T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[N0B0DY]

Noody here, just checking in... "You used 0 in your formulae to represent ToN."

I subscribe to absolute "0" - not the shape of the number - as being representative of the non-existent absolute state of the universe, Rybo. It is synonymous to the singular state of "1" - not the shape of the number - as both are impenetrable.

[rybot]

Hey Nobody, I stand corrected. Good point. Thanks

Rybo

[QUOTE=N0B0DY;45105]Noody here, just checking in... "You used 0 in your formulae to represent ToN."

I subscribe to absolute "0" - not the shape of the number - as being representative of the non-existent absolute state of the universe, Rybo. It is synonymous to the singular state of "1" - not the shape of the number - as both are impenetrable.

[N0B0DY]

Our pleasure, Rybo. This one here would also support both our views, providing we interpret particles as other fields.

http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy...cle/higgs5.htm

[rybot]

Our pleasure, Rybo. This one here would also support both our views, providing we interpret particles as other fields.

http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy...cle/higgs5.htm

Hey Nobod, I think this is most relevant quote from that article.

The Higgs field is a particularly simple one - it has the same properties viewed from every direction, and in important respects in indistinguishable from empty space.


So, it has same properties viewed from every direction. I would try and compare this to 4 and 5-fold symmetries of rotation, as associated with polyhedrons and specifically the only three primary, stable and structural, regular/symmtrical polyhedral of universe

Icosahedron( 5-fold symmetry )

Octahedron( 4-fold "" )

Tetraehdron( 4-fold "' )

Seems we have all kinds of empty space phenomena eg;

ToN

Higgs

virtual particles

Zero point energy

vacuum fluctuations

H,mmm I'm sure there must be at least one other out there that is something representing a nothing, or is it a nothing reprsenting a something that is in turn representing a nothing.

I can throw my quasi-physical gravitaitonal spacetime into the bunch also, since I claim it is far to small --and perhasp too fast--- too ever be dectected by any intelligent creature of universe.

Anyway, not knowing where stand, here again, with some revision, is my fundamental 4 possible universes;
-----------------------------------------
In this outline I'm leaving out any ideas of multi-verses, many
bubble universe and parrallel universe scenarios for simplicitys
sake, at this time, or if you so choose, include any or ALL of them, into the catagory of our one/UNIverse, Thanks:

1) eternally existent, macro-micro, infinite physical universe.

......this means there is infinite amounts of energy, as universe,
and or there is some source of new energy being created somewhere
that we are not aware of and would, IMHO, violate our perceived,
thermodynamic laws of conservation.


2) eternally existent macro-micro, physical universe
....to me this is what seems most apparent with our conventional
observations and is the one I tend to suscribe to most of time and
most strongly ergo this one above, is my primary belief


3) eternally existent,, macro-infinite physical universe yet micro-finite
....this one too, I think, would require new sources of energy to be
created ergo also violating thermodynamic laws

4) eternally existent, macro-finite, physical universe yet micro-infinite
...this is the scenario R B Fuller suggests. Thermo-dynamic laws are
not violated as we go into micro-infinity, if, what is happening is
that the finite amount of energy is just eternally subdividing --
unfolding dimensions-- itself i.e. with each subdivision we have not
created new energy, only spserated apart as finite amount into to
smaller amounts.

...this one is my 2nd choice and is related to fractals, IMHO


In this latter case we would have to consider that in EMRadiation
spectrum as its exists at scales we observe, high frequency --ergo
shorter wave length-- the photon is more energetic.

This complicates any comprehensive understanding of the scenarios
I've laid out above ergo would require special consideration as to what
that would mean to any possible violation of perceived thermodynamic
laws of conservation.

Hope this out lines helps others see what Im coming to see as
possible physical universe scenarios.

Rybo

[Rufus]

Rybot
Thankyou for that clarification. I'm not trying to be a smart alec but your time might be better spent trying to prevent our immanent demise. I'll check out the 4 universe scenarios of which you speak. Much of this stuff I can't understand and part of is due to the fact that you neither reread your work nor have it spellchecked. The last red, blue green thing you wrote is very nice but you must reread slowly.
OK that's my rant, hope you can forgive me for it. I quit smoking more than a month ago and turned into a bitch.
To counter your defeatist argument which shows considerable lack of faith in humanity I feel that things will change in science very shortly and we will begin a new phase that allows us to examine our material world in other ways besides just smashing atoms. Your idea that a really large and power consuming machine is the only means to discover the answers to the things being discussed here is nonsense.
Again I apologize for my bitch tongue.

[rybot]

Thankyou for that clarification.


Welcome Rufus.

I'm not trying to be a smart alec but your time might be better spent trying to prevent our immanent demise.

You might very well be correct, however, I don't think one neccessarily one preclude the other, i.e. I can, and to some am, doing both in my own way.

If your suggesting that you don't want me to post my thought here any more. Wel,, if you wait around long enough, you will not see any posts by me.

Patience Rufus


I'll check out the 4 universe scenarios of which you speak. Much of this stuff I can't understand and part of is due to the fact that you neither reread your work nor have it spellchecked.

I agree and had stated such here and elsewhere, however, some ---over 50% most of time-- of my text is not in grammatical error and when it is, it does not neccesarily mean it is undecipherable with a little effort some of the time and much more effort some of the time.

[/COLOR]

The last red, blue green thing you wrote is very nice but you must reread slowly.

No, I musn't do anything except those things I choose to do.

I choose to do many things and my autonomic nervous system does many things with out my choice being involved.

OK that's my rant, hope you can forgive me for it. I quit smoking more than a month ago and turned into a bitch.

Been there done that an still will be going there again on occasion.
It is easier for some people to go through the eye of a needle than to forgive and continut to forgive in their hearts, when reconfronted with memory of a perceived wrong doing. injustice etc...

To counter your defeatist argument which shows considerable lack of faith in humanity I feel that things will change in science very shortly and we will begin a new phase that allows us to examine our material world in other ways besides just smashing atoms. Your idea that a really large and power consuming machine is the only means to discover the answers to the things being discussed here is nonsense.
Again I apologize for my bitch tongue.

Rufus, humanity does not come with any kind of gurrantee-of-survival, that i'm aware of. To clarify, I think some aspect of humanity will survive for many generational years to come, tho niether you nor I or anyone elses knows.


However, Rufus, those who remain will be living with very differrent set of enviromentatl cirucmstances, or so I believe, and the their standard of living will probably be not as good as the average US citizens is now ergo the abilities of humans to build solar system size acccelrator any time soon is just fallacy and it is my belief that much of technolgical ability will drop off considerably in the next 1000 years. I dunno, nor does anyone else.

I would also recount some comments of two other great thinkers with much more education and world around experience than myself, and I presume you.

Carl Sagan in his last book, mentioned that are living in or abou to enter into a "dark age". Sorry I dont remmeber the book and may have been his next to last book.

The other similar comment was by R B Fuller in his last book "Cosmography" wherein he states, that "humanity is entering into a new dark age".

I could go to elaborate why I believe they would makes such comments but that would be in the venues of differrent topic thread. imho

Happy to disscuss with you if you choose to start or find such thread.

Rybo




RYbo

[N0B0DY]

Rybo,

The quote you cited from the link implies the field is indistinguishable from empty space, and appears the same from any angle as would a sphere, not a polyhedron. I mentioned the strings because string theory has become a popular theory among theorists, but the shapes or dimensions really need not apply - as per my example of the blank white sheet which contains all possible colors and shapes. The absolute must not have color or shape: neither black nor white; neither round nor square.

The correlations I propose are finite with consciousness, infinite with subconsciousness, and absolute with unconsciousness. Where consciousness is based upon differentiation of variable qualities and quantities, subconsciousness is based upon the infinite fractals you mentioned, and unconsciousness not based upon anything - it is absolute...non-relative. Now, because the absolute universe can only be just that - absolute - the qualities, quantities, fractals, etc., cannot be concretely realized, are non-literal abstractions that are extracted from the absolute state. Again, the absolute state is the point where absolute fullness and absolute emptiness unify as none, not one. Yet, this non-existent state has two abstract perspectives by default - expansive and contractive - and is divided infinitely into an infinite number of zero-dimensional points which are the basis for relative functioning of nature's shared subconsciousness, which sets the parameters of all consciously-observable phenomena.

Ultimately, your scenarios make sense, and are feasible, but not in a literal sense whereby we would have to either place literal existences at particular places and times within absolute non existence; or we would have to allow for an infinite number of literal interactions that would literally net to zero as a consequence of infinitesimal overlapping, and I don't think "things" have to be made so complex.

[rybot]

Rybo,
The quote you cited from the link implies the field is indistinguishable from empty space, and appears the same from any angle as would a sphere, not a polyhedron.


Hey Nobod, glad you still willing to disscuss ToN. I don't recall my comments or if they mentioned a polyhedron or in what context.

A *true* sphere a metaphysical/absolute concept only. OK? In reality there are only polyhedrons varing degrees of sphericity. Ok?


I mentioned the strings because string theory has become a popular theory among theorists, but the shapes or dimensions really need not apply - as per my example of the blank white sheet which contains all possible colors and shapes. The absolute must not have color or shape: neither black nor white; neither round nor square.

The canvas, may reflect white light, then and only then, can we say it contains all the colors of EMRadiation.

If the canvas does not reflect whit light, then all the colors of the EMR are not contained.



The correlations I propose are finite with consciousness,

This would be our finite universe, as I understand it to exist.

infinite with subconsciousness,

This mabe could correlate to FUllers micro-infinite physical universe. Lucid to macro or micro-irrelevant. I sent you a link to "sets of consideration". You never acknowledge it.


and absolute with unconsciousness.

This may correlate to my metaphysical macro-micro -infinite beyond of lure nothingess. This unconsious is rally a resultant of consciousness above, so, absolute is metaphysical

Nobod, your three don't really fit into with my ideas, tho I tried.


Where consciousness is based upon differentiation of variable qualities and quantities, subconsciousness is based upon the infinite fractals you mentioned, and unconsciousness not based upon anything - it is absolute...non-relative.

Fractals do have differrentiation of size. So I must disagree with you.

The metaphysical mind/concepts has differrentiation as shape/pattern and is expressed as physical universe i.e. as above{beyond}/metaphysical, so below/physical.




Now, because the absolute universe can only be just that - absolute - the qualities, quantities, fractals, etc., cannot be concretely realized, are non-literal abstractions that are extracted from the absolute state. Again, the absolute state is the point where absolute fullness and absolute emptiness unify as none, not one. Yet, this non-existent state has two abstract perspectives by default - expansive and contractive - and is divided infinitely into an infinite number of zero-dimensional points which are the basis for relative functioning of nature's shared subconsciousness, which sets the parameters of all consciously-observable phenomena.

Nobod, thingness ---ergo the thought thereof- expands-contracts, has insideness-outsidenes, convave-convex and axis of spinnability i.e. left-right spin and torque when combined with contraction-expansion.

Im sorry I cannot buy into you ToN as you have explained it above. Your are not following rational that is logical to me.

You appear to be trying to have it both ways.



Ultimately, your scenarios make sense, and are feasible, but not in a literal sense whereby we would have to either place literal existences at particular places and times within absolute non existence; or we would have to allow for an infinite number of literal interactions that would literally net to zero as a consequence of infinitesimal overlapping, and I don't think "things" have to be made so complex.[/QUOTE]

Nobod, our finite physical universe in its most simple is ONE( 1 )

Capital "U" Univerese includes both catagories of metaphysical ergo at minimum there exists twoness, j in definning UNIverse.

So, sure we can keep it simple, yet UNIverse is more complex than just the oneness.

Im not what you mean by "literal" Maybe you mean "real", well I thought I was very clear in explainiing that . Maybe you missed it.

Real = reality = real estate/land ie.. touch-able as in physical reality.

What more can I say that I havent said already and tried to lay out in clear concise outline form.

It would help if you could put more breaks in you parragraphs i.e. it easier for people to read if there are more breaks and even easier if you can lay out in outline form, whenever possible.
Rybo

[Rufus]

Rybot

I'm feeling better now and I agree with most of what you say (sorry to bug you about the syntax) ..there is a new millennium arising in more ways than one.

I have some projects on the go right now

later.. Rufe

[N0B0DY]

No problem, Rybo. I am as clear as possible, but most misunderstand because the mind clings to things deemed real, and I always look for others who can grasp the gist to express scenarios in a different ways.

If you can try to get your head around, with regards to the left-right you repeatedly mention and forget mentioning, that in order for there to be such a conception and perception as "left-right" - regardless of shape or scale - there must be an absolute axis that is neither left nor right. The mind is that absolute center, and consciousness of dimensional extensions are based on the time dilation required for the mind to differentiate variable velocities of relative spacetimes.

The "ton" aims for absolute simplicity, but it is understandable that it is misunderstood by those who think the Universe, or Omniverse, is complex. It has been a pleasure debating with you, and thank you for your help.