T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[N0B0DY]

Come on Nobody, science doesn't even know yet, if photons spin, let alone are falsely conjectured antimatter___neither are necessary to universal mechanics.

I put the spin in parentheses, because I don't believe it either. I was trying to be a nice guy, Lloyd. Yet, the antimatter is obviously required for gravity if the universe is infinite. If we're not keeping to our theme, then warpable space is fine. I thought we were.

Electromagnetism to create particles in forward time and gravity to create antiparticles in reversed time. Nothing to do with whitehole past, wormhole present, and blackhole future, if that is what you think I'm implying.

Time never reverses___this is all true particle/wave/particle motion___in only one steady, continuous direction___forward. Yes, electricity may ground backward, or does it? That would still be part of the particle structure traveling forward, in real time/distance.

Again, I thought we had agreed it wasn't real - not a condition in which we exist, but only think or something to that effect.

At any rate, both the charge and time are reversible if we are to keep in touch with chirality. The mirror image is not, like you said before, memories of the past - parts of forward time, but the mirror image of this universe moving in its own forward time beyond Planck time, standing still at c, and moving in reverse exceeding c.

So again, where's your resistance field? It's absolutely required, to build any model of reality.

You're not thinking massive enough. There is no outside resistance required because there is no literal black hole - hence my proclamation that it is the only way to solve the paradox.

Your literal cold, contracting container requires an outside, otherwise it exists within 0 k, and I think we both know that 0 k doesn't exist.

Sorry, not buying it. I've been a motion junkie all my life___It's absolutely real. I sense it with all my being.

I asked you before to try to explain how and why you feel. The mind and body are different forms of the same abstract phenomena.

I would just advise trying to see the universe, just once, through fundamental substance eyes, absolutely all the way through, from the uncreated beginnings of FS motion, to our living spirit, as I see it all as substance/wave/substance motion___It's a realist universal evolution, and nothing else.

Well there you went and done it again, Lloyd. You brought up the absolute "nothing else," which should cause a problem for such a rational person as yourself.

If there is no time to contain time - evolution - then all universal occurrences happen in no time, which is what I've been saying all along.

Perhaps you are seeing things through my eyes, Lloyd, but don't realeyes it yet.

I already did this, and they also extend into a non-reality, that a true correspondence logic must repair.

See Lloyd? You're not being fair here. This reality is a part of the infinite, a type of spatial extension if you will, and to call it real while calling other extensions non-real is a faux pas if we are to keep to the infinite scheme of "things."

I didn't say it wasn't spectral confinement, but the spectral confinement, is also absolute fundamental matter on matter motions.

I don't get this one, Lloyd. Perhaps you can elaborate a bit.

You know Nobody, I'm interested in why you want to avoid an absolute reality___Why?

I won't bore you with the details, Lloyd. Let's just say that it is my own personal gateway that everyone will eventually come upon at one time or another, and it pertains to potential realities of another type.

[N0B0DY]

Just as aside:

Emptiness isn't nothing, because my cup is empty.

[N0B0DY]

The 'nothing' in the first view is that the meaning of the word god equals the universe, so the meaning of god has nothing to add. The 'nothing' in the second view is that god is beyond our universe, so the connection between us and god cannot be other than nothing, for we just have to believe it.

Believe it or not, Fredrick, absolute non-existence creates an infinite number of relative realities when divided infinitely.

Yes, equating god with nothing at all - the Nameless "One" I call None.

Rather than god breathing a big bang, no disrespect to R.P. Bibra, I prefer to infer the yogic breathless state that a group of European scientists have done some research on with decompression chambers.

It does wonders for all ails.

[Fredrick]

Believe it or not, Fredrick, absolute non-existence creates an infinite number of relative realities when divided infinitely.
Yes, equating god with nothing at all - the Nameless "One" I call None.
Rather than god breathing a big bang, no disrespect to R.P. Bibra, I prefer to infer the yogic breathless state that a group of European scientists have done some research on with decompression chambers.
It does wonders for all ails.

Nobody,
I do not believe the unified option is ever available, I always see at least a second position. And if I read your words correctly, we agree on this. I stopped looking for the absolute truth when I discovered that truths exist on their own specific platforms only. Same with the phenomenon of god. I see a value of this word that depends on the platform on which one uses the word: as an external being, or as 'the universe;' I have even proposed that the word 'god' originates from the set that contains the words whole and hole, since a similar sounding word to god in the Germanic languages means 'hole.' (see: http://www.pentapublishing.com/FreeChapter.html ). Truths about god are pertained within the platform on which the word is used.

Just as black can be placed on the platform of colors (for instance, it is one of the colors you can buy in the paint store) and at the same time can be moved off of the platform of colors (since scientifically it is no-reflection-of-light), we will always find at least two sets of whatever we are looking for. This is possible due to the function of nothing.

In math, number theorists have the natural numbers start with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, while set theorists have the natural numbers start with 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. There is no arguing that either one of them is more correct, since it is just definition stuff we're talking about. The value of the number zero itself allows for the existence of two definitions.

Still, the use and the non-use of zero/nothing/separation can deliver a difference in outcome. The common scientific calendar has no year zero, but the astronomical calendar has a year zero. If we calculate the number of years from Jan 1, 500 BCE to Jan 1, 500 CE then the former has only 999 years, while the latter has 1000 years. An entire year is the difference between making nothing be nothing at all and giving nothing a spot all to itself. Naturally, a single year is important for our human history (we'd have to rewrite the years of all historical events before 1 CE), yet astronomically — when calculating thousands and thousands of years of heavenly movements — a single year ain't gonna trouble us much.

And that brings us back to religion (as the vehicle of platforms). If we follow the Middle Eastern religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) then we find a platform containing a single god. On this platform nothing plays a rather unimportant role; it can be pushed to the side easily. (Though we may find us fighting over stuff all the time, since disagreement on details is inherent to a single deity.)
If we look at religions with multiple deities, nothing becomes quite important and fully incorporated with the platform. Between the gods we find separation as fundamental aspects. To use the word nothing: in one regard or another, the deities have nothing in common (they are separate entities).

In unification theory, nothing is quite unimportant. With theories lacking unification, nothing is of the utmost importance.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The Metaphysical Idea of Nothing & The Absolute Idea of Everything

Hello again guys, let's try another method to approach our dualistic mind states, so we may try to clear up all the confusing issues of this thread. Probably since the dawn of time, these two mind states of idealism and realism have existed, been argued over, and eventually wars fought over the differences, of no more than differing mind state views. It doesn't matter what person's ideas, or what philosophical, physics, religious, or any other type of system discussed, they all possess the two sides, as Fredrick has pointed out. The problem arises, and always has arisen, when the idealist metaphysical leaning mind, converses with the idealist realist leaning mind, no matter what the subject field. The question is, can a linguistics model be set up to, if not unite these differences, at the least, allow a sensible dialogue of the one and the many? I wrote about this over a decade ago. Since, I've searched many, many minds for just such a possible dialogue. I still don't know if it's even possible, but...

The strict metaphysicist will always come from the spiritual point of view, whether an internal spirit, or an external disconnected spirit, though they'd even see the outside spirit connected. The strict physicalist will always come from the physical realist point of veiw, whether others interpret it as internal or external solid matter, or not, is of no concern to him, as the strict realist knows all must be matter in motion___First, whether energy, spirit, or whatever can be stated. So this pits all strict idealist relativists against all strict realist absolutists. Now, of course, these are the extremes of beliefs, but all minds lean, either to one side or the other, and all minds, at the same time, use both___this is our ingrained DNA, so we don't have much choice, until fully recognized, and dealt with. Now, Fredrick seems to be good at spotting these two sides, but what are his suggestions, other than the tried and failed respect, which destroys the content of both or either views? How would any situation accomplish, having two diametrically opposed views, totally respect each's differences? Is it even possible? Is it even possible, without destroying the others' views?

Where does truth exist, when the truth of the metaphysical destroys the truth of the physical, and vice-versa? Now Fredrick has suggested; "Just as black can be placed on the platform of colors (for instance, it is one of the colors you can buy in the paint store) and at the same time can be moved off of the platform of colors (since scientifically it is no-reflection-of-light), we will always find at least two sets of whatever we are looking for. This is possible due to the function of nothing." I know this has something to do with the linguistic problem, but other ontic{meaning words having huge meanings} words are also a very huge linguistic problem, such as, infinity, one, whole, absolute, infinitesimal, all, many, etc., etc., but these come under the classification of qualia, i.e., quality and quantity. Philosophers have tried and failed to deal with these ontic words, for centuries, but is a linguistics', ontic word, puzzle solver possible? You see, dialogue becomes impossible, if the ground rules are not respected, and this thread probably has the highest disrespect of established scientific ground rules, of any thread, on this board, yet is still getting at the heart of being, and physics, so something worthwhile is transpiring, but what? Even though I posted this of Fredrick's; "This is possible due to the function of nothing.", I don't accept it as valid, as an absolute realist, as I can replace nothing with something___always, so where's that leave us?

Yet, at the same time, the metaphysics of nothing, is non-existent to the realist, it's real to the strict meta-idealist, either as a reality, or a tool to defeat the realist. And, though absolute reality of everything, is non-existent to the meta-idealist, it's absolutely real to the strict realist, and quite often over-used to defeat the meta-idealist. Let me look up what I wrote years ago, and see what I said;

"The only thing that makes consciousness real is quantifiable sound science, and universal dialogue of gender equilibrium. If it isn't quantifiable, it isn't! [all truth is quantifiable]"

"The metaphysical is true to the metaphysical aspects of life and the physical is true to the physical aspects of life, and both often operate dialogically opposing to each."

"The missing dialogical between the metaphysical and the physical - The intuitive perception?"

"A dialogical mind map between the metaphysical and the physical - The spiritual and the scientific - Intuitive perception?"

"The incomplete dialogical essence - The unconscious will?"

"We need a new dialogical mind map to fully process the total dynamics of philosophy - meta and physical."

"The unconscious entanglement of the metaphysical and the physical mind worlds into the dialogical."

"The major problems with classifications of words, thoughts, ideas and truths..."

"The metaphysical and physical worlds..."

"The metaphysical is often an abstract to the logical and the complex logical is often an abstract to the metaphysical."

"The choice of metaphysical intent makes the metaphysical true, yet often untrues the physical, and the choice of physical intent makes the physical true, and often untrues the metaphysical."

"A problem - The collision choices of mata and physical realities..."

"The two truth systems - Meta and physical - Spirit and science."

"The meta side of the mind wants prescedence over the physical and the physical side of the mind wants prescedence over the meta side, of each and every person."

"The two languages' dialogues we use to denote the meta and physical worlds is one, yet not conducive to easy understanding, due to its finite and infinite dualistic qualities, and is only quantifiably trued in its separate, yet united domains."

"The self-priorities of one's mind's actions - The choices it takes toward meta and physical intents. The meta and physical intent entanglements of selfs..."

"The truth of intentional choice..."

"The "new language" required to dialogue the mixed metaphors of infinite and finite spirits is "The Absolute Completenesses."

"Gender equilibrium - Each side is denying the rationalism of each's logic - Each sees the other as true irrational logic, thus creating a world governed by a-rationalism. [male-female same as West-East]"

"The #1 law of successful communication - Successful communication must be based on a universal completeness dialogue of equilibriating gender egalitarianism."

"Creative logic to dialogue the two opposite sides of logic - Truths to natural law!"

"We must practice universal comparative logic concepts."

"A problem in logic - "Logic can express real mathematical concepts of phenomena and life." [a contradiction of Godel]"

"The incompleteness theorem of language and a formal logic system of finite language...! [new fundamental natural law discoveries, by this author, solve the dialogical problems]"

"The incompleteness of language theorem - We have never developed a cross-disciplinary language of successful logic - The dialogical problem! [new fundamental natural law discoveries, by this author, solve the dialogical problems]"

"The problem of infinite verses finite communication - The academic community has failed to frame a proper dialogue to discuss social problems successfully without too many infinities linked to present dialogue - A new dialogue of political communication simplicity is needed. [new fundamental natural law discoveries, by this author, solve the dialogical problems]"

"The almost impossibility of logical discussion in the present dialogical academic environment and framework of a too cluttered basis, leading to too many infinite possibilities, therefore; a simpler conceptual finite dialogical language is needed! [new fundamental natural law discoveries, by this author, solve the dialogical problems]"

"***Godel's incompleteness theorem as applied to language - A separation of finite and infinite language possibilities is absolutely necessary to dialogue successfully!"


Now, I ask, can any of the above be used, by any of us, to solve the problems, of the "One and The Many, Nothing and Everything, Infinity and Finiteness, etc., etc.?___The Dialogue Issue." If you notice, the author's sulution is adherence to the natural laws, and new natural laws, developed by author.

Lloyd

[Fredrick]

The Metaphysical Idea of Nothing & The Absolute Idea of Everything

The question is, can a linguistics model be set up to, if not unite these differences, at the least, allow a sensible dialogue of the one and the many?

Lloyd

Yes, one can unite these un-unifiable aspects, but the condition under which they can be united must be one of creating their equality first. For, if they remain unequal, they cannot take place in one linguistic (or other) model. When squaring the one, and squaring the duality, and fitting them together (next to one another) an ancient model appears. This model has its restrictions (for instance, it is available in the abstract only), and it can be used only for overall perspectives (in which specifics can still be placed in their relationship to the overall perspective).

Hint: look at my avatar.

As you notice, the nothing remains just that: nothing.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Fredrick, write a paragraph or two, to overview describe what you suggest, and I'll see if I agree. I must warn you, I see a problem, already. The problem is abstract___Only? The question is; "Can the abstract concept be useful?" It seems it fits the perspectives, of what I wrote above, so let's hear your ideas... It's kind of like the concept of the concept, that Godel proposed, years ago... Or how about the "concepts" of the concept...? Hmmm___probably, possibly possible... We just have to mix and match enough words, and after a while, we'll get there...

Lloyd

Yes, one can unite these un-unifiable aspects, but the condition under which they can be united must be one of creating their equality first. For, if they remain unequal, they cannot take place in one linguistic (or other) model. When squaring the one, and squaring the duality, and fitting them together (next to one another) an ancient model appears. This model has its restrictions (for instance, it is available in the abstract only), and it can be used only for overall perspectives (in which specifics can still be placed in their relationship to the overall perspective).

Hint: look at my avatar.

As you notice, the nothing remains just that: nothing.

[Fredrick]

Fredrick, write a paragraph or two, to overview describe what you suggest, and I'll see if I agree. I must warn you, I see a problem, already. The problem is abstract___Only? The question is; "Can the abstract concept be useful?" It seems it fits the perspectives, of what I wrote above, so let's hear your ideas... It's kind of like the concept of the concept, that Godel proposed, years ago... Or how about the "concepts" of the concept...? Hmmm___probably, possibly possible... We just have to mix and match enough words, and after a while, we'll get there...

Lloyd

Indeed, the paradox is included in this model. And it is the perspective that delivers the correctness, yet there is not a single perspective, this model contains various perspectives. As such it is limited. In top, we find the unified position, yet of all aspects of this model, this is the one that, next to being real, contains the abstract.

Say we use the model to describe 'human being,' then at the bottom, four distinct aspects (though rudimentary in nature) could be: male, female, young and old. As you can see, this is all rather simple, but in themselves they deliver an overall view of what 'human being' can be. In top, the abstract description of human being takes place. We are all familiar with that description, and all of us count ourselves as fitting under this name. Yet a single human being can never be found that is male, female, young, and old at the same time. If we take a single person and place that person in the top spot of 'human being' then that person has two out of the four characteristics (on rare occasions three, but never four). We tend to place single persons in top position: as president, king, queen, prime-minister, pope, bus driver, and shower them with the almighty power of this top position. Yet they can then still not overcome the differences found at the bottom (male, female, young, old) and unite these aspects within themselves.

At the bottom we find four characteristics that form two pairs: one is a pair of opposition (male-female) that is kind of absolute, one is a pair of opposition that shows transformation (from young to old).

The end result is that 'human being' fits on top of all, yet in specifics each member has differing characteristics. The top is real, yet it is an abstract nevertheless; only as a collective — only if we all see ourselves as human beings — is it real.

As you know, the model is quite familiar in the ancient world, but while we have many examples of the four sloping sides, the top is not always the same. In Meso-America the top is different than the ones in Egypt. It tells us that the specific top position is never available in an absolute individualized way. And, of course, that is exactly where I'd place nothing (though it has its place elsewhere too).

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Fredrick's quote: "It tells us that the specific top position is never available in an absolute individualized way. And, of course, that is exactly where I'd place nothing (though it has its place elsewhere too)."

If the top position is never available in an absolute individualized way, then what good is it? And Nothing? Are we stuck with the mediocracy of the democracy of ideas? Not good enough. I want the absolute facts. There's a better way, Fredrick. I think that must be mathematical thinking. Mathematical thinking is not required to achieve absolute equilibrium, only the absolute completed facts are. The absolute completion of facts will produce its own equilibrium of ideas. Facts first, ideas second, equilibrium last...

Complete the incomplete puzzle of finiteness, to infiniteness, and back to a new finiteness, and the incomplete puzzle of everything, solves itself into the absolute completed finiteness, and in turn, is the solution to all the present world's problems___It's the yet un-mathematized-mathematizable...

Clue: It's also a pyramid or cone of new knowledge... The old knowledge comes in the shape of the up-side-down pyramid/cone, and the new knowledge comes in the shape of the up-right pyramid/cone___The first, from alfa to now___The second, from now to omega. The key is from books, to super-computers...

Lloyd

Nobody: "I didn't say it wasn't spectral confinement, but the spectral confinement, is also absolute fundamental matter on matter motions.

I don't get this one, Lloyd. Perhaps you can elaborate a bit."

The infinite matter contains/confines all motions, and is the only motions possible. The infinite matter is contained/confined within itself's, self-motions. The self self-motions of infinity are also contained/confined within fundamental matter___always. Is it oneness? Most likely. Is it cold?___Absolutely!!! Is cold a oneness, with the other two, matter and motion?___Absolutely!!! Does cold, matter, and motion, all change states?___Absolutely/Infinitely!!!

Nobody, the absolute fundamental is a scientific thermal shape-shifter substance...

What could be simpler...?

Lloyd

And again Nobody: "To be clear, there is infinity (larger and smaller) and then non-existence. [That ought to be fun. Let's see your non-existence, in the absolute. See, the absolute trips you up, every time. Show me absolute nothing___Sorry, they's no such thing, except the false abstract imaginal concept of.]

Here we have a linguistic problem. The definition I accept of the infinitesimal is approching a limit of zero, and infinite is the unlimited state space, so there is a difference___a great difference. I'd say we must work out this gigantic linguistic difference___first.

I agree. So, contextually, to be honest we should change the word to infinitesmall or render infinitesimal as meaning decreasing infinitely. Otherwise we would have to think in terms of the infinite as approaching a limit as well." [Infinitesimal as meaning decreasing infinity, not decreasing infinitely___Sorry, but the infinitesimal is always limited, by the infinite fundamental real substance's true thin density. And, as far as smallness, the infinite does approach a limit___the limit of fundamental substance thinness density, but as far as largeness, the infinite has no limit, where cold space/matter/motion is concerned, except the size of its central finiteness, limit of absolute infinity, being everywhere, but on the other hand, infinity exists in all of finiteness, also. I'll be, finiteness is a limit of infinity, but in one inward direction, only___Outward infinity would be un-limited, as far as correspondence logic can reach, the total decay of true finiteness. Infinity sure is tricky, be sure your finiteness does not drown___It'd be terrible, to get "nothing"___wet!!!]

[Fredrick]

If the top position is never available in an absolute individualized way, then what good is it? And Nothing? Are we stuck with the mediocracy of the democracy of ideas? Not good enough. I want the absolute facts. There's a better way, Fredrick. I think that must be mathematical thinking. Mathematical thinking is not required to achieve absolute equilibrium, only the absolute completed facts are. The absolute completion of facts will produce its own equilibrium of ideas. Facts first, ideas second, equilibrium last...

Complete the incomplete puzzle of finiteness, to infiniteness, and back to a new finiteness, and the incomplete puzzle of everything, solves itself into the absolute completed finiteness, and in turn, is the solution to all the present world's problems___It's the yet un-mathematized-mathematizable...

Clue: It's also a pyramid or cone of new knowledge... The old knowledge comes in the shape of the up-side-down pyramid/cone, and the new knowledge comes in the shape of the up-right pyramid/cone___The first, from alfa to now___The second, from now to omega. The key is from books, to super-computers...

Lloyd

It takes time to get yourself acquainted with the model, Lloyd. The language may get in the way here, but the top position is never available in an absolute individualized way, yet exist absolutely in an individualized way. Meaning: individuals can take in the single top position, but only as the generic members of that group (that is, only as 'human beings'). That word applies to all individuals, yet it is a general term that does not tell more about the human beings in specific. The specifics are found on the bottom of the pyramid.

Mathematical thinking is part and parcel of the model too. Yet you have to give it more thought, Lloyd.

Now, you appear to be saying something more about pyramids or cones of new knowledge. Please divulge, otherwise it looks like you are parroting me.