T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[MJA]

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

Dear Pat,

I would love to find and live at a place like Walden's Pond, what a great thought that is, Thanks!
Maybe someday I will.

But before I get there Pat, I was wondering about you.
What are you looking for, if you don't mind me asking?
What brings you to this TOE Quest?
Are you happy with the status quo?
Are you not here like me, to find a solution to a problem?
Do you think man should try to solve problems?
Do you not think there is a solution to imperfection, that we shouldn't try?
You don't think there is perfect?
Do you think truth is perfect?
If the world is divided, should we unite it?
Is that what GUT means?
It is said that to solve a problem, one must recognize first that a problem exist.
Do you not see anything wrong?
If you do see something wrong, do you not try to correct it?
Is that corrective proccess called "doing right"?
In all of nature, besides mankind and our effects both good and bad, What problems do you see?

Perhaps if you can answer these question we can idenify or unify our purpose here.
Would that not be the perfectly natural, and truly right thing to do?

Thanks,

=
MJA

[Fredrick]

You continue to separate existence and non existence; illusion and reality; everything/something/anything and nothing. With regards to understanding this, I guess to follow the words of the way we can say that which can be understood is not the ultimate understanding.

It boils down to the scientific, religious and philosophical notions of the one, which is proclaimed to be an alternative answer to understanding the world through the many. Yet the one is misleading because it leads to notions of a static unknown something, space, dimension, whatever, that exists, which then naturally becomes relative to non existence.

My proclamation is that the many, the one, and the none (as an existing state) do not exist. The fine line between the infinite and the absolute can be compared to the fine line between the tao (undefinable) and wu ji (non existence).

The tao is said to be unseeable, just like an infinitesimal point, but logically if something exists, half of that would exist as well eventhough it can never be verified because it is the ingredients of phenomenal nature. The wu ji, or absolute, is similar because it cannot be detected either, but logically it does not exist as a phenomenon.

The taichi is the relative functioning of the illusory yin/yang polarity division, evidently discovered in physics as dipolarity and psychology as bipolarity. The infinite number of dreams made real through this conscious process, one of which is this observable universe, is transcended only through the "gateway of mysteries" which is the wu ji (unconsciousness). Whereby the great inexpressible Tao is realized as the perfect dream made real, based on perfect knowledge of all possible consequences of the taichi functioning.

Nobody,

It remains nice to read that we are so close in having the same delivery, one similar to what the ancient peoples on various continents have (once) said. We mainly seem to disagree on the self-based aspect of our universe. In that respect, I find myself in a peculiar position because on the one hand I find scientists' view that our universe is self-based only, and on the other hand you, who claims that there is no such thing as a self-based aspect. I am caught in the middle, evidence in hand and all, trying (but mainly failing) to show both sides that both sides are true and need to be incorporated in the final delivery.

The trick of the problem is that holding a perspective, any perspective, is a mighty powerful tool. As long as scientists truly believe that they and they alone can deliver the final answer — because they alone deliver the information that is purely fact-based — then there is no space left for the mystery that's on the inside. Your position is also a perspective that cannot be brought down because you relegate not the facts, but the importance of the facts to the side. Even though your perspective is not grounded, there is no way around the fact that perspectives are all-powerful, invincible. Whether it is the scientists' perspective or your perspective, they are like the Tao, the ultimate all-powerful perspective. Where science's ultimate perspective can only be fact-based (as theories), your ultimate perspective is the opposite (facts are subjected to the perspective). That's how I am caught in the middle: my delivery encompasses both.

My fascination with ancient deliveries is that many of them either came very close or indeed fully incorporated what we are also trying to deliver. The Tao, Brahman, Odin the all-father, Atum the complete one. These deliveries and others have the same overall image in common: an origin that cannot be changed, a reality that shows the self-based aspect. In my view, it is fantastic that the ancient peoples came up with these overall deliveries, while they did not have the tools and knowledge we have today. Yet their deliveries also show how they miss the details we are aware of today. Their deliveries are like grainy black on white sketches, while our deliveries are colorful, photographically correct images. Yet the ability to show more details precisely does not matter. The ancient peoples show that capturing the essence can already be done with just our own human tools, the senses and a brain.

Yet their ideas did change over time. At one point in time, for instance, yin and yang were no longer considered to be fully representative of the overall picture, and two new principles appeared with neo-confusianism: Li and Ki. In this new vision, yin and yang are still parts, but now captured under the single nominator Ki. With Li the all-embracing world-spirit is given a place that did not exist with just yin and yang. The adjustment shows that these scientists/priests/artists were still working on delivering the best overall image possible.

When viewing the time-line of ideas, the ideas on everything in our human history contain peculiar aspects and changes — with conflicting perspectives 'fighting' each other for control. In history, we can see how at first there are no deliveries of monotheism. All ancient peoples believed in multiple gods. When Akhenaten became pharaoh and proclaimed the idea of a single god, his people accepted their leader (and after him his wife Nefertiti) to make these claims. Yet the ideas were undermined as soon as that was possible. The idea of a single god was simply too crazy. It would be like saying that the Tao is actually a person/entity. It is like saying that the phenomenon of nothing is a person/entity.

Especially since an overall delivery cannot be other than an abstract delivery about reality, it is easy to see how positions can become muddy in people's minds. To give prime position to an empty entity (like the Tao) is mighty difficult to do. It is far easier to have someone or something take in that place — then people can at least talk about that mightiest position more easily. Yet at the same time, the prime position is then muddied.

My overall delivery claims that the top position is empty, and must be empty. Yet empty is not all-powerful, and it is mighty easy to put something in that mighty spot or to have someone claim that empty spot as his or her own. And then nothing is strong enough to empty that spot again, except for the person holding that spot to declare it is empty (not philosophically empty, but truly empty). I am waiting for you (and in a way for science/scientists) to do that. Where I'd like scientists to embrace the top position for the phenomenon of nothing, I'd like you to come back to the ground and embrace the facts more full-heartedly.

Austin — what can I say: nothing in words can do you justice: you've got all the words in your hands already. Thanks for sharing.

[Profpat]

Dear Pat,

I would love to find and live at a place like Walden's Pond, what a great thought that is, Thanks!
Maybe someday I will.

But before I get there Pat, I was wondering about you.
What are you looking for, if you don't mind me asking?
What brings you to this TOE Quest?
Are you happy with the status quo?
Are you not here like me, to find a solution to a problem?
Do you think man should try to solve problems?
Do you not think there is a solution to imperfection, that we shouldn't try?
You don't think there is perfect?
Do you think truth is perfect?
If the world is divided, should we unite it?
Is that what GUT means?
It is said that to solve a problem, one must recognize first that a problem exist.
Do you not see anything wrong?
If you do see something wrong, do you not try to correct it?
Is that corrective proccess called "doing right"?
In all of nature, besides mankind and our effects both good and bad, What problems do you see?

Perhaps if you can answer these question we can idenify or unify our purpose here.
Would that not be the perfectly natural, and truly right thing to do?

Thanks,

=
MJA

OK MJA, Here goes;

Dear Pat being line 1 and MJA being line 30.

Lines 2-4: No someday only NOW.
Line 5: Don't.
Line 6: Nothing really.
Line 7: Share my idea on the creation of the proton/neutron ( EGO ). And it really is a good idea and can be accessed at ( http://www.toequest.com/forum/yourto...2803-idea.html ) You will have to access the PDF file to see my Idea.

Line 8: I would say content.
Line 9: No. After finally being able to post my Idea I got kind of attached to you members. And have a lot of input to ponder.

Line 10: If they are his problems.
Line 11-12: I think the only way to achieve perfection is to rid ourselves from the course body, either through death or OBE.

Line 13: There is PERFECT.
Line 14: Yes
Line 15: No
Line 16: No
Line 17-18: Yes, once you imagine a problem you have a problem. The trick is of course is too imagine no problems.

Line 19-23: I am responsible for my own acts, not others. When I do wrong, I have remorse and try to avoid it in the future. The only wrong I percieve is HARMING others.

Line 24-25: I doubt it
Line 26-27: No.
Line 28: You're welcome and thank you.
Line 29-30: No comment.
Line17:

[Profpat]

Sorry MJA but lines 17-30 lost in cyberspace, and they were brillant answers.

PS I see all is OK

[N0B0DY]

Pat,

Just like there is a fine line between the infinite and absolute, there is a fine line between non-existent points and point particles. RP had mentioned something about there being no place bereft of motion, but it depends how we look at what is said to be in motion. If what is said to be in motion is synonymous to what "it" is moving through, then there can be no motion. Similarly, tachyonic particles (non-existent due to absolute speed) transmit information by recreating it, instead of through effectual propagation at the speed of light and subluminal speeds. At superluminal speeds, information can be pulled straight out of a magic hat, because it is beyond observable event horizons. Subluminal speeds within observable events horizons are set according to rate of decay (in other words, according to what persists to exist as observed) - like 2He is said to not exist, whereas 3He is said to exist.

All objects are invisible points relative to scale. From a far enough distance, the Earth would be invisible yet is obviously said to exist, and conversely invisible points magnified become visible. The relevant differentials applicable to existence only pertain to smaller scales, or point masses, of infinitesimal particles because logically the magnification can be increased infinitely.

An important analogy, imo, is how the Earth's polarity can be reduced infinitely towards the equator whilst retaining polarity, or any point of the Earth for that matter. What is required for there to be such a concept as polarity, is not infinitesimal dipoles, but no polarity at all! So the only way for there to be observable charges, motion, polarity, etc., is for the absolute central point between opposite charges, directions, poles, etc., to not exist. Those "there" are my non-existent points, Pat.

Observable matter in motion, eventhough non-existent due to absolute speed, is then dependent upon the time it would take for complex closed systems to register effectual changes at subluminal speeds. Importantly, the above reference to "would take" is actualized and referred to as observable reality.

P.s. The mini bangs are based on annihilation, where, as you said, gravity and electromagnetism are identical. Gravitational waves and em waves would essentially cancel.

[N0B0DY]

MJA,

I'll go for equals as well, providing it is derived from 1-1=0 ---> 0=0 ---> =.

[N0B0DY]

Fredrick,

What facts are you refering to, that you want me to embrace?

[Profpat]

OK Nobody, now I have a headache.

Which is OK, because, I tell my students that comes from getting oxygen to that part of the brain that hasn't been utilized lately.( pumping mental iron ).


Your comments on the following points-particles as:
REAL-IMAGINED-OTHER-COMMENTS

1. PROTON/NEUTRON
2. ELECTRON
3. GRAVITON
4. PHOTON
5. CENTER POINT OF GRAVITY
6. CENTER POINT OF A CIRCLE
7. POINT/PARTICLES ANYWHERE IN SPACE
8. STILL POINT
9. MATHEMATICAL DIMENSIONLESS POINT
10.POINT OF NO RETURN

Just to name a few. Now I hope you get a headache.

Best to you,

Pat

[N0B0DY]

Points taken from both you and Rp, Pat.

Like RP told me, there are things that are observed to be expanding. What I wanted to try to discuss is how accurate are the things we're observing. We've all made reference to electrons as particles observed, but we would be hard-pressed to actually observe a literal electron. More accurately, I would say that the effects of electrons via photons give the impression of particles, but it appears that that's just me.

You seem to like RP's expanding matter theory, and I do too. Similar to inflation theories responsible for the big bang, where spatial expansion turns a singularity inside out to reverse the effects of gravity into a strong-force-type effect, I propose it is the electron orbitals that are responsible for binding nucleons. The effect would seem to be contractive toward the center, eventhough it is caused by expanding electrons. In other words, the waves would be propagating inwards and outwards.

If we consider the electron as a point particle, its expansion would be due to the spatial expansion within the electron, similar to the common center of the universal big bang. RP had suggested that there is no common center, but that the center is everywhere, and I agree. If we think in terms of an electron as a tiny sphere, or standing wave, within it there would be other lesser-scale expanding central points - because the center is everywhere, and the matter is expanding due to spatial extensions. This explains the kinetic references of increasing point masses.

What wasn't clear is why there is an implied common center within the tiny sphere, instead of keeping with the implication of the center being everywhere. If the center is "truly" everywhere, there would be expanding centers all around and within the tiny spheres which would be expanding towards the centers of other points within the spheres and the net effect of all points/centers expanding towards each other would be zero. Just like the above-mentioned reversal of gravitational effects of inflation, expansion away from all centers must be simultaneously contraction towards all centers. Otherwise we would be forced to propose that there could be a literal expanding universe into non-existence. Like an infinite number of balloons inflating within a room of finite size.

If I'm not mistaken, RP had said that space is finite and time is unbound, which would limit the extent of expanding space before it would reverse and contract, and the same would apply to any and all particles and forces.

Something like that.

[Profpat]

Nobody, this I almost understand and agree with.

My idea requires 3 strings, but ultimately I knew I had to go back to that dimensionless point that all came from.

The big reconcliation of something from nothing.

And the expansion theory you mentioned, of not only space, but all matter, is brilliant.
I needed a theory like that to help explain how 3 little strings go blow up to something as large as a proton.

I just don't know how you could turn a singularity, inside/out when there is no inside or outside.
It would be like me trying to turn a dimensionless point inside/out. I can't imagine it.

If you expand it its no longer a singularity BUT A STRING.

I have some thinking to do.

Later

Pat