T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[Rufus]

Again, the difference between eternal and timeless, imo, is that eternal implies no beginning and no end to the extension of time; whereas timeless implies that there is no time at all, never was and never can be.

Nobody

I think you would have to define what you mean by 'time'. Say Nobody did you ever point me to your favorite Toe Article. I collect them for my site and I don't have any by you. Obviously you have been discussing this sort of thing for a very long time and most things you say are a bit over my head but I like the style.

I would appreciate the articles that show how your ideas have developed into what they are now. They can contain math or anything, I don't have to be able to understand them. You could use my email if you want nsoar@tbaytel.net

Rufe
time is a concept and can have no beginnng nor end ...nsoar

[N0B0DY]

Like Buzz Lightyear might say, failing with style. It is very difficult to explain.

The links in message 1 is the basis for my interpretations of extending absolute space to light to mass through time (defined as relative motion due to dilation of absolute space).

[Rufus]

Dip

You Said

Science does not depend on Mankind. The laws of physics will always be there and was there long before the existance of Mankind and after the existance of mankind..

It may not depend on mankind but it would depend on whatever the lifeforce of reality is. Science cannot exist unless it is appreciated by something. You belong to the group of scientists that is fast becoming extinct. Your people are portraying string theory as their flagship of materialist reality and it requires the magic of non-physical transmutation to exist. Your cohorts are letting you down.

Please don't be offended, I'm just conversing.

Rufe

[Fluent Piffle]

Just a few things:

1) If we were able to reduce something infinitely, it would never reach absolute zero. Infinity cannot be verified using the scientific method, so how do you propose the reality of infinity? - Everyone 'proposes' it, in their own way. Does your 'God' not have an 'infinite aspect'? And this 'void', is it a 'finite' void? Everyone instinctively knows it is the Reality, as Drifter plagiarises...'THOU ART THAT'.

2) Infinity is based on the inversely-proportionate relationship of the infinite and infinitesimal. - There, YOU just 'proposed' it, nullifying your own 'point No.1'. So if we were to hypothetically propose that space is infinite, the finite observable universe would be relatively infinitesimal. So, no 'hypothetically' about it...As for 'infinitesimal'...are you still insisting that it is possible to 'reduce something infinitely'?

3) I agree that there is no such thing as zero, but as being representative of absolute vacuity (0), the opposite would be absolute solidity (1); - 'Transcend the opposites', Nob. This is the basis of most of your friend Drifter's posting, which you apparently agree with... and since both states are impenetrable and neither can exist, both seeming opposites can be equated as non-existent. This would mesh with Newton's absolute spacetime, and because there can be no literal basis for Einstein's relative spacetime, the warping of which is thence impossible, it must be illusory. - Your 'logic' is the only 'illusory' aspect of the whole quote. Sorry. I suggest you try again when you have 'meshed' with the first two aspects, above.

4) I think Newton was correct in his assumption of an absolute spacetime, but not in his assumption of particulate matter being separate from space. I think also that Einstein was correct in his assumption of a unified field, but not in his assumption that variable densities can warp space. Yet, we can integrate both in another fashion using the theoretical basis above, - Not if it is plain WRONG! where absolute spacetime is the equivalent of absolute mass/energy in order for us to be able to extract the finite masses and energies observed; and this could include your proposal of infinite space, relative to the reducible velocities from absolute speed. - It seems you are vastly over-complicating the whole thing, Nob. Try to see the 'whole thing' as a state of non-separation, which ALSO condenses in upon itself (as it must, because there is no where 'else' in Infinite Space), to form the 'finite/impermanent' state we observe (because we are).

Relative masses and energies would not be separate from absolute space, but we could eliminate the concept of warpable spacetime because there is no need for space to be filled if it is equated with absolute solidity - Infinite Space (3d) must be 'absolute', by default. You do not need to declare them as 'separate states'. If you get tied up with some 'mathematical version' of 'Infinities', you will miss the Real 'absoluteness' of its Truth.

...there is already more mass than observed. So the motion of mass could then be viewed as being incrementally replicated according to observable quanta as a result of the cumulative distribution functions of random, but deterministic, probabilities. - ?

Points answered above, in a Lloyd Gillespie kinda way! _ Where is he nowadays, by the way?





pif.

[Drifter]

This is the basis of the statement made Nobody.
The multitude of radii from the centre[singularity] to the circumference [whole]represents 'aspects of the soul', beginning from a singular Oneness [One without a second] outward. Noumenon 'stirring'[giving rise] through the aether and finally having a dual nature, from Noumenon[Nothing] to phenomenon[something], manifesting metaphysically in the mind of physical man. Just a thought
SACRED GEOMETRY

Place a point in the center of a circle and draw a line from the center to the circumference.

The ancients used the symbol of the circle to help us understand that we exist as Spirit, soul, and body. The center represents our spiritual identity, the circumference represents the body, and the radius represents the soul.

Each one of us is a soul. The soul is our character, which has a polar nature. One the one hand, a character appears as a particular body in the story, represented by the circumference. But essentially every character is one with the Primal Imagination, represented by the center. The soul, represented by the radius, is the relationship between our essential identity as Sprit and our apparent identity as a body.

Now, drawing more radial lines connecting the center of the circle with the circumference, the ancients teach that there are an infinite number of souls arising from our shared spiritual identity at the center of the circle, culminating in different bodies in the world on the circumference. We appear to be separate characters in the story, but at the depths of the soul we are one.

I don't know if these are Drifter's own words - "Zero represents the Whole. Singularity represents Centre." - but I interpret both as two abstract perspectives of non existence, and the only means I'm aware of to make such an inference is by using the inverse suggested by Drifter. Yet, I concede that if the above implies a singular entity within an absolute void, it can be used as a means to realize its logical fallacy.

The common use of singularity implies an infinite density, so I'm not sure if this is what you mean by absolute singularity, but if you mean absolutely static and solid, then it implies to me that the reference is to the absolute void I repeatedly refer to which is non-existent. To the time-independent universe, there can be no relative states in between the two abstract perspectives; but to time-dependent observers and events, there is apparently a multitude of relative states between zero and one.

The time it takes for observers to process prerequisite information, from a big bang to any and all cyclical or continual creative events, would then be subconsciously eternal and consciously temporal - extended from the timeless absolute center, circumference or any absolute space-time point between. Again, the difference between eternal and timeless, imo, is that eternal implies no beginning and no end to the extension of time; whereas timeless implies that there is no time at all, never was and never can be.

[N0B0DY]

Everyone 'proposes' it, in their own way. Does your 'God' not have an 'infinite aspect'? And this 'void', is it a 'finite' void? Everyone instinctively knows it is the Reality, as Drifter plagiarises...'THOU ART THAT'.

The correlation that can best depict the void is that of unconsciousness - non-existent, and not as some form of nothingness; the infinite is the illusory extension of the observable finitude, and I correlate this with subconsciousness; the observable finitude I correlate with consciousness.

There, YOU just 'proposed' it, nullifying your own 'point No.1'. So, no 'hypothetically' about it...As for 'infinitesimal'...are you still insisting that it is possible to 'reduce something infinitely'?

No, I hypothesized that there is an inverse relationship between the infinite and infinitesimal concepts, in that if we propose an infinite increase in, say, the expansion of space, there is by default an infinite decrease in the observably finite universe. This should be adequate since you had said that you do not wish to argue classifications.

Nob. Try to see the 'whole thing' as a state of non-separation, which ALSO condenses in upon itself (as it must, because there is no where 'else' in Infinite Space), to form the 'finite/impermanent' state we observe (because we are).

On second thought, it seems that you are on a whole other level than myself in terms of our capacity to "see" the whole truth, but then again things are often not what they seem to be. And with that said, the bottom line is that if it can be classified as absolute, there can be no such relative concept as "also," nor can the absolute condense anywhere because, as we agree, "there is no where."

pif.

I think Lloyd has retired to an island, which is a shame because he was one of the few who verged on a merge of concepts.

[N0B0DY]

"Noumenon[Nothing] to phenomenon[something], manifesting metaphysically in the mind of physical man. Just a thought."

If phenomenal things are replaced with illusions of the mind[no literally changing noumenon], based only on time as the sole factor in determining any sense of reality, then I would agree.

The strict laws that govern the sense of physicality, I propose is based on the rate at which the mind can process potential information that is consistent with this particular shared reality - perhaps what can be referred to as a persistence of existence.

It's my own personal "way of no way" or toe, and is certainly not everybody's empty cup of tea. Meant to be absorbed or ignored as we see fit.

[Fluent Piffle]

I think Lloyd has retired to an island, which is a shame because he was one of the few who verged on a merge of concepts.

Lucky Lloyd! - Sometimes not saying anything speaks volumes though, eh?



pif.

[Fluent Piffle]

On second thought, it seems that you are on a whole other level than myself in terms of our capacity to "see" the whole truth, but then again things are often not what they seem to be. And with that said, the bottom line is that if it can be classified as absolute, there can be no such relative concept as "also," nor can the absolute condense anywhere because, as we agree, "there is no where ['else']."

There it is then.

3d Infinite Space IS 'absolute'. Its inherent motion will make it collapse upon itself (it can only move inwardly, - and there is your 'intuition' of an 'infinitesimal'), thereby forcing it to become, once again, an 'absolute' (actually 'Wave') state.



pif.

[Drifter]

It's about the message not the messenger.
Go for the ball not the player.
You obstinately continue, in spite of moderator warnings, to exibit foul behaviour.
Just pointing out the obvious.
Don't start any shit[drivel], and there won't be any.

"Everyone 'proposes' it, in their own way. Does your 'God' not have an 'infinite aspect'? And this 'void', is it a 'finite' void? Everyone instinctively knows it is the Reality, as Drifter plagiarises...'THOU ART THAT'."