T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[N0B0DY]

No trouble at all, Pat. And I wouldn't go as far as saying it stinks, just the typed word is clearer than handwriting.

You know, come to think of it, our thoughts on the matter aren't really all that different. Most of the ideas on this forum are similar I would even say, I guess because we're all studying the same old stuff and explaining the same "scene of the accident."

In message one of this thread, I mentioned that the absolute truth is sought after soley through a relative means because most scientists, especially in mainstream, don't concern themselves with prior to inflation and the big bang. Your idea on the other hand, seems to imply a progression inclusive of a non-existent "state" prior to the point you refer to. The void becoming the point which becomes the line, etc., which as I said is remarkably close to what I try to express as abstract creation.

I'm sure you're familiar with zero-point energy, which is suggested to be on both ends of the energy spectrum, and the absolute void would be on both ends of the zero-point energy. The implications of this would correlate to the absolute which doesn't exist, the undefinable infinite/infinitesimal, and the arbitrarily-defined finite measurements; aslo correlating, imo, with unconsciousness (absolute), subconsciousness (infinite), and consciousness (finite).

I'll be the donkey in the following because it is based on a few assumptions. With regards to the void becoming the point, it would be impossible without division through motion, and from that point further incremental motion to create the line would have an equal and opposite effect that would essentially retain the void and point throughout extension. The 2-d quarks as well would be a closed line retaining the line, points on the line, and the void "in" the point; continuing through the nucleon structures and electrons, which would be points along the exterior spectral lines.

There is definite beauty in your mind, with your correlations to old philosophy and religion. I consider Geoff Haselhurst to be one of the most brilliant individuals alive today, and your ideas run parallel to his, to me anyway. I only ask you what I asked him, Lloyd and RP, which is the cause of the expansion/contraction.

When you look through Geoff's site, there are numerous references made which explain how in waves are created from other universes outside our observable universe, but none mentioned the cause of the out waves. Lloyd went to great lengths to explain his position of contraction through cold temperatures, which is a plausible alternative, and RP as well goes to great lengths to explain his expansion which is more along the lines of my question.

The problem remains, for me, because when we posit expansion in all directions and a simultaneous contraction in all directions, all that remains plausible is that original void we both speak of. I therefore think that the observable motion is somehow due to finite consciousness based on the infinite division of the void by subconsciousness, and models will have to have quantum consciousness incorporated in order for me to understand concepts of motion.

It has been said that Tao creates the one, but how?

[N0B0DY]

"If I had computer modeling skills, I would like to see (with the 8 positive and negative surfaces), if it could account for nuclear bonding.( the strong nuclear force ). I believe the stacking would account for it as well as the weak nuclear.( you can only stack so much ). I think it would also account for the distance of the orbital of the electron."

I think your diagrams as they are show that they account for bonding, the way scientists say they should be accounted for, and your weak-force correlation to high-energy electron emission makes me think of the sun emitting the planets.

As Dave once mentioned, the laws must remain at all scales. Just one more thing, though. Do you propose gluons as the binding force, or soley the electrons as doing all the work by orbiting the nucleons?

[Profpat]

NOBODY YOU WIN

ALL IS ILLUSION.

Now can we assume that reality is really real?

Einstein and Aristotle knew it to be an illusion, and yet they studied, and from their theories come some of the most beautiful images and thoughts.

Einstein wanted to know God's thoughts, the rest are details, he was quoted as saying.

Plato was right.

Given that:

As Aristotle assumed a "PRIME MOVER", I assume God. Therefore no problems with my 3 strings. I did, as any good economist would do, I assumed them into existence.

I have no idea how the TAO did all that begeting. Maybe the ancients also had problems with this paradox of something from nothing, and so ASSUMED 3 (" Three begets all things "). And there you are my three strings. The only real thing I propose, all else waves and fields.

In the beginning of An Idea, I introduced the thought from the Upanishads, that in the VOID is Life and Joy.
I ended An Idea with a picture of my beautiful grandson, which to me represents Life and Joy.

Everything in between are but details.

Best to you Nobody,

Pat

[N0B0DY]

Pat,

I have no problem assuming real strings and waves and fields. Real or not, the effects are the same. I only press people to express their ideas deeper and deeper in order for me to better express my own similar ideas.

Ultimately we have to reach our own conclusions, but the road is a long and frustrating one and if we can help each other and others to think more clearly about certain things, I think it is useful. You may describe the Tao doing the begetting in a certain way that I wouldn't think of, and I could use that to better explain my reasoning.

If we are serious, we have to push people to the utter limit where that fine line lies, and then leave it up to folks to cross the line. So if you refer me to your idea, and it doesn't imply that the 3 strings are eternal, but that there is a progressive process from the void to the points to the strings, I have to follow those implications as best I can and press you to explain exactly what you mean.

I said you had beauty in your heart, and I meant it. The picture of your grandson is beautiful, and your idea is brilliant. I haven't a clue what you mean though, about Life and Joy in the Void. I could only guess that it means living organisms within an exterior void, but I think an explanation is in order.

[Profpat]

I'm sorry Nobody I'm afraid I confused you or myself.

I believe in ONE Eternal and Infinite GOD with 3 divine natures. Mind, Body, and Spirit. That you and I were created in that image and likeness.

I would never reduce the Eternal to 3 strings and I apologize for the confusion I started.

Best to you,

Pat

[N0B0DY]

No problem at all, Pat. I ask scientists what the universe is made of, and religionists what god is made of, all the time to see if the answers are similar to mine.

In the east, mind, body and spirit are different refinements of the same substance. The invisible particles and forces of science correlate with the unseen presence and power of god, where essentially science bears witness to the functioning of god.

I don't have a problem with god overcoming its evil side through a sacrificial body that leaves nothing but the perfect holy spirit. The same applies to humans on a lesser scale where individuals eventually overcome the evil tendencies of the mind through sacrificial reincarnation of the body, and marry the holy spirit.

All three, and the process, are eternal and have been realized in no time at all. Yet inquiring minds want to know what everything is about, what is required to merge with the holy spirit, and how long it's going take. Perhaps an eternity.

The alpha and omega, the almighty "amen" is synonymous to the sacred hindu word "aum." That sacred word that was with god in the beginning, and the word was god, and the light of which all things are made. Whereby no one returns to the father, but by the light.

Now if we connect that light of religion with the light (photons) of science, where no one returns to the source except through the absolute knowledge (information) carried by photons to the point the photons meet gravitons and become none with the void, in order to become one with the holy spirit, we can all rest assured trusting we will all be happy campers.

[Fredrick]

I am on the run in Chicago, but the heat is on and I must soon depart. All this is causing me to fall out of the zone of writing stories, but I may be able to eke out one more.

Fredrick,

You may wish to learn how to run a locomotive. Also, brush up on your Russian, pack a pistol, and. . . <transmission cut off>

Austin,

There is a time to come forward and speak up and share, and there is a time to say goodbye. What I liked about Lloyd was that his use of logic had matured to the point where he could use logic to substantiate his ideas, but also accept logic as larger than his own ideas.

Nobody seems to cherry-pick from logic; only bringing forward what fits, and holding back on what does not fit. There are many truths in his words, and they resonate not only with you, but also with me. Yet they come from too many directions, and they sometimes entirely conflict with each other. By not addressing the conflict in his logic, I feel he is only delivering the wisdom of those before us, not bringing his own mature voice. Logic always wins, but sometimes it does not when the debate is heated; a good reason to retreat.

The religious concept of a divine entity and the Tao are not compatible. The Tao gives the highest position to that what is not, while other religions give power to a divine entity that is. Nobody has no problem cherry-picking from both ideologies.

Nobody did commit to the idea that gray is the central color, and not white. Yet subsequently he treats that gray as if it were still behaving just like white, ending discussions quickly when not in his favorite view. Gray as the central color creates a delivery of black, gray, and white. Three clear distinctions, not two or just one.

It was a good conversation, though. And before I really make myself unwanted, I say thank you, Nobody — and others — for a good roll. For those who believe that the overall image is very much what Nobody says, but who also believe that the scientific facts should say that, I hope you will visit my website sometimes with evidence that the universe is indeed exactly that — I'll see in other threads!

Fredrick

P.S. Thank you Lloyd for good conversations as well. Very much appreciated.
Austin,

[N0B0DY]

I do my best to not contradict myself, but trying to express what can't be expressed is a tad difficult. Like saying that nothing doesn't exist, which means that things exists, while trying to say that nothing exists, but doesn't exist as a phenomenon. So I agree it gets ambiguous when things aren't arbitrarily-defined.

Using your reference to the gray, I would say that there is no pure white or black. Both white and black are shades of gray, and I have no problem attributing the colorless and synonymous absolute white and black position to both the wu chi or god.

I don't interpret the Tao as the substanceless substance, but as the way the whole abstract process works according to perfect knowledge. Knowledge that will never be realized in this imperfect universe.

There is a great chasm, gateway, separating the two, but not a literal one because it is non-existent/unconsciousness.

[N0B0DY]

No hard feelings, btw, Fredrick. In case you think you have hurt my feelings.

[Profpat]

Well, I'm sorry Nobody.

Looking back at some of the post and I appear to be very abrupt and dismissive, and I appologize.

Your questions are honest and valid.
Many of which I have no answer to.

But I and God love you Nobody.(Not necessarily in that order).

No gluons in my model, my quark confinement doesn't need it, and color change operates within the quark sections themselves by movement.

Life and Joy within the Void is from the Upanishads, and honestly Nobody I never thought of it beyond that.

I knew I had to start with a pupose and a God, and so I injected that as a thought. Maybe its????

Best to all,

Pat

PS Thank you for those compliments.