An Idea

[Fredrick]

At the outset, before the big bang, my guess is that freedom took precedence over rules...

Before the BB, there was compression of state. Containment and equal against the containment and containment lost. ... was the prior then uneven in exist? It would have to reach a state of exist where there was unequal exist or no BB.

... or there was equal exist in unequal state by the compression and rules there of to the creation of state to event, a BB.

Why was there not the freedom to stay at rest ... rules.

Why was there not the freedom to stay in motion ... rules.

Thank you Graham for your insightful thoughts; in the quote I picked the ones I particularly liked. And, Dipayan, I would fully agree, if I had more certainty about the previous state. Or, possibly, you are saying exactly what I am saying, but I don't read it exactly the way you intend to.

In our current state, we are part of this reality in which I can only state that freedom exists at the largest level and that rules take the freedom to have their rules be rules wherever they see fit.

I can argue with you or against you and still not know for certain about the previous state. However, we do know that the previous state became our state, so if something was altered, then that would be the previous state. To figure out what was altered, I would as first objective look at what is largest in our current state and consider that the one part that was altered. In our case freedom is the largest entity.

My inclination therefore is to view freedom in the previous state as different, as in locked in within that state; different than the freedom in our state. In our state their is no confinement, other than the boundaries set up by the other entities taking their freedoms. As in, boundaries occurring due to one rule bumping into another rule, and both getting involved in which rule is superior to the other rule (to find out which rule really rules), and settling (where possible) on a (un)certain boundary.

In contrast, the freedom of the previous state would then be like the freedom one can have in nations with dictatorships. As long as you don't bump into the rules of the largest entity (the dictator) then you can be as free as you want to be. In a sense, it can even give you protection from others (who are not lined up with the dictator) who do not have the freedom to bully you around when they like.

So, the previous state must have had a freedom that would ultimately become our freedom, but that was not expressed as such within that state until the very last second at the moment of destruction of that state.

But possibly, that was what you were stating?

What I like very much about your words, Graham, is that as soon as we mention the word freedom, the essential struggle that must accompany it pops up. You will not here me state that the previous state was indeed a dictatorship, one of oppression, because I do not believe that to be true (but I do not know for sure). Rather, I see the uneven conditions that must have been created at the final moments of the previous state as the results of curiosity.

The peace that I imagine existed at this state (you use the word even) became restless (uneven) due to the investigation into its own existence (its indicating a singular entity or a plural condition of collectiveness). So, there must have been the freedom to investigate. Unfortunately (for it/them, not for us here), the freedom contained the option to have freedom be the ultimate 'ruler.'

[G_burnett]

Hmm

Ok, lets say if there had been not BB then there would not have been compression or clumping and the great expanse had singular density as all came to rest.

"That which is at rest tends to stay at rest" ..

but unable to ignore the rest of the rule That which is in motion tends to stay in motion something still had to be the effect and that is the rule of opposites rearing the head of foreverness so unfortunate for the singularity of event ponder freedom is just another concept of nothing left to lose and non ever the exist.

"alignment" being the key word possible in the above a platform of view.

What though did the state of not opposites exist have for a pusher, and this irrefutably has to be in alignment and direction creation of dimensional exist to ... interact and collapse ... non prejudicial in either or of the first and again not god the interfere.

Who or what then began the singularity of exist state that only by direction in dimension do we get positive and negative define.

More boggling would be the razor consideration that it was BIGGER ... and we are all in the all just a part of that BIG state of exist in a small view.

But then I have not had a coffee yet again this morning and thing could change.

kind regards g.

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick;

I'm not sure that it's rules vs freedom anymore than it's yin vs yang.

I think the two are complementary opposites. On one side of the coin is freedom on the other side rules. In our observered universe we have both. I don't think one is greater or lesser, rather both are appearently necessary.

Again anything, that God or Nature doesn't forbid, is possible, which leads to an awesome universe.

Best,

Pat

[Fredrick]

I'm not sure that it's rules vs freedom anymore than it's yin vs yang. I think the two are complementary opposites. On one side of the coin is freedom on the other side rules. In our observered universe we have both. I don't think one is greater or lesser, rather both are appearently necessary. Again anything, that God or Nature doesn't forbid, is possible, which leads to an awesome universe.

If you say Yin&Yang, but then also say Freedom&Rule, then we have both taken a step larger than intended, Pat.

A new category is needed to complete the picture: in neo-confusianism, not Yin&Yang are the largest entities, but Li&Ki — with Li as the all-embracing world spirit and Ki as the matter.

With Li, heaven is meant, but there is not necessarily a god in this heaven. What is meant with Li is finding the all-embracement of the world- or universal spirit. So, Li is not an individual aspect, but a collective one. On the opposite end of Li we find matter. Here, with Ki, the more tangible opposites as first portrayed with Yin and Yang have their realms.

So Li is the larger entity, while Ki contains all matter that Li is trying to unite (and can unite on special conditions, such as 'in the abstract'). Then, of course, saying whether Yin or Yang is bigger has no real actual meaning (but is frequently done by supporters of one or of either side).

Ok, lets say if there had been not BB then there would not have been compression or clumping and the great expanse had singular density as all came to rest.

"That which is at rest tends to stay at rest" ..

but unable to ignore the rest of the rule That which is in motion tends to stay in motion something still had to be the effect and that is the rule of opposites rearing the head of foreverness so unfortunate for the singularity of event ponder freedom is just another concept of nothing left to lose and non ever the exist.

"alignment" being the key word possible in the above a platform of view.

What though did the state of not opposites exist have for a pusher, and this irrefutably has to be in alignment and direction creation of dimensional exist to ... interact and collapse ... non prejudicial in either or of the first and again not god the interfere.

Who or what then began the singularity of exist state that only by direction in dimension do we get positive and negative define.

The short answer: a mirror.

The long answer: by investigating itself (because curious), the pre-U (and we can call that pre-universe then: A-T) decided to make a miniaturization of itself to investigate.

In our own minds we can do the same to investigate something that may take place in the future, for instance, imagining the effects certain actions would have. We can contemplate our future reality today, and reject the options or play further with the options until we take the actual steps. The pre-U, or A-T, did not have the luxury of experience, so each step was taken naively. Parts of A-T, let's say, K-L-M, was used to formulate a mini-self, but while KLM flew off, it was still empowered at the whole level as if it was still part of A-T.

So, and this is important, KLM did not know it had flown off, while A-J&N-T could do nothing but look at KLM fly off. Meanwhile this naive K-L-M then continued having a mini-self fly off (L1-L2-L3), and for this the K-L-M remainder could subsequently do nothing about it. Then, to find the continuation of the story, L1-L2-L3 was naive and continued trying to have a part of itself fly off for self-examination, so L21-L22-L23 flew away.... You get the drift. The part meant to be used for self-examination continued to try to create a miniature, while unaware it had become the miniature already. Communication was one-way, because there was no expectation within the miniature that there was an actual remainder left behind. K-L-M considered itself A-T, L1-L2-L3 considered itself A-T (or if you wish K-L-M), etc.

This process of miniaturization cannot continue ad infinitum, because it is an internal direction that the part needed to fly off to; it was not an outward, but an inward direction. And inwardly, there is always a terminal.

If the largesse of our universe is any indication, plus the enormously microscopic level at which we find atoms, then we can conclude that for the miniaturizing universe's self it took a tremendously long time of miniaturization before it found its terminus. And this station was not the place where the train stopped, but the location the plane flew into. Only through an accident did the place find the terminal. Had there not been an accident, all would have flown back to the original state, and we all know that that is not what happened.

And since all was linked from that deep-space-9 location all the way back to where A-T was once still intact, this had to be an unleachment of a tremendous magnitude; the breaking of the vase; the birth of our universe. I am not claiming it was loud or noisy or a big bang, but it was the first step of an unraveling that would not stop at least till K-L-M. It is possible that A-T as a whole got involved, but maybe only just all the way back to KLM (a halfway between both may also be suggested: J-K-L-M-N).

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick;

I don't know about Li or Ki but my vote for the starting principle ( point ) is the Tao.

Tao (道, pinyin: dào (help·info) ) is a concept found in Taoism, Confucianism, and more generally in ancient Chinese philosophy. While the character itself translates as 'way', 'path', or 'route', or sometimes more loosely as 'doctrine' or 'principle', it is used philosophically to signify the fundamental or true nature of the world. The concept of Tao differs from conventional (western) ontology, however; it is an active and holistic conception of the world, rather than a static, atomistic one.
In Taoism, Tao both precedes and encompasses the universe. As with other nondualistic philosophies, all the observable objects in the world - referred to in the Tao Te Ching as 'the named' or 'the ten thousand things' - are considered to be manifestations of Tao, and can only operate within the boundaries of Tao. Tao is, by contrast, often referred to as 'the nameless', because neither it nor its principles can ever be adequately expressed in words. It is conceived, for example, with neither shape nor form, as simultaneously perfectly still and constantly moving, as both larger than the largest thing and smaller than the smallest, because the words that describe shape, movement, size, or other qualities always create dichotomies, and Tao is always a unity.
While the Tao cannot be expressed, Taoism holds that it can be known, and its principles can be followed. Much of Taoist writing focusses on the value of following the Tao - called Te (virtue) - and of the ultimate uselessness of trying to understand or control Tao outright. This is often expressed through yin and yang arguments, where every action creates a counter-action as a natural, unavoidable movement within manifestations of the Tao.

Seems to be both an accurate description both metaphysically and physically.

Best,

Pat

[Fredrick]

I don't know about Li or Ki but my vote for the starting principle ( point ) is the Tao (道, pinyin: dào (help·info).

I hope I don't insult anyone out here, but I'd say: same difference, Pat. Nevertheless, thank you for providing this information.

I did find a link (consisting mainly of a very quick intro) you may find interesting about Korean philosopher Yi-I, who partook in the so-called four-seven debate. Though a delivery on goodness and evil and trying to explain how good people can go wrong, what I find particularly interesting is that four and seven are considered connected (or better fully 'connectable').

http://www.bookrags.com/research/yi-i-ema-06/

Allow me to explore this: if I take your 8, and view it any which way I can, then I can still only see 7 blocks at the max. I never get to see all 8 at once.

And since the 8 are all possible, when I view the options then only 7 are 'realizable' in one set of reality. So the conclusion must be that 7 is the actual realization of 4 (or duality), and not 8. We cannot know about the 8th from direct observation, only through the collective sharing of information. As such, it tells us some fundamental about matter: each material realization is by definition limited.

Expression requires taking in a position, and when taking in a position all 8 potential positions are by definition not available anymore, delivering the obstacle for singularity. Matter cannot be manifested in a singular way, and the lack of accomplishing completeness may indeed be considered frustrating. I believe this unfulfillable last option within materialized reality exists as a truth within string theory as well, but that aspect may not be well understood (though I may overstep myself here with these words, yet again).

[Profpat]

Re: A Little Tiny Point - Stephen Hawking's Universe
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosvis
it can be regarded as the Tao

Not just a single tao but 3 pairs of opposite tao-tao: left-right, top-down, forward-backward. Taken 3-tao at a time give 8 directional invariance properties: 1. left-top-forward, 2. left-top-backward, 3. left-down-forward, 4. left-down-backward, 5. right-top-forward, 6. right-top-backward, 7. right-down-forward, 8. right-down-backward.
__________________
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²

The above is from a post by Antonio on the " tiny point " thread regarding the primal point.

M theory has 7 hidden dimensions F theory has 8, it includes the null or empty set, perhaps the one that can't be seen. My An Idea has both 7 dimensions in the proton and 8 within the neutron.

Additionally my model has 3 pairs of opposites which generate the 8 directions that Antonio mentioned.

Best,

Pat

[Fredrick]

Re: A Little Tiny Point - Stephen Hawking's Universe
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosvis
it can be regarded as the Tao

Not just a single tao but 3 pairs of opposite tao-tao: left-right, top-down, forward-backward. Taken 3-tao at a time give 8 directional invariance properties: 1. left-top-forward, 2. left-top-backward, 3. left-down-forward, 4. left-down-backward, 5. right-top-forward, 6. right-top-backward, 7. right-down-forward, 8. right-down-backward.
__________________
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²

The above is from a post by Antonio on the " tiny point " thread regarding the primal point.

M theory has 7 hidden dimensions F theory has 8, it includes the null or empty set, perhaps the one that can't be seen. My An Idea has both 7 dimensions in the proton and 8 within the neutron.

Additionally my model has 3 pairs of opposites which generate the 8 directions that Antonio mentioned.

I've not heard of tao-tao, Pat, it sounds like some kind of snack you can buy in a corner store. Care to explain? Or is it like the ancients, who sometimes referred to the universe as the whole-all (everything with everything), showing their belief in duality even at the largest level?

I get otherwise what you are saying. The point I am trying to make is that, when 8 directions are the full delivery, then still only 7 can be expressed per delivery, or only 7 can be observed (which is an essential point in science in which we are ultimately only observers). Something is automatically missing from observation, so mentioning 8 without the missing part is like stating everything about life without mentioning death.

Is it like the stream of energy contained in a galaxy that appears to be full and complete, yet that only and singularly moves into a specific direction away from point X? Though complete, this outwardly moving energy is incomplete always, and cannot change that reality?

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick;

I'm not sure what Antonio had in mind with the 3 tao/tao. I thought it was descriptive of the three primary and related complementary secondary colors.

While doing some research I discovered this Venn diagram classification of physics from Wiki. I thought some of you may find it as interesting as I did.


Classification of physics fields by the types of effects that need to be accounted for


Best,

Pat

[Max™]

Why is Time relegated to a mere footnote in the Lorentz transformations, in that figure?