T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[MJA]

MJA,

I think you would be hard-pressed to prove that there is existence without observation because it would require someone, anyone, to observe reality without observing it. Yes, the same must apply to my argument.

I think that nature is wrong because it breeds pain, and people buy into it because "feeling is believing" they say. It's a sick mind game as a by product of perfection, and even if nobody was a somebody I still wouldn't truly exist.

Hi again Somebody,

So you believe once you or I or anyone or everyone, mankind is gone, there won't be any universe left? Is that what you think? That man hold the key of existence or nonexistence of the entire universe?
If that is not the perfect definition of ultra-ego, I don't know what is! WOW again.

The proof of your existence is simply that I would never ever think of saying, "nature is wrong because it breeds pain." Nature is the only right there truly is. If you feel pain, it is only nature telling you to attend to it. It is a message, nothing more." No pain no gain.

As far as the power of thought or imagination, I can think and dream of a better world, but it does not mean it will ever become real or true. It will take not just thoughts but much work for that. The work of sharing the truth of nature's equality, the unification of all things, is not just a thought, is not a crazy dream, it's the truth, it's the work I do.

Your truly Somebody, that also is the truth.

=
MJA

PS: Don't let nobody get in the way of Somebody!

[MJA]

Austin;


I remember a story about when Columbus came to the New World the Indians didn't see his ships. They weren't able to imagine such a thing.



Pat

Hi Pat,

I see the ship of equality, the unity of all things, Can't you see it too?

It looks like this:

=

You have seen it haven't you?
It stands at the center of every equation.
Equal is the foundation or solution to every problem or equation, right?
If you reduce any equation down to it's foundation, = becomes the unifying solution, doesn't it?
You've seen the terrible wrongs or problems of inequality, slavery, inhumanity, injustice, you just can't see the solution?
You can't see the solution is equality?
Is there something in the way?
Is it only yourself?
It is easier than you think.
Perhaps it is only your thoughts then that stand in the way.
Try removing the uncertainties, simplify, and you will see it too.
It is right there, right in front of us all.

The ship of truth is =, and it's coming in..

=
MJA

[N0B0DY]

Try saying "no pain, no gain" to the starving, MJA, and tell them they should attend to it.

Perhaps it is the ego that makes you think that you actually exist, not that some hold the key to the universe. Basically because my stance is that the universe doesn't exist.

Consciouness is ego-based and without it, there is no ego. If there is no consciousness, there is no universe.

Neither of us can prove our arguments though, that's true, except to say that positive and negative something equals nothing because neither exist at the same absolute point.

[Profpat]

As far as the power of thought or imagination, I can think and dream of a better world, [/FONT]but it does not mean it will ever become real or true. It will take not just thoughts but much work for that.

=
MJA

PS: Don't let nothing get in the way of Something!

Not much work MJA;

Just go back to your perfect nature, your Walden,
where there is no TV, or radio, or internet or ( ugh )
mankind.

Just you, and the furry critters and slimy crawlers,
by a lake or a river, something like Tahoe, but without the casinos or people. No women, no men,
because they're such a disappointment.

All it takes is the balls to do it. And I think you will really be happy, because its your perfect world which is true and real and waiting for you.

Best to you always MJA

Pat

[Profpat]

[quote=N0B0DY;33768]I think we could ask whether or not imperfect individuals can have an inkling of what perfection is. Would what we think is perfect be perfect enough? Perhaps if the thinking were perfect then that would suffice, but apparently thinking is a large part of the problem.


Who has the power to literally break what can't be broken? If one proposes that it can be literally broken, an explanation is required as to how exactly that can be done. What direction do things move when the absolute universe is fully folded onto itself and fully refined inside and out and up and down and back and front?


Dear Nobody:

I believe Plato had his thoughts on perfect circles, maybe not perfect but more than an inkling.
I really do believe we have the essence of perfection in us, and that is why we so disappoint ourselves, because we know we can be perfect, but what we actually are is far different.

Thinking is the only way to travel.

There is a theory ( black hole complementarity ), which basically says you can be broken and unbroken at the same time. Does that count in answering your paradox?

Best to you,

Pat

[N0B0DY]

It might for some, but I'm afraid it doesn't for me, Pat. I like to follow the implications of science which make the most sense from the most angles, and a black holes and a big bang don't fit into the equation. http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0503200

Observations are very misleading, to the point that warpable spacetime can give us a warped sense of reality. I had said in the previous posting that the absolute universe is fully folded and refined ageeably simplistically preventing space warps.

Consider the heat radiation that would escape simultaneous and proportionate to the accelerated mass while a black hole would form according to Kirchoff's law - what goes in, must come out - explaining the observed radiation from the centers of galaxies, that would prevent a black hole from forming. High-energy electrons going in and high-energy positrons coming out resulting in high-energy photons/gravitons that essentially go nowhere because the process occurs everywhere, where the effects are negated relative to the infinite number of variable frequencies.

I equate antimatter with dark matter, and equate dark energy with the gravitational force that confines the antimatter at the strong-force scale. In other words, all points are infinitesimal event horizons where time stands still, gravitational waves propagate in backward time from one event horizon to another, and electromagnetic waves propagate in forward time from one event horizon to another. It's true the waves are the same, just like electrons and positrons are the same, one merely goes one way and the other the other way. I know, there are no "ways." It's all abstract.

Of course there are the red/blue shifts relative to energy densities, which can be explained as was done in many previous postings, whereby it takes light longer to propagate through higher densities than lower densities. Eventhough distant galaxies are already in your eyeballs at both undetectible/infinite and absolute frequencies, detectible frequencies relative to the quantized photons you are capable of absorbing into your retinae can take billions of years to reach you.

I don't think universal symmetry can be broken, but I agree with you that the illusory breech is based on gravitational dilation which creates the impression of time and particles and variable waves. And I also agree that we have the essence of perfection within us, though how deep within us is debatable.

[Profpat]

So Nobody you don't believe in the Big Bang theory.
I do, but I noticed a nunber of questers who don't.

So you wouldn't have problems with the apparent asymmetrical problem of creation either, since you don't believe in creation.

But even a steady stater would have problems with the lack of anti/particles in our universe to have true symmetry.

Understand I don't disagree with symmetry, in fact RP and I are trying to reestablish it status at creation in our parallel universe thread. ( Please contribute your thoughts to that site regarding that subject ).

Best,

Pat

[N0B0DY]

I try to avoid posting in other threads because I have a tendency to mess them up when I interject with my negating factor, Pat.

I don't explain things very well, but I did mention how cmb can be explained by "mini bangs" everywhere. At the center of galaxies it is proposed that there are black holes comparable to the big bang singularity to lesser intensities, and lower densities would be comparable to it to lesser and lesser degrees save the event horizons which I claim don't exist.

Physically speaking, there was no initial big bang of creation. There are only continual mini bangs that are "created" due to quatum gravity or the strong force. The gravity of your parallel universe is light in this one, and the gravity of this one is light in the other. The electrons and positrons continually annihilate within the nucleus which creates the cmb of both universes, though essentially I consider both to be the same - sort of like the front and back, top and bottom, inside and outside, of one body.

What I focus on in this thread are the non-existent horizons of events, the non-existent meeting points of annihilation. Purveyor of Knowledge explains this very well with his 1/0, although it doesn't really matter if there is a substance that isn't divided or no substance that can't be divided, the result is the same - the timeless event horizon. Comparable to the above, an observer viewing a rotation from above would observe one direction and another from below would observe the opposite direction. There is only one direction, like the one universe, but two different reference frames. Cutting them in half and flipping them over, would render both rotations still, and that is the non-existent state of the universe because the universe would essentially observe both directions simultaneously. The same applies to revolution and evolution.

That's pretty much it in a nut's hell.

[Profpat]

Dear Nobody;

That is quite a lot for a nut's hell. ( I think I got your pun ).

Given that it appears that our universe is isotropic and homogenous, on the global level, than no problem with your "mini bangs" theory of accounting for the CMBR being spread uniformly.( I guess )
Is your mini bangs the same as electrons/positrons annihilation?
It seems like you are using both to account for CMBR,
which is OK of course.

It seems like you are describing two different type parallel universes.
One like a mirror image, your top and bottom one, which would explain and give symmetry to our one spin neutrino.

But the other universe if I obsevered it from the "bottom" gravity would still look (react) like gravity, and light would look like light, it would just go in the opposite direction. One would appear to go "left/right" the other from "right/left".

I do think that light is the reciprical of gravity mind you, just that its equilvalent in our universe.

I don't understand your non-existent points.(horizon, annihilation)

Points are non-existent ( dimensionless ). Conceptual only.

So are these non-existent points non-existence?

I'm sorry Nobody I'm sure you explained this non-existence concept or definition prior in this thread.
( It may even be a well known concept )

Well I'm still digesting this nutshell of information, so later.

Pat

[MJA]

Neither of us can prove our arguments though, that's true, except to say that positive and negative something equals nothing because neither exist at the same absolute point.

Dear Somebody,

I hope you don't mind my changing your name, if you do I'll try Nobody again.
My problem is that I have never written to nobody before, and find it extremely uncomfortable and incorrect. It's kind a like talkin to yourself, aint it? Have you ever written to nobody?

And,

I am glad to see that you find unity in our arguments, but that they are unprovable, unfortunately I would disagree. I think the truth of equality cannot be argued, it only is.
I do see one unifying thought that we both share, and that is the word "equals." Beyond equals is inequality and difference, and there inlies the flaw.

If "equals" is all that unites us, I'll settle for that.

Happy Hunting,

=
MJA