your given intuitive imaginal exaggerator esssence agent is capable of all infinite fictions. You have to tell which is which. If you look for gravity's real actions, you will find it, as this infinite crystal mirror is capable of all answers to any TOE, as you are at the center of all possibilities, with the ability to equilibriate all your own visions, logics, judgments, imaginations, and understandings.

If you want to know gravity, just compare the motions of stars and black holes. What's the obvious difference in the mind's mirrors? A star radiates photons, em waves, whatever, out; a black hole radiates most all the same in. Do you suppose gravity is this difference of radiation direction, in and out? If so David's photon bonding actions of quantum motions would be correct, and would also be the differences between the super-gravity of black holes and stars. The gravity numbers seem to work for very large stars with less gravity, as they radiate more. It also works for large black holes as they radiate more in. We'll have to ask Dave what he thinks, since he first mentioned it. All I'm saying is the realization of the mind's unlimitedness of thought, good and bad, is possible when all the missing mirrors of the mind and self-reflections are repaired. All is possible. TOE is possible...

Regards,
Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

Lloyd, if you‘re going to quote me, would you mind getting it right? lol

I make it a point not to contradict myself, like using contradictory terms such as, “absolute relativity” or “relative absolute” and the like. And nowhere did I ever say: “mathematics is infintesimal and can't reach the infinite” or; “The infinite series can't reach infinity.” Clearly, the infinitesimal can reach the infinite because that is what it is - infinite. I’ve even gone as far as comparing the infinitesimal to the infinite universe when compared to infinitely smaller quanta - meaning size ceases to remain prevalent when we invoke infinity. I also said that infinity never ends, it never reaches the absolute end (which is non-existence). Therefore, the simplified version of my point is that existence depends upon relativity, and that which is non-relative (absolute) doesn’t and can’t exist.

So, right off the bat, we’re going to have problems if you simply don’t understand what I’m saying and twist my words to fit the label you’ve given me…metaphysician.

In the quote above, you have used axiomatic statements of spirit measurement, that can't be proved, to try and prove your metaphysical[because it's beyond physical instrument measurement] point of mind/soul. This type of thinking has no logical qualia in sound fundamental reasoning, so as fact, it must be ignored.

You can ignore what you wish, Lloyd, but logic is not dependent upon observational instruments. Logic can be used as the means to extend empirical evidence, to the tune of counting backwards from 10 and only being able to observe down to 3 whereby we conclude beyond a reasonable/logical doubt that after that there is 2 then 1 then non existence. Especially knowing our past history of finding smaller and smaller particles with increasingly humorous names; and knowing that any and all measurements contain an infinite number of sub measurements.

The mind/soul, in my words, is the same as the body. Spirit is just a term to define what is invisible. We can call it what we wish. Yet, knowing that the visible consists of the invisible, and the body is governed by invisible subconscious workings, isn’t it fair to conclude that the individual mind is the product of both the invisible and visible. The point, again, is that the mind is dependent upon the body/brain and the body/brain is made up of invisible particles, far beyond what is detectible by science. And we know this because logically matter is not intrinsic, but made up of relativistic mass/energy.

As for absolute Newtonian physics and your bomb, Einstein knew that Newton was incorrect, and Newton himself would probably admit it if he lived long enough.

What exactly could a bomb do without space-motion and relative timeframes in which to have an effect, or a relative observer to verify its capacity to differentiate energy? Could a bomb explode without an energy transfer - time - and is there such a thing as a fakin absolute transference in the context that we‘re trying to convey here? In other words, it takes two to tango. A ball rolling on a table isn’t rolling at all when we consider that the ball, the table and the air are made of the same thing at the sub-subatomic scale. At the absolute point, there isn’t even space and time, let alone a ball and a table or a bomb. Science got one term right, “absolute zero,” which means just that. There is no absolute 1 degree or 2 degrees or half a degree, only absolute zero. The others are relative temperatures.

A bomb, then, only has an effect to an observer who exists in this relative world with people stupid enough to build the bloody thing in the first place.

Decay is an eternal process of motion___motion can't move without radiation decay. It moves___we are alive and moving creatures.

And radiation doesn’t occur without motion. A motion and decay that the universe only shares in part, at the sad sub-level of existence you seem to want to cling to as the be-all-end-all, Lloyd.

I’m referring, as I’m sure you’ve guessed, to a new information highway whereby we invoke that rod analogy of turning one end and the other magically and instantaneously turns as well.

Are you really here, Lloyd, or are you there? What prevents you from covering any “distance” without any movement at all, except for that falling-apart body you want to call your own?

So there is no such thing as gas and cold and heat, until you say there is. And, no, rocks don’t have a mind or life at the scale they are coined “rocks,” but are part of a greater mind. Just as your toenail doesn’t have a mind, but is part of you who does. You’ve never heard the expression, “rocks in the head,” Lloyd?

Then you say that I contradicted myself, but is it possible that we don’t understand each other? You skimmed over the gateway reference and went straight for the contradictory kill. That sorta hurts.

The universe has accomplished in no time what you will accomplish in time, through the gateway which is the zero-point of non-existence. You continue to say that you exist, and therefore remain to exist through the “Eternal Return” because you don’t equate yourself to the universe which is absolute stillness at the absolute point of relative measurements of existence. When that extremely narrow gateway is realized, or more accurately unrealized, Lloyd ceases to be Lloyd and Lloyd’s will then follows the will of the universe that has attained perfection. A perfection beyond man-made conceptions of perhaps a mansion with 10 cars in the driveway, but what you really desire inside without even knowing what it is that you truly desire. (Notice how you reverted to 10^137 years for the age of the universe). That’s a far cry from being eternal. Or do you mean, this time around?

Yet, after reading your enjoyable thought experiment, I think perhaps you do understand what we’re saying. Although, it reminds of one Christian who corrected my obtuse attitude with a “To God, all things are possible.” Mind you, ALL things would include the ability to create a square circle. So I say that all things are not possible, but circumstantially-possible. For instance, if we change the name of a circle to a square we can have a square circle.

The conditions at the centre of the crystal, which is anywhere if it is infinite in size, would alter the accuracy of the judgement mirror. If conditions were such as they are on Earth, effects would be different than if conditions were as they are in space. On Earth, levitation is imagined and deemed impossible, but is a reality in space. So possibilities are dependent upon circumstances, and infinite knowledge would grant the capacity to alter conditions to make anything possible. Like you say, fixing the mirrors is a prerequisite to creating what is impossible with broken mirrors, and should be a priority.

Finally, to understand gravity, I think we have to invoke the hypothetical graviton as being synonymous to the photon moving backward in time. It’s all EM, and the quantum mechanical strong force which increases in strength, as opposed to gravity’s decrease, and is contained by the ground state of orbiting electrons, explains the decrease and explains the various forms of radiation. If there is more mass within the ground state than outside the ground state, particles gravitate; if there is more mass outside the ground state, particles radiate. Of course, the true ground state is the event horizon of all particles.

My theory is that particles confine smaller particle/antiparticle pairs which annihilate in the form of photons/gravitons which interact with other photons/gravitons to form other particle/antiparticle pairs of which the positively charged particle goes below the ground state leaving the negatively charged particle to orbit the larger particle/s.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hey Nobody, if you insist the theory of nothing exists, why does the essence agent of logic have the abstract of eternal time? Eternal time of what? You can't erase it___it's there eternally, as the thermodynamic arrow. If logic exists, it must exist eternally, but the funny thing is, no mind is necessary for a logical mechanical universe to pre-exist mind. Funny thing also, time equals eternity, even if it is only an abstract of logic's measurement of matter/motion. Oh, BTW, you do contradict yourself___quite often. So many times in this post, I'm not even going to point them out. How about shorter posts, so the debate may be able to achieve critical thought levels of comprehension? This entire forum is missing the fundamentals of how to think critically. I think that alone would be this forum's greatest attribute, if introduced and participated in...

And last, if you'd noticed the crystal mirrors example had two critical mirrors in it___the finite judgment and logic___the very fundamentals of critical thinking. When the infinite mirrors of illogicality are over-used, there is no critical thinking of comprehension possible. IMO, all infinite ideas must pass through the finite mirrors of the critical thinking mind, to achieve any level of universal comprehension, thus they are limited to what we can observe, test and know. When the infinite mirrors of the mind rule the debate, only infinite illogical non-sense is the outcome...

Some of your physical ideas, I accept. Others, I do not, especially the seeming infinite separation/differentiation idea about absolute/relative, when in fact, all in the universe is finitely/infinitely connected, or it can't exist___period. Any other idea is illogical metaphysical non-sense. Many have shown this for centuries, yet "the one and the many" is still in hot dispute. I'd like to settle it, so I feel the debate should continue, as I see the self-contradictions of all parties as the final solution to the TOE. Shall we continue, in smaller chunks...?

Regards,
Lloyd

p.s.
Tell me something, Nobody, do you believe mind can exist as only energy, without matter/motion?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Nobody, I decided to answer your post more thoroughly, as I think our differences can bring out the unifying truths of physics and metaphysics. It may be no more than a sensible respect for the lost art of critical thinking...

I also said that infinity never ends, it never reaches the absolute end (which is non-existence). Therefore, the simplified version of my point is that existence depends upon relativity, and that which is non-relative (absolute) doesn’t and can’t exist.

Nobody, I understand perfectly well what you have said above, but you can't conclude from an abstract number series never reaching the absolute end(which is non-existence)[false assumption axiom #1. true would be "which is probability series believed non-existent"], that existence depends upon relativity, or that which is non relative(absolute) doesn't and can't exist. That's like saying apples are never square, therefore the universe doesn't exist___there is no critical correspondance qualifier, of these statements.

Logic is not dependent upon observational instruments. Logic can be used as the means to extend empirical evidence, to the tune of counting backwards from 10 and only being able to observe down to 3 whereby we conclude beyond a reasonable/logical doubt that after that there is 2 then 1 then non existence. Especially knowing our past history of finding smaller and smaller particles with increasingly humorous names; and knowing that any and all measurements contain an infinite number of sub measurements.

You are correct up to the first bold, then you axiomatically assume an un-knowable untruth___non existence. We are epistemologically limited from knowing beyond the probabilities of abstract count. Count never reaches non-existence, as non-existence is impossible, by the first law of thermodynamics___conservation of matter/energy. And as to your second statement, epistemology also limits knowing any such thing as infinite number of sub measurements___absolute fundamental matter lies somewhere between measurement and infinite sub measurements___it again has to by the first law. If you illogically ignore all the known laws of physics___what basis of terminology would you be using except illogicality, i.e., disguised contradictions?

The mind/soul, in my words, is the same as the body. Spirit is just a term to define what is invisible. We can call it what we wish. Yet, knowing that the visible consists of the invisible, and the body is governed by invisible subconscious workings, isn’t it fair to conclude that the individual mind is the product of both the invisible and visible. The point, again, is that the mind is dependent upon the body/brain and the body/brain is made up of invisible particles, far beyond what is detectible by science. And we know this because logically matter is not intrinsic, but made up of relativistic mass/energy.

Everything fine here, except relativistic mass/energy. I would say absolute matter/energy. Science long ago proved matter/energy real. Modern quantum interpretations are best understood as classical motions.

As for absolute Newtonian physics and your bomb, Einstein knew that Newton was incorrect, and Newton himself would probably admit it if he lived long enough.

Newton never totally formulated what Einstein corrected. That was just the mis-perceived interpretations of the historians, etc. As to Newton's relativity abstract ideas, they are almost identical to Einstein's GR. So, in fact, Einstein copied Newton, with the help of more modern information.

I’m referring, as I’m sure you’ve guessed, to a new information highway whereby we invoke that rod analogy of turning one end and the other magically and instantaneously turns as well.

And you say metaphysician doesn't fit you? How about mystic?

Are you really here, Lloyd, or are you there? What prevents you from covering any “distance” without any movement at all, except for that falling-apart body you want to call your own?

It's called reality, Nobody...

So there is no such thing as gas and cold and heat, until you say there is.

And, no, rocks don’t have a mind or life at the scale they are coined “rocks,” but are part of a greater mind. Just as your toenail doesn’t have a mind, but is part of you who does.

See, here's the contradictions again; first you say universe doesn't have mind, then you say it does, but of course, you have built an impossible Zeno type cover, which you think is disguising your deceipt___it's not___you're seen for the duplicity of your mystic ideas, very clearly...

Then you say that I contradicted myself, but is it possible that we don’t understand each other? You skimmed over the gateway reference and went straight for the contradictory kill. That sorta hurts.

No, I understand you, completely. You are a normal young man, who doesn't yet see his own deceipt, much the same as I when younger...

The universe has accomplished in no time what you will accomplish in time, through the gateway which is the zero-point of non-existence.(Notice how you reverted to 10^137 years for the age of the universe). That’s a far cry from being eternal. Or do you mean, this time around?

And, I do mean this time around. Only a true mystic would believe in this illogical gateway zero-point of non-existence. Do the math of decreasing matter/mass density___at what point does it either become meaningless, or hit the absolute fundamental level of real ground state matter? Use your illogical exaggerations to create a universe so thin in mass density, that it couldn't re-constitute itself in all eternity___then what would you have? The impossible...! Wake up and smell the roses of the real world...

The conditions at the centre of the crystal, which is anywhere if it is infinite in size, would alter the accuracy of the judgement mirror. If conditions were such as they are on Earth, effects would be different than if conditions were as they are in space. On Earth, levitation is imagined and deemed impossible, but is a reality in space. So possibilities are dependent upon circumstances, and infinite knowledge would grant the capacity to alter conditions to make anything possible. Like you say, fixing the mirrors is a prerequisite to creating what is impossible with broken mirrors, and should be a priority.

You evidently haven't followed the most recent experiments in high energy concentrated magnetism. FSU is now levitating objects and animals with magnetism. Check it out yourself. Also, we've been able to livitate magnets for over a decade at super-cooled conditions. So let's fix the mirrors...

Finally, to understand gravity, I think we have to invoke the hypothetical graviton as being synonymous to the photon moving backward in time. It’s all EM, and the quantum mechanical strong force which increases in strength, as opposed to gravity’s decrease, and is contained by the ground state of orbiting electrons, explains the decrease and explains the various forms of radiation. If there is more mass within the ground state than outside the ground state, particles gravitate; if there is more mass outside the ground state, particles radiate. Of course, the true ground state is the event horizon of all particles.

Thermodynamic arrow of time absolutely prevents time reversal___such ideas are illogical non-sense. I agree with what I bolded...

My theory is that particles confine smaller particle/antiparticle pairs which annihilate in the form of photons/gravitons which interact with other photons/gravitons to form other particle/antiparticle pairs of which the positively charged particle goes below the ground state leaving the negatively charged particle to orbit the larger particle/s.

I can almost agree to this also. My knowledge at this level would need support from others more familiar with quantum motions, however, I think the comparison of stars and black holes' in/out radiation is the proper place to start, as it's something we can at the least see half of and likely easily theorize the rest...

Regards,
Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

I agree the responses are getting long in the sleeve, Lloyd, but I feel it necessary to correct false assumptions.

At any rate, I think after reading your last reply, aside from the circular reasoning at work, you seem to want to make me out to be a metaphysical mystic, and yourself out to be the corrective scientist rooted in reality. Mind you, a reality that you would be hard-pressed to prove, and here’s why:

For there to be a reality based on the science that you’ve conveyed so far, which is based upon observable and verifiable knowledge, there must be observers who make such claims as to the existence of the universe - true science must be based on this. So for me to use my logic, not the scientific method, in a particular fashion that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe can’t exist without observers, why do you keep insisting that you could prove otherwise based on empirical evidence using the scientific method?

[N0B0DY]

The best that has been offered by others so far is that “existence has continued fine even though observers have come and gone,” but that is kinda dopey because the ones making that claim are other observers. The objective reality you continue to root for, Lloyd, is an asymmetrical display of matter/energy. And, agreed, must be conserved in order to remain an observable reality. Yet, if there is no such thing as matter and energy, which is my point, Lloyd, there is no need to conserve that which doesn’t exist.

You, a relative observer, continue to view a line of time representative of spatial points - it takes X amount of years to evolve to a particular condition. You would view the time it takes to get from point A to point B, and refer to that as an intrinsic property of the universe. But there are two ways to ways to erase that partial concept of time: the first is to, obviously, merge point A and point B - no time to reach point B; the second is to increase the velocity of the object travelling to point B - to the extent that it takes no time to reach point B. Now, you said before that c can not be breached. It is 300,000 km/s, even though that has admittedly changed, in a vacuum. Is that honestly (absolutely) a true (absolute) vacuum, Lloyd?…No, it’s not, so your “c” point becomes moot, and “c” actually being infinite in an absolute vacuum becomes a certainty.

[N0B0DY]

Now, for velocity to be considered infinite, we have to look into what light actually is and isn’t. At the observable level, we could say that light is photons travelling to and fro being absorbed and re-emitted, refracted, split, etc. through space. But that doesn’t take into account the root point, which is the central point of the creation and annihilation of overlapping dipolar “particles.” So, this means that there is no movement possible anywhere in the universe because frankly there is no “place” for anything to move. And the Uncertainty Principle becomes certain at 0 Kelvin, which means that the position of all “particles” is everywhere at the same time - again, no time at all, Lloyd. A relative “particle” at this end of the universe is at the other end of the universe, too. Isn’t that an amazing display of non-action at a distance?

Ultimately, my theory is not based on existence, while the TOE doesn‘t exist, but both the TOE and TON are equated by the non-existence of the absolute. Both the “1” and the “0” are equal, and neither exist. 1....one direction in time, minus 1 equals 0. The whole can never be one-sided, and neither can a one-sided argument be the whole truth.