[Profpat]

Hi Aaron;

I'm glad you are going to import your diagram to your thread. I'll comment more on it there. Just one question: Can your "tiny bits" be viewed as fractals?

Best,

Pat

[dipayankar]

Or ee
Or even dark matter probably..

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Felix ( with no fleas, but who has a lot of little microscopic beasties on you as I do ) and welcome back Dipayankar. Felix, you, I and Einstein all believe there is an ether out there. Exactly, what it is is still unknown. But it really makes no difference what we believe, in that it is either there or not there. I think Dipayankar is correct, and that most physicist accept something being out there, whether it is quantum foam, strings, radiation, etc. Best, Pat

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger Pat's 'Idea' thread has been instrumental in accessing the ideas of others, some of which have been very useful to me. But if you reject the very concept of the aether then we have little common ground.

Felix,

If you think I reject the ether, then you did not read my words the way I intended them to be read, which of course is my doing. Apologies therefore, I should have made my words as clear as possible, and not leading anyone to think that I said A or B, when in reality I state A(B) and/or (A)B.

In short (because things are often best said the short way): it does not matter as long as you get to the same outcome as those who reject the ether. If you don't come to the same answer, then one or neither has the toe. The one that has the toe also explains why both versions can be followed to get to the same answer.

I am adamant about the two dimensions, because the three dimensions contain a hole (though the three divisions or directions are real). So, if I see you walking with a bucket of water prepared to go great distances, then I cannot but tell you that you need to check for holes in your bucket. If you go for short distances (i.e. separate aspects), the hole can be insignificant and does not need mentioning; there will be plenty of water left in the bucket when you get to your destination nearby. However, if you go all the way, the tiniest hole can leave you stranded without accomplishing your goal of reaching the destination plus delivering the water.

So, please, see my words as the quickest way to communicate on what I see is an important, but tiny aspect in your otherwise impressive delivery.

I like your fleas if you like them. I prefer to not even have flies on me, but I will admit that that happens from time to time.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat I think our numbering system is arbitrarily set as a base 10. We could have just as easily set it as a base 8, or a base 2, or some other base. When we look at the octant cube, I come up with 10 things. 8 small cubes, 1 large cube, and 1 area in which that cube occupies.

I have a tiny hole in my way of communicating, too, Pat. The tiny hole is actually the essence of what I am trying to convey; not an easy job.

Our numbering system is not set arbitrarily at 10, just like the dimensions are not arbitrarily set. We may disagree whether we call the three divisions the three dimensions, or the underlying two aspects the two dimensions, but the spatial aspects they portray are real, and cannot be altered.

Depending on what you want to achieve, one can choose a numerical concept, and there are several concepts out there to choose from. Computers function okay already in the binary system (but interestingly enough, the jump to bits and bites was made quickly). Or we may place everything in a hexagonal system with its clear benefit for easy division of matter (used, for instance, in ancient trade, but our clock is still based on it as well - 24 hours - and math uses 90 degrees and 360 degrees, not 100 and 400).

The reason to see that the decimal concept is the best representation of the toe, is that it contains all other concepts (even when the singular concept rejects/ignores the importance of the decimal concept) and also contains the correct appropriation of zero.

The singular concept does not have a significant zero; the binary system gives zero an all important spot, but is also totally dependent on it; the hexagonal concept only acknowledges zero in a pyramidal delivery; the decimal system does all this and more.

We have come to understand that the decimal system is most appropriate to use, all over the world. That we don't know how we have come to this is human behavior: we forget - if a concept allows us to forget. It is the decimal system that allows us to forget the importance of zero, while using it where needed without thinking much about it. The hexagonal concept kind of does this, too, but is in many respects not as easy to use.

I can go on for a long time, Pat, but I also don't want to become an unwelcome guest in your thread. However, if you feel that the decimal concept is still an arbitrary one, you are then obliged to provide information that shows this indisputably. I know I am a guest, but I can ask you to verify the truth inside your words without it being an insult. And if you can achieve a fundamental reason why the decimal is not most appropriate for the toe, then you have my eternal admiration.

P.S. I hope you did see that the hexagonal system (the pyramid) and the decimal system are like half and whole (or like whole and double-whole), just like the binary system contains the pyramidal structure inside itself, but becoming visible only in the results (see JAK's previous post on neurons)! This latter concept is where the ether is and isn't.

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick;

No argument from me I like our base 10 system. I just wanted to point out that there are other bases for numbering systems, which if I understood your post correctly you agree. Here is a little information on a base 8 system.

The octal numeral system, or oct for short, is the base-8 number system, and uses the digits 0 to 7. Numerals can be made from binary numerals by grouping consecutive digits into groups of three (starting from the right). For example, the binary representation for decimal 74 is 1001010, which groups into 001 001 010 — so the octal representation is 112.
In decimal systems each decimal place is a base of 10. For example:
In octal numerals each place is a power with base 8. For example:
By performing the calculation above in the familiar decimal system we see why 112 in octal is equal to 64+8+2 = 74 in decimal.
Octal is sometimes used in computing instead of hexadecimal.

Best to you,

Pat

[JAK]

Originally Posted by Fredrick ... And if you can achieve a fundamental reason why the decimal is not most appropriate for the toe, then you have my eternal admiration. ...

I think I may be able to assist here. I postulate the most fundamental law of the universe as being the existence of "not". Through the use of "not" everything is defined. 10 is not 8, and 8 is not 2. Yet, without "something" and "nothing" to border it, we would have a featureless void. Thus, at least "something" must exist which is bordered by nothing. And it is here that the binary system starts - 1 (or something) surrounded by 0 (nothing).

Adding the above to my explanations about neurons gives a system which can explain the mechanics of the brain, the mind, and emotion based upon existence somewhere between something and nothing (1 and 0). If we are to create a reductionistic theory based upon the most fundamental of principles, I believe "is" and "is not" (1 and 0) provides an excellent foundation.

Originally Posted by Profpat ... No argument from me I like our base 10 system. I just wanted to point out that there are other bases for numbering systems, which if I understood your post correctly you agree. Here is a little information on a base 8 system. ...

The old Honeywell mainframes ran in octal, so it is as viable a computer system as hex.

Looking at octal, if your take two tetrahedrons (Fredrick's pyramids) and have the top points touch, then the 8 base points would be at opposite ends. This would provide a narrow 2 point center which widens in opposite directions to 4 point extremities (8 total).

I recall that the inner atomic shell allows only 2 electrons while the next shell allows 8 - the octet rule.

Further, if we spin the pyramids so that they blur, and their points blur like a spinning bicycle wheel, it begins to take on the shape of Felix's diagram with the jets.

Am I just seeing a mirage here? Or could there be some relationship to all of these components?

P.S. Profpat's diagram has 8 integrated boxes, too.

[GodofReason]

Hey ProfPat,

I just looked over your idea and don't know if you've modified it since post #40, but it has some very broadly expressed symmetry that I find intriguing, especially in that you managed to relate it to the I-ching. As I'm certain has been pointed out to you, the devil is surely in the details. Nonetheless, I myself am a mystic at heart, and really like the symmetry and holistic spread on your theory and look forward to engaging it further.

I might suggest that often I see the earlier holistic philosophies of humans (like I-ching and the Tau) to have an inverse significance to that of modern reasoning. Kind of like how instinct is inverted from reason. Evolutionarily speaking reason starts with a bunch of symbols and builds a situationally relevant context pertinent to our survival, while instinct starts with a hundred million year old survival context and delivers a situationally relevant feeling or compulsion as stimulated by the environment. It's not in your match-ups that I sense a problem so much as in the implications to the modern rational presumption those parings imply.

I need to read some more posts when I have more time so as to avoid re-inventions.

Later -Mike

[Mikal]

Originally Posted by Profpat My idea about the structure of atoms is stated in the attachment. Please take a look and let me know about your thoughts.

Hi Profpat...was browsing through your "idea" today...thanks for the honor of being allowed to peer into your concentrated focus to create a TOE. I can see your grasping insights and I too like mathematical octants.
You quoted, "Superstrings reduce to 4 dimensions" that caught my eye because the ancients said " The psyche, or the Aion/Barbelo which to them was the image of the invisible spirit meant..."In four is found God=intelligence and consciousness as the pilot of the mind."
Thanks again for posting it and I will continue to browse it as the thread expands.....smiles

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by JAK Am I just seeing a mirage here? Or could there be some relationship to all of these components?

JAK, I think you are seeing the relationship between all.

[Profpat]

Hi JAK:

Thanks for your insight. My An Idea also uses the I Ching binary numbering system to come up with the numbers 0-7, to represent the 8 areas, and while I eliminated gluons, physicist use 8 gluons to explain the quark binding.

And let us not forget the octrees:





An octree is a tree data structure in which each internal node has up to eight children. Octrees are most often used to partition a three dimensional space by recursively subdividing it into eight octants. Octrees are the three-dimensional analog of quadtrees. The name is formed from oct + tree, and normally written "octree", not "octtree".

Best,

Pat