An Idea

[Graybeard]

it was his void that ad-voided him and made him ad-nnoyed

cool bananas ... greg

[dipayankar]

An interesting new I came across:

http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/p.../pr-41-09.html

[melanie]

Hi Fredrick and Profpat.

Selfs can never agree on anything.
Their existence is within each other,but they never touch.
Like Circles,within circles.
It's a closed loop.

The mind may be over active, doubting or confused, but there must be 'something' presently aware of this,
which clearly and without confusion, recognizes confusion as confusion.

In other words, something KNOWS this confusion and is not confused about what it knows.
It recognizes doubt, and knows without a doubt, what doubt is.

This knowing is unknowable, just like sight cannot be seen. The knowing is the Mystery
IT is the True Self...aka Consciousness.

It is not some-THING known by some one,
IT is the very knowing ItSelf.
The mind does not 'know' how to deal with IT when it senses this.
It cannot turn this knowing into the known, and is thus like an eye that franticly turns in an attempt to see the source from which sight arises.


But it's fun trying, and that's the game it plays with itself alone ALLONE

PS, I read this thread often, very good discussions everyone, especially from Fredrick, your 'thinking' Fredrick is absolutely fascinating I love it.

[Fredrick]

OK That's it I give up. I'm avoiding the void.
I guess I'm not getting my point across so I'll just imagine what I can and CANNOT imagine.

Best to all,

Pat

P.S. Thanks for all of your input but I'm at the point of frustration.

I hear your frustration, Pat. I have been there a few times myself, and I noticed how many here at ToeQuest have gone to that place without much pleasure. So here is my last contribution to this particular conversation.

We must communicate using frameworks. Each framework has its own characteristics. I think I can use the decimal system to deliver the entire position where we need to place the ToE: 1.

The frustrating part of this decimal system that this 1 is quite confusing. Should we read this as 'the best' or should we read this as 'united' and 'unit', or should we read this as 'complete.' The decimal system allows for much room to see things as we see fit. And that is just one framework.

Now add the void to the decimal system!

Should we write [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc], or should we write [void, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 etc]? The answer is actually simple, because the word void does not fit the framework, so it must be avoided at all cost.

You could say here, "But wait, the word void is really about the whole only!" Yet we must use a framework to communicate, and to show why it is all so frustrating, I have confined ourselves to just using this one framework of the decimal system, a system that can actually express all. So, if we consider the void within this framework, we must write it down as 0.

There cannot be a separate zero and a separate void in the same framework.

If you want to say, "But wait, the decimal system is imperfect!" Then I'd say, "You've got the ToE right on the nail" or, "Exactly my point."

There are no perfect frameworks for us to use. On top of that, there are always a number of frameworks for us to use (binary system, for instance, with different features). So, your adding a word at 'the completed level' (void next to zero, void next to space) where in reality there is no framework of completeness, does not make sense.

That is what I see you doing all the time, Pat. You start in one framework, and when you bump into the limitations of the framework, you escape to another framework. I believe you do so, because you desire completeness. Our universe is an incomplete location, and if there is another location next to this reality from which we originate, it too will be incomplete because we are not there.

Einstein (and many others) already provided the answer. There is no single foundation to it all. It is called general relativity; the basis of the one need not be the basis of the other.

For myself, I can say that I have added mathematical evidence of the same kind. The fact that zero is always there means we live in an incomplete reality. If we take the 1 of the decimal system and declare it the overall state, then this overall state always contains the 0, too (please note, I am not using the numbers of the binary system here). The 1 may be seen as the whole, but it is always imperfect.

[G_burnett]

OK That's it I give up. I'm avoiding the void.
I guess I'm not getting my point across so I'll just imagine what I can and CANNOT imagine.

Best to all,

Pat

P.S. Thanks for all of your input but I'm at the point of frustration.

I understaned Pat...

There is nothing wrong with a void with a white dot in it. The white dot and void are related. Canada has a pass time out here with marshmallows and the darkness of the night in the void that develops. Not those namby pamby type multi coloratura little things but those great big fluffy white one have in my observation a tendency to create a void. To the stage of experimentation one evening in the blackness I took one of those big white dot of a thing and gave it position over a source of constructed wave variations. The result was in the first experiment, (don’t get me wrong it was not in chamber) (though a contained and more lab like setting can be used) the white dot quickly turned into a radiating searing emit of electrons changing orbit and plasma observable to deteriorate in to dark matter. Low an behold to my surprise the white dot now blackened and still releasing dust and gas still had composite suitable for description as a white dot. It was just hidden in the center of the mass that once cooled cracked and exhibited a shell like nature of a dark matter crusty crust.

Not having a lot of test equipment at the time, after all we are Canadians up here an pride ourselves on intrusiveness and logic over the mechanical figuring all the time I decided to use the personal sense of taste to determine the white dots crusty shell and I can only say it was indistinguishably both gritty and sweet with a hint of addictiveness.

But I still did achieve a void. So with altered positioning I varied the radiation effect and with my trusty Timex and visual determination in observation of one after the other different results of creating a crust to varied degrees and color, even occasionally being able to use the lesser substance after a first crust was removed (and of course doing the taste test each time for molecular content) I soon had the equivalence of a five gallon bucket of marshmallows tested.

But I still did not get a void. I was almost getting ready to give up this experiment, marshmallows taking a price hike with the demand I represented I suppose but suddenly there was a great release of gas and matter with a great void being created, all from just a little white thingy experiment. I had to change my pants of course. sage

[labelwench]

That is a most interesting account of our quaint custom of roasting marshmallows over a campfire, lol....

Now why any of us would actually ingest such an obviously incendiary substance, to the extremes of immoderation, does beg the question.

Though I confess, that once a year, I also have been known to participate in the meditative pursuit of toasting the marshmallow to perfection, not once but several times, down to the final sweet core of it's essence.

Tantric marshmallows, anyone?

[Profpat]

How about trying your experiment with smores, more like a molecule now.

[labelwench]

May I suggest 'Sex In A Pan'?

Sorry, guys. This does not involve nimble nymphos in the kitchen, but it does result in an easy culinary delight that will have members of the opposite sex eating out of your hand...

http://flame.cs.dal.ca/~gates/recipes/SexInAPan.html

With apologies to Prof for leading the topic slightly astray. Off to night shift soon, so you'll have reprieve for several of days...

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick:
"That is what I see you doing all the time, Pat. You start in one framework, and when you bump into the limitations of the framework, you escape to another framework. I believe you do so, because you desire completeness. Our universe is an incomplete location, and if there is another location next to this reality from which we originate, it too will be incomplete because we are not there."

I agree our universe is a work in progress. However when it comes to my framework I never backed off.

MY FRAMEWORK;

Go to post #1 and access the PDF File. I never changed that framework Fredrick. To me it stands on A Priori and Occams razor, it makes sense and is the simplest explanation for our reality. Again it eliminates the need for gluons and I believe the best representation of confinement and asymptotic freedom displayed by the 3 quarks that make up the proton. I am now allowing for the possibility that electrons perhaps are strings which make up the ether we call space.

I've expanded my An Idea to embrace dark energy which I believe are open vibrating strings which is the "space" which is expanding into the VOID.

I believe the dark matter are closed strings which now would have mass and be affected by gravity.

I believe all this came from a little point in time, and that all of this will again be compacted into a little point.

I believe in God.

Now Fredrick which framework are you talking about?. Yes I believe there are limitations in my framework, they are part of the framework, the quarks are confined in my framework. The speed of light has a speed limit. These are natures limits not mine. My imagination knows no limits and that is why I'm able to sit in that VOID and view the universe as it expands. It really is quite a sight.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

And where is this universee expanding into if not the Void? Everything in that bell shaped universe is space, time, motion, fields, EVERYTHING. Anything outside VOID. Get the picture?