An Idea

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Fredrick, the phenomenon of nothing, can just as easily be replaced by 'The Least Action Principle' that is actually__at limit__'The Most Action Principle'__which physics is familiar with, thus much easier accepted by the larger communities involved__Thus eliminating the need of the private language of the phenomenon of nothing. This allows the most/least powerful state or statement to fully function__at all ends of linguistics__and entirely fits the Universe's necessary state of prime mover mechanics__'The All Action Principle'__Eternal Hydrodynamics...

How's that work? as I can not accept the outside language of phenomenon of nothing. It doesn't describe any part of a real universe or real information, to me, excepting the simple empty wallet case, etc. It's otherwise absolutely non-logical, thus un-scientific, as relates to physics...rrr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5rVgxmekeM&feature=related

Allow me to explain my thinking about nothing better. At some point I started using the term phenomenon of nothing to declare the term better. I feel I need to use the term, because only that term incorporates the power statement. This is just like the importance of your wallet being empty with the world still having the exact same amount of money in it. That nothing in your wallet will upset you to the point of you becoming very active and desiring to fill up that wallet. In the framework of money, not-having money is the most powerful state, more powerful than being the person who has the most money in the world. This nothing sets up the dynamics. This nothing is not a something, and the something did not arrive from the nothing, but the nothing option added dynamics to what was before a lesser place.

One last reason to use nothing is that the mathematical evidence I deliver is based on zero always being part of the natural numbers (even when not considered an actual part of the natural number definition). Not the fact that the door is open is delivered, but the fact that the door is never closed (hence, the door is not a door but a passage way). And the frameworks are always independent, because the passage way between them is called nothing. At some point the frameworks have nothing in common.

I apologize for still delivering this last point on why I view the word nothing appropriate. Incompleteness does state the same, and I am happy we agree about the image delivered with this word, but incompleteness does not fully capture /explain the power of the highest level that having nothing can bring about. I do not mind if you say the reverse is true; we are just using abstracts called words, and the image we conjure is more important than the words we use to declare the image. Much appreciated, Lloyd.

[Profpat]

Aren't string under some super great tension and so can only vibrate, not wiggle all around like a worm?

Good point Austin they do have super great tension and are very tiny and vibrating which wouldn't allow much wiggle room. Maybe that's why they need those other dimensions to wiggle in. I don't require them to wiggle myself only to vibrate and have the ability to loop.

But discussing this with you, I was thinking maybe to loop the string, the string has to be so large, which means many strings attach together to form a string long enough and flexible enough to loop. So maybe the quark is really a lot of strings attached together and that is why they are bigger and more massive than a string?

[Profpat]

Hi Austin;

In fact if the basic unit is 1, and assuming that is the radius then the quark or circumference of the circle would have to be at least Pi. 3 1/7 strings. otherwise the circle of one unit in circumference would be smaller than 1 unit in length. It would be ~ .80 of 1 unit in length. And that would be too small for our reality.

Thanks Austin for introducing the rigidity aspect and the permanent looping, to the discussion on strings.

I think it can still work with a little modification.

Best,

Pat

[Fredrick]

Hi Fredrick, the phenomenon of nothing, can just as easily be replaced by 'The Least Action Principle' that is actually__at limit__'The Most Action Principle'__which physics is familiar with, thus much easier accepted by the larger communities involved__Thus eliminating the need of the private language of the phenomenon of nothing. This allows the most/least powerful state or statement to fully function__at all ends of linguistics__and entirely fits the Universe's necessary state of prime mover mechanics__'The All Action Principle'__Eternal Hydrodynamics...

How's that work? as I can not accept the outside language of phenomenon of nothing. It doesn't describe any part of a real universe or real information, to me, excepting the simple empty wallet case, etc. It's otherwise absolutely non-logical, thus un-scientific, as relates to physics...rrr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5rVgxmekeM&feature=related

I concur with all you say, Lloyd. Yet in essence, science wants evidence to formulate itself most properly. And so, I present the mathematical evidence to support the Incompleteness of Everything (at the completed level).

Basically, I provide evidence for what has been said by you and many others (and also others way, way back in time already): everything contains a fundamental blank. There is a universal law that there is ALWAYS a blank. And this blank is fundamental within everything. The operative word here is always, and the support is mathematical evidence.

The blank, however, gives us also the option to state more than what is there to state (falling into the rabbit hole), allows us to ask questions — that we should know already contain the aspect of the unknowable inherently entangled within the question.

I believe I am providing evidence for a universal law at the overall level, Lloyd. I don't think it conflicts with any other knowledge, and it continues to keep science science, and scientists scientists. We not only know quite an astonishing amount of a lot of information, but we can add to that knowledge that we cannot know everything. That is the fact I am delivering: with the mathematical evidence provided, we now know that we cannot know that overall thing called everything in all its specifics.

And that is the ToE.

[Fredrick]

Now, there is no question that our universe has form, laws, time and a real definiteness to it. Need this be the case for the ultimate underlying basis, especially one that generates form, time, and law?

So, this could be a key question:

Is it likely (or not) that the original underlying basis would itself have order, design, specific direction, purpose, rhyme and reason and all that, given that there was nothing prior to it to order it, etc.?

What is it that could exist as the original underlying ‘something’ that is not tied to particulars, something lawless, formless, maybe even timeless?

Anyone?

Hi Austin,

Thank you very much for your delivery here. Your writing makes a lot of sense to me. However, you are begging the question. To deliver an answer to what the blank is eliminates the blank, while it is the blank that needs to be maintained as a fundamental aspect within the final delivery.

Is there an answer at the overall level? Yes!

Can we formulate the answer in specifics? No! We can formulate it only in general terms.

The mathematical evidence I provide shows there is always a blank in between the other parts, and it shows this blank is a fundamental aspect.

That means a universal law exists that, however energy is framed, shows that the framework contains a blank. So with the establishment of the individual parts no overall framework was ever used, rather the overall framework allowed for specific frameworks to be the backdrop for specific material formation. How the specific frameworks were formulated was up to the frameworks/possible outcome it/themselves. Hence, the overall delivery must be infinite, because the finite parts are self-organized.

And if we accept that as a universal law, then we can easily see how Einstein already discovered that, how Bohr and his team delivered that, how LEJ Brouwer provided that aspect, how Gödel showed it to us, how.... Basically, the answers we're looking for were given already in specific before the general question was brought to the fore. And general questions come with a blank contained within.

To beg the question is to ask someone to step onto the blank. The blank is an absolute given; there is a universal law that makes it part of the fundamentals.

Scientist can know a lot, and now we can also add to that list that we cannot know everything. That may leave some space for the religious people to formulate their answers, but science can then also state that religious leaders cannot know everything, because it is a fact that we -whoever- cannot know everything. Their multi-varied answers are just as good as any answer, and are blanks filled in that should not be filled in.

And that can bring us back to strings as well, because we cannot start filling in the scientific blank here either. All we are doing is making use of the ability to start using a new framework in which the known information also fits, but the essence is the known information, not the new framework. Alice in Wonderland has many real things to tell us. Insightful, handy, even telling us matters of the heart. But it is still a book.

Can we state the previous is of a lesser reality? Yes, but only if we accept that we are using terms that belong to our side of the universe, so leaving the blank the blank is still better.

Can we argue that with matter requiring energy that the previous state must somehow be underwhelmed with energy? Yes, the stressful situation that lead to materialization, which is energy getting 'stuck' in place, equals usage of energy on our side of the universe; so, more for us, less for 'them'. But again, while I am using very generic terms here only, it is better to leave the blank the blank.

In time, we do not have firsts, we only have seconds. Now how can we have seconds ticking by, Austin, without ever having had firsts? No one ever uses the term firsts when discussing time. And that is just fine. The blank is intact, and that is how it is best.

We can state that dark matter is the blank. I am not certain all calculations were done correctly, and could even see dark matter disappear from the scientific agenda all together. But I am not opposed to the idea of dark matter. If the universe is a second-state realization, then why would we not still have aspects of the first state still around? I'd say that is quite plausible, and not having to fill in the blank with dark matter is a good fit.

[Profpat]

Dark matter is real enough to have effect:

[Fredrick]

The blank is not an actual nothing, Pat. Rather, it is a phenomenon of nothing. It is the blank within our universal framework. The blank is fundamental, meaning it has an actual effect on the outcome (plural outcome, for instance).

Please understand you may be battling words here, not contents.

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick;

I don't mean to but in, but I do have a couple of thoughts to share.

I have no problem with the blank being the Void. Space has to expand somewhere. We have to have somewhere for us to move our limbs, otherwise Parmenides is correct, since everything would be perfectly filled and there can be no movement.

I like this comment of yours:

"And that can bring us back to strings as well, because we cannot start filling in the scientific blank here either. All we are doing is making use of the ability to start using a new framework in which the known information also fits, but the essence is the known information, not the new framework."

Good point and I agree but the information needs to be stored somewhere, and that smallest somewhere would be a string. The string is not only the Fundamental Substance but the Fundamental Information Storage Unit.

Equiped and programed for time,space.motion, charge, direction, north and south, mass and spin, Yin/Yang, The Tao elongated.

At this level Fredrick the essence is the substance. But it is substantial, real, not potential. It's like the DNA is the essence to our framework but the DNA has a framework of it's own. I don't know if that makes sense to you Fredrick?

AND:

"In time, we do not have firsts, we only have seconds. Now how can we have seconds ticking by, Austin, without ever having had firsts? No one ever uses the term firsts when discussing time. And that is just fine. The blank is intact, and that is how it is best."

In time you do have firsts and seconds and thirds and so on. It's sequential, it moves in only one direction in our universe. FORWARD.

There are no first(s) in eternity, but eternity is not sequential. Time is temporal (tick/tock) not eternal. Also isn't our universe made up of a near if not infinite number "First Time"

Best to you Fredrick, hope you don't mind the interruption.

Pat

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Linguistic insanity is just another cultic mythology. They've existed since the beginning of time__They are invalid to any truth system...

Logic may be understood in its triadic form of I, other and self, but not as any insanity outside of self logic's honesty__That's just scientific fact...

There exists no higher/lower truths than em-waves/field/s, and still stay within scientific sanity__Just start figuring the trillions of varied voltages/sizes of photons/strings, etc.__entering and leaving__the trillions of em-field-waves_in just one cubic center-metre of field or matter every second__Then maybe one can start to see the true complexity of the logics and maths involved__but it's still real fundamental substance wave/s/field/s actions_from eternity to infinity__to finity and back to infinity and eternity__again and again. There are no blanks in geo-bio-nature__just in that simple dumb-dumb__called man...

Wave/s/Field/s is/are everywhere__One is always using wave/s/field/s/photon/s, etc., to even visualize/think/talk or write/type__Prove otherwise...rrr

Oh, I forgot__You can't...rrr

[austintorn@aol.com]

That Blankety Blank

Euclid and Pythagorus never even thought of it,
Perhaps not needing it for geometry;
So it was ‘Greek’ to them.

Aristotle was deathly afraid of it.

Even the word ‘naughty’ came from it.

‘0’ had a chilly reception everywhere,
It’s rounded symbol enclosing nothing,
As if it could be captured,
But ‘nothing’ never changed,
Being the same even if you took it away.

Humans stumbled on zero and nothing by accident,
And recoiled in horror, fearing it, reviling it,
And sometimes even banning it outright
As some kind of evil influence.

After many centuries, it seemed to be tamed,
Put in its place as a simple little placeholder.

Then the beast reared its ugly head for real,
Misbehaving like a monster right and left:

It brought instant death by multiplication,
And wrought total absurdity through division,
Yet stopping our expensive computers in their tracks.

It exploded into the ambiguous fog of infinity;
It ran away from us in calculus,
Sliding us down the slippery slope
Of closing in on it but never reaching it.

It spawned ghosts such as negative numbers,
Imaginaries, and those ephemeral infinitesimals.

Both the genie and the genius
Had been let out of the bottle,
And the goose egg still
Confounds and confuses,
No one knowing zilch about it,
Creating paradoxes left and right.