An Idea

[Lloyd Gillespie]

3D__I see you__You don't see me__2D vision is impossible. If you can't see it__It don't exist. Read Peirce, he described surface boundaries 100+ years ago__The boundaries of no boundaries don't actually exist__Only the surfaces of absolutely real 3D objects bound each other, then only one direction, as field permeates all, or as our atmosphere actually only semi-bounds in one direction__outgoing by our atmosphere's real 3d/4D particles, as the aether enters and leaves our 3D/4D world, i.e., the boundary of no boundary. The entire universe is actually/factually the boundary of no boundaries__'Field is everywhere', just as you have stated, Einstein stated. We're in the physical waves of 3D fields, and they're in us__Everywhere...

Aether = Actual em fields...

Theorize it 2D and or 1D all you want__I don't care. Only 3D/4D exists in my world__Absolutely real 3D/4D FS matter/energy__Nothing is visible, unless 3D__Moving gives us 4D. It's always moving, thus always truly 4D. Somewhere you forgot, you can't take away from the whole__absolutely, only imaginally. There's a new math you should explore__inversivity, or 5-3=5__No matter what you imaginally subtract, the exact same total quantity still exists(conservation laws), either in the same state if just moved, or in its real physical 3D changed state if burned, etc. There is a real world of physics you know Pat, other than your anger, of other's ideas...

All reality is absolutely required to be a minimum of 3D, or non-existent. We speak of imaginal mathematical 2D surfaces__They are illusional__Just as is an imaginal 2D planar slice through the entire universe__All surfaces meeting are 3D, at infinitesimal limit. Take a q-ball under an electron microscope, and it's surface, in proportional comparison to Earth's surface, has mountains higher than Mt. Everest__A true 3D surface, and that's all that can exist in reality...

Take mind out of imagination, and place it inside it's 3D field continuum container__To see the rational logic and maths of. There's absolutely no escape from the 3D continuum container...

Pat, ship me something by snail mail, that's 2D__You can't__It don't exist, no matter what the stringies say...

The only problem is one of language/linguistics' history__again...

Pat__No Fear...!

Two-dimensional wave packets in an elastic solid
with couple stresses
Ceni Babaogl

The above is an article refering to 2 dimensional waves. I gave you a excerpt from Wiki saying that EMR is a 2 dimensional transverse wave and here you are again with 3D only. Take off your red and blue glasses Lloyd.

Who says energy has to be 3D, rather the evidence and even formula for energy suggest 2D. E=mc2, not cubed but squared, a surface area, a 2 dimensional reality.[At E=MC2 limit, all larger 3D matter changes state to smaller 3D states of zero mass, or infinitesimal mass, we can't yet measure. And the 2 in the formula stands for the arithmetic function on the actual mass and velocity figured. It's about velocity of 3D matter Pat, to lesser states of 3D matter velocities, through velocity incurred state changes, and nothing to do with illusional 2 dimensionalities.]
The photon IS pure energy, no more mass or if you will 3D reality.[And what causes energy Pat, if not matter in motion...? What is it, a boogie-man...?]

Additionally, a string closes to form a circle which combines with 3 other circles to make up our 3D reality. That is a whole lot simpler and more logical than your blah blah blah. If it's correct it should be understandable and explainable.[Your thread, think any way you wish__I'll stick to known and knowable realities__thanks...]

Best,

Pat

[Max™]

A Universe is never completed__Therefore it is always in a state of mixed randomness and uniformity__Just the requirement of logical necessity at the limit of no limit__Not I...

Universes constantly pass from state to state__eternally...

Words can capture all in__change...

Actually I would argue that a Universe is a completed set which generates new statements outside of itself, a la Godel.



Those new statements are generated through black holes (the only process with the appropriate energy scales and displacement from the parent), and should take the form of similar, yet unique Universes to the parent.

A single dimension is either a point, indicating a position, or a line, indicating a point, and a displacement from that point. You can extend these perpendicularly with spatial, again with temporal, and extend into further depths with added spatial dimensions, or move to new types of dimensions representing new levels upon which to measure displacement from a point.

That's why I made this picture:



These are different dimensions, not merely directions as the term often conjures to mind.

[Fredrick]

Fredrick incompleteness isn't a principle__It's a fact... Randomness isn't a principle__It's a fact... You've offered nothing new, Godel did not already state...

Btw, where's that universal formula of your's, you keep bragging about...? Ain't got an original one__Do ya...?

It's not nice to fib, Fredrick...! There are rules on ToeQuest, ya know...

I am not familiar with fibbing, Lloyd. But it does not sound nice. I am trying to be truthful both to knowledge and language and I base my delivery (which by the way is extremely similar to your delivery) on what I consider to be knowledge we all can share. I am communicating the best way possible, using the most appropriate words (as I know them, which may be incorrect).

I have no problem stating that incompleteness is not a principle but a fact. I have no problem placing all the names you placed under delivering evidence for randomness under the same fact of incompleteness. However, the word principle and fact do not mutually exclude each other, so I guess I should say thank you for accepting incompleteness as a fact (a reality that was of course readily available in your words and ideas). The word principle also points to hierarchy, placement. And I believe to also know for a fact that incompleteness is of a higher stature than randomness. Placing incompleteness in top includes randomness without any conflict, leaving it intact, while randomness in top would have incompleteness as a by-product, a side-show.

Here is the issue: if we need to get to the ultimate delivery of what 'tolerancy' is, then the overall answer must also encompass the variable of it being something between the two extremes of tolerating just upto the level of those who are also tolerant on the one hand and those simply tolerating all (including the intolerant) on the other hand. As you can see, there is no randomness in that overall delivery at all, because we actually have a variety of accurate answers; it is just that the variable must also be declared to find the overall correct delivery. Randomness is not found at the basis (principle on which the result is based), the variable caused by incompleteness is at the basis.

I have no problem accepting randomness as highest entity in your overall delivery, just like I have no problem accepting god as highest entity in Pat's delivery. I see no conflict. However, I do have a conflict if you or Pat have a conflict with my delivery. Accepting the evidence, information and ideas delivered by Godel, Einstein, Brouwer, and so forth, that provide the exact same outcome of incompleteness, but then rejecting the mathematical information of the same that I provide is not very tolerant; it sounds like a bias. Call me intolerant to those being intolerant.

The delivery about the basics in math (making use of the natural numbers) that I provided (http://www.pentapublishing.com/Math.html) does not deny the information of others that have come to the same conclusions. I think I am the first to make it, however, using the basics of math, the natural numbers. I can understand it well when others do not grasp the significance right away, because their eyes need to be focused on the overall level — and that is difficult. Ask someone about the overall level of a sport's game, say football, and within ten seconds they will have moved from the general level to the specific level, and talk about an incident that happened in football somewhere on the field, or how the rules should be changed because of x, y, or z. That is how difficult it is to stay focused on just the overall level. Still, Lloyd, I know you have the capability to do exactly that.

Football is just one of the many games that can get played, showing that not a single option to play, but many options to play exist. Collectively, they show there is no singular game in our universe that humans can play. Hence, each game is only 'complete' / 'finished' onto itself, and that the overall level has (for itself) no completeness. The overall level cannot have completeness.

Randomness is a result of incompleteness; it is not the foundation. When forced to express oneself, but without rules provided, the outcome will be random. Yet the foundation of that randomness is provided by the need to express, which is based on the inability to remain complete. If you find a better word for incompleteness at the overall level, please, provide it, for we both agree it still contains the possibility for completion (but not at the overall level). Yet, with sufficient information provided, I can accept it as delivering the actual fundamental aspect of everything at the overall level.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Max, and a few points. If the Universe were completed__There'd be no tomorrow...? I think there will be...

And as far as dimensions, I'm well aware of the many mathematical dimensions used to explain higher order maths. I was simply debating Pat about real physical dimensions...

Actually I would argue that a Universe is a completed set which generates new statements outside of itself, a la Godel.



Those new statements are generated through black holes (the only process with the appropriate energy scales and displacement from the parent), and should take the form of similar, yet unique Universes to the parent.

A single dimension is either a point, indicating a position, or a line, indicating a point, and a displacement from that point. You can extend these perpendicularly with spatial, again with temporal, and extend into further depths with added spatial dimensions, or move to new types of dimensions representing new levels upon which to measure displacement from a point.

That's why I made this picture:



These are different dimensions, not merely directions as the term often conjures to mind.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Randomness is a result of incompleteness. If you find a better word for incompleteness, please, provide it, for we both agree it still contains the possibility for completion (but not at the overall level).

Unification of opposites, Fredrick. The Unification of Randomness and Uniformity__That's us humans, in all our jagged imperfections and incompletenesses__But Unification is the higher of the two words, incompleteness and completeness__as they are just descriptors, and we have the capacity to be honest, and unite, in perception, the understandings of all opposites__Iff we wish...

I don't trust you Fredrick, as far as I could throw a 100 ton car. You don't answer to questions asked__Where's your universal formula, Freddie...?

[Profpat]

OK Lloyd you don't believe in the big bang and you don't believe EMR is a 2 dimensional transverse wave. You and Fredrick both believe everything came out in 3 dimensions. Since you don't believe in the big bang and are a closet steady stater no problems except you'll never know OUR reality only yours.

Best,

Pat

[Mikal]

I basically agree with most of your words, Mikal. Yet when I view this from the overall level I discover some flaws (as one would suspect from someone who believes incompleteness is the highest principle). The placement of one above the other is inherently consumed in Christianity, and as such I consider it the flaw that has created a lot of misery. It is in the normalization of Jesus that we can find redemption. It is with the specialty of Jesus that we enslave ourselves. Please note that in Buddhism we are all considered Buddhas, yet this idea contains also the possibility of our not recognizing ourselves as a Buddha. That makes it a better religion, because there are still gradations, but it is void of the enslaving aspect. Fundamental equality is delivered, even when not all live by this principle.

Okay, I am going to give you a roadmap, and I believe I am making use of the same insights as Moses had when he established the ten commendments (please note, I do not know this for a fact, I believe this). They are just 5 actions, not 10, because the principles are already covered by 5 (but can indeed be extended to 10), and I also do not call them commendments but challenges. As challanges they can at times be easy or hard, as challenges one or some can be harder than the others. Also, I believe Moses started out with the second as the first, so recognize the addition of the very first challenge.

Challange one is to be yourself. You can see why Moses would not dwell on this, because it was in no way beneficial for him or his tribe. This could be a very easy challenge, but the hard part is to extend this one into the world at large. By recognizing you and others as having the god-men features, you allow yourself to also be yourself at that level as a free man.

Challenge two is to accept the inner duality.

Challenge three is to respect another, the other.

Challenge four is to do what is needed.

Challenge five is to be wise, to be smart about it all.

Simple guidelines that are easily swept aside as totally unimportant or not that special, and the fact they seem quite casual is exactly why they are challenges.

We all know that, when Moses came back to his tribe, all his fellow men were into worshipping idols. Worshipping idols is easy to do, and it can bring one into extacy quite easily. But it has as negative aspect that it is enslaving. It makes one person better than the other person; it can make one consider oneself as less than another, as a slave, as just a regular guy in contrast to the super guy, as someone who does not have (certain) powers. As reaction, it can create personalities trying to get to that same level the idol has. Yet the idol's location is not within our reality (it is in heaven), and any actions to get to that level are warpings away from being oneself. Worshipping idols should at all cost be avoided because it warps our being on this planet and that warps our societies on this planet. Though hierarchies can be beneficials, hierarchical thinking is also the same foundation for slavery. A line in the sand must be drawn to avoid slavery of any kind. Free people will live in a free society because they will break down the walls of slavery, and free people will even break down the remnants of the walls of slavery. If you live in a society with winner-takes-all the walls of slavery have been breached, but only to the extent that some (too many) can still get trapped behind the remnants.

The Jewish tribes were living under foreign rule (in Egypt and for a long time in Israel under Roman occupation), and we should understand that Jesus lived at a time when slavery was quite an easy thing to see. We live in different times and can therefore not use Jesus as the example, because our circumstances are not the same. When using Jesus as an example in our circumstances, we actually self-enslave ourselves in a new manner, because we must somehow see a society around us that has been captured by foreign forces, as viewing us not in our own homeland, not in Jerusalem, or anything of similar grandeur that is not our actual reality. To preach the gospel of Jesus is to establish (physical, mental) conditions that are not reasonable in parts of our world. Naturally, if you live in China, you would do good by believing in Jesus, for that belief should ultimately lead you to break down the walls of slavery in China. But if you live in a nation with a two-party democracy, the walls were breached already, and it is 'just' that the remnants are still in place. Ultimately, only when all nations in the world are based on fair representation (proportional representation of some kind at the highest level), then we will live in a free world.

I'll leave it at that, Mikal. I hear your spirit is in the right place, but there are a few nuts and bolts in the message on which we disagree. Thank you though, for making me go here. But as you may notice, I drew a line in the sand.

Hi Fredrick thanks for reply. First of all I am not in any religion, although I respect, that for some people religion is important. I simply have faith in God, with no attachment to a church, a fixed or any other kind of dogma, or any kind of spiritual or religious leader.
I simply studied the life of Christ and found greater evidence of him in the Gnostic strand than anywhere else. I studied world religion because you can hardly touch history without going there.

Now here are some twists with Moses in history.
1) In Exodus 24:12 God says to Moses “Come up to me in the Mount, and be there: I will give thee tables of stone; a law; and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.
Notice that there are 3 separate items listed here. Why is that important? Because within this mixture of items were the Tables of Testimony-the cosmic equation: the divine law of number, measure and weight which was connected to the ancient system of the cryptic Qabala. These tables of testimony were what the Crusades were all about.

2) Moses is not Moses in Egyptian history, he is Akhenaten.
3) In the Egyptian Book of the Dead the 10 commandments are different for example, thou shalt not kill, is I have not killed.
4) Moses’ great-great-grandfather was Pharaoh Tuthmosis lll, who was the originator of the long-standing Mystery School of philosophers and scholars who preserved the ancient sacred systems.
5) When Moses gave the people the 10 commandments he broke the ancient covenant “that man was not separate from God.” (The smashing of the stone Tablets is a metaphor for the breaking of the covenant.)
6) This was the beginning of turning mankind to outer worship and was the origin of religion.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on insights into the Commandments. I would only say here Fredrick that yes there is inner duality quite obviously proved by the difference between states of joy and states of sorrow. However, there is no outer duality in the sense of an “us and them” for all blood is red and every heart beats.

Please understand that the Christ is not an example to me, his is a story and a life I understand. No need to preach Christ just as there is no need to preach God, what is held in your heart is revealed in the living of your own life.

Thank you for the discussion….

Regards Mikal

[Profpat]

Here is a thought experiement:

A proton gives up a tiny bit of its mass as it is converted to energy a photon is created. A ghost particle it represents the 3D mass converted to 2D energy.

First: the vector of the photon, the 1 dimensional distance (direction) line. An energy line or string. We have L
Second: the line using its energy goes PERPENDICULAR to itself to create a 2 dimensional area. We now have LH
Third: the line goes PERPENDICULAR again creating what appears to be a 3D particle in that it now has LHW

PHYSICS reflecting MATH.
A point particle emitted creating the line, which goes perpendicular (electric moment) and goes perpendicular (magnetic moment), creating the wave packet.

Mass is converted to energy, (there is no more mass, compacted energy,3D reality), to a much larger 2D reality (pure energy)

Makes sense to me. Otherwise you would have 3D mass converting to 3D mass

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Pat, why don't you read and interpret what I write, instead of making up your own stories of what I write...?

OK Lloyd you don't believe in the big bang[Never said any such thing. Said I did not accept the BB as presently stated, especially as coming from an infinitesimal point non-sense.] and you don't believe EMR is a 2 dimensional transverse wave. You and Fredrick both believe everything came out[Nothing came out__that's religious non-sense__It's always existed as a 3D structured Universe__either 3D field or visible 3D objects.] in 3 dimensions. Since you don't believe[I don't believe in anything__I either know, or I don't know.] in the big bang and are a closet steady stater[the only closet is your self-locking one] no problems except you'll never know OUR reality only yours.

Oh, speaking like 'god' again, ha Pat...? The all-seeing__all knowing... Just one trouble__no-one can see true and absolute two and one D's...

You don't handle differences of opinion well, do ya...? Pat, it's only a stupid theory, no matter who states what about it__It ain't some living human being... Lighten up...

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

Sorry Lloyd:

I was pontificating again wasn't I.

(but it's my baby)

Best,

Pat