T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[Fredrick]

Now we're getting somewhere. It is promising that we both use the terminology, "there is no single overall position," because then we can focus on the two abstract perspectives of the abstract singular state: one being expansive; and the other contractive. So we can realize that the abstract state represents both the wave/particle perspective, and the motionless medium.

Instead of there being a disproportionate amount of matter/antimatter and postulating "antimatter universes" elsewhere, both "exist" at the same point, but are annihilated instantaneously.

We've been getting somewhere all along, Nobody. No worries there. I am enjoying our communication a lot. And I'd say, Lloyd has some excellent perspectives to offer too, but from my perspective it's mainly the language that gets in the way.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Nobody, if you have the most beautiful and loving lady, in the entire world, is she absolutely real, or abstract? If abstract is your answer, tell her your reasoning, and see how far the relationship goes... I think if you start developing deep and truthful conversations with the opposite sex, you may have to start offering more reality in your responses, don't you think...?

Lloyd,

The one-degree of freedom is pulled straight out of a magic hat, Lloyd.[No, it's just a simple explanation of why infinity is not finiteness, and why absolute is other than your private definition of.] I'm not kidding.[No-one said you were.] Empirical and theoretical science can only take us so far,[Yet, the only distance we can actually go.] where we then have to use philosophy[No, I think philosophy has been a failed school of thought since 1905 and 1926, i.e., Einstein and Heisenberg.] to extend evidence to render logical conclusions so that science can remain as self-corrective as it is.[I see no evidence of philosophy ever correcting science. I only see where newer physical evidence or/and empiricism have been the self-correctives of science. IMO, logical, sound, physical advances, are the only true advances of real science.] So your continuous proclamations of absolute reality being a result of the logical freedom of infinity to produce finiteness has no affect on me.[Only trying to show you a very simple evolution of reality. The universe either came from the infinite absolute or the finite absolute. Which is your choice? I see the infinite absolute as the only logical position, as the true conservation of matter/energy, can only be supported by infinity over finiteness. Otherwise, finiteness is stuck with an incompleteness equilibrium/equivalence problem of the highest magnitude, i.e., you are left with a universe losing real matter to infinite space, through finite universal decay, which most agree is expanding, and some even that it is accelerating also, yet now you are left with the dis-equilibriated matter/energy position of more matter decaying, than is being replaced, in all such laws of the finite universal law structure. Thus, the infinite is a required entity, to allow the first law of thermodynamics to function properly, in its total and truer universal equilibrium, and only infinity's mechanics does allow this final completed correction to the first law. Without it, you are left with a decaying finite universe, ever headed into absolute dis-equilibrium, much as Poincare' tried, unsuccessfully I might add, to argue years ago. IMO, Poincare' was far more correct than either Boltzmann or Einstein, as pertains to the first law. All of science must re-think the first, second and third laws of thermodynamics' positions, to their true completed whole, and stop basing fundamental physics on their in-completed presently accepted structures.

If you can explain in detail exactly how your mechanics can localize a universal center within an infinite model, I'm all ears.[If you just thoroughly think out all possible mechanics of infinity, in a true correspondence logic with finiteness, infinity can do nothing else.] Otherwise, you're just wasting your time because I know what you mean by contraction, it's not like you're explaining a complex concept in Chinese, and the in-wave mechanics don't work.[Sorry, but the in-wave mechanics work fine, and in no other way possible, as infinity is limited to the initial condition of one degree of freedom, no matter what you otherwise surmise. When using these words, absolute, infinity, initial conditions, they are very confusing, as you can not possibly realize that my mind is functioning from the abstract theoretical on into the absolute physical factual universal mechanics, so I quite readily see why you often mis-interpret my words and ideas, yet I see no language possible to relay the truest of physical mechanics of initial/eternal/infinite/absolute conditions, except by trial and error linguistics. The complexities of the one and the many are too great a simplicity to relay with one linear tongue, if you can understand what I truly mean by this sentence.] There can be no in waves first because there can be no first to the absolute.[You see right here, is where your understanding of the words gets in the way, i.e., your linguistic understanding is totally different than mine, and neither of us knows how to join our divergent understandings of the same concepts, and neither does Fredrick. I have no trouble with first/absolute/in-waves as my mind understands it as the time scalar evolution of abstract understanding of theoretical motions, on into absolute physical motions, the real universe. The only way I can have my mind wrapped around these complex/simple ideas is to hold the abstract theoretical, and the absolute physical, in my mind, as one whole completed reality, of a matter physically produced universe, and the final stage of us, as humans, the abstractors of the information. IMO, philosophy has nothing to do with it, it's all linguistics, only, and our mis-interpretations of eachs' ideas.] Perhaps when you get your philosophy straight, you will see that I have my physics straight, Lloyd.[When we both thoroughly understand eachs' linguistics, we may have a chance of breaking down the walls of truth blocks, on all sides. The linguistic quantum/relative/uncertainty wall is far larger than first assumed.] There is an infinite difference between the infinite and the absolute.[And you see here, I see only a slight semantical linguistic difference in our understandings. Infinite/absolute or absolute/infinite can easily apply to any physical fundamental substance I recognize the universe as being, or being made of. Infinite and absolute have the same and yet different mean ings to me, according to the contexts used, but to go into these linguistic differences is an entire philosophy, that I'd really rather avoid, as it takes us too afar of the subjects at hand. The only thing I see possible, is to be less critical of eachs' linguistics, and concentrate more on the physical subject matter, as the abstract is just how we think, and nothing to do with the real organization of the physical universe we inhabit.]

Infinity pertains to space and eternity pertains to time, and both require localized motion to be measured;[Finiteness is the localized motion of space/infinity/eternity, we can measure.] the absolute is motionless because it is non-local[It is also local.] and as a result all points become the same point,[Only abstractly, physically this makes no sense.] or more accurately all points are the same point.[Again, abstractly true, yet physically ridiculous.] And since that absolute point doesn't and can't ever exist,[Again abstract, absolutely does not exist, it's abstractly existing, only, yet the physical absolute point does always exist.]
spacetime and localized concentrations of mass/energy must remain illusory abstractions.[The only illusory abstractions, are abstractions, that's their definitions___Illusory visions. They can become real when our abstractions correspond with absolute physical reality, though.]

Perhaps you might consider studying the zeroth law, zero-point energy, and zero rest mass more thoroughly to grasp the context of this thread, Lloyd.

Oh, I quite grasp the context of this thread, Nobody. I just quite dis-agree with much of it, yet I see great value in advancing true knowledge with just such abstract skeptical speculations, when I have the patience. It's just I often don't have such patience...

Thanks,
Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

Fredrick,

Unless you have a personal reason for wanting to debate in private, I prefer to share things openly, for whatever it may be worth. So I apologize in advance for going ahead and responding here.

The point you made about talking of literal things within an abstract is a good one, and it is the crux of the moot reasoning of the scientific and general focus of separated parts within a whole. My point, all this time, simply being that if the whole is abstract, then the "everything" divided within it must be abstract too. Eventhough seeming very real from individual perspectives.

The rolling ball perspectives are just that, relative perspectives that the absolute universe doesn't share. There is no longer comparative sides when we invoke the absolute, so as a result both perspectives completely negate each other.

Since, hopefully, we are attempting to make the seemingly complex simple, instead of making simple things more complex the further one delves into these matters, when we apply the above to particle mechanics we can change our conceptions of present-day assumptions solely based on observations. The assumptions of which lead to beliefs that matter "somehow" decided to stop the universal annihilation/creation process and lead to unnecessary complexities, when time dilation can answer questions on all universal phenomena.

We simply have to consider all "points" in the universe as event horizons where time stands absolutely still - the above-mentioned perspectives that really don't exist - but that, importantly, the reason for non-being is that all effects occur simultaneously (what we could call absolute speed). So then matter/energy conservation is seen as a concept of the "past," because there is no matter or energy to conserve, and the abstract perspectives of one and zero can be seen as producing an infinite number of abstract fractions in between.

The picture, imo, is semi-accurately depicted by RascalPuff's explanations, yet I place gravity as the inverse of electromagnetism. So to speak, fractional photons emitted from one particle, are gravitons to neighboring particles; and gravitational time dilation, gravitational mass, and gravitational effects are cumulative infinitesimally. Only to be greatly differentiated because of a forward electromagnetic time perspective, where gravity is considered negligible and only increasing with mass eventhough it is responsible for slowing "time" down for events to be observed to "begin with."

[Fredrick]

Fredrick,

Unless you have a personal reason for wanting to debate in private, I prefer to share things openly, for whatever it may be worth. So I apologize in advance for going ahead and responding here.

The rolling ball perspectives are just that, relative perspectives that the absolute universe doesn't share. There are no longer comparative sides when we invoke the absolute, so as a result both perspectives completely negate each other.

Okay, if you don't mind, I will discuss my concerns in the open with you — even though I consider it mainly a matter of semantics, possibly better addressed in private. The universe contains only relative perspectives. We agree the overall absolute does not exist, yet we appear to differ how to word the remaining picture of relative aspects, them being the only parts. As I see it, the parts do not negate each other, rather they exist within their own realm, and may exist in some state of balance where both supporting and negating one another does occur. Negating is an option, but it is not the overall condition.

If we take the male and the female as expressions, or the young and the old, then these aspects do not negate each other, rather they are based on themselves and we find dynamics between them. Sure, aspects of negating occur, but the overall picture shows the individual aspects, with them being based on their own realm. The overall picture is one of dynamics.

The rolling ball exists absolutely, but we cannot give it an absolute direction based on all observers standing in different positions. Still, the ball rolls in one direction only. The two (or more) perspectives cannot be negated because they do not belong to the ball, they belong to the observers. Position is cue, and to complete this picture, the ball and the observers are all objects (and observers) too.

To bring this back to the images of human beings of female, male, young, and old, each is specific and that is the universal code — being specific.

[N0B0DY]

Lloyd,

You say that we should focus more on the physical subject matter, but that is what philosophy or metaphysics does by extending scientific evidence whereby we can reach logical conclusions regarding what exactly the fundamental matter is and isn't.

At any rate, when you say that all points being the same point is abstractly true but physically ridiculous, this is how I feel with regards to people using physical models when it can be easily proven to ourselves that all physical phenomena are based on abstract reference frames set according to a particular set of abstract measurements.

This brings us to your statement; "Finiteness is the localized motion of space/infinity/eternity, we can measure." I would agree only to finiteness as abstract measurements that give the impression of localized motion. Yet, I know it seems real to you, but since the universe is the space, matter, motion, energy, all observers, etc., there can be no localization possible. It therefore must always remain an illusion based on abstract relative perspectives. The would-be-absolute perspective, opposes - is opposite to - relative perspectives.

So as far as your insistence of the mechanics of contraction being sound are concerned, the absolute can't possibly share this hypothesis because there is no in or out to the absolute universe that must already be at the innermost and outermost point and all points in between simultaneously, which logically reduces all literal points to a single non-dimensional point; and there are no events occuring at all because, similarly, all events must occur simultaneously from what would be the absolute perspective, which reduces all events to no event at all.

The confusion is not due to linguistics, but due to not logically following the implications of physics which soley focuses on the limitations of empirical and theoretical data. Yet, if you wish to proclaim that the absolute universe literally exists, you are forced to render it literally motionless. And I am only proclaiming that this motionless state is equal to non-existence because without differentiable phenomena, motion, matter, time, space, consciousness, etc., can't exist. Put another way, if the absolute universe could exist, even god wouldn't know it.

As for my pick-up line, I use Einstein's "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." and I can make your dreams come true. That usually works well, Lloyd.

[N0B0DY]

Fredrick,

When you say: "Negating is an option, but it is not the overall condition." I have to disagree based on our past agreement that the overall position is abstract. So, instead, I have to conclude that the overall condition of all relative conditions can only result in absolute negation.

Your people analogies, although helpful in certain instances, don't really depict negatable perspectives. Although, if I asked you whether or not a man or woman who had a sex change is a man or woman, or if a 21-year-old male or female is old or young, what would your answer be?

Of course, just like the direction of my rolling-ball analogy, we are not negating the existence of age or sex. They are used only to portray negatable factors - young/old, male/female, right/left - in order to facilitate an understanding.

For us to venture into the more confusing negation of existence in its entirety, we have to invoke an abstract universal perspective, whereby we would then ask the universe which direction it is moving; which sex it is; or what age it is. If you catch my drift, it is relatively easy to realize that the universe moves in all directions, is both sexes, and all ages, simultaneously - which is understandably a ridiculous notion. So I just conclude that the absolute universe doesn't move, is neither sex, and is ageless.

Ultimately, the brutal reality is that there is no reality outside of potential reality, which hasn't happened yet and has already happened - same exact state. So in between these "two abstract states" (really one or rather no state, to be clear) there can only be an abstract gravitational time dilation that slows absolute speed down to produce this seeming evolutionary procession, which in turn produces observers with the sensory perception based on neurological effects that are set according to subconscious reactions to subatomic stimuli. The cumulative effects of which, are consciously interpreted as macroscopic reality.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The 7 ages of women are

infant, toddler, young girl, adolescent girl, young woman, young woman, and young woman.

(They never get old)

[Fredrick]

I am very honored to use Asutintorn's visualizations in this post. Thank you, Austintorn. Really cool! And you're right, they never get old!




In this image, we are looking from a bird's eye view down on the pyramid of colors and forces. In top (which is the center position in this image) we find white as the ultra-bright delivery of the mixture of these colors. As explained earlier, this is an abstract delivery, where yellow is one of the three primary colors of reflection of light, and green is one of the three primary colors of light-as-source. Within these two aspects of light green is not a primary color in the reflection, and yellow not a primary color in the light-as-source part. Duality is therefore part and parcel of this abstract pyramid.

To state that white is the overall color brings us very close to the discussion about overall conclusions. Nobody and I agree that white is not really the overall color, rather it is the overall composite of the various colors. As such, one could argue that — just like black — white is not a color. Yet instead of white being one that lacks reflection or lacks light source, white is not a color since it is not self-based, but based on the full-out reflection of others/full-out delivery of light by others. If you wish, we could compare this to 1, being not a prime number (though only divisible by 1). Nobody and I agree that this spot may appear singular, but is not singular in nature. It is composite based.

Yet, the conclusions for the entire pyramid cannot be based on this specific spot either. While the option exists to philosophically negate the title of color for white, it does not negate these titles for blue, yellow, or red. These colors are truly there, and truly what they are: self-based colors. These colors are self-based either in both respects (for red and blue) or in one respect (for yellow or green). Philosophically: white is not really there (even when the composite is there), and the primary colors are there. Individually, the primary colors are the basis, collectively, they create white (or in more ordinary situations: gray).




In this second image made by Austintorn, we look at the pyramid bottom-up, and we see that in the center not much is happening. If I take the two positions young and old as green and yellow then in the middle we find the people that are neither young nor old. And this is a good example of the phenomenon of nothing, for it does not mean nothing is there, but that in respect to the framework there is a position in the middle that delivers a zero result. Being 37 years old means neither young nor old, but it does not mean you stop breathing. And while some say that it sucks to get older (I disagree), you do not get sucked into the black hole in the middle.

New example, same result. If we take left and right as the framework, we've got a spot of nothing in the middle that is really there. Most people would like to say that left and right meet in the middle, but that's the whole point: they don't meet. In the middle we find a spot that is neither left nor right — but it is still there. So, the black in the middle of the pyramid is really a spot in the pyramid, but as far as the specifics of the framework are concerned, there ain't much there. It is a perfect spot over which to have a tug-of-war, but all we would then be doing is forcing a solution for this spot that is either left or right; it does not make the center spot of not-left-nor-right go away, such specific result only shows who was able to influence the middle outcome.

[N0B0DY]

That's some great work, guys. It helps alot to explain your position, and like I said before it conforms to the standard model, Lloyd's model, Lynd's model, and quite a few others. Theories of relativity and evolution are ingenius really, being based on duality and change, everyone observes dualistic principles and change in everyday life so they must be right.

I had thought that you would pick up on the "young/old doesn't negate age" or, further, breathing - an in-out mechanism that ceases if both aspects occur simultaneously. This breathing mechanism is pertinent to incorporating the religious aspects of the TOE, or the gateway that I spoke about, whereby the yogic breathless state must be attained. Contrary to popular belief, as is depicted in the wave structure of matter, the universe doesn't breathe. So I made it a point to go deeper into the negation of existence in its entirety through absolute unification, to say that, of course, you can have two age perspectives at the same time, but you can't literally be two ages at the same time. You can't be 10 if you're 20, and the absolute universe would have to absurdly be both, so I justify that the absolute universe is neither - the universe is not a human.

There is an infinitely subtle and narrow line that allows relativity to function infinitely. I think if purveyor of knowledge stuck around long enough, we would have seen eye-to-eye on quite a few things because we were pretty much at this same point here. He suggested that the unification of north and south rendered north and south always, whereas I suggested that absolute unification negated both north and south. The reason for the argument was that the equator can be reduced infinitesimally while retaining north and south - forever. Yet, this cumulative polarity can't exist without non-existence at the absolute center in order for there to be two poles - two poles divided by what? There is no singular state in between that renders an accurate break, so the rendering must be the result of non-existence being abstractly divided infinitely; and, further, this absolute point exists nowhere within the everywhere, so to speak, if we were to remove any infinitesimal point from the whole. In other words, literal non-existence must carry throughout all abstract existences in order to render impressions of existence. The inverse doesn't and can't apply, which is my argument with Lloyd.

I appreciate the time you've offered and the work you've put into your search for truth, and I've been looking for someone who would meet me half way to perhaps better express my picture. It has been suggested that the Yin/Yang symbol adequately explains things, much like your depictions of white and black, each containing aspects of each other. Yet, it doesn't explain the absolute unification of white and black, which would be neither white nor black, nor would it be grey (similar to infinitesimal polarity). It would be non-existent, which I would describe as clear, but that doesn't do it justice. So I think the absolute state must remain indescribable.

I noticed, though, that you mentioned white is composite and that blue, yellow and red are intrinsic. It reminded me of the proposed intrinsic properties of the electron, which are now being considered as relativistic. So perhaps you might elaborate on this point here to explain why these colors above are independent.

Also, is it possible to edit the pictures? It's hard to read with them being so large.

[Fredrick]

You can't be 10 if you're 20, and the absolute universe would have to absurdly be both, so I justify that the absolute universe is neither - the universe is not a human.

I noticed, though, that you mentioned white is composite and that blue, yellow and red are intrinsic. It reminded me of the proposed intrinsic properties of the electron, which are now being considered as relativistic. So perhaps you might elaborate on this point here to explain why these colors above are independent.

If we both agree that the overall picture is based not on the whole, but on the parts plus the sum of the parts, then I think that covers pretty much what we all are trying to say. The parts can be absolute parts, but the whole cannot be absolute. The universe is not singular; the universe is made up of gazillion parts that are whatever they are.

For me, the starting point is the universe. And for each pyramid the starting point is the name tag we place above it. In the case of the pyramid of color, I find at the corners the specific colors. How could they not? The pyramid is called 'color' so that's what's there. The surprise is not that the colors are independent, but that white is not; it is a bright distinction based on the parts that help create white. And right underneath white, within the pyramid we find gray, as the more honest representation of the collective colors.

The universe is because the universe is. Except that the universe is not singular, but rather 'is' all parts at the same time. And if we compare that state to white, then we can seriously consider the universe to not exist onto its own, but we cannot say that of the parts; they really are what they are (whenever they are).