T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[mkirkpatrick]

knowledging professional being behaviour physiological engeneering applying method factor diverse specialization applied method interaction practice area settings develop social expertise bionomic technological newtonian physics stratified information machine thinking multiple level pshyc, productive spiecie creates and applies science unity knowledge

Kwaquar,what is it exactly that you are saying here?


regards michael.

[KWAOUAR]

i say that system awareness perceptions interaction ability developing quality level education mastery inferstructure articulating guiding ideas cumulative exalted senses contingency subject matter learning capabilities choice thinking establish form methods degree rigor balancing element loops unique qualities cycle proficient enviroment potencials spatial vizualization kinesthetic knowledge wavelength connection principles generative behavior high performance ,being knowledge only what is measurable.....

[mkirkpatrick]

i say that system awareness perceptions interaction ability developing quality level education mastery inferstructure articulating guiding ideas cumulative exalted senses contingency subject matter learning capabilities choice thinking establish form methods degree rigor balancing element loops unique qualities cycle proficient enviroment potencials spatial vizualization kinesthetic knowledge wavelength connection principles generative behavior high performance ,being knowledge only what is measurable.....

Very interesting Kwaquar,but what is your say on nothing,and the theory thereof?


regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi all, !!!!!?????

[quote=Nobody;21297]I agree with Lloyd that zero is positive, but I don't think he knows why. Otherwise I'm sure he would agree with me that zero is the only absolute that represents the absolute value (really relative to be honest) of any number.[The only absolute value is the high rad drifter to low rad drifter___the rad drifter is radiation decay. The only reason it is the only absolute finite value, {as all values must be finite to be seen and understood, because all our logic, understanding, sight, feelings and judgement are finite essence agents}, is that it can classically accurately measure all finite quantum/ralative space-time and mathematical and emotional decay out into an absolute low entropy infinity.] Such low entropy infinity becomes proportionately thinner the further your imagination stretches it, to impotent and meaningless exaggerations of non-definition___want ta keep going? You know, you are missing the whole point of infinity___Infinity is a finite one singularity, eternally... The equator of one singularity is the equilibrium of everything___This nonsense defines not one damn thing until you apply it to a real object___what is the real object you are trying to define? If it be emotions, they lose power and meaning as they approach the infinite distance away from logic/math. If it be logic/math, they lose power and meaning as they approach the infinite distance away from emotions{i.e., real body, you, self, your finite being, your essence agents, etc.}

Again, like I said to Lode three times, the absolute point of any value (because it is both positive and negative and a part of infinity) is also equal to zero. Like the "absolute value" of one, two, or three, is also zero. Each and every absolute point of any measurement is non-dimensional, like a simple line that is an inch long, and if each point of that doesn't exist, what can we say about the reality of the existence of that measurement? It's an illusion.[At this point you should really get your head around quantum/relativity, and the classical infinite space-time container of said quantum/relative space-time. When you truly understand finite space-time{Minkowsky}you are on your way to understanding real absolute values, and their relative relatives___quantimized/relative wave particles, i.e., singularities, and singularities of still other singularities___which make a whole finite/infinity___singularity.] As my wife says; "Go within, or go without." Low entropy infinity can be thinned eternally___there is no outside of this wierd singularity___it is everything___always___infinitely___eternally. Unless of course, you are in the rubber-room of impossible exaggerated infinities___minus logic and math. This is usually referred to as emotions with no bounderies___the sensless exaggerated state of the natural mind... Of course, emotions with finite bounderies is the sensible state most of the world lives in___good luck...

The greatest of all numbers, beyond infinity, is zero. What is greater than infinity? Nothing is greater. What is lesser than the infinitesimal? Nothing is lesser. Hence, there is no such thing as "one" and no other absolute point other than zero.[/quote] [It would be nice to see you come out of this rubber room, and back to finite reality's descriptions of life and objects. Beyond infinity___show me such object in a test-tube. I don't know about you, but I can only see the finite___tell me how to make my eyes see the infinite. If my eyes can't see it, my mind can't either___it don't exist. Mathematics is the only reason I can even talk about infinity___I absolutely know all this bs will one day decay into a mathematically radiated away absolute low entropy infinite space energy, and a low entropy finite amount of matter___absolute rational, classical math tells me such objective truth___thus I can see it. Now, if it radiates away___it must come back___How?]

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Eric, where did you post this? I found it in my e-mail and reposted here, since I couldn't find it at the address assigned.

To believe in “one”, when a “one” can only exist to an outside observer, means to ignore the reality of the logical totality of all there is. Being a part, you cannot place yourself outside the whole to view the “one”.
When we see that 1’s do not independently exist, they require a duality, both consciously and in terms of reality…(finish)
---End Quote---
Two points I'd like to make about this.

Yes, the one's we commonly think of, don't independently exist. The 0 and 1 we use, are both based on axiomatic assumption. We can assume one of them, and make a series of proofs that gets us to the other, but we don't really get there without assumption. Assume 1 and try to get to 0. Divide it half, again in half, ad infinitum. You can never get to 0. The same holds true in the other direction. All finites are assumptions that ulitmately blow up or collapse to infinity.[You have assumed an incorrect assumption. By choosing 1 and 0, you are somewhat correct, but math doesn't work that way. The foundation is first order logic and math. Such math is real solid object math of positive numbers. With correspondence, we can traverse to negative numbers, then to the infinite series, you refer to. Godel and Pierce proved first order logic and math sound. Godel proved second order logic and math incomplete___you only referred to the second order incompleteness, and not the first order completeness. Eric, first order finites are not assumptions, and do not blow up or collapse to infinity___only second order numbers and above, then not all of them. Check out Charles Sanders Pierce's graphed mathematics at the turn of the 19th century___he is the father of second order logic and math, that Cantor's ideas came from, more than Tarski. Just pointing out a little mistake. The rest of your posts make a great deal of sense. Welcome aboard. Lloyd]

Secondly, the 0 and 1 you're ultimately refering to, are different. These are absolutes that are not yet a part of mathematics or any other way of looking at a TOE.

The question is, can the 0 be more easily seen by the observer than the 1?

So ask yourself this. If absolute nothing EXISTED, would there be absolutely nothing? In other words, if non-existence existed, would there be non-existence.

It will either be self-evident to you or it won't. But the absolute 0 is impossible. Yes, the absolute 1, can be seen by the observer.

An absolute 1 does not have to come from an absolute 0. We just make the assumption that the 0 exists. It doesn't.

But this doesn't mean 1=1 and that's the end of the story. It's just the beginning of the story.
***************


There may be other replies also, but you will not receive any more notifications until you visit the forum again.

All the best,
Theory of Everything

[Nobody]

To Lloyd and Eric,

Contrary to the popular belief that I'm one brain short of having a brain, I see your points, really.

The argument is not with relativity, or infinity, as I said quite a few times, nor is it with finite values required to function the we do and the way we perceive the universe functioning. Of course we can only be alive and conscious of "things" because we differentiate them by finite measurements that make sense.

The problem is the absolute, and is based on a very simp,e question of what is outside the "one" universe or beyond infinity. The name itself "universe" implies the thinking of philosophers, mystics and scientists is bound by the concept of one on the one side and senseless infinities on the other. Say we consider one "substance" that goes on forever, call it space. It is undifferentiable, without possible motion of any kind, and it is the same state as absolute nothingness - one absolute "thing" can't move; and absolute nothingness can't move. All intrinsic properties that make sense of this world cease at that point, and my point is that that point is essentially non-dimensional. So that singularity that you refer me to does not and cannot exist. Only relative measurements that quanitfy according to the laws we adhere to in physics make sense, and beyond that they go on to infinity - never to the absolute point that you suggest is a singular whatever because it ceases to remain a part of existence altogether.

So ultimately, I'm not talking from my butt, and I'm trying to give scientists a hard time about relativity or even theoretical concepts of infinity. We can consider it as the difference between the forces that are required for universal functioning and the net effect of those forces that even hard core scientists admit equals zero. The zero is the absolute point, even beyond zpe temperatures. It is zero kelvin and it doesn't exist.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

No-body, there is no beyond___can't you read, it's a decreasing entropy state of an infinite singularity___eternally thinning the more you exaggerate your simple 0___remember? Infinite energy of the finiteness can thin for eternity, exaggeratedly so, unless you know what prevents it. The THD demon of the low rad drifter, Thermalicity, and Cesium, lurks in there___soooomwhere. Do the math___the further you stretch infinity beyond the light cone of finite understanding, the more foolish you look___Oh, and BTW___are... Let's say you stretched infinity a googol to the power of a googol in our present light years in size, that's a 1 with 100 zeros after it, you would get decayed matter of the finite universe stretched and spread out so far, Humpty-Dumpty style, all the King's horses couldn't put H-D back together again___Ott-Ohh, you just created the cardinal sin___you killed not only finiteness, but infinity. Don't you see how stupid this line of reasoning is? By now?

Check your own self-created semantical paradoxes. Since you don't know it yet, there are no paradoxes, except by the self-creators of them___ahhhhh___you!

Try some absolutely real classical mathematics___least and greatest, less and greater magnitudes___to hell with 1 and 0___this is easier to see your self-foolishness with___ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc ccc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

regards,

To Lloyd and Eric,

Contrary to the popular belief that I'm one brain short of having a brain, I see your points, really.

The argument is not with relativity, or infinity, as I said quite a few times, nor is it with finite values required to function the we do and the way we perceive the universe functioning. Of course we can only be alive and conscious of "things" because we differentiate them by finite measurements that make sense.

The problem is the absolute, and is based on a very simp,e question of what is outside the "one" universe or beyond infinity. The name itself "universe" implies the thinking of philosophers, mystics and scientists is bound by the concept of one on the one side and senseless infinities on the other. Say we consider one "substance" that goes on forever, call it space. It is undifferentiable, without possible motion of any kind, and it is the same state as absolute nothingness - one absolute "thing" can't move; and absolute nothingness can't move. All intrinsic properties that make sense of this world cease at that point, and my point is that that point is essentially non-dimensional. So that singularity that you refer me to does not and cannot exist. Only relative measurements that quanitfy according to the laws we adhere to in physics make sense, and beyond that they go on to infinity - never to the absolute point that you suggest is a singular whatever because it ceases to remain a part of existence altogether.

So ultimately, I'm not talking from my butt, and I'm trying to give scientists a hard time about relativity or even theoretical concepts of infinity. We can consider it as the difference between the forces that are required for universal functioning and the net effect of those forces that even hard core scientists admit equals zero. The zero is the absolute point, even beyond zpe temperatures. It is zero kelvin and it doesn't exist.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi all, I would also add this as further explanation of similar ideas and histories:

http://www.physics-philosophy-metaph...hp?p=1688#1688

This explains the finite over the infinite best:

Mong H Tan, PhD



Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 1
Location: USA
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:44 pm Post subject: Consciousness vs Observer: A Complementary to Infinity Quest Hello, Philosophers, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit!

Specifically, Knotty Nuf-Rumi: As I promised, as soon as possible, I would come to your Infinity thread—as recently I just post some relevant comments here Philosophical implications of TOE project (PhysOrgEU; September 21), in case you all would like to pursue these subjects further.

Remember a few months ago, when you introduced me your threads of the WSM and Infinity, I thought they were novel ideas—albeit metaphysical—but they were incomplete as a universal theory of our spherical Mind—a theory that I’ve had extensively and intensively researched and presented in my book Gods, Genes, Conscience—and a concept that may be likened to the double-looped Lemniscus (or 8, which I use as I couldn't find any other appropriate symbol), that symbolically represents the Infinity, as well as the interconnected relationship between our Consciousness and us, as the Observer. I think this is the key point—as quoted below—that Gil has had tried to raise and I fully concur with it that WSM or Consciousness only represents one loop, as follows:
Quote:Here is where I see a problem between the skeptics, scientists and spiritualists. I do not see any problem with space existing infinitely/eternally, but, and this is really a big but, I can in no way see how you can logically jump to life also existing infinitely within infinite space, unless you consider waves alive. As a skeptic of this idea, logic would dictate two possibilities here, not just the one wished for. Since neither of us can prove whether life existed, or not, before the biosphere, or can exist infinitely after the biosphere is long gone, my logic says we can not know this very important epistemological answer except by ontological faith, alone—thus the problem of religion entering your science, at this most important of points. If I read Milo correctly, he also believes in a conscious wave theory, at the least communicating—correct me if I'm wrong. If this be the case, no matter how much logic is applied, it still lands in faith—not science—as the two possible cases of life before any biosphere, anywhere in the universe; or no life anywhere in the universe, until first biosphere, are two real possibles. This is the major scientific/ontic question that must remain open, until further knowledge exists to establish the correct view—the a-theist or the theist... The logical possibility of either view is open-ended logic, i.e., unresolved—incomplete reasoning...

If you can resolve the above quandary of differences, it would be much appreciated... Also there is the problem of first cause. Just to state infinite eternal space/wave existence, by shear choice of faith, is not science—and herein lies much of the problem of why Wikipedia doesn't accept your total system, even though I agree with WSM, quantum dynamically, more than any other proposal, it still lacks a true first cause—except shear faith in infinite eternal existence. I personally think it goes much deeper to a true first cause—a thermodynamic self-creating, purely mechanical universe, later creating biospheric life, as we now, many billions of years later are enjoying. Of course, this is purely conjecture, but the logic door is pried open a bit further—again...

Sorry to counter your logic, but I feel some of the holes must be filled, as I support your ideas immensely... There are only a few in the world joining physics and philosophy, keep up the great work... Regards, Lloyd
I would characterize myself as an empiricist-philosopher, so my approach to solving the Infinity or the Theory of Everything (TOE) question, may appear unconventional to the dialectics of the traditional philosophers who might have had been focusing on Metaphysics as a subject, in order to arrive at their TOE, or Consciousness and Special Relativity—please see also Quantum mechanics: Who is the observer? (PhysOrgEU; September 14).

Briefly, here is how I would arrive at the TOE or Infinity from a modern neurophilosopher’s perspective, that I’ve had discussed elsewhere before as well—eg, in A search of particle-wave function in our brain?! (PhysOrgEU; July 22) and Consciousness and Special Relativity? (PhysOrgEU; August 18 ), etc—that Consciousness is an ambiguous subject even today that none a well-trained scientist or philosopher could have had gotten it right completely, satisfactorily. Indeed, it is too hot and vague a subject to debate; it is also too hard a phenomenon to define and to be understood, in and by any conventional ways, other than awaiting more advances in our modern interdisciplinary Science and metacognitive Epistemology of the subject—including your Infinity project herein, of course!

Definitions aside, whoever comes up with the quantum mechanics of Consciousness or the mechanisms of our Mind, shall eventually win the race, so as to comprehend the universal theory of Consciousness, or the TOE or Infinity.

At least, that was my understanding and impression that I’ve had gotten when I was doing extensive-intensive research for my new book Gods, Genes, Conscience whose subtitle is self-explanatory as follows: A socio-intellectual survey of our dynamic mind, life, all creations in between and beyond, on Earth; or A critical reader’s theory of everything: past, present, future; in continuum, ad infinitum, in case you all might be interested in scrutinizing it, at your convenience, of course—whereas it took me about 15 years to write and publish it!

Epistemologically, since the 1980s, Consciousness and theory of the human mind, have had been increasingly studied by many prominent philosophers and scientists alike, from all possible ways or perspectives, accurately or misguidedly, throughout our intellectual and spiritual history. Generally, I would characterize them, as follows; although by no means it’s to be construed as an exhaustive list:

1) Metaphysical-cosmological—eg, Spinoza; Einstein; Carl Jung; et al; whose hunches are that consciousness or deity as something big out there in the Universe, beyond our reach physically;

2) Hard artificial intelligence (AI)—eg, Turing; Marvin Minsky; Ray Kurzweil; et al; who believe that computers will be conscious someday; AI dreaming, so to speak;

3) Neurophysics-mathematics—eg, Descartes; Roger Penrose; et al; who pinpoint the seat of consciousness in our brain, but all in the wrong places; Descartes pointed at the pineal gland, Penrose at the neuronal microtubules (1994), all inconsistent with the current knowledge of neuroscience, neurology, and neuro-endocrinology!

4) Soft artificial intelligence—eg, Paul Churchland; David Chalmers; Steven Pinker; et al; who believe that consciousness may be akin to digital computational software;

5) Neurophilosophy—eg, Francis Crick; Patricia Churchland; et al; who attempt to incorporate neuroscience into theory of mind, but they are not quite there yet, both conceptually and empirically; all lost in the complexities of the neuropsychological forests, so to speak;

6) General philosophy—eg, John Searle; et al; who vehemently oppose all AI representation or simulation of the human mind or consciousness; whose “Chinese room” thought experiment is exemplary, as a debunker of the AI thesis, hard and soft;

7) Faulty theory of memetics (not even a philosophy!)—eg, Richard Dawkins; Daniel Dennett; Susan Blackmore; et al; whose Evolutionism in The Selfish Gene (1976) gives rise to the scientistic, metaphysical, evolutionistic theory (or wordplay) of meme (or myth); whereby our consciousness may be likened to the viral contagion in our brain, gloriously and utterly fashionable nonsense, for 3 decades now;

8 ) Self-defeatist philosophy—eg, Mary Midgley; Colin McGinn; et al; who proclaim that consciousness is what our brain does, but we’ll not be able to understand it! And,

9) Interdisciplinary metacognitive philosophy—eg, Gods, Genes, Conscience; wherein a new theory of consciousness is presented (Chapter 15 The Universal Theory of Mind), whose quantum mechanics dubbed “memophorescenicity” has had been empirically defined and localized in the particle-wave function of our cortical neuronal membrane (2006)—please also see Scientists use quantum mechanics to control a biological process (PhysOrgEU; September 7)!

For your consideration and discussion at hand, I would like to characterize the WSM as a priori (as one loop of the Lemniscus), that the Universe is an infinite entity that is in a permanent dynamic equilibrium; whereas and whereby the Evolution of the STEM matrices (of space, time, energy, and matter entities) in the Universe above and beyond would occur all the times, primarily as a result of the permanent dynamic equilibrium of the Universe itself; and very importantly, as a new concept, of the 2 key physiochemical properties that are inherent to all STEM matrices, especially Life entities or organism building blocks: the intrinsic chemical propensity, and the extrinsic chemical reactivity or opportunity (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 2.1 The Universe, Galaxies, the Sun, Moon, and Earth; and Chapter 3.6 The Diversity of Life)—whereas for a more intensive-extensive quest of the Evolution of Life on Earth, including our human beings as the Observer (as the other loop of the Lemniscus), in the Universe above and beyond, please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 2 The Universal Elements of Life; Chapter 3 The Physicochemical Basis of Life; and Chapter 4 The Human Life, Mind, Dreams, Intelligence, and Conscience.

As such, the Evolution of the STEM entities would give rise to unlimited complexity and quality in the Universe, thus Infinity (8 ); and that’s why we often find infinite patterns, that would appear to have had been designed (from a creationist theological perspective) in the Universe above and beyond—whereas the net quantity as in mass or energy of the Universe would remain constant, as a result of its permanent dynamic equilibrium of the multidimensional STEM matrix or Infinity (8 ) that we’ve had now been able to perceive and philosophize as the TOE or Consciousness on Earth!

Specifically, and neuro-electrochemically—if you would make a quick review of the Frontispiece of Gods, Genes, Conscience—the main medium that projects imageries of the Infinity (8 ), as a reflection of Consciousness into our brain, is Light (the optical quanta of photons, as shown in the Square inset) through and by our visual circuitry, as follows: Perceptivity through retina > imagery-memory modulation > particle-wave functions of imagery-memory on the cortical neuronal membrane (please see the Circular inset) > “memophorescence” > “memophorescenicity” > infinite creativity or fluidity of imagery-memory, thereby making us, the Observer-philosopher as well as the “memory manipulator” or “thinker” of this stream of visual Consciousness, being modulated on the cortical membrane, as exemplified by a projection or imagination of the Creation of Adam, in a modern would be Michelangelo’s spherical mind.

Thus, contrary to your WSM view of the TOE of Cosmology, consciousness, spacetime, and metaphysics—which may qualify for category 1) above—Consciousness, or intelligence, or even dreams, thoughts, emotions, etc, are in fact the electrochemical functions of our brain within, cumulatively known as the “infinite” Mind, memory, psyche, etc, of the Observer-thinker, in each of ourselves. Furthermore, the infinite universal theory of Mind notwithstanding, the quantum mechanics of memophorescenicity, would and must also be applicable to all of our other sensory circuitries as well, including those of our smelling, tasting, touching, and hearing; all neuro-electrochemically, forming the senses and experiences of our body and infinite Mind, thus Infinity (8 ), etc—please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 15 The Universal Theory of Mind; and as explained in category 9) above.

Quantum mechanically, our Mind would work like a pinhole camera, that would receive—or perceive in our case; as shown in the Frontispiece, as explained above—and project images—or cortical memophorescenicity—ad infinitum, at the back of the camera—or in our infinite spherical Mind—thus giving us our unlimited multidimensional ability and capacity to view, sense, analyze, dream, speculate, comprehend, and appreciate the beauty of Infinity (8 ) in the Evolution of Life and Mind, and the Universe above and beyond, accurately or misconceptually, as explained in categories 1) to 9) above, as a TOE or the WSM of Consciousness as Infinity (8 )!

Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!

Best wishes, Mong 9/21/6usct12:44p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.

[Eric]

Hi Lodestar and thanks. Hi Michael.

Yes, it is undivided, but it's not "throughout" the universe. It "contains" the universe (and #2). The universe does not contain an indivisible or non-relative fundament of any description. Space, time, mass, and "force" are equal but different "tangible expressions", of something relative & relatively nothing infinitely intermingling.

There is a 0 in the mix that is absolute, but "in respect to" (refelctive of) the 1. It is not outside the 1 as we might nomrmally think. It is inside the 1 at its center. The 1, 0, and center are of a higher order than finite or infinite.

I'll leave it at that for now.

Eric

[mkirkpatrick]

Hi Lodestar and thanks. Hi Michael.

Yes, it is undivided, but it's not "throughout" the universe. It "contains" the universe (and #2). The universe does not contain an indivisible or non-relative fundament of any description. Space, time, mass, and "force" are equal but different "tangible expressions", of something relative & relatively nothing infinitely intermingling.

There is a 0 in the mix that is absolute, but "in respect to" (refelctive of) the 1. It is not outside the 1 as we might nomrmally think. It is inside the 1 at its center. The 1, 0, and center are of a higher order than finite or infinite.

I'll leave it at that for now.

Eric

Many thanks Eric.look forward to your next thread,

take care mate,michael.