T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[N0B0DY]

Sort of off-topic, but it seems remarkable what goes on behind the scenes. Keeping in mind that this is bacteria.

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

"Looking closely for the first time at intact bacterial microcities, scientists are amazed to see them packed as tightly as our own urban centers, but with a decidedly futuristic look. Towers of spheres and cone- or mushroom-shaped skyscrapers soar 100 to 200 micrometers upward from a base of dense sticky sugars, other big molecules and water, all collectively produced by the bacterial inhabitants. In these cities, different strains of bacteria with different enzymes help each other exploit food supplies that no one strain can break down alone, and all of them together build the city's infrastructure. The cities are laced with intricate channels connecting the buildings to circulate water, nutrients, enzymes, oxygen and recyclable wastes. Their diverse inhabitants live in different microneighborhoods and glide, motor or swim along roadways and canals. The more food is available, the denser the populations become. Researcher Bill Keevil in England, making videos of these cityscapes, says of one, 'It looks like Manhattan when you fly over it.'

"In addition to rearranging Earth's crust, creating an atmosphere, devising urban lifestyles and creating the first worldwide web, bacteria invented other amazing technologies. Some produced polyester, though biodegradable; others harnessed solar energy as photosynthesis, permitting the making of food when it became scarce; still others invented the electric motor for locomotion -- -a disk with flagellum attached, rotating in a magnetic field, complete with ball bearings, not to mention the atomic pile, probably to raise local temperatures. Seeing these startling parallels to human lifestyles and inventions makes us see evolution fractally. In fact, when I fly over human cities, making them appear small, I see them as cells spread over a substrate, or as bacterial colonies."

http://www.ratical.org/LifeWeb/Articles/capetown.html

[Infinite Consciousness]

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.

Nobody, will you please give me your definition of differentiation and why in your estimation differentiation is required to be conscious or aware of anything ? Please if possible keep it simple. Thank You

[N0B0DY]

It's the capacity to differentiate things. The ability to define things according to their different aspects.

For example: you are aware of the wind when you feel its effect as being different than when there is no wind, and you know what wind is only because you have felt it; or you can be aware or conscious of a door in a room because of the difference in its appearance, or if your eyes are closed you can feel the difference; whereas if there was never wind and no such things as doors, it would be impossible for you to be aware of them.

So subjective reality is the result of differences working in a particular fashion that allows awareness of objective reality that differs from your own. If everything was the same, consciousness goes along with everything else. So I conclude that there is no such thing as "one" and no such thing as being aware of the "one" because if you were aware of only one thing, you would be the differentiator which would create two - you, and the one that you would consider absolute.

Best I could do, IC.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi all, been on the road, so having trouble making connections...

Nobody, we as humans can never be the one, but we certainly can be aware of the one, especially when we realize the one differentiated to become two, whether aware of itself or not, the fact remains, it differentiated to become the many of one. Now why would I insist on the absoluteness of oneness into the many? And how could such a mechanic be fundamentally possible, of which the entire universe is built from?

The simplicity of the answer lies in our perception abilities. Usually if one sees a solid divided infinitesimally into the many, the perceptive training of minds, see this phenomena as irreversible, when in fact it's not. Also, usually if one sees the many divided infinitesimal many solids recombined into the one, the perceptive training of minds, see this phenomena as irreversible, when in fact it's not, again. Now, why is this the clue to the absolute fundamental mechancis of the entire universe?

I think it is you Nobody who stated that to see the universe as one, would make the vision most incomprehensible, and true enough this is, but only in one sense. That sense is the fact that it is quite overwhelming to first witness such a vision, and may take years to render it comprehensible, but it is possible, I assure you, as I have done just that, over the years. This is where your differentiation comes in, as because, when one sees themselves as the one, it's like being the so-to-speak "god". Now, when one takes this omniscient position, how does one re-render his sane consciousness back to sensible differentiation, between the one and the many, again? Well, it ain't easy, but in order to make human sense, anyone must come from the most human and humble moral position possible, for the world to accept your ideas, as no-one wants to listen to a "god"___They all want to be "god", whether male or female___Yet nobody is or can be. This position is not open, as Fredrick has pointed out, as it requires the support of the human family. Just as many have said, if Christ returned, no-one would listen, and would even stone him___Most likely true___The everyone wants to be "god" syndrome.

Now, as to the infinite/infinitesimal and the absolutivity of relativity, just for you Nobody. First, it should be pointed out from all the information agreed to by most all posters, in this thread, the position of a nothing point is impossible, therefore; that leaves only the absolute particle position of the smallest infinitesimal point, i.e., relative polar or Cartesian point co-ordinates, thus, the absolutivity of relativity. No matter how relative/abstract a point or position, it absolutely must remain fundamental particle point fact. The absolute relative abstract can never be reduced to nothing, not even the abstract relative family or color point of Fredrick's. The mind producing the abstracts is a factual particle set of absolute points of real fundamental matter___Always, eternally. This doesn't mean the mind is eternal, just the fact that its composite parts___Are!!!

As to the infinite/infinitesimal I mentioned above and above, the physical state changing abilities of fundamental matter have no bounds of confinement, as Nobody likes to try put them in. They are free to divide/multiply/transmute to all infinitesimal/infinite de-combinations/re-combinations, just as is his biological bacteria example. There are no limits to the number of infinitesimals, since as the universe becomes full of infinitesimals of the infinite, they just simply transform/transmutate in the opposite direction, toward the one. All this scientific process is controlled by the one simple fact of temperature variances, on the fundamental matters concerned. The one into the many, or the many into the one, as many times as quantumly possible, without any quantum or macro limits. Then, and only then, when the fundamental universal has no quantum restrictions, except the one degree of motion freedom, does the universe work, and work quite perfectly___All on its own.

The problem of perception has always been with breadth and focus of vision. The larger the breadth of vision, the less the concentrated focus of the small, possible. And, the greater the concentration of focus of the small, the less of the breadth of vision, possible. Everyone must combine, these two perceptions as one over-all perception, in order to see the true fundamental workings of our real universe, at all levels...

The one mechanical universe is mighty capable...

Lloyd

[Fredrick]

Hi all, been on the road, so having trouble making connections...

The absolute relative abstract can never be reduced to nothing, not even the abstract relative family or color point of Fredrick's. The mind producing the abstracts is a factual particle set of absolute points of real fundamental matter___Always, eternally. This doesn't mean the mind is eternal, just the fact that its composite parts___Are!!!

The one mechanical universe is mighty capable...

Lloyd

Welcome back then to you, Lloyd!

I should be humble and not respond to what was not aimed at me, but there is ofcourse only one answer possible to the absolute relative abstract reality, and that is that the aspects themselves contain the unifying principle — for themselves. Instead of ending up with a universe that contains everything equaling 1, we find ourselves in a universe where everything equals 2 (we can bring the three oppositional positions in the pyramid back to all three basically being one in opposition to another one). So, your principles are correct, but as far as the outcome is concerned, there is a lot more to it than you suspect — twice as much.

The universe being not the actual source of itself, but always in a state of being the result of what was before, means that the singular unifying principle exists on the other side of materialization, not on this side. However, and you know I have said this various times, I agree with you too that unification exists on this side, and has its place. Yet it is not singular. It exists together on a platform on which nothing exists also.

P.S. I like the biological picture, Nobody, it's fascinating, but I hope they'll never find picasso paintings on the bugs' walls nor transit radios and cell phones in their jackets!

[N0B0DY]

Hi Lloyd. It's good to see you back in such a civilized manner. Perhaps it will be ok if I respond to you and Fredrick here at the same time because I feel things should be out in the open, not kept private.

It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words, and when we have pictures in our minds of infinite measure it requires a lot of words to express ourselves. Leading sometimes to the use of words that perhaps facilitate common understanding, but fail to portray our picture accurately. For instance, when we say that the actual or abstract points become such and such, it fails to imply that the actual or abstract points already are such and such. Especially for myself, when the picture is one of non-existence. The points don't become non-existent or reach the zero point. The actual points never exist and the abstract points only pertain to relative functioning of polarized particles.

I know you don't care all that much for Zeno, Lloyd, but his paradoxes play an important role in extending what is considered to be common sense through empirical and theoretical physics. His notion of having to reach the half-way mark between point A and point B, and then the half-way mark of that, etc., is a subtle depiction not of what was considered an insane use of infinity, but the maintaining of motionlessness of the zero point. The Uncertainty Principle pertains to future outcomes, based on what I would claim to be an improper use of infinity; the Certainty Principle pertains to the present zero-point position that obviously always carries across the abstract points referred to above; and it shows the difference between zero-point energy and zero rest mass.

The starting position of any measurement always has to be absolute zero, and that zero-point remains throughout every infinitesimal point of the measurement. So my position that I have to stand for is that there is no need for separation or reintegration of points, when all points are really zero points. Though I concede that it is a matter of perspective, focusing on the measurements and not on the fact that the measurements are illusory extensions of time. Rendering reality as the difference (differentiation) between instants, and projections of past events that account for depth perception and the sense of future events "to come" relative to variable rates of speed - necessarily exceeding the presently determined speed of light.

Ultimately, I'm a funny kind of shapeshifting bird (raven), that seeks the truth at the absolute center of the infinitesimal particles, and the truth outside of the pyramid. With the intention of unifying the E/M/W/S force with the abstract gravity, Fredrick, which doesn't add or subtract forces, but combines both add and substract to give us abstract forces. Then there is no outside, no inside, and no in between. It is the only way, for me, to eradicate any conceivable paradoxes.

(I posted the biology article to perhaps lend support to RascalPuff's picture of a fractalized universe, although I'm sure he has something entirely different in mind.)

[MJA]

The Uncertainty Principle is simply the proof that measure has no certainty. Yet man continues down the path of measure looking for the absolute certain truth ot TOE..

Truth is obscured by theories and faiths, by 1 and o or numbers, by complexity rather than simplicity, by the measure of uncertain difference instead of the measure of the certainty of equality. The Uncertainty Principle as well as Relativity were great men's attempts to shed light on the flaw of measure. That we stubornly continue down the path of probability, the grey area of measure is the misdirection or flaw keeping us from the truth. The flaw of uncertain measure, of difference, or the weakness of probability is all that divides us.

The future of mankind is the equality of not just his fellow man, but the equality of all things. When we truely understand the limits of measure we will know the truth. When all things are equal, all things are united, and all things are one. Letting go of measure will set the universe free. The uncertain difference of measure is the Uncertainty Principle redirecting us to the truth. Turn around and you will see it too.

Equal is the path to nature's simple truth!
When all things are equal all things are one!
It is only measure that holds us apart!

MJA

[Fredrick]

The Uncertainty Principle is simply the proof that measure has no certainty. Truth is obscured by theories and faiths, by 1 and 0 or numbers, by complexity rather than simplicity, by the measure of uncertain difference instead of the measure of the certainty of equality. The Uncertainty Principle as well as Relativity were great men's attempts to shed light on the flaw of measure. That we stubbornly continue down the path of probability, the grey area of measure is the misdirection or flaw keeping us from the truth. The flaw of uncertain measure, of difference, or the weakness of probability is all that divides us.
MJA

I fully agree with you MJA, yet at the same time, to discover the whole truth I am forced to include both of what you are saying ánd measuring itself in one final delivery. You may feel like I am trying to tease you into accepting a paradox, but I do see the overall delivery as 1 + 0 (which is still one of course), that at the same time is also the opposite: 0 + 1 (which is still one of course). So while you have your 1 (and eat it too), the eye-opener is realizing that your zero is actually the 1 for someone else, who's viewing it all from a different position and your one is that someone else's 0.

The overall delivery has to include the option to see/experience things from the opposite side — and still be correct. Measuring is vital in understanding everything, but so is knowing that some things are beyond measurement. A TOE contains both sets. And while a TOE can explain a lot, it is not a tool to calculate how many grains of sand are on the beach this coming Wednesday, three o'clock. A TOE itself has its limitations in usefulness. Reality is messier than the abstract, and the abstract is only a tool to help us understand how the overall picture functions. While we may create an abstract pyramid to understand how everything fits together, it does not help us understand how an infinitesimal particle is freed from the pyramid; like dust in the wind, gravity has very little or no pull at all on it. Maybe you saw this on TV too, but the development of watches to replace clocks were a big improvement in shipping and navigation in that everything was so small inside the watch, that gravity did not influence the mechanism anymore. When halfing something and then halfing it again all the way into infinity, we automatically surpass a limit at one point or another (and it's hard to tell exactly where) of the halfing first delivering a significant result to it then being rather insignificant. Gravity does not have much pull on the insignificant objects, making these objects be free of gravity — and still both are considered real parts of our universe in which gravity is paramount.

[Infinite Consciousness]

I fully agree with you MJA, yet at the same time, to discover the whole truth I am forced to include both of what you are saying ánd measuring itself in one final delivery. You may feel like I am trying to tease you into accepting a paradox, but I do see the overall delivery as 1 + 0 (which is still one of course), that at the same time is also the opposite: 0 + 1 (which is still one of course). So while you have your 1 (and eat it too), the eye-opener is realizing that your zero is actually the 1 for someone else, who's viewing it all from a different position and your one is that someone else's 0.

The overall delivery has to include the option to see/experience things from the opposite side — and still be correct. Measuring is vital in understanding everything, but so is knowing that some things are beyond measurement. A TOE contains both sets. And while a TOE can explain a lot, it is not a tool to calculate how many grains of sand are on the beach this coming Wednesday, three o'clock. A TOE itself has its limitations in usefulness. Reality is messier than the abstract, and the abstract is only a tool to help us understand how the overall picture functions. While we may create an abstract pyramid to understand how everything fits together, it does not help us understand how an infinitesimal particle is freed from the pyramid; like dust in the wind, gravity has very little or no pull at all on it. Maybe you saw this on TV too, but the development of watches to replace clocks were a big improvement in shipping and navigation in that everything was so small inside the watch, that gravity did not influence the mechanism anymore. When halfing something and then halfing it again all the way into infinity, we automatically surpass a limit at one point or another (and it's hard to tell exactly where) of the halfing first delivering a significant result to it then being rather insignificant. Gravity does not have much pull on the insignificant objects, freeing the objects of gravity — and still both are considered real parts of our universe.

Re, measuring is vital in understanding everything. WRONG, what is doing the measuring or differentiating is what is vital in understanding everything this is the underlying mistake that prevents anyone from recognizing the T.O.E. and there is no T.O.E. without it. MJA is right !

Differentiating and measuring is what prevents us from realizing 'oneness' because in the never ending process of differentiating and measuring differences we never take time to recognize or even be aware of that which is doing the measuring and differentiating and never know that "IT" is the "oneness or unity" in the Grand Unified Theory or Theory of Every-thing !

[N0B0DY]

If IT is the one which measures and differentiates, then IT is forced to partake in the never-ending process of measuring and differentiating. Resulting in IT's incapacity for realizing absolute oneness and unity, and resulting in somewhat of an absolute snare.

Though I would say that we are all partially correct in our assessment of measurements. Only that we can realize that "one" without measure is synonymous to no measurement at all.

It is difficult not to see that religious contexts come into play, based on bathing in bliss for all eternity unified with the eternal one. That the "I" refuses to die and egoistic tendencies prevent self-sacrifice and the realization that the reality of the "I" is a mighty persistent illusion.

At any rate, an interesting point on gravity was brought up by you, Fredrick. I thought that the gravitational field would remain the same at all scales, being that it is relative to mass and distance, according to your model.