An Idea

[dipayankar]

Whats the matter with Nobody by the way??


[quote=Profpat;54768]

I suspect that Nobody is no longer with us,

since he was actively editing Rascal’s book
and website when the great silence began
around April 16th.

(Written by Nobody)

Thank you Austin for that sad information and your graphic. I for one, and I imagine all the members miss him and his postings very much. Life is Eternal.

[Profpat]

I'm not sure Dipayankar;

I'd like to think it's a premature announcement of his death. Does anyone know out there.

I'll put the question on the shoutbox.

[Fredrick]

Well that's a bit catty of you Felix. I think Dr. Schrodinger should put you back in your box.

Thank you for coming to my rescue, Pat. But also let's tone this down, by first apologizing to Aaron and you, too, Felix.

I may have overstretched it all a bit myself, but in essence, I told Aaron he cannot tell me not to do something and then go ahead and do the same thing in a different way himself. There is no need to be upset about this 'conflict,' but there is a need to use this as an example of how communication can get in the way.

Images are tools, words are tools. Scientific data? Just tools, to help us understand what it is that we are looking for: to get an understanding of the entire picture (and 'picture' here ofcourse is a word pointing towards an image).

Please, Felix, read my words more carefully, as if I am not mad at Aaron (which I am not, I have a lot of respect for him, and I appreciate his quest here at toequest very much). While I am not communicating about his questions, I am responding to his need to have certain aspects (such as images) be removed. He has a valid point there in that images are not the real thing; for having to make the jump from reality to that what an image portrays is tricky.

The same goes for words; they always function within structures. No one can use words and it then not belonging to a specific structure. As such, each word belongs to an image.

The real big kahuna is whether the question "What is the Theory of Everything" can even be phrased as such. Before we can find the answer, we must get in the clear whether the concept of such a question (whether the image in which the question is phrased) can even exist. Again, don't jump on it as if it is obvious, because it is not.

Just like you cannot point to a single person when saying family, it may be impossible to point to a single singular answer when saying 'theory of everything.' (please note that I write single singular). A single answer containing a plural aspect can still exist: an answer to who are a family can be answered by pointing to a minimum of two people.

[Fredrick]

Having spent 30 years as a bit twirler doing boolean algebra and other bizarre quirks of programming (grep anyone?), I am about as entrenched with the amazing capabilities of the binary system as anyone could be.

However, I am also aware that the brain has one interesting difference to computer circuits. Neurons can be set to a variable level like a rheostat. Though the all-or-none law says that a neuron's axon either fires or not, the frequency of axonic transmission is variable. It can be faster like a machine gun, slower like an old flintlock rifle, or somewhere inbetween. Meanwhile, its neighbor, who is getting "shot", has a threshold which must be reached before it, too, starts firing.

Thus, all of the neurons, even though they are "on or off" are actually somewhere inbetween. And since blood is fed throughout the brain, the neurons are never completely off (zero - unless the cell is dead), and yet they may never reach their max firing rate (on) either.

The brain is a system that seems to live everywhere inbetween zero and one.

Life is not black and white but all of the many colors inbetween.

Fantastic delivery, JAK, it explains in one very clear example the limited character of the binary system: reality isn't black and white.

Felix, you want clarification of the images, and I think you are entitled to that. First thing to understand is that this is not an ordinary concept; it is an overall concept. Just like the word family is an overall concept, the pyramid is an overall concept. As such it differs from the concept of 'father' or of 'daughter.' With father a real person is indicated, and you can point your finger at him, but with 'family' only the entirety is singular. When in a distant spot you can indeed point your finger just once, and say "that family." From closeby, you cannot do the same.

The image of the pyramid is easy to understand, but mainly easy after you get it. It is very important to look at it as containing the separation, something we ordinarilly don't pay much attention to. If you get this, you get the pyramid: the pointing of a single finger at a family in the distance cannot be copied when standing in close proximity to all members. As such, you must be aware that there are things YOU (or me, or anyone) cannot do, that certain behaviors cannot be copied willynilly. That means that the pyramid has views that are valid in some respect, but these views cannot automatically be copied from other perspectives. This means that views are not all valid at the same time and in the same way. That is what incorporating separation means, and I believe Einstein already showed that with the theory of relativity.

As you understand, this is exactly the point Aaron was making, but he jumped on the part that no image can deliver the toe, and went right past the part that an image can show how a singular image cannot deliver the toe based on singularity. Let's quickly slow down here: a single image can indeed portray the entirety if it discloses its own lack of actual singularity. You can only get the pyramid when at a distance yourself. Though extremely limited in scope and usefulness, the pyramid is the toe. And it was known throughout the ancient world.

[Felix Schrodinger]

As you understand, this is exactly the point Aaron was making, but he jumped on the part that no image can deliver the toe, and went right past the part that an image can show how a singular image cannot deliver the toe based on singularity. Let's quickly slow down here: a single image can indeed portray the entirety if it discloses its own lack of actual singularity. You can only get the pyramid when at a distance yourself. Though extremely limited in scope and usefulness, the pyramid is the toe. And it was known throughout the ancient world.

Hi Fredrick

I thought (somewhat naively) that Aaron's point was that relevant images are very useful as an aid to understanding - a picture is worth a thousand words - but only if it's relevant. Many of the images we use here are great for their entertainment value but do not contribute to a greater truth.

And woe to us if, blinded by illusions........

regards
Felix

PS: Pat - there's no need to shout!

[Profpat]

PS: Pat - there's no need to shout!

Sorry Felix I forgot feline ears are far more sensitive than humans,

[Fredrick]

Hi Felix,

That has happened to me on many occasions, too, reading something into words, and than later seeing it could be read differently as well. Thanks for your further explanation. I see you agree with Aaron (and me) that his remark is based on the good complaint that moving away from the real stuff towards just images can be rather tricky.

As far as Pat is concerned, we'll surely forgive him to come to my rescue; after all, this is his thread, and we are his guests.

And yes: I like your signature!

[JAK]

... I think there's a lot more in this statement than Fredrick was prepared to allow. Most of the pictures on the site have a high entertainment value but add little to understanding. As you know (Fredrick and Pat), I have been seeking to find common ground between some of the shapes you use and the structure of particles. What I find missing is the concise use of illustration to clarify the point being made. ...

I am seeing the relevance in the points made by others, but I can see Felix's point, too.

Analogies, graphics, and models assist us in understanding difficult and complex concepts. But they may not be "spot on", as they say. Plus, if they are accurate, there should be a way to transform from one idea into another. In other words, what Felix is trying to do is what I also need in order to be satisfied with the model:

"... seeking to find common ground between some of the shapes you use and the structure of particles." ...

P.S. Yeah, Profpat, stop shouting, you young whipper-snapper. We may be old (I've got 7 grandkids), but we ain't deef yet!

[Fredrick]

Analogies, graphics, and models assist us in understanding difficult and complex concepts. But they may not be "spot on", as they say. Plus, if they are accurate, there should be a way to transform from one idea into another. In other words, what Felix is trying to do is what I also need in order to be satisfied with the model.

JAK, you are very right. If the model can't hold up to modern data and insights then the model is not worthy of mentioning ever again. One reason I am very happy with Felix and your request is that I do not have to do this alone; we've got all the needed intellectual property right here on ToeQuest to establish this feet.

But also forgive me, I have seen the pyramid in so many different ways already, as indeed being complete and irrefutable (but also in some respects as only giving the conceptual format), that I do not need to get involved in having to deliver all and each utmost specific detail.

As I stand, the model cannot be taken down, but it has its limitation in use. However, what is easy to overlook is that it does include and overcomes actual separation. So beware when asking for actual connections between everything, when everything contains separation on the most fundamental of levels. Relationships is the best you can get, and the model, conceptual only as it may be, provides that for the scientific data as well.

My book is called In Search of a Cyclops and it is possible that there is a little bit of a Cyclops (of believing in unification) in you. I am not saying you are, but for sure I cannot address the part inside you that you not address yourself.

To mention Nobody one more time; in ancient Greek mythology Odysseus and his crew were captured by a Cyclops on an island of Cyclops. They were kept in a cave, where the Cyclops also kept his sheep. At night, an enormous rock was placed in front of the exit by the Cyclops, so no one could escape. The only reason Odysseus and his men were able to escape was that he had introduced himself (on a whim) as Nobody. So when they punctured the only eye the Cyclops had when he was asleep in the middle of the night, making him blind as a bat, the other Cyclops came to his door, hearing all that screaming, and shouted through the enclosed doorway to find out what had happened. The Cyclops answered that nobody had hurt him, nobody was trying to escape, and they should prevent nobody from leaving. The other Cyclops did not understand that nobody was a real Nobody, and left. Then, since the Cyclops also had sheep, he had to roll the rock away in the day time to let the sheep out to graze in the field. He touched the sheep with his hands to make sure he only let sheep out, but Odysseus and his men were hanging off the bellies of the sheep to get out of the cave.

Thank you for your sharp mind, JAK.

[Profpat]

Hey my images are just fine, and if that mangy cat Felix can't follow them, that's fine. What do expect from a cat that allows itself to be incarcerated for 70 years.

BTW: Thanks for the compliment JAK. It's been quite awhile since anybody said I was a young whipper-snapper. Unfortunately, it's been quite some time since I could either whip or snap.

Best to all, even that flea bitten feline of a cat Felix,

Pat