[Nobody]

Try preaching that to Ed Witten, Lloyd.

Perhaps we live in the real world, but you are apparently hard-pressed to think deeply enough to explain what the real world is exactly, classically or otherwise.

Empirical and theoretical science will never be able to discern "reality" because reality is based on very fuzzy properties that will forever be unobservable.

Any idiot can learn textbook science, but few are willing to use their own minds for fear they be cast out from not conforming to a consensus.

Best of luck.

[Nobody]

The physicist Richard Feynman (1988) stated that quantum theory can be used to explain all of our physical world except gravity. It has been proved over and over to be a successful theory. However, when it comes to understanding what quantum theory says about our world, he acknowledged that “my physics students don’t understand it ... I don’t understand it. No-body does” (p. 9).

There is no agreement in the scientific community as to what is really going on in the microscopic world of quantum mechanics (Herbert, 1985). There is agreement with the results of quantum experiments and observations. The problem comes when those results are interpreted. Herbert (1985) lists eight different interpretations of our world, all based on the same experimental results:

1. The Copenhagen Interpretation #1. There is no deep reality. Our physical world is real enough, but its quantum foundations are not real (Segrè, 1980). This interpretation was favored by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg.

2. The Copenhagen Interpretation #2. Reality is created by observation. The world has a phenomenal reality, but we each create our own reality through our observations (Wolf, 1984). John Wheeler’s famous maxim states that “no elementary phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon” (Herbert, 1985, p. 18).

3. The Undefined Wholeness Interpretation. Quantum wholeness suggests that everything is inherently interconnected. This connection is unaffected by time or space. Adherents include David Bohm, Fritjof Capra, and Walter Heitler.

4. The Many-Worlds Interpretation. Reality in an increasing number of parallel worlds. Every possible outcome of every decision actually occurs, but it does so by splitting off into new, parallel universes (Wolf, 1988). Formulated in 1957, by Hugh Evertt, one of its chief adherents today is Paul Davies (1980).

5. The Quantum Logic Interpretation. The world obeys a reasoning which is non-human. In the same way that Einstein’s relativity requires a new way of logic from the old Newtonian universe, so the quantum world requires a new logic in order for us to understand it. Its chief adherent today is quantum theorist David Finkelstein.

6. The Neorealism Interpretation. The world is composed of ordinary objects and is ruled by logic and reason and order. The champions of this view were several pioneers in quantum mechanics including Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Erwin Schrödinger, and Prince Louis de Broglie.

7. The Consciousness Creates Reality Interpretation. In this view, it is not enough to observe phenomena, such as a camera or recording device, but the observer must be conscious. Adherents include Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner and the famous mathematician John von Neumann.

8. The World as Duality Interpretation. The world consists of potentials and actualities. Our everyday world is real, but atoms and subatomic particles only exist in the form of possibilities. This interpretation was described by Werner Heisenberg.

http://www.schuelers.com/ChaosPsyche/part_1_30.htm

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Nobody

Any idiot can learn textbook science.

So what is holding you back? Look up gauge theory and learn the text before you religiously accept theory as fact. You are not qualified to discuss science; your blank profile tells us that. What are you ashamed of?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Nobody

Try preaching that to Ed Witten, Lloyd.

Perhaps we live in the real world, but you are apparently hard-pressed to think deeply enough to explain what the real world is exactly, classically or otherwise.

Empirical and theoretical science will never be able to discern "reality" because reality is based on very fuzzy properties that will forever be unobservable.

Any idiot can learn textbook science, but few are willing to use their own minds for fear they be cast out from not conforming to a consensus.

Best of luck.

HEE...HEE...HEE..., I clearly see what comes from your non-science, non-mind... So does anyone else, with a true scientific mind... I'd be embarassed, if I were you... Try reading David's journal, and gain some basic understanding. There are others on this forum David and I have suggested reading also, with great ideas... I was always told to put brain in gear before shooting off mouth. Try it. It works...

regards,

[Nobody]

Typical ego of scientists to look toward badges for merit. Was Einstein more intelligent than Bohr? Why would they butt heads? My philosophy is based on the negation of the ego, as is my theory based on the negation of forces that create that ego.

The problem isn't with physics, but in what physics takes for granted. If you would understand that no intrinsic value assigned to a particle is possible without a non-existent center; that no relative existence of the universe is possible without a non-existent circumference; that these two facts don't require observations to be confirmed; and, most-importantly, that they render the entire functioning universe, that cause/effect "stuff' that science adheres to, as illusory; then you guys wouldn't be so insulting of ideas that are beyond your preconceived notions of reality.

Read this and read that, for what? What is it made of exactly?

How can things literally move through a space when the things that are moving are made of the space they are thought to be moving through? How can that space that is thought to be the medium of those things propagating through it exist within a place that isn't there?

"Imagination is more important than knowledge" for good reason. It leads to logical conclusions that empirical knowledge and theoretical mathematics can't reach.

[lodestar]

Proposing existence within non-existence doesn't work, and 1/0 does presuppose the one existence within non-existence. Also, what is the point of including the "/0" if you say that the one isn't supposed to be divided by zero? Why not just say that the universe is one like the ancient mystics and modern physicists do?

[Nobody]

"No, what I said is that everything, i.e. the entirety of existence, cannot exist in a place that isn't there because a place that isn't there doesn't exist. That is strictly by definition. So by definition things like nothing and nobody do not exist and are not there.

"I did not say that there is no space, I said that no space exists besides everything, and therefore "no space" does not exist. I repeat, "no space does not exist," and therefore any theory of nothing will fail in describing everything. Furthermore my theory, which does describe everything, does not start from a relative "1" as you say, rather, it starts and ends with the absolute "1," 1/0. 1/0 is the absolute one thing which exists, which is everything. It is the absolute greatest value and therefore posesses the most meaning of anything.

"No, 1/0 does not presuppose the "1" to be divided by anything. Quite the opposite, it says that the one is undivided, hence divided by nothing. The reason you don't understand that correlation is because you are still under the impression that nothing is something which exists. That is what is wrong with your theory my friend."

This is exactly the problem, Lode, if we put even a dimension on the outside of the universe for the universe to exist in, that dimension must exist as part of the space-time universe. That is why I stress the question, "what is outside the universe," is a pointing toward the realization that our descriptions of universal functioning is faulty. Only non-existence works as the absolute state of the universe, not as some think I mean the only localized absolute value, and that absolute state of the universe doesn't apply to the dichotomy paradox because, like we both agree on, it doesn't exist.

A literally existing universe, as strange as it seems, cannot exist, even if it is infinite, when the greater absolute universe logically doesn't. I had said in the first post, there is a difference between absolute and infinite, and the absolute state of the universe must be greater than any proposed infinite universe. That's the crux of the problem and what I propose as its solution.

"0/0 is the number anything, which describes both nothing and everything together. It is like the neutral statement of PRO's theory. Now it is possible for 0/0 to be equal to 1/0 but not always so, and therefore the absolute definition of 0/0 is not 1/0. It is 1/0 that represents everything and all of eternity, not 0/0. Therefore the theory of everything is the theory of 1/0, not the theory of 0/0, and most certainly not the theory of 0, as seems to be your impression. And I don't know who your friend is or when he started thinking about the definition of 1/0, but I would like to talk to him and see when he first came to the conclusion that 1/0 has a definition. He must have been pretty smart. For I first discovered that the definition of 1/0 is everything when I was in highschool in the year 2000. So as far as I know, I am the first person to have ever realized the definition of 1/0, as everything. That is why I say that I am the first person to have truely discovered the theory of everything. That is why I am unique, and why it is my genetics, my destiny, to help mankind understand 1/0. Right now I am developing a new technology based on everything which I have discovered. If my technology works, it will change everything about the way we understand. Let us hope for the best."

Yes, let us hope, but let us understand the logic behind 1/0 and 0/0 first. In the former case, if we propose that as the absolute state, we are literally placing the universe "just because," which is my problem with physics taking "things" for granted. It can be said, as you corrected me, that there is no need to divide the one by nothing because the nothing doesn't exist and the one is eternal - all things connected, etc.. Yet, it doesn't solve the paradox as explained above - the greater whole that negates the existence of its interior functioning; conversely, 0/0 is eternally non-existent, it is not anything to start with, but doesn't exist. Non-existence doesn't presuppose a one to be divided either, obviously, but it also doesn't presuppose a literal existence of an indivisible one "just because" we think that we need a "one."

For every relative action there is an opposite and equal reaction, and this is illusively buried within "one" minus negative "one" equaling absolute zero. It supersedes all infinities - 0.00001-0.00000000001, etc. - while resting as the central axis of both positive and negative.

It's a pleasure to meet you too, and I wish you luck with your work, but just because we can do something with something doesn't mean that we know what those things are, and aren't.

[Nobody]

"Again I will state that your confusion arises from the fact that you believe nothing is something that contains everything. This is where your belief is wrong because it is everything that contains everything, not nothing, and everybody should know this because that is how I have shown I can solve Russell's paradox too."

Archetype, the one whose thread was locked. I remember it now. We danced around the 1/0 before, just like I tried promoting 1/0 about 10 years ago until I realized that it doesn't work.

You continue to proclaim that I claim nothing exists, eventhough I have said many times that it doesn't. It is the scientists that have told me nothing exists outside of the universe, not me. So right off the bat, there is bound to be misunderstanding if you are unable to read what I write.

Proposing existence within non-existence doesn't work, and 1/0 does presuppose the one existence within non-existence. Also, what is the point of including the "/0" if you say that the one isn't supposed to be divided by zero? Why not just say that the universe is one like the ancient mystics and modern physicists do?

Mark my words, it won't be long before even mainstream scientists will be proclaiming that the internal functioning of the universe is illusory, a trick of the subconscious played on the conscious mind that prevents it from transcending the natural laws that are genetically inherited. The mind that clings to the one can't transcend the one, only zero can, and zero is the absolute deepest level of the mind - the gateway to the creation of perfection.

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Nobody

"Imagination is more important than knowledge" for good reason. It leads to logical conclusions that empirical knowledge and theoretical mathematics can't reach.

Without knowledge, imagination is worthless. It will only leads to your own self-indulgence of fantasy.

[Nobody]

Knowledge is necessary to build things in this reality, but imagination is necessary to build reality.