[lodestar]

Originally Posted by Nobody

I'm guilty of making things unnecessarily complex and esoteric myself, but if we return to elementary thinking regarding first philosophy I think we can find the missing key to the toe.

At this point I would agree with you and interject to say that whatever first principle we use should be based on affirming the reality of existence.

[Nobody]

The problem is, again, that you are confusing a relative product of a particular quanta with the only possible absolute state of the non-localized universe. If you just want me to agree with you about relativity, fine, I agree, but I'm not interested in relativity. If you look back you'll see that I said myself that no matter how far down you shrink the magnet you will still have the magnet. It's infinitesimal and is also a relative product. So there is, again, only infinity on the one hand and nothing on the other, and as a whole positive and negative infinity exactly cancel out to zero.

You keep pressing that 1/0 is the absolute number of the universe, but it isn't even a number to begin with; and second, it doesn't include both positive and negative. It includes a positive and the result of negating that positive with its negative counterpart, also known as 1-1=0. The zero is neutral and is found nowhere in particular because each point of any positive or negative is opposed by its equal and opposite force, which results in every conceivable point, that you continue to claim exists, as being non-dimensional/non-existent.

Your last comment isn't quite what I had in mind, Lode. Of course you're a part of the universe, but no part in particular. To picture it another way: you have a head and feet, and if you "pinpoint" the position exactly in between the two, it is no closer to your head than it is to your feet. That absolute point can't exist, and that point is the same within all measurements. So at which absolute point can we say that the universe exists? Savvy?

[lodestar]

The absolute point at which the universe exists is everywhere, the point 1/0. It is as complex and simple as that. Perhaps you would like to explain to me why 1/0 is not a number because it seems quite clear to me when you evaluate the number for what it is. You're just saying it's not a number because you don't understand it just like every other mathematician that said "undefined." Also perhaps you would like to explain to me how nothing exists if you and I exist and we are part of everything. Have you tried opening up your eyes enough to see the definition of everything around you?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Lodestar, please look this up and learn what absolute values of math are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_value Don't argue with it. It is right. You are wrong___yet more right than nothing...

regards

Originally Posted by lodestar

The absolute point at which the universe exists is everywhere, the point 1/0. It is as complex and simple as that. Perhaps you would like to explain to me why 1/0 is not a number because it seems quite clear to me when you evaluate the number for what it is. You're just saying it's not a number because you don't understand it just like every other mathematician that said "undefined." Also perhaps you would like to explain to me how nothing exists if you and I exist and we are part of everything. Have you tried opening up your eyes enough to see the definition of everything around you?

[Nobody]

Excellent graph, Lloyd. It perfectly explains my point, or rather non-point, that no matter which absolute value you choose it is the same as zero because the numbers go on to infinity. Take number one, for example, it's an absolute value of a relative measurement that equals one on any side of the zero axes, but if you stick your bean way down inside of that number one, two, three, etc. perhaps you'll realize that the absolute point of existence in its entirety is zero. The "absolute" value of the measurement you propose is only valid relative to amount you stretch the non-dimensional point to create that value, and that is how I'm saying space-time is illusively created.

I'm obviously not denying the existence of "things," which would be synonymous to denying the existence of the above values, but simply stating that every possible point of infinity is the center and that it is an impossibility for it to exist outside of the illusively relative world. You, like Lode, and many other scientists are the ones who are indirectly implying that nothing exists. I'm proclaiming that it doesn't, and for that reason it is an absurdity to argue a literal functioning of a universe in a place that doesn't exist. We then have to explain existence as the product of the subconscious which creates time dilation for us to be aware of. Like the zpe that exists at both ends of the spectrum, and our observable spectrum as a part of that; non existence is taking that comparison to the absolute furthest extent, with our consciousness being dependent upon part of the relative functioning in between the non-existent exterior and the non-existent interior.

In other words, we can change our explanations of how the universe is created and functions, ironically based on the simple graph that you referred us to to refute my position. Take another look at the graph - at the one, the negative one, and the zero at the center - and then change the one or negative one to zero using your imagination of course. What happens? Nothing at all because there is no such thing as a literal change. Those points are all zero.

[lodestar]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Lodestar, please look this up and learn what absolute values of math are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_value Don't argue with it. It is right. You are wrong___yet more right than nothing...

regards

Begging your pardon sir, but I do not believe you understand what I'm talking about. I scored in the top %99 for Math, which I am very prolific at, and I know full and well what the meaning of absolute value is. I am even the one who has defined the greatest of all absolute values, the number of everything itself, which no mathematicians have had enough valor to define until now.

Now as that link you put states the absolute value is the distance of a number from zero. I know that. So in other words, an absolute value does not characterize between positive and negative - it is both. It cannot be neither because that would be 0, no value at all.

So you can take the absolute value of any number that has value (i.e. any number that is not zero, since zero has no value at all) so lets say the absolute value of -2, which is 2. The way this is written is |-2|=2

Now notice that the 2 is essentially positive, but let us not be confused, for an absolute value is not positive per se. It is actually both positive and negative but we only think of it as positive for simplicity (this default to positivity is serendipitous proof of the principle of optimism which I have outlined in other threads).

So see, I know exactly what absolute value is so don't play me for a fool. It is you all who do not understand that there is only one number, and one most important number, which is the absolute value of all numbers put together. In other words, you don't have to take the absolute value of this number; it ALREADY IS an absolute value, the absolute value of everything itself to be precise. Now please do not denigrate this monumental insight that I have made for I am passing it on to you so that the human race can be knowledgeable about the real physical mathematical philosophical value of everything. Because I assure that this is the so-called theory of everything which humans have been seeking. Trust me, 1/0 defines everything, just as 0/1 defines nothing. 1/0 has absolute value, just as 0/1 has absolutely no value. It is perfectly symmetrical and in line with the irony of truth.

[lodestar]

Originally Posted by Nobody

Like the zpe that exists at both ends of the spectrum, and our observable spectrum as a part of that; non existence is taking that comparison to the absolute furthest extent, with our consciousness being dependent upon part of the relative functioning in between the non-existent exterior and the non-existent interior.

funny you should mention zpe, that is one of my specialties. Now by zpe I assume you mean zero point energy. Well, after I discovered my marvelous theory I was blessed with more revelation than you can hardly imagine. Oh I'm creating a zpe machine allright, a zpe machine that's gonna knock your socks off. Just you wait and see, then you'll know who you're talking to. But in the meantime I should have you know that zpe does not come from the zero field. So called ZPE, or the energy of time as I call it, comes from the 1/0 field, the ultimate source of all energy you see.

Originally Posted by nobody

In other words, we can change our explanations of how the universe is created and functions, ironically based on the simple graph that you referred us to to refute my position. Take another look at the graph - at the one, the negative one, and the zero at the center - and then change the one or negative one to zero using your imagination of course. What happens? Nothing at all because there is no such thing as a literal change. Those points are all zero.

Unfortunately the graph which you all are looking at is only half of the big picture. There is another center you are missing. You are only looking at the inversal of time not the exversal. If you want to understand the whole circle with both it's ends, you have to look at this diagram.

http://www.photobucket.com/albums/y9...everything.jpg

You see, I already figured it all our for you guys. I've come to show you, it's great.

[Nobody]

Lode,

If you put both your chart and Lloyd's chart together, and get rid of the one divided by zero, you might figure out what you're trying to figure out.

You have at the top the correct equation for what Lloyd wants to call the absolute value, eventhough all measurements must be relative, but at the bottom the correct equation is one times infinity (both positive and negative) which equals infinity, which is also infinity divided by itself, not one divided by zero. Again, one divided by zero being equal to infinity has to mean that one is equal to infinity times zero, but it isn't. You can only have infinity (relative functioning) on the one hand, and nothing (absolute non-existence) on the other. There is no such "thing" as an absolute value of one.

Both the real and imaginary axes have to be included to keep symmetry of the absolute, which is outside of the relative measurements of the "real" world. Where a positive/negative value in this world would be opposed by a negative/positive value in the imaginary world. In other words, what is imaginary in this timeframe is real in another timeframe, and the whole bunch of it is relative which renders the only possible absolute as non-existence/zero.

[lodestar]

Originally Posted by Nobody

Lode,

one divided by zero being equal to infinity has to mean that one is equal to infinity times zero, but it isn't.

I explained this to you. 1/0 is not equal to infinity because infinity is not both positive and negative at once. 1/0 is. So what you mean to say is that 1/0 is equal to the culmination of positive and negative infinity, and what I'm telling you is that this means everything at all. So yes, one divided by zero equals everything, and everything times nothing does equal 1, because everything times nothing equals anything. Right? Something times nothing equals nothing but not everything times nothing, because everything times nothing equals anything.

observe

X*0=0 unless X=1/0
1/0*0=0/0

Hopefully you read that this time because I already tried to tell you twice.

Originally Posted by lodestar

Nothing times everything is anything, but specifically it's whatever is in the numerator of everything, which always represents 1 in spirit

Anything divided by nothing equals everything, but only in the case that anything is not 0

Anything times nothing equals nothing, but only in the case that anything is not 1/0

maybe you should read and understand these principles and then we can have an intelligent conversation involving the number 1/0

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by lodestar

Begging your pardon sir, but I do not believe you understand what I'm talking about. I scored in the top %99 for Math, which I am very prolific at, and I know full and well what the meaning of absolute value is. I am even the one who has defined the greatest of all absolute values, the number of everything itself, which no mathematicians have had enough valor to define until now. Lode, your mistake is in not defining infinity into its true dynamics. Math requires us to use real distances, motion and time, thus scientists define infinity for scientific purposes. I think Leibniz was the first to set a rational number for a true mathematizable rational infinity_---_without such, such later mathematicians as Charles Sanders Pierce could never have created the second order logic and graphed mathematics, of correspondence, of true infinity, i.e., between 1 and 0, used by Pierce's counterparts in Europe, Tarski and Cantor. As to your other mistakes with infinity, they can be solved by dividing infinity into low entropy infinity, far in the past, of unquantized, unrelativized space-time, and high entropy infinity of today's quantum/relative space-time. And yes, true infinity is here and there, but quantum/relative is only here and not there. There infinity is classical, before quantum/relativization of infinity, and not by physicists, but by the evolution of the cosmos, itself. This is the mistake all meta-scientists/mathematicians make, of not realizing the difference between scientific meanings, and non-scientific meanings. All meta-meanings are founded on the non-defining of the ontic infinite, thus its unbounded thought, and all science is founded on bounded rationality, of defining the ontic infinite. I doubt if this will be understood by you, but anyway, it's the scientific truth of both sides of logic and emotions.

Now as that link you put states the absolute value is the distance of a number from zero. I know that. So in other words, an absolute value does not characterize between positive and negative - it is both. It cannot be neither because that would be 0, no value at all. If you had noticed, mr. mathematician, the article stated the value of zero, in math, is always positive.

So you can take the absolute value of any number that has value (i.e. any number that is not zero, since zero has no value at all) so lets say the absolute value of -2, which is 2. The way this is written is |-2|=2 Again, zero is always positive - it exists as an absolute interger, to measure from_---_positively or negatively...

Now notice that the 2 is essentially positive, but let us not be confused, for an absolute value is not positive per se. It is actually both positive and negative but we only think of it as positive for simplicity (this default to positivity is serendipitous proof of the principle of optimism which I have outlined in other threads). The principle of optimism says you must be honest.

So see, I know exactly what absolute value is so don't play me for a fool. It is you all who do not understand that there is only one number, and one most important number, which is the absolute value of all numbers put together.{That is infinity, and un-defined, it is stupidity} In other words, you don't have to take the absolute value of this number; it ALREADY IS an absolute value, the absolute value of everything itself to be precise.{Again, tis infinity, and must be defined, accurately, not to be pure stupidity} Now please do not denigrate this monumental insight that I have made for I am passing it on to you so that the human race can be knowledgeable about the real physical mathematical philosophical value of everything.{Try defining infinity, sensibly, first, please.} Because I assure that this is the so-called theory of everything which humans have been seeking. Trust me, 1/0 defines everything, just as 0/1 defines nothing. 1/0 has absolute value, just as 0/1 has absolutely no value. It is perfectly symmetrical and in line with the irony of truth.

And perfectly out of line with real and true mathematics.