T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[N0B0DY]

Great assessment, Austin, except for the positive and negative energies having a repulsive nature. I would think they would attract, and that graviton/graviton or photon/photon would repel.

Like the debate in the other thread on string theory, I think that it has lasted so long because of Einstein's accuracy in theoretically predicting certain things that were later confirmed empirically. Though the difference being that it would take an infinitely-powerful particle accelerator to verify the function of strings.

I think Einstein was right when he said, "If, then, it is true that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented, can we ever hope to find the right way? I answer without hesitation that there is, in my opinion, a right way, and that we are capable of finding it. I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed."

If the proton consists of electrons and positrons, why wouldn't there be composite particles with lower mass? Perhaps it is the decay of one particle that creates another.

[Fredrick]

Free Lunch

I agree with all you say, Austintorn, but a free lunch I would not call it. Here is how I see it: our universe did not come out of nothing, but nothing made the transgression possible from the potential state to the materialized state.

The difference in thinking is that if our universe came forth out of a free lunch, it would then be self-based, and all that exists in our universe would then be all that there is. When viewing our universe as coming forth out of a potential state, the reason for our universe exists not here, but in the potential state, and we will find 'nothing' as one of the aspects on which our universe is based. Also, the potential state can partially still exist (and would then only be experienced by us as dark matter, for instance).

[N0B0DY]

After reading pif's comments about the absolute paradox, I think it depends on the functioning of the model.

If you're still around, Lloyd, I just want to say that I liked your concept because it focuses on and allows for an infinite functioning. It is an impossibility for the the universe to be finite without paradox, and it is only possible for the universe to be infinite if the concept of literal motion is taken out of the picture, which is what I was trying to work out with you.

The idea of contraction can work in a finite universe, but with paradox; but it can't work in an infinite universe for the aforementioned reasons, open for debate which is what I thought this forum was about.

To me, it's a process of elimination, and we are left with an infinite number of non-dimensional points that can be likened to monopoles obviously already fully contracted. The space and motion site depicts outwaves as being responsible for the inwaves, the waves travelling at c, and the meeting of all the out waves responsible for the standing waves, etc., etc..

It would seem plausible, to me, though there is no space between the points at all for there to be any literal waving. It would be here then that Planck would be inserted to allow free space, but is really unnecessary when we remove the concept of localization. We can then put non-dimensional monopoles at any distance apart and still retain connection without any fields. Also, the calculation of the speed of light across free space (true vacuum) is based upon the speed of light across non-free space. The absorption and re-emission of light gives a false rate of propagation - the true propagation being instantaneous, action at any distance. The concept of gravitational and electromagnetic waves, and in effect warpable space, becomes moot.

[N0B0DY]

Fredrick,

I will respond in private, eventhough I think what you're doing should be public. You have brought up biblical references in previous postings, and regarding your model, there is a passage of a particular Babylonian King (the top position) trying to be like the most high at the sides of the North.

I like your model as well, but it fails to consider the sides due to it being confined within the pyramid. Implying, to me, an infinitesimal functioning within a finite model.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Reality’s Rainbow

I get the feeling that our perceived reality is a tertiary or secondary reality because…

1) Mind/consciousness, our only portal to “reality”, interprets waves/particles or interference patterns or fields in representative ways such as change, color, form, odour, taste, feel, space, and time (via the same model used in our night dreams)—time being the rate at which experience crosses the horizon of mind/consciousness. It’s not the interpretation of reality that’s insightful, although it’s amazing, but that the above qualities produced by mind/consciousness may not exist at the fundamental level.

2) Our reality disappears into black holes and also seems not to exist within the planck distance (perhaps they are connected to recycle matter) and so there seems to be a deeper reality in those places (or it is an effect of (1)).

3) Our so-called fundamental particles may be vibrations of a superstring or some underlying emanation from somewhere else.

4) It seems odd that a particular form of what we think is fundamental, say, for sake of argument, a superstring, happens to work all the way up through stars, matter, planets, suitable environments, and on up to us and our mind/consciousness over billions of years instead of some arbitrary fundamental that had no future whatsoever. Perhaps we are just lucky or perhaps life in another form still would have sprung out of a different fundamental.

Now, as an aside, there could be extremely intelligent alien life forms that could now or someday manipulate us and our reality, although no super life forms are at all apparent now, but no matter, for I am searching for the ultimate simplicity that underlies reality, not some composite complexity that might oversee it.

By the way, I feel that there is indeed nearly unlimited potential in our future (or some other planet’s if we don’t make it) and that the complex composites are where all the astounding action is and will be, but I’m just wondering what started it all down at the lowest level.

There was no beginning of the fundamental and there is no end to it in our time terminology because there is perhaps no time at that level, but—it does exist rather than not, ant any level, for it must do so, since a state of nothingness is apparently impossible given that there is something that our mind/consciousness interprets.

The fundamental may be electrons/quarks or strings underlying them—or whatever underlies strings, but no matter, for the fundamental works quite well, either because it was the only way possible due to some constraint or because it was flexible enough, in a quantum-hinted way to try everything-all-at-once and produce a substance that worked all the way up. I am not suggesting that the fundamental is a system or has parts or has intelligence, for then it would not be fundamental and absolute, although its parts could be.


So, what I get out of all this is that

there was no creation of the fundamental;
a state of nothing is impossible (a truth known but not the why of it);

it existed forever in our terminology of time;

it is simplicity itself;

its reality may be different than what we’re used to as reality, perhaps it is spaceless timeless, and formless—something like the unintuitive quantum world in which all possibilities are in superposition until the most probable appears into our reality;

it might not be that amazing, for that is the price of simplicity, while the complexities built from it are much more interesting and are without apparent bounds.


So perhaps everything in our local reality came from a nothing (as it appears to us) called potential or possibility.

[N0B0DY]

You seem to have it all covered, Austin, imo. The only way I wrap my head around the capacity for localized consciousness when all is nothing, is by considering "to the absolute universe there is no time, space, energy, mass, consciousness, etc."

Differentiation is the prerequisite for consciousness - depth perception and manipulation of 2D imagery - which is based on interference patterns that alter the rate of speed by which we are capable of registering and categorizing various effects. If we were to gain an absolute universal perspective, absorbing all photons and fractional interference patterns, "everything" would full-zoom and disappear, including all forms of consciousness because everything would be the same everywhere (or, more accurately at that point, nowhere).

If we can, in that sense, equate everything and nothing, there is then no other alternative than to divide that "state" by infinity to account for the ability to be conscious, but in such a way that there is no space between the spatial points. If there were to be space between the spatial points, we would have to conclude that literal spatial points are surrounded by non-existence which is the same thing as saying there is no space between the points. So for that reason, the division has to be abstract - creating an infinite number of scenarios, like you said, one of which results in this probablistic universe that persists to exist according to circumstantial possibilites - including abstract particles, energies, etc..

[N0B0DY]

I see a basis for mutation and evolution in the following, and also an explanation of why the subconscious is governed by set discrete particles and energies.

It seems as though if we don't feel it or perceive it, then it doesn't exist. Eventhough what is missed can reverse reality. Sort of like watching something go down a drain in one direction and then at a particular point it switches directions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To stop the probe light entirely, the researchers waited until it had entered the vessel, encountered the gas atoms and imprinted a pattern into the orientation of the spinning atoms.

Then the scientists gradually reduced the intensity of the control beam.

As a result, the probe light dimmed and then vanished. But information in the light particles still was imprinted on the atoms of sodium and rubidium effectively freezing, or storing it, according to Hau.

Then the scientists gradually restored the control beam. The light that had been stored in the spinning atoms was reconstituted and continued its journey through the vessel.

"It's as if you stretched a silk thread across a railroad track and a train vanishes into it,'' said University of Colorado physicist, Eric Cornell, who reviewed the Hau study for Nature.

"You wait and then -- Bam! -- the train reappears and goes zooming down the track,'' Cornell said. "It's not at all what you would expect from a pulse of light.''

About 50 percent of the light -- and its information -- was retrieved in the regenerated light pulse, scientists said. That might not be good enough for a practical computing system, but it demonstrates how such a system might store and ship data.

Whether either group actually stopped the light completely is open to some interpretation. The probe laser actually is a bundle of light waves that form a single wave. This is known to physicists as the group velocity; it is the light that your eye sees and a camera uses to record an image.

Does stopping the group velocity mean that the individual light waves themselves were stopped? That's a deeper quantum question, physicists said, but they considered the Cambridge groups' claims to be valid.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...op_010119.html

[Fredrick]

Fredrick,

I will respond in private, eventhough I think what you're doing should be public. I like your model as well, but it fails to consider the sides due to it being confined within the pyramid. Implying, to me, an infinitesimal functioning within a finite model.

If we look at the three dimensions — and I write them as left-right, up-down, and front-back — then the inward-outward pair is a separate distinction, yet fully included in these three dimensions. Without anything additional I have two eyes here: I see the single 3Ds and I see the collective inward-outward pair. Both eyes contain the exact same information, yet I understand them to be different nevertheless. One focuses on the individual aspects of the Ds, one focuses on the collective nature of the Ds.

Just as I mentioned with red, blue, and yellow mixing together making a distinct fourth 'color,' the extra dimensional and distinct information of inward-outward does not require extra dimensions to be explained. Not only do we not need to search for anything extra to explain the existence of that fourth color, if we keep on looking for the reasons why the fourth color exists outside the given information of the three other primary colors, we are only fooling ourselves in thinking something must be there, when nothing (extra) is there.

So, still, the nothing is then part of this picture too, since we can get a free extra lunch out of what is not a free lunch. It's still a pretty good deal to get two lunches for the price of one. Similarly, place all parts of a bicycle separately on a floor, and you can imagine yourself biking on it one day — but not now for they are nothing but a bunch of screws, plates, spokes, etc, lying separately on the floor. Only when fit together properly will the separate parts have become a bicycle, and we can bike away on it. This extra overall delivery without it being something additional from the parts is called the synergy effect.

Again, if others want to try their hands on the pyramid and send me private messages, please, go right ahead.

[Infinite Consciousness]

I'm sorry, IC, but from my perspective I still see a contradiction if my stance is that the absolute is non-existent. Nothing can't exist as an absolute state, let alone a self-aware state.

To me, the relative means by which existence is made manifest is being taken as an absolute existence of itself. The means to an end is not the end itself. The end is you and I. The means, when totalled, is non-existent.

At another site we were on, there was someone who said if God was omniscient, God would have to know what it was like to not exist. Of course, it struck a chord because it could be said that God is non-existence itself, as the absolute, and a part of every aspect of abstract reality as well.

Nobody, re your stance that the absolute is non-existent.

(A) Exist = means to live; have life.

(B) Existent = means (1) existing. (2) existing - having life - "now;" "of the present time."

(C) Consequently your use of non-existent means, life itself per se as an "absolute" is not living or not alive in the now
of present time.

So your stance means that life itself per se as an absolute is non-existent to you because in your opinion life is not absolute in the now of present time it is not absolute life or is not absolutely alive in the now of present time.

Nothing, (i.e non-existent), does not represent the absolute - nothing is the measure of our awareness of what the absolute is ! And, as the "Absolute " is Pure Awareness and our awareness of the absolute is non-existent then we assume that the absolute is non-existent.

We cannot say that, "The absolute is non-existent" in the now of present time because we are not fully in the now of present time we are divided asunder in a past - present - and future - time - there is no way that we can know what is or is not in the now of present time unless and until we ourselves come fully out of past and future time and fully into the now of present time.

Only then can we know whether the absolute as no - thing is alive and is in fact absolute life itself per se or whether it is non-existent - the difference is awareness and we cannot know the difference without awareness - because Pure Awareness is the absolute ! And, where is our awareness it is divided between - Past - Present - and Future - time.

We cannot ever know whether Pure Existence (Awareness) is the absolute in the now of present time or is non-existent in the now of present time - unless and until we become an undivided whole fully in the now of present time and experience it in fact.

Therefore we cannot say that, "Nothing can't exist as an absolute state, let alone a self- aware state," because we in our incomplete state of awareness divided into - past -present- and future time - cannot even know what the no-thing really is and cannot know whether or not it is Absolute in the now of present time.

Nobody, you summed it up right in the second part of your statement, "God is non-existence itself, as the absolute, and a part of every aspect of abstract reality as well." The aspect of God that we are calling non-existent is the Unmanifest Pure Life of the Absolute while the manifest aspect is the illusion.

The question here is not whether the absolute is non-existent but rather whether our awareness of it is non-existent ? If the Absolute is Pure awareness then we are not aware of it because we are not one with Pure Awareness ! We state that God or the Absolute is non-existent but in fact is is our awareness of the Absolute that is non-existent.

What we are calling nothing (no-thing) is the absolute that exists in an absolute state in the now of present time and "IT" is the Self or separate entity called spirit which is Unchangeable Permanence i.e. Pure Awareness.

[N0B0DY]

Pur awareness of what, IC.?

I can understand that the ancients sought to realize the state of oneness of nirvana in absolute bliss, but the means to a new beginning was and is seen as the end.

There can be no such thing as absolute awareness or awareness of the absolute. I've read many of your postings and know that you know that differentiation is required to be conscious or aware of anything.

There is nothing wrong with existence as it is. Life is great, but it isn't great for all because people are greedy, stupid, generally ignorant or willfully ignorant of consequences.

To me, the universe is only capable of transcending time because there is no time for the universe. To be strange, the now is the never, and there is a gateway to the ability for everyone to manipulate existence according to the will of the universe as opposed to a personal will. The gateway then leads to your means of light and sound to create a new creation with the difference being that every consequence is known and history stops repeating itself like ourobourus eating its own tail.