T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[N0B0DY]

I can see what you mean, Fredrick, but I'm thinking more along the lines of "grey bodies" or "different shades of grey," which have both absorptive and emissive qualities, to represent the infinite variations of relativity. If white is all colors and black is the lack of any color, then no color can be intrinsic/primary. All colors must be the result of variable mixtures of white and black.

If the name tab we put above the universal pyramid is labelled universe, we then have to explain the specific properties therein. To agree to the absolute as being divisional, I would have to know exactly what the parts consist of and what the space in between particles consists of. If they consist of the same non-substance, and naturally dependent upon this non-substance, then I won't agree in advance.

The absolute in context has to be independent, otherwise it must be relative. I'm sure you realize that the absolute I'm referring to in this thread is not the same as the absolute in statements like "the monitor is there, absolutely!"

I have to say that we're coming close to an agreement by your last statement, "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)." Although, I have to remain stubborn and say that the mechanism for division is required if we are to declare the parts real, and not abstract parts of the abstract whole. Which is not easily accomplished, when literally considered, without disrupting the absolute state.

[Fredrick]

All colors must be the result of variable mixtures of white and black.

What I find remarkable, Nobody, is that we have agreed close to completely all the time already. It has been great for me to communicate with you, for you have great capacities in understanding my words plus excellent knowledge on what others have achieved (here, in TOEQuest and outside scientifically in the 'real' world). You feel definitively at home in philosophy, too. I consider us to have very much the same ideas, you may just be a better communicator and having more scientific knowledge. At the same time, I expect many people to be able to find a lot in common of their thinking with this TOE (with possibly only small parts as unacceptable or not perfectly fitting).

So, the only sentence I disagree with you out of your post is the one quoted above. All colors are not variable mixtures of white and black; rather the colors are themselves the beginning, and only then when combined they become white, (and when all are absent they 'become' black). While the name tag 'color' fits right above white in the pyramid of color, only the name tag is the spot of unification (in the abstract). Right underneath we find white, as the closest thing available, but it is not the unification of color, it is not the source of color, and it is not the essence of color: it is where colors are combined in such a special way that we get white. That's all.

The real opposite of black are the colors. White is only the brightest accumulation of the colors. We are getting therefore two lunches for the price of one (one entire lunch from black to colors, one entire lunch extra from colors to white — or, when starting with colors, there are two trajectories, one to black, one to white).

I am reminded of One-eye being king in the land of the blind. The phenomenon of seeing is all-achieved with just one eye; really, who needs more? Yet once we are all one-eyed, living in a nation, we then start looking for who would be king. Interestingly, we tend to not look for people with two eyes, because we consider Two-eye to be weird. Rather we look for who or what can be considered as having the most and best of one-eye.

Where in the land of the color blind, Blue-eye would already be king, in the land of one-eyes White-eye becomes king, and not Green-and-red-eye. With knowing that unification never exists (except in the abstract), I must declare Green-and-red-eye king, and while I may be charmed by gorgeous-looking White-eye, White-eye is just a plain old one-eye. It is, however, not that hard to be charmed by White-eye, and even when we all are just looking for Two-eye, every now and then a wish for One-eye may still pop up.

[N0B0DY]

"I expect many people to be able to find a lot in common of their thinking with this TOE (with possibly only small parts as unacceptable or not perfectly fitting)."

It's great communicating with you too, Fredrick. So far I've only had a few folks like yourself willing to absorb what is useful to them, and then sharing their new larger pictures.

I have to say that, like myself, you are going to be going up against alot of people promoting a model based on an abstract absolute and a literal separation of quantities and qualities. For myself, I tried to fit your positions into my picture based on the slac experiments in message 1. Which to me implies the properties of light (which I have proven to myself cannot literally exist) creates the relative properties of all particles.

You've done well enough for me to get my head around why white is the same as just another mixed color, but you'll have to go deeper into why the separated primary colors exist of themselves. Just as physicists will have to explain their reasons for ascribing intrinsic properties to electrons and positrons, for example.

Perhaps you could use the spectrum with black on both sides and the colors in the middle. I was thinking that when point A and B - black to black - come together we have white; and when separated, all colors become black. This would essentially render white and black different forms of the same (?), dependent upon distance. Where blacking out parts of the visible spectrum produces different colors.

Something like that, if you will.

[Fredrick]

Austin1.gif

Here is one more beautiful visualization created by Austintorn. Of much importance for us is to understand where we are standing right now with the scientific information we've (they've) got. Only three out of four forces are currently unified (gravity is the fifth force, shown in the middle as the cooperative result of the four forces). Electroweak unification would connect electric force, magnetic force, and weak nuclear force. However, when looking at the pyramidal model, we need to place some question marks surrounding this result. It is not about the results not being there, but about how to specifically identify this discovered level of unification of the three (two) forces.

Two deliveries of the pyramidal model come to mind: the first one is the pyramidal model of DNA, where CgtA are the four bases, but are found only in one combination: GC and AT. I don't know why, but I would suspect that at least one of the options to combine two bases leads to demise (for instance, combining just a C with an A base would leave both bases crippled/unusable). A neutralizing effect occurs, so to speak, when first the two base pairs are created — after which they can then be used together. So this is one pyramidal model: two times two and only then four bases cooperate so that an overall result is delivered in which all four aspects/bases can be used intact (2 + 2 = 4).

The second pyramidal model is that of human being, where male, female, young, and old take in the four corner places. Here we see that each corner actually stretches out over two more corners: male can incorporate young and old as well. Old can encapsulate male and female. Etcetera. So in this pyramidal model each corner had three out of four corners as co-existing part of that corner (but no overall co-existing).

That leaves two options for the model of forces, while a third option can be proposed too:

1/ like DNA: the four forces are two-by-two's cooperating first, with the weak nuclear force connecting to just one of the two aspects of the electromagnetic force (either just to the electric force, or just to the magnetic force), while the strong nuclear force has a connection (that still needs to be found) in the electromagnetic force with the oppositional aspect. I guess the name electroweak indicates that the weak nuclear force is connected in particular to the electric part of the electromagnetic force? In this pyramidal model, we do not look for an overall unification, rather we look for how the forces join hand in hand (2 of them) plus hand in hand (another 2 of them) and then those two pairs can also join hand in hand (4 together) but not sooner. 5, all together, is the synergy effect. In respect to the electroweak unification, we could then say that this term covers too much (for one aspect of electromagnetism is not connected to weak nuclear force, or the term is exactly that: electro + weak, and nothing more.)

2/ Like human being: the weak nuclear force connects on both sides with the electromagnetic force, while the strong nuclear force also connects with the electromagnetic force, but in two different (oppositional to where weak connects) spots (still to be found). In this pyramidal model, we do not look for an overall unification, rather we look for how the forces join hand in hand in hand in hand -and- in hand. Gravity is the synergy effect. In respect to the electroweak unification, we could then say that this term is correctly used (though better is: electromagnetic-weak), but we are looking for one or three more unified parts like that (of just electromagnetic-strong, or of electromagnetic-strong and magnetic-weakstrong and electro-weakstrong).

3/ Electroweak unification is already as far as we need to go: the three forces are unified, while in singular opposition we find the strong nuclear force, and gravity is the synergy effect.

I like this last option the least, but consider it theoretically possible. My choise would be number 1, but number 2 (with just an electroweak and an electrostrong pair-of-three in some kind of oppositional positions) is possible. I think, we are missing some scientific information here still, and physicists may just not be looking in the right spots (I consider the possibility that we have the information already as very real, gathered information that is not considered as of value right now). Naturally, I consider the pyramidal model to be finished; it's just a matter of stating that what we've got is all we need or of finding the right kind of information to make the known information fit either in option 1 or option 2.

Nobody, the question where everything comes from is not a priority I consider right now. I am interested in the how&what, not in the how&why. To show you quickly how I see it placed: the reason our universe started to exist is on the other side of the screen of materialization, while the essence of what is does exist on this side of materialization. We've got what we've got on this side, and the origin is the other side. I can go there, but prefer to do that after a long life.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Nobody, I say that we should focus more on the physical subject matter, because that's all there is___Period. Anything else is just abstract ideas, that may work fine for theorizing, and making our understanding clearer, or more confused, but no-one can make the abstract/abstract real, unless such abstract thoughts and ideas are of the real physical subject matter, because, again, that's all there is___Period.

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[No, this is extremely untrue___metaphysics never extends scientific evidence. Metaphysics means, beyond physics, i.e., abstract only. Philosophy, as long as it pertains and sticks to the physical subject matter, can often extend scientific understanding, but never its evidence, except possibly through philosophical interpretations of physical logical evidence.] whereby we can reach logical conclusions regarding what exactly the fundamental matter is and isn't.[Only if the logic stays physical, in its explanations, otherwise you're into the abstract realm of ontological mythology.]

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 is totally false, as all my physical reference frames of physical phenomena are just that, the physical empirical evidence, and absolutely based on nothing but the physical empirical evidence. There's a big difference between abstract mathematical measurements, and absolutely true physical evidence measurements. All abstract reference are of the relativity crowd, which actually doesn't exist, as all physical evidentiary substance is absolutely measurable. Absolute, in this case, is only to be interpreted as the simple adjective, it truly is.]

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.[Then somehow, Nobody, you have totally missed out on the fact that science also uses absolute physical measurement, quite effectively, as Godel quite easily proved with his completeness theorem of first order logic and math systems.] 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.[In your dreams, Nobody. Tell that foolishness to all the thousands of physicists, scientists and mathematicians who quite vehemently disagree with you, as do I.] It therefore must always remain an illusion based on abstract relative perspectives.[You better redo both your philosophy and physics. They are both quite incomplete.] The would-be-absolute perspective, opposes - is opposite to - relative perspectives.[Again, no, no, no___only the absolute opposes the absolute. It's a totally self-opposing universe___matter and motion___cold and hot FS, quite capable of operating far beyond your false abstract reasoning.]

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.[Maybe you can get fools to accept your double-talk, Nobody, sorry, it doesn't work on me. Like I said it's our linguistic differences. You see the absolute as something far different than I. I see the absolute as either a simple adjective, or the infinite thermal FS, and nothing more___period. IMO, there are no further extremes to this word's definitions.]

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.[Sorry, but I follow the other side of physics more closely, that of focusing on the physical empirical and theoretical data. I see the limitations more as the epistemology of philosophy. Though they're both useful, one should never gloss over the extreme importance of linguistics.] Yet, if you wish to proclaim that the absolute universe literally exists, you are forced to render it literally motionless.[No, not hardly. The universe, just as I've stated, can exist as the oppositions of motion and non-motion, just exactly as we empirically witness, every day of our lives.] 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.[Oh that's perfectly agreeable, except for the non-existence state of your false abstract imagination___That's just plain foolishness.] Put another way, if the absolute universe could exist, even god wouldn't know it.[How can a god that can't exist, possibly know anything?]

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.

Especially when you concentrate on the, "albeit a very persistent one."

Lloyd

p.s.
Here's a little something extra I sent to Fredrick; "Fredrick, you seem to mis-interpret my meanings just about completely. Let me put the above in the simplest dynamic I know. "The good is the enemy of the true." Now, many, many years ago, many philosophers settled for "The good, the true and the beautiful", as a convenient meaning of absolute philosophy. This of course is quite superficial, as is your assessment of hydrodynamics being only some important aspects of unifying, when in fact it's absolutely unifying. And Fredrick, I have no fear of placing knowledge in any model appearance, yet absolute ground is not, and can never be, well-grounded appearance___Absolute ground must be the fact, and not the abstract. Now, let me see if I can sort our differences out. In my world absolute is a simple adjective, and really nothing more, yet I use the term to avoid the foolish abstractnesses of the world of thought. The absolute, when I use the term, only means the infinite thermal FS, and nothing else. Any interpretations, outside of these meanings, I see as the ridiculous abstract, which others are trying to apply to the real physical world, which is ludicrous, to me. In the three pyramid model I gave you, abstract sits in # 1, absolute sits in #2, and both reside in #3, and so far, no language has been developed to discuss this linguistics problem, as no-one has yet agreed on the foundation of "The good, the true and the beautiful."

"The good, the true and the beautiful." This is where we find the entire human race, trying to decipher others linguistic meaning, without setting the linguistic footing, first. Now, as to my meaning, "The good is the enemy of the true", there are many definitions of the good, and I'd suggest narrowing, for conceptual conversations' sake, three major functions of the true, and again many for the beautiful, just as for the good. Why, you may ask? The good and the beautiful are abstracts, thus quite unlimited to definitions, yet the true is only the absolutely true, when scientifically understand, in its provable capacities. Now, at the same time "The true is the enemy of the good", because the true exists in the three major states of desirable truth, necessary truth, and ideal truth. Now, in the extreme, though one may desire to live[the good], it may be necessary to absolute truths survival, that the good be put to death. And, in the other extreme, it may be that both the good and the true die for the ideal, yet this isn't to say that the ideal is better than the good and the true, but that the presents' good and true are incomplete, and must be traded for the ideal complete.

I don't know if you, yet, get my meaning, but all present concepts are, as yet, incomplete. Linguistics of philosophy, physics and economics must be expanded, to its new completeness ideal states, for any of us, to truly understand each other..."

Lloyd

[Fredrick]

Thank you Lloyd for your reply. I think I understand where you are trying to go, but I must admit that I cannot follow you well enough to indeed follow you there. The language is a severe problem here, especially when you are somewhat undermining the word abstract while using it later on nevertheless. For me the abstract is just one part of reality, very similar to being able to create a painting that is only what it is (art for art's sake). Math is another example of an abstraction of reality. 1 + 1 = 2 means nothing if we do not indicate what the 1's stand for. Helpful, however, it certainly is. Yet, I agree with you that we should not get lost inside the abstract, rather we need to use it as a tool to help us understand the whole picture.

I'd like to build a hydrodynamic pyramid, but I have sincere doubts hydrodynamics is in itself enough to deliver an overall delivery. Next to it, my knowledge about it is truly limited. I see how temperature of water can be split up in hot/steam and cold/ice on two sides, with in the middle fluid/water. But I feel I am only working with black/white-formats then, not the entire picture. Even when adding pressure — and seeing for instance that ice-formation is repressed when the pressure is higher ánd seeing that steam-formation, too, is repressed when the pressure is higher — is not enough to make me get unstuck. Anybody out there able to take this further? Should ice be the bottom, and steam the top? What parts of hydrodynamics need to be mentioned to describe the overall aspects of it. I am looking for five, six or seven descriptions, and I only have a few: pressure, temperature, condition. I almost say hydrodynamics cannot be all for a real overall delivery.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Video showing "everything" and the excitement of our TOE task.

No specfic TOE is indicated—it's just footage I made, had, or borrowed. You may have to wait for it to fully load for it to play continuously all the way through.


http://www.veoh.com/videos/v5223508zbF6qwB

[N0B0DY]

"I don't know if you, yet, get my meaning, but all present concepts are, as yet, incomplete. Linguistics of philosophy, physics and economics must be expanded, to its new completeness ideal states, for any of us, to truly understand each other..."

That's what I'm trying to do, Lloyd. To make complete what is incomplete, or rather to push people to complete things for themselves, and I'm looking for people to offer pieces to further evolve the picture. Consciousness comes close, but the proper correlations have to be made or else it won't do well to support the mechanical side of things.

So when I say we extend evidence, I don't mean we make things up as we go along. It relates to extending observational laws fractally, but in such a way as to allow for the mechanics to function logically. I.e., we can't have literal dimensions expanding to create volumetric spacetime into non-volumetric spacetime - you can't step forward into a place that isn't there. So, the fundamental model must be rendered abstract, and its correlating mechanics must function abstractly.

I tried to come up with the best way to express why the FS has to be motionless, since the FS of space is space itself and there can be no such thing as less-concentrated spaces between concentrated forms of space - it's all the same. Our contention is that matter is formed by waves in space, but there is no room for literal waves to be generated because the space is absolute. So I still have a problem with the concept of separating phenomena in this context, because matter would have to consist of something altogether outside of the universal substrate that we're proposing.

That doesn't mean we can suggest anything we want, only that the medium and wave-particle probabilities can't ever change. Yet, photons/gravitons can serve as spacetime according to the space between wavelengths and amplitudes because they are createdbytime dilation (created from antimatter which reduces amplitude and frequency to zero - a type of out-of-phase relationship. So, asymmetry must then be created through the confinement of gravitons, matter and antimatter working against each other to slow down events incrementally to the detectible spectrum which are measured at peak or valley events, but never both which together I propose is the photon/graviton itself. Sort of like the photon-hole model of matter through gravitational time reversal, and this process results in the spherical, helical and a-helical structures of all particles because they are all formed from electromagnetism/gravity, with hydrogen formation and bonding occurring between annihilation events.

[N0B0DY]

Fredrick,

Again, I like what you guys have done with the pyramid models. I think if you, Lloyd, Austin and perhaps RascalPuff got together you would take the world by storm.

Yet judging from your last few responses to me, it seems that alot of it conflicts with my mode of thinking. My mind hasn't changed all that much from message 1, which proclaims that the sum of all pictures is sought after through relative means and that it can't come to an accurate depiction of absolute reality.

I think you have even admitted that your models are more geared toward theories of relativity, with relative quantities and qualities representing absolute in order to keep things on this side of reality. I'm looking more toward the unknown part, to know what others have said can't be known.

Pertaining specifically to your dna model, everything seems to fit in quite well, but it wasn't clear to me whether or not it depicts an intrinsic dna like the color model. Perhaps you could explain where the rna fits in, as well as how the four colors of the color pyramid originate. I see that the dna and the four colors, the way I see them anyway, aren't intrinsic at all.

[Fredrick]

Fredrick,
Pertaining specifically to your dna model, everything seems to fit in quite well, but it wasn't clear to me whether or not it depicts an intrinsic dna like the color model. Perhaps you could explain where the rna fits in, as well as how the four colors of the color pyramid originate. I see that the dna and the four colors, the way I see them anyway, aren't intrinsic at all.

Cool, Nobody, but I think you need to be part of that team, too. And you are right about relativity being the norm (with what is absolute existing on the inside of that what is relative). I am even starting to believe, after reading his post a few times more, that Lloyd is in reality on the same side of the issue as we are; language may be the explanatory reason here for discrepancies/transgressions/misunderstandings.

The model is an abstract, just like math is abstract. Math happens to be called 'the language in which god speaks to us,' and I consider that to be a truth. The abstract is the ultimate ruler, yet may only rule when truly befitting reality. We should not be looking for science fiction to rule, but for the comprehensive scientific abstract. I view the model of the pyramid as math, just using a different language that is more comprehensive (but this limits it at the same time; the pyramid is only to be used for an overall delivery). The color pyramid shows the forces, and they are of such magnitude we find five forces at the end (W/S/E/M/G). The DNA pyramid has only four specific members, and seems like we cannot use it for the forces. We could of course assign a fifth part, for instance, that being the encapsulating matter of DNA, or that being the overall result that the sum is more than the parts. Yet it may be better to say that no fifth part exists in both pyramids.

Of the five forces, we would then say that one is non-exitent (—> gravity), and that it rather belongs to the synergy effect of the parts. That means that also the top of the pyramid is a non-existing part, just like the tip of the pyramid on the one dollar bill is detached from the large base. Only the four corners exist, possibly repeated on a higher level various times, but a fifth part does not exist — it only appears to be there due to this repetition. White is nothing but the accumulation of the colors; there is no color in top, only the accumulation exists. Accumulation of color in opposite position of absence of color (black).

I used both the DNA delivery and the 'human being' delivery of the pyramid, for both are true. They do not conflict with each other in the model, yet they are different in that DNA may show four bases with just one set of separation (the four are based on being bases), while male, female, old, and young show two sets of separation (the four are based on gender and age). They both still function in this model because they deliver information of an overall nature.

DNA are packages, and they are quite stubborn in how they are formed (just one molecule makes the difference between DNA and RNA — see how uracil and thymine are built). So there is not much extra's in this pyramid, yet as we all know, there is an incredible abundance of diversity out there thanks to DNA. If you wish, we could call human beings packages also (packages of life form), but these packages are expressed packages, not building blocks (unless seen as building blocks of society). The internal single separation that exists on the level of the building blocks becomes a double separation in the fully expressed packages.

I'd like to also show how I see the universe, using the idea of how the television functions. I see our universe as a gigantic 3D television set. All is energy (e=mcc). Yet what I find interesting about this analogy is that there is a source for the energy as well. Do I think we can find the cable to unplug the 3D TV? Yes, I think we are getting a good grip on the cord, but if we decide to pull the plug (we are a curious bunch, and we may do it just to see what happens), then still that would not end the universe. At most I think we'll zap the solar system. Even if all we do is turn off the energy source, do we disappear? No, because if you turn off the TV, the TV does not disappear either, just the images disappear, not the hardware.

Where does the 3D TV come from? From the factory, which happens to be not here, but there. It makes no sense for the people in the TV to understand the energy source. By unplugging the cord, we learn nothing extra about where the energy comes from, we only learn what not to do next time, 5 billion years from now (though we forget...). How the TV got into being, however, is a different question we can answer. Materialization was able to appear on this side for the option was created — through the phenomenon of nothing. The other side is everywhere, but there is nothing the other side can do about our side (or about temporarily becoming part of our side). At most, the other side can possibly influence the overall picture a tiny bit, but not more, and not too much in specific.

So, we do seem to share the idea that we are living in an unfinished universe... Should we then take it one step further and try to form a team?