An Idea

[Profpat]

While doing some research I located this regarding emotions. This ties into my An Idea, which breaks down the proton into 8 ares for the spectrum, octave, emotions etc.

Alternatively, analogous to the way primary colors combine, primary emotions could blend together to form the full spectrum of human emotional experience. For example interpersonal anger and disgust could blend to form contempt.
Robert Plutchik proposed a three-dimensional "circumplex model" which describes the relations among emotions. This model is similar to a color wheel. The vertical dimension represents intensity, and the circle represents degrees of similarity among the emotions. He posited eight primary emotion dimensions arranged as four pairs of opposites.


FROM MY AN IDEA:



My entire An Idea is located at:
( http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...2803-idea.html )

[Profpat]

ADDENDUM:

[edit] Psychoevolutionary theory of emotion

Robert Plutchik's psychoevolutionary theory of emotion is one of the most influential classification approaches for general emotional responses. He considered there to be eight primary emotions - anger, fear, sadness, disgust, surprise, curiosity, acceptance and joy. Plutchik proposed that these 'basic' emotions are biologically primitive and have evolved in order to increase the reproductive fitness of the animal. Plutchik argues for the primacy of these emotions by showing each to be the trigger of behaviour with high survival value, such as the way fear inspires the fight-or-flight response.

[Fredrick]

Its strange that we have limits. In my mind there are no limits. Its just that humans have built laws in which limits are created. Take for instance the limit of relativity which says that nothing can break the speed barrier of light. The speed of light has a finite value. So why only that value? Why not 5 - 10 kms more or less? Or is it that we can attain more speed? Cannot matter / energy be created? Probably some intelligent civilization can create / destroy matter or energy.

In our minds we do not have limits, because the mind creates it own structure(s). The theoretical infinity is easy to recreate in the mind, and real within that mind, yet in the real universe only the phenomenon of nothing is infinite. Fantasy can be real in the mind, and -though not necessarily so- this can be considered a positive aspect.

The speed barrier of light can theoretically also be broken, but it requires an entity that is faster than light and our own inability to see it (because it is faster than light). Light would then still be the fastest speed, for us. In this set up, we are also clearly limited (but we knew that already).

What would we see if we were light? Since light moves at the speed of light, would a quanta of light speeding in the opposite direction of another quanta of light not 'see' that light? Do light quantas that leave the surface of the sun experience a road in front and behind them, and an environment in all up-down and sideway directions, but not 'see' the other quanta not moving in that same-similar direction? Just because we here on earth get to see the whole solar process does not mean the solar quantas themselves can be aware of their original and current environment (with aware being a broad word for something that implies consciousness, which is always tricky when talking about 'objects'). Is it not true that only because of the lunar object do we experience the light quantas that move through the night, every night? Once a quanta leaves the surface of the sun, its environment is set (while a very slow decay of its environment -but not the quanta itself- will occur as well over time/distance). The best a light quanta can do, according to me, is to bump into objects, such as our earth, and make objects visible.

Yet I am curious why you want to be unlimited, Dipayan. I did not expect you to raise this question.

I am also surprised to see you write that "humans built these laws." Though I know we communicate throught his unhandy medium called language (and I do read your words okay), humans came forth out of these laws, they did not create them. No intelligent being anywhere in the universe can create and destroy energy, ever; if an intelligent being was able to do anything like this, we would call it manipulation of energy, since the energy is never from the intelligent creature, but always from the surrounding universe (and if you wish, from surrounding dark matter and energy). Only an entity called god can create and destroy energy, but the word god can only be used for a non-materialized entity, and as such it will then remain questionable as to whether god exists. That's why we call it a belief. Matter can come from an entity called god (or said better: the potential), but matter cannot recreate other matter, only at best manipulate it (or re-create itself).

There is one way out, Dipayan, and that is the mind. The mind can be unlimited, but it will then also move towards an unrealistic level in light of our material reality. That is still okay, and we can even experience a state of being that is unlike other experiences, but I strongly believe it is our goal and duty on ToeQuest to tie our minds to the reality we (our bodies) live in. The best we can do is to become demi-gods as the ancient Greeks called it; the ability to tie the highest aspect of the immaterial state to this material universe. Personally, I think that level is a little too high to experience day in day out, and I think just accepting ourselves for who we are and promoting a society that is more or less in balance with itself and its environment is plenty outstanding already. But on this site of ToeQuest we have set forth to do nothing less than to become demi-gods: to understand the material world from the theoretical level. Knowing may be considered the ninth primary emotion (or: supersede all others).

The origin of the universe was not limited to itself, but the result of what came out of the origin is limited to itself. In mathematics, I claim that the evidence that zero is part of every system supports this conclusion.

[Profpat]

LIMITATIONS

So why limitations? Why is it apparently built into reality? Why are there only 3 quarks which make up the proton/neutron? Why not 4 or 5 or a million or a trillion quarks?

If the quarks are bound by the theoretical gluon there shouldn’t be a limitation of only three. Gluon bonding surely could accommodate more than just three. However superposed, interlocking bonding, as displayed in my avatar and model, can only accommodate 3.

With this structure we have the 7/8 inner dimensions of the dome ( proton-7 ) or the sphere ( neutron-8 ). These inner dimensions of sight, sound, and now emotions, corresponds to the 8 inner domains of the octants of inner space.

The dimensions of sight and sound are real dimensions which are quantifiably unique. The visible light /color from red to violet ( magenta ), twixt the nonvisible light/color of infrared and ultraviolet.. The octave of do, re. mi, fa, so, la, ti, do.

We all know the power of light/color, from the laser to spectral analysis of atomic structures. We know the power of sound from sonar to ultrasound imaging.. These dimensions are as real as the 3 spatial dimensions of length, width and height.

I believe this demonstrates reasonable evidence for my model of the proton/neutron. Again I rest my case on A Priori and Occam’s Razor. It just makes sense and is the simplest way to describe our reality.

Very best to all,

Pat

[Max™]

Light speed is a limit for mass because the greater the distances you interact with, the shorter the times you interact with become. As you near light speed, you bump up against the size of the universe (greatest distance), and the planck time (shortest time) limits.

This implies that both of these are variable over time, as is the speed of light tied to the age of the universe.

Weird quirk of Relativity is that you will still measure the speed to be constant, because of the way you move through spacetime, versus the way light moves through spacetime.

[Profpat]

Massive items cannot go faster than light speed, but I guess there is no speed limit for things with no mass, such as spatial inflation, which inflated faster than light speed.

[G_burnett]

Fredrick says “The speed barrier of light can theoretically also be broken, but it requires an entity that is faster than light and our own inability to see it (because it is faster than light). Light would then still be the fastest speed, for us. In this set up, we are also clearly limited (but we knew that already).”

Sage states that this “set up” where the light we are seeing does not imply a constant in the all, for the all is in motion and therefore light in motion is also in motion. Therefore the conclusion must be reached that Dip is correct.”

Dip saying “Its strange that we have limits. In my mind there are no limits”

Sage having heard thus above to mean there are no limits to the speed of light, just our perspective of it.

Fredrick goes on to say “Once a quanta leaves the surface of the sun, its environment is set (while a very slow decay of its environment -but not the quanta itself- will occur as well over time/distance). The best a light quanta can do, according to me, is to bump into objects, such as our earth, and make objects visible.”

Sage replies that suffering the entropy factor a quanta of light leaving the sun deteriorates over time to FS. As this is not clear Sage continues with “The frequency of the quanta being varied by different event of impact on absorbing other matter with varied composition to be able to have varied degrees of ability to absorb there in reflecting what it cannot absorb in other frequency then what was impacted and, particle steams in transient motion passing a stream in the opposite direction being able to not just impact but reel and change direction each perpendicular with varied frequency, further entropy, indicates as a lessening of frequency but still having the force behind the original emit.”


Fredrick goes on to postulate “..Matter can come from an entity called god (or said better: the potential), but matter cannot recreate other matter, only at best manipulate it (or re-create itself).”

Dip having postulated to elicit this reply, “"humans built these laws."

Sage hearing the postulation would redirect both to further ponder and research that matter has now been created by man in varied projects in the small of things. To further explain of the term potential, states “There is no limit to potential except what we want to put on it at times.”

Fredrick goes on to a conclusion where thus was stated. “In mathematics, I claim that the evidence that zero is part of every system supports this conclusion.”

Sage would revisit the mathematical advancement to the addition of zero in mathematics to easier calculate not because there is a possible zero. Examples can be given and will later if need.

Kind regards ~ Sage

[Max™]

Light is not in motion.

Light IS motion.

[Fredrick]

Light speed is a limit for mass because the greater the distances you interact with, the shorter the times you interact with become. As you near light speed, you bump up against the size of the universe (greatest distance), and the planck time (shortest time) limits.

This implies that both of these are variable over time, as is the speed of light tied to the age of the universe.

Weird quirk of Relativity is that you will still measure the speed to be constant, because of the way you move through spacetime, versus the way light moves through spacetime.

Hi Max,

Can you further explain the constant in light of Relativity, because so far all explanations I have read do not make sense to me at all. The only way I can see the logic as provided thus far is when considering Relativity an absolute given and not as Relativity itself already falling under the set up of Relativity. The former is according to me incorrect but would make the constant possible, the latter makes the constant incorrect.

Said differently in an example: if I were a light beam, I would measure the speeds of other light beams as the same speed as mine, but their relative directions would organize their apprearance to me as all-diverse, and not as constant. Am I confused because of semantics, Max, and the constant only applies to light always travelling at the same speed?

[Fredrick]

Therefore the conclusion must be reached that Dip is correct.”

Dip saying “Its strange that we have limits. In my mind there are no limits”

I agree with Dipayan that the mind has no limits, though that still does not make the discovered position scientifically correct. Just like god is not a scientific subject matter, so is neither the contents of the mind a scientific subject matter.

To further explain of the term potential, Sage states “There is no limit to potential except what we want to put on it at times.”


Sage would revisit the mathematical advancement to the addition of zero in mathematics to easier calculate not because there is a possible zero. Examples can be given and will later if need.

Kind regards ~ Sage

To make us the central object and the universe the subject is a flaw, Sage. At that level, there is no absolute object and subject position possible, except that it can scientifically be denied that we are the source from which all derived, which has as only possible exception our non-scientifical minds/hearts (or what are also called souls).

To have an embodied person claim the title of god can only be done with the help of a mind capable of moving beyond our materialized reality, which is feasible, but can as next requirement only be true when the embodiment is no longer actual. With a body, no single one can claim that title, except when proclaiming that all matter collectively represents god. Yet that would also mean that others can therefore also make the same claim of being god. So, it is either not true (for one person), or true (for anyone who wants to claim that title).

This aspect of embodiment by a single person is the reason the Greek-Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches separated. The Greeks said that the embodiment of god is not possible in a single person (Jesus was 'only' the highest embodiment possible of god on earth), while the Romans said it was indeed possible (Jesus was the embodied god), a minor difference of an incredibly distinctive importance. I am talking early-mid Middle Ages here.

Again, my mathematical evidence helps in this respect, for no single 1 exists as the only 1. Even the binary system already delivers a multitude of 1s if there is indeed only a single unimportant number next to 1 (with that number being zero). In the binary system all the 1s exert therefore a certain character of equality. In the decimal system, we do have a number 1 that is the highest, the mightiest, the lowest, the whateverest, but that 1 is not the only 1, it is only the first among many. The Greeks, therefore, were again right.

I would indeed tremendously appreciate your mathematical examples about the role zero plays in our 'mathematical universe.' Please, Sage, that would be my honor.