T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[Eric]

Loyd,

I posted that at "Philosophical Toe (draft notes) and it's disappeared. I don't know why you received an email about it or why it disappeared. Oh well.

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.

I do have to respectfully disagree. First, let me say that my intention is to point out a non-approximate reality. Mathematics is no less approximate than physics, and geometry is in the same boat. All of science is based on approximation. We tend to overlook this for the sake of application, but at the edge of all these disciplines, there is no absolute of any kind.

The real numbers do not form the basis for the infinite series. Nor is there a solid object. Real numbers are an axiomatic attempt at arriving a 1 & 0, with infinity as the underlying problematic, not the result of the attempt.

Physics also hasn't arrived at any definitive finite, as all breaks down approaching infinity.

Geometry proposes a dimesnionless point having a location in a spatial extent, but the spatial extent can not be established without assumption. n+1 dimension doesn't cut it either. n being a real number that hasn't been shown to be REAL.

Nobody,

In your attempt to establish an absolute, you are ill-defining "absolute".

The problem is the absolute, and is based on a very simple question of what is outside the "one" universe or beyond infinity.

To establish an initial absolute, it's not what it is outside of, but that it doesn't have anything outside of it. It has no partner outside, equal to, or greater than it.

Space is not absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing doesn't exist. If it did, there wouldn't be an absolute that we are all inside of.

Eric

P.S. What's the comment from the "Theory of Everything" at the bottom of the email Loyd received? Maybe I'm being banned? I'll have to look into it.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Loyd,

I posted that at "Philosophical Toe (draft notes) and it's disappeared. I don't know why you received an email about it or why it disappeared. Oh well.

I do have to respectfully disagree. First, let me say that my intention is to point out a non-approximate reality. [W'll have to agree to disagree. I know reality is absolute and provably logically/mathematically real] Mathematics is no less approximate than physics, and geometry is in the same boat.[True, until my discovery of a way to measure absolutely, with classically measured radiation decay___all quantum/relative motion accounted for.] All of science is based on approximation.[True yesterday, not today] We tend to overlook this for the sake of application, but at the edge of all these disciplines, there is no absolute of any kind.[The cesium atom's decay rate can be classically computated to figure the decay rate of the entire quantum/relative universe's absolute motion.]

The real numbers do not form the basis for the infinite series.[true] Nor is there a solid object.[false_absolutely decayed matter is a solid object, so isn't a hammer against your head___don't get caught in those quantum/relative traps] Real numbers are an axiomatic attempt at arriving a 1 & 0, with infinity as the underlying problematic, not the result of the attempt.[False___1 and 0 were arrived at long before any foolish mathematicians learned to axiomatize___the cave man knew 1 bear and 0 bear-meat___knowledge of simple counting existed long before organized knowledge of numbers, especially of one food for one child or no food for no child___just simple common sense___math progresed slowly from then on]

Physics also hasn't arrived at any definitive finite, as all breaks down approaching infinity.[Again false, as I have been able to finitely rationalize infinity, i.e., infinity can be rationalized into its absolute essence, with computational logic. One need only use the self-proving logical computations of the cesium atom's absolute decay, the cmbr as test-tube proof in relation to the known laws of physics in all its dynamic realities. The laws of physics are also easily proven to be finite universal absolutes. Many of the laws of mathematics are also absolute provens and provable, unless you are under the false dillusions of false interpretations of relativity___read Einstein's own signature quote, below]

Geometry proposes a dimesnionless point having a location in a spatial extent, but the spatial extent can not be established without assumption.[Again, wrong as such thinking is usually based on false relativity assumptions, or false interpretations of other abstractions] n+1 dimension doesn't cut it either. n being a real number that hasn't been shown to be REAL.[All mathematical exaggerations of this sort, are usually based on the false interpretations of the exaggerations of false-relativity understanding___present your head to my hammer, to see if the n+hammer's real]

Eric

P.S. What's the comment from the "Theory of Everything" at the bottom of the email Loyd received? Maybe I'm being banned? I'll have to look into it.

This is just a standard comment on all TOE e-mails, you're not being banned... I thought you were going to pan out. I see you have a ways to go, to find a few absolutes, we have already established on this forum. Anyway, glad to have you aboard. Pleas don't take the dis-agreements personal.

regards,

[Eric]

present your head to my hammer, to see if the n+hammer's real

You've definitely got a "way" about you. Since I don't pan out, yes, we will have to agree to disagree, and there will be no more discussion between us. You can comment all you want, but I will not respond.

It's not about being right or wrong, it's about your attitude.

Homey don't go there.

[Nobody]

"Just looking for an absolute and trying to understand the relatives,
and if your relatives are anything like mine...!"

This is better imo than using a relative means in order to find your absolute. Which is like studying an apple in order to know what an orange is. I take O razor to complex theories that chase after the infinitesimal in an attempt to find the "unifying factor" that will confirm concepts of a single source.

I have been going at this for about 5 years now online and the same things are said over and over, basically I feel because what we suggest - the absolute point of any and all measurements doesn't exist - goes against orthodox views of reality, obviously. Yet, you proclaim that the "outside" of the universe - I agree by the way that there is no outside - is not connected to the non-existent center of all possible massive or thermal measurements. That line of logic suggests a contradiction because if all centeral axes are absolutely nothing, based on the absolute point of the infinitesimal being zero, then conversely the absolute point of the infinite must be zero. It is the meeting of all axes and infinities, and is a true vacuum based on true annihilation - unlike the similar zpe void and annihilation of mass into radiation.

So if we are to truly take our implications to the furthest extent, we can't do it by being one-sided. Measurements can be halved and halved and halved and will never become zero, but those measurements are relative eventhough in-and-of themselves they are absolute values. The absolute point is always zero and it doesn't exist - it is non-dimensional and without temperature, hence the term "absolute zero."

The moment we imply a "one" is the moment we can half or double its measurement to infinity. It can never be accurately assessed as an absolute. Whereas the zero is immune to both relativity and infinity because there can be no comparing "one" to another "one," nor can there be half or double zero/nothing.

[mkirkpatrick]

One can repeatedly go around in circles explaining no-thing,and after a thousand words
have been exchanged,no one is any the wiser!

It is a kind of intellectual masturbation that seems to go round and round getting
no-where fast!
The theory of nothing is simply that! There is no thing there-period.

Why not turn it around add some meat to the boneless no-thing,and have a theory
of Something!Now I am sure that there is much to say about something,and less to
say about nothing,I am sure Shakespeare said the same in "much to do about nothing"


regards michael.

[Eric]

Hi Nobody,

This is better imo than using a relative means in order to find your absolute. Which is like studying an apple in order to know what an orange is.

It's slightly different than that. It's locating the greatest possible relative pair, taking a close look at it, and realizing that one of them can not exist.

Yet, you proclaim that the "outside" of the universe - I agree by the way that there is no outside

Actually, I said there is no outside to the absolute. There is an outside to the infinite universe. The universe is not absolute.

I take O razor to complex theories that chase after the infinitesimal in an attempt to find the "unifying factor" that will confirm concepts of a single source.

"Complex theories" are chasing infinity in both directions. Towards the infinitesimal and the infinite. They haven't been able to catch infinity and actually put it behind them, but they are nevertheless, faced with how something can come from nothing, when and if they do.

zero is the only absolute that represents the absolute value (really relative to be honest)

This was your statement on page 9 (post 81).

The moment we imply a "one" is the moment we can half or double its measurement to infinity. It can never be accurately assessed as an absolute.

I totally agree. But we are talking about different "ones". Your one is inside infinity. The other is outside.

I'm not trying to mess with you at all. I can see that you've put a lot of thought into this. This is your thread and I am not trying to hi-jack it. I just picked a thread to jump into, that seemed like it had the most promise.

Michael and Lodestar showed interest in my original post, so I continued.

If they continue to show interest, I'm not sure what to do. Is it alright if I continue to respond?

Eric

[mkirkpatrick]

Hi Nobody,



It's slightly different than that. It's locating the greatest possible relative pair, taking a close look at it, and realizing that one of them can not exist.



Actually, I said there is no outside to the absolute. There is an outside to the infinite universe. The universe is not absolute.



"Complex theories" are chasing infinity in both directions. Towards the infinitesimal and the infinite. They haven't been able to catch infinity and actually put it behind them, but they are nevertheless, faced with how something can come from nothing, when and if they do.



This was your statement on page 9 (post 81).



I totally agree. But we are talking about different "ones". Your one is inside infinity. The other is outside.

I'm not trying to mess with you at all. I can see that you've put a lot of thought into this. This is your thread and I am not trying to hi-jack it. I just picked a thread to jump into, that seemed like it had the most promise.

Michael and Lodestar showed interest in my original post, so I continued.

If they continue to show interest, I'm not sure what to do. Is it alright if I continue to respond?

Eric

Eric please continue,we need your important contribution here on the toequest forum
I implore you Eric,pray continue,and just ignore those who,alas offer advice and
criticism without formal invitation.

regards michael

[lodestar]

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

cool, thanks for the thoughtful reply Eric. So what do you think is undivided throughout time and space then (is there something?), and what of the number 1/0? Is 1/0 not the one thing that is divided by nothing, hence undivided throughout time and space, and forming it's whole entirety as well? Thanks in advance.

[lodestar]

I do have to respectfully disagree. First, let me say that my intention is to point out a non-approximate reality. Mathematics is no less approximate than physics, and geometry is in the same boat. All of science is based on approximation. We tend to overlook this for the sake of application, but at the edge of all these disciplines, there is no absolute of any kind.

I would like to comment on this as well. You seem like an intelligent person to talk to Eric. Again I ask, what of the number 1/0? I believe 1/0 is not an approximation - I believe it is exact. I believe it is the absolute edge of infinity (both positive and negative).

Physics also hasn't arrived at any definitive finite, as all breaks down approaching infinity.

Fascinating conjecture. Still I wonder, what of the number 1/0? I believe 1/0 is like the limit of limitlessness, the finiteness of infinity (both positive and negative). Have you ever thought about this possibility?

To establish an initial absolute, it's not what it is outside of, but that it doesn't have anything outside of it. It has no partner outside, equal to, or greater than it.

Elementary! This is exactly what I was trying to tell "Nobody." Everything has nothing outside of it and this means that there is not anything outside of everything. So everything contains everything, and everything is represented by the absolute number, the one thing undivided, 1/0. What do you think? If 1/0 is everything -the set of all sets - and everything contains everything, then maybe we have our solution to Russell's paradox? I don't know, just a thought.

Space is not absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing doesn't exist. If it did, there wouldn't be an absolute that we are all inside of.

Again, I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks for this post Eric. Also I would like to add I believe that just as 0(/1) is the one thing that doesn't exist, it's inverse, 1(/0), is the one thing that comprises all of existence. Tell me if you think this makes symmetrical sense.

sincerely, Lee

[Eric]

Eric please continue, we need your important contribution here on the toequest forum...

Well, since you're the "GrandMaster" with 95 "thanks" and from your avatar, obviously the best looking person on the forum, I will.

Hi Lodestar,

Excellent stuff.

Everything has nothing outside of it and this means that there is not anything outside of everything.

I think this sums up the problem you're having with Nobody. You're saying that nothing is the same as not anything. He's saying yes, there is a nothing that is greater than (outside of) everything.

Let me digress for a minute.

One of the things I've noticed in the scientific community, is that although "TOE" is still used, it doesn't accurately describe what is being sought after. Einstein, Hawking, and others have refered to knowing the "why" and the "mind of God". It has become increasingly apparent to many, that what Hawking refers to as "a complete theory" (ACT), is what's required.

The point is, that "everything" is not the uttermost outside. The second point being, that it's partner "no-thing" is not outside of it; it's inside of it.
I know this is the opposite of conventional thinking, but I don't say it arbitrarily.

But let's set them aside for now and get back to your concern over 1 & 0.

Again I ask, what of the number 1/0? I believe 1/0 is not an approximation - I believe it is exact. I believe it is the absolute edge of infinity (both positive and negative).

Yes and no, which does not equal a "maybe".

There is a non-approximate 1 & 0 outside of infinity, but they're not right on the edge. Everything and no-thing are "right on the edge". They are the "points" that infinity never reaches. Absolute 1 & 0 are outside of them.

The finite 1 & 0 that is used in mathematics, is approximate. They are not based on an absolute. They are based on an axiomatic assumption that leads to hundreds of pages of logical proofs, which is useful, but not absolute. They are, of course, inside of infinity.

I believe 1/0 is like the limit of limitlessness, the finiteness of infinity...

I know what you're getting at, but it's a bit more subtle than this. Finite means a beginning and end. These are "event horizons" that are within infinity. Where the "things" of mathematics, geometry, and physics come together, and seem to "occur", but no event horizon has ever been shown to exist.

What is outside of infinity is not finite. It is beyond both. Yes, one would think that finding a beginning and end that infinity is within, would be a step in the right direction, but it actually isn't.

Infinity is at the bottom of a hierarchy and everything above it has no beginning or end, but they are not infinite either. Within infinity there is a
"tangible illusion" of "finite".

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." – Einstein

He was refering to the "universe" as reality. I'm refering to a "reality" that the universe is an illusion within.

You know what... I'm going to stop here. I decided to post at this forum, so I chose two threads and in one of them, my post was quickly deleted.

You and Micheal have been superb, and Nobody has been quite gracious, but I need something more to continue.

I need a guarantee that I can put forth a viewpoint towards a TOE (ACT), and not have posts deleted or the thread hi-jacked by other theories. NOR DO I WANT TO HI-JACK THIS THREAD. This is not to say I'm special, but just to make effective use of everyone's time. I am certainly willing and I hope able, to see the error of my ways; but only if it's based on an axiom that I propose, and the questions and arguments are directly related to it... like you and Michael have done.

Any suggestions?

Eric