[N0B0DY]

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

I disagree, Fredrick. What was thought to be unification for millennia is really based on separation, and what was thought to be separated by nothing is really unification. Inferring that "true" unification, what was considered "one," is none.

Lloyd,

First of all I would reread your last response to me in this thread. Man, infinite finite within the infinity of finiteness of infinite motion contained in infinite matter.....it gets a bit jumpy.

Seriously, though, the moment you attempt to use literal matter/motion in literal "matter space" or aether field or whatever is the moment the model crumbles, because there will always be no outside.

The bottom line is that mass (electromagnetism) + antimass (gravity) = absolute zero (photons/gravitons). In other words, the static measurements aren't real, Lloyd. You only think the dream is real, because you're in it.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Fredrick

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.

No Fredrick, I'm not parroting you. The pyramid model of knowledge is one I developed, back in the early `90's to explain the entire evolution of knowledge systems, from oral traditions, to books and colleges, and finally todays narrowing of the pyramid base through computers, to point omega. The entire figure I used is really a diamond, one pyramid base standing on another pyramid base. The cone of knowledge graphic idea is from Richard Hardison, a really brilliant cosmologist, and physicist, I read back in the late `80's. Hardison's laws of knowledge accumulation, and dissipation are the most interesting I've ever come across. I'd quote them, but they're on my other computer in Maine, and I'm in Florida. Also, much of my alfa to omega model of knowledge was combined out of Tielhard's Noosphere ideas, of knowoledge organization, from alpha to omega. So, not parroting, our ideas just happen to have used a similar graphic base.

I'll get back to the rest of the message, later. Going to the beach...

Lloyd

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

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

I disagree, Fredrick. What was thought to be unification for millennia is really based on separation, and what was thought to be separated by nothing is really unification. Inferring that "true" unification, what was considered "one," is none.

Nobody, I think the language is getting in the way truly seriously here. "Separation is really unification" and "one is none," are words that fit right into the novel '1984.' I am the first to admit that words can get in the way, but since words are our only vehile in this thread, we have to base our communication on the logical use of language. Interestingly, discovering language problems in what others are writing is what you are trying to communicate to Lloyd yourself.

Still, and while I am glad that you, Lloyd, have worked with a pyramidal model (so I don't have to ask you at all to get acquainted with it) it appears that the mirroring one can find in this model is a problem. One is none, and doubling the pyramid to get to a diamond are aspects of doubling that we should find incorporated already in the model itself.

If we go from the abstract shape of the pyramid to the mathematical (which is in general abstract too, but with more application options) then we find the cone appearing on the spot of the pyramid. One has clear lines on its surface, and the other is smooth and rounded, but both models have a clear up and down aspect. A diamond does not have a clear up and down aspect, and while that may in some cases make it easier to display all information we find, we will then have lost the bottom of our conversation. So it is important to keep the base the base.

One more delivery of the pyramid to make the use of this model more clear:

When placing 'directional position' in top, the four corners are North, East, South, and West. The top distinction is real, and we can read it as either 'directional position' or just as 'position.' Any location on our earth can be seen as position; it does not say anything more about the location in specific, and we can imagine this location to be the one location at which each of us find ourselves right now. We can walk around, fly somewhere else, and this position is basically always the same: wherever each of us are right at that specific moment. If we want to communicate to others more specifically about our position, we'd give more information, for instance, in the form of giving two points of coordination, or of describing how we in reality are either facing one of the wind directions, a combination of two wind directions, or that we are laying in a grassy field with our heads facing the sky or snorkling in the ocean with our faces to the bottom of the sea.

In the pyramidal display of 'position' we find the opposite pair of top and bottom, with the top being a real but general characteristic, and the bottom delivering the specifics. At the bottom of North, East, South, and West, we find two oppositional pairs. One of them absolute (North-South), one of them relative/transformational (East-West). While it depends on our positions to call something North of us or South of us, the absolute North and South poles deliver an ending to the directions North and South. Yet East and West are directions that can always merge into the other; all positions can be seen as East or West (except on the North and South pole). In all, the pyramid delivers three pairs of opposition: top-bottom (= generic-specific), true oppositional, and transformational. The latter two pairs are specific pairs.

The diamond may now become easier to find in this picture, too, when viewing the entire planet, for it would be easy to place a directional pyramid on the Northern hemisphere and one on the Southern hemisphere, yet we make ourselves then one-eye blind. Gone are then the distinct meanings of the four corners, since the top and bottom of the diamond are then the North and the South pole, creating confusion where both pyramids are fused.

As far as being the first to come up with this model, I think we are too late by a couple of millennia.

[N0B0DY]

Is the pyramid rotating in a particular diretion, or moving in any way, Fredrick?

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

Is the pyramid rotating in a particular diretion, or moving in any way, Fredrick?

The pyramid is an abstract, Nobody, just like the cone is an abstract. Yet in the cone we can find mathematical lines such as parabolic lines, circles, ellipses. It would not make sense to describe that cone as having a turning or rotating aspect.

In the last example, I used the pyramid for directional positions, in the first for general characteristics of human beings, but the pyramid can be used for anything as long as the subject matter is usable in a general setting. As such, the model has its limitations, since it can mainly (if not only) be used for overall deliveries.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

So, who cares? Get to the point....

Lloyd

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Nobody, I think the language is getting in the way truly seriously here. "Separation is really unification" and "one is none," are words that fit right into the novel '1984.' I am the first to admit that words can get in the way, but since words are our only vehile in this thread, we have to base our communication on the logical use of language. Interestingly, discovering language problems in what others are writing is what you are trying to communicate to Lloyd yourself.

Still, and while I am glad that you, Lloyd, have worked with a pyramidal model (so I don't have to ask you at all to get acquainted with it) it appears that the mirroring one can find in this model is a problem. One is none, and doubling the pyramid to get to a diamond are aspects of doubling that we should find incorporated already in the model itself.

If we go from the abstract shape of the pyramid to the mathematical (which is in general abstract too, but with more application options) then we find the cone appearing on the spot of the pyramid. One has clear lines on its surface, and the other is smooth and rounded, but both models have a clear up and down aspect. A diamond does not have a clear up and down aspect, and while that may in some cases make it easier to display all information we find, we will then have lost the bottom of our conversation. So it is important to keep the base the base.

One more delivery of the pyramid to make the use of this model more clear:

When placing 'directional position' in top, the four corners are North, East, South, and West. The top distinction is real, and we can read it as either 'directional position' or just as 'position.' Any location on our earth can be seen as position; it does not say anything more about the location in specific, and we can imagine this location to be the one location at which each of us find ourselves right now. We can walk around, fly somewhere else, and this position is basically always the same: wherever each of us are right at that specific moment. If we want to communicate to others more specifically about our position, we'd give more information, for instance, in the form of giving two points of coordination, or of describing how we in reality are either facing one of the wind directions, a combination of two wind directions, or that we are laying in a grassy field with our heads facing the sky or snorkling in the ocean with our faces to the bottom of the sea.

In the pyramidal display of 'position' we find the opposite pair of top and bottom, with the top being a real but general characteristic, and the bottom delivering the specifics. At the bottom of North, East, South, and West, we find two oppositional pairs. One of them absolute (North-South), one of them relative/transformational (East-West). While it depends on our positions to call something North of us or South of us, the absolute North and South poles deliver an ending to the directions North and South. Yet East and West are directions that can always merge into the other; all positions can be seen as East or West (except on the North and South pole). In all, the pyramid delivers three pairs of opposition: top-bottom (= generic-specific), true oppositional, and transformational. The latter two pairs are specific pairs.

The diamond may now become easier to find in this picture, too, when viewing the entire planet, for it would be easy to place a directional pyramid on the Northern hemisphere and one on the Southern hemisphere, yet we make ourselves then one-eye blind. Gone are then the distinct meanings of the four corners, since the top and bottom of the diamond are then the North and the South pole, creating confusion where both pyramids are fused.

As far as being the first to come up with this model, I think we are too late by a couple of millennia.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

Seriously, though, the moment you attempt to use literal matter/motion in literal "matter space" or aether field or whatever is the moment the model crumbles, because there will always be no outside.

Hello Nobody, just thought I'd mention, the moment the model crumbles, is when you do not use literal matter/motion/matter/space or aether field models___and I have always agreed there is no outside. So, we have eliminated another ghost of linguistics___thanks!

Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

Well, that explains it for me. I really don't think it's a linguistics problem at all, because we can wrap our heads around various interpretations, but a problem of empirical and theoretical science preventing philosophical interpretations that allow science and math to be extended.

In the other thread, Lloyd, you had thought I referred to a reduction of energy density over time, but I'm interested in how we can reduce the energy density. I wanted your hypothetical explanation of how you think it could be done.

You still think that it is only Zeno paradoxical to have a literal universe with an internal functioning without external containment - the "no outside" that we both agree on. Yet entertain that further by considering the difference between your perspective and what would be the universal perspective in the following:

It takes you x amount of time to travel from one side of town to the other - your persepctive; but it takes no time for the universe to reach across town, and without motion as well - the universal perspective. So problems do arise when we subject the absolute universe to relative human standards.

Also, your reference to qualia is relatively moot, I would say, and if you figure that one out we will have made a quantum leap you and I.

It is all based on quantum x, but some will focus on 1-1 as being one quantum consisting of two quanta; others as two quanta; still others as the result of combining the quanta; and science, understandably, on only half as being relevant.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Nobody, I see we still have a few quantum ghosts to excise...

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

Well, that explains it for me. I really don't think it's a linguistics problem at all, because we can wrap our heads around various interpretations, but a problem of empirical and theoretical science preventing philosophical interpretations that allow science and math to be extended. [I whole-heartedly agree.]

In the other thread, Lloyd, you had thought I referred to a reduction of energy density over time, but I'm interested in how we can reduce the energy density. I wanted your hypothetical explanation of how you think it could be done. [I do not think that is possible, yet, except the fact the universal evolution, by itself, will, in billions of years, decay the energy density, to the thinnest matter/motion density ground state of FS. The zpe at the bottom of the quantum well is almost that___NZE{near zero energy}. The energy at the top of the macro universe is also beyond our mathematical manipulation, as to reduction___It takes to large a volume for humans to scientifically manipulate. We seem only able to increase/reduce energy/matter density, such as Tokamak spherical test reactor experiments, bombs, etc. IMO, the only means of extracting matter energy is through the many physical processes science already employs, i.e., fission, chemical, mechanical, etc. This does not mean future science will not achieve/invent a way, yet I know of none, except possibly a super-cooled magnet switch, to create a perpetual motion motor, from permanent magnets___this I see as highly possible, with the proper materials, and planetary style gearing.]

You still think that it is only Zeno paradoxical to have a literal universe with an internal functioning without external containment - the "no outside" that we both agree on. Yet entertain that further by considering the difference between your perspective and what would be the universal perspective in the following:

It takes you x amount of time to travel from one side of town to the other - your persepctive; but it takes no time for the universe to reach across town, and without motion as well - the universal perspective. So problems do arise when we subject the absolute universe to relative human standards. [No, I see no problems, except interpreting the laws of the universe, to operate separately from the discovered universal laws of man___they do not. Though the universe be in absolute contact with itself, and its parts, the universal laws of matter/motion still apply. Light still has to chase its own tail, for the mechanics to work___period.]

Also, your reference to qualia is relatively moot, I would say, and if you figure that one out we will have made a quantum leap you and I. [It's just the interpretation abilities, of training your brain to function on more than one level, at once. You can not see the whole functioning universal mechanics from any single perspective, yet it's not a philosophical problem, it's a simple personal perspective problem. Just as Black-Jack card counters, or master Chess players, can hold many mathematical perspective concepts, in their heads at once, so can any human being, with enough linguistics and mechanical matter motion training, and all within the universal laws' respect. It's not Zenoistic___It's simple logical common sense practice.]

It is all based on quantum x, but some will focus on 1-1 as being one quantum consisting of two quanta; others as two quanta; still others as the result of combining the quanta; and science, understandably, on only half as being relevant. [I wholely agree.]

Everyone must learn to function as Huygens taught us centuries ago, it's all a highest probability universe, and "The highest probability, of the highest possibility, is the only possibility." But, I highly agree, this positional perspective is the hardest to achieve, with all the complex brainwashing, most of our mind's DNA, has been ingrained with. Theoretical universal practice is the only solution___I know of...

Lloyd

p.s.
Nobody, if you wish to discuss the above deeper, could you please ask a, or some direct questions? My DNA processor seems to function best with such a direct approach, as I'm also limited, by the whole world's super-consciousness DNA, limiting my abilities of clearest visions...

Nobody, type this into google and have a gander... Naomi S.Ginsberg, Sean R.Garner, Christopher Slowe, Zachary Dutton - Check all the related articles... Hau Lab and others... Most recent light stopping discoveries...

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

So, who cares? Get to the point....

Lloyd

If you don't see it, Lloyd, it may be because you are missing the point. While reading your reply to Nobody, it seems you are saying exactly what I am saying with the model. You have to work it a bit to get the hang of it. Maybe you should ask a — or some — direct questions?

If we look at the directional model, Nobody, it is easy to see where the 'one is none' remark you made would fit in. The Northpole is the place where there is no further North left. East and West have actually disappeared as well, so the only option available at the Northpole is South. Equally, the only direction left at the Southpole is North. The 'one is none' remark can then be better understood that when we have one, only none is left. Yet this special situation only occurs within the larger 3D model; it is itself not the full answer.

We can of course argue whether the poles are specific points only or whether they are fields; I'd go for field, and find a Northpole with a few mile radius — it being that location where every step we take is not going towards North anymore (when the area is basically flat). In this larger spot, our usual directional logic of North, East, South, and West does not apply.

I delivered two specific examples of the overall model: one from a biological realm, the other from a geographical. But anything fits, as long as the information is part of the overall description, such as the four forces, or DNA.

What is important in this model is that it contains the overall understanding from a more modest point of view, instead of from 'the highest probability universe.' Stating that "the highest probability, of the highest possibility, is the only possibility" is a clear no-no-No! in this model. Only all aspects (and indeed that includes the highest possibility) deliver the TOE, not the separate parts — no matter their paramount nature (see Northpole only containing South: it is the highest possibility from this vantage point, but it is still only part of the overall picture).

I care to think of it as a modest model, for it places even the highest truths still in one overall model that contains other truths as well. The ancient peoples, for instance, buried their deaths in these models; as I see it, acknowledging this way that life itself (and matter itself) is ultimately part of a larger overall picture. With a wink to MJA, death is that big equalizer for all of us.

Let me know, Lloyd (and others), what it is that you do not see captured within this model.