An Idea

[melanie]

I guess you are a one-eyed person, Melanie.

Yep, here I AM ....

[Fredrick]

Well I wasn't there at the beginning, but, my imagined scenario is something like this. I'll start at a big bang point with a little glob of Lloyds FS. Why this FS decided or became active to expand to make our universe I don't know.

However the most expedient way to expand would be strings, they could travel faster than light thus the inflation. Strings can close to make quarks, a small particle with a center of gravity. That's it for the most part, at least 96% of it.

Because of cramped conditions at the beginning many of these quarks superposed but only a small % had a 3rd quark entangling (interweaving) as it was closing. Once that happened you had the 3 quarks permanently confined with only asymptotic freedom. The dynamics of a positive domain with it's complementary opposite domain is built in. Since opposites attract, they (the domains) dance about trying to reach it's opposite but by design it's impossible consequently the gluonic charges between these areas.

Best,

Pat

Thank you, Pat. But if we do away with materialization coming from a dot, then the Big Bang can be seen as coming from an Empty Nest. Then we do not need tremendous amounts of inflation, just some expansion (unfolding of energy into matter which can have quite the punch) together with outward movement. As most physicists agree, the initial step in the Big Bang is one towards materialization, not of materialization. In my words: the portal comes first, because without the portal not passage for energy.

I think I am starting to get the meaning of FS, but I would just call it matter.

Lloyd, can you declare for me what is so special about FS that it must have its own place in the dictionary? Isn't it a bit like calling our Galaxy the Milky Way, but not calling the other galaxies milky ways? Both words are the same thing after all: one is Latin (lacto-, lact-, lacti- = milk), the other is English. Have I been staring at just a word, or can you declare the specific importance why the word must be seen as its own entity?

[Fredrick]

Galaxies Hatching


Hawking radiation may cause
The evaporation of a black hole,
But what of this radiation?

Could it be that black holes
Within a galaxy
Actually spawned that galaxy
In which they reside,
The egg coming before the chicken?

That can only be true if there is matter in the black hole. So far, evidence only suggests there is matter; it is a theory. An alternative theory is that it could actually be of the same material as the portal: there is no there there, but the no-there-there is nevertheless there.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

FS__Fundamental anything must come from an absolute fundamental, no matter what. It's just absolutely required of all, or any logic, math and true experimented upon reality. You can't get matter from energy, as energy is the secondary state of fundamental matter/energy in motion__Inseparable in logical speculation__A triadic necessity of FS Matter, Energy and Motion__Separate any one of the three out completely, and the other two collapse, as a logical, mathematical, experimental and experiential reality__It's simply the scientific facts of both physical and meta-physical speculation__Rational logic, math and experimental conceptualism, simply and necessarily requires a triadic FS__And, absolutely nothing to do with hocus-pocus religious overtones__Just pure scientific facts of necessary existence fundamentals...

Thank you, Pat. But if we do away with materialization coming from a dot, then the Big Bang can be seen as coming from an Empty Nest. Then we do not need tremendous amounts of inflation, just some expansion (unfolding of energy into matter which can have quite the punch) together with outward movement. As most physicists agree, the initial step in the Big Bang is one towards materialization, not of materialization. In my words: the portal comes first, because without the portal not passage for energy.

I think I am starting to get the meaning of FS, but I would just call it matter.

Lloyd, can you declare for me what is so special about FS that it must have its own place in the dictionary? Isn't it a bit like calling our Galaxy the Milky Way, but not calling the other galaxies milky ways? Both words are the same thing after all: one is Latin (lacto-, lact-, lacti- = milk), the other is English. Have I been staring at just a word, or can you declare the specific importance why the word must be seen as its own entity?

[Fredrick]

Fredrick, I think far too many people make far too much of present and past information systems, compared to trying to understand goals and ideals. Peirce created the special category of "Esthetics", without the A of right brain beauty, representing "The Science of Ideals", or "Goals", as I've re-interpreted it, of left brain science. Many think we can know the truth of the moment, when in fact, that's just the trapped circular logic of all those since Aristotle's false syllogistic logic, or more appropriately named by Boltzmann as Ergodicity, and recently re-interpreted by me as "The Certainty Principle/Theorem/Axiom", or however one may want to name it. The fact remains, that overconfidence of mans' thinking himself smarter than he truly is, has been with us for millenea__This is nothing new, but, he's not realized his modern systems of thought are in contradiction, or many contradictions, with themselves. This problem first showed up with Ibn Sina's extension of Aristotle's pseudo-logic system, to Sina's new forms of logic, and modal logic, but the world lost track of this great man's genius, all but in small circles of knowledge. It finally showed its full power in George Boole's logic, and the world hasn't been the same since. Boole showed the ridiculous tautological non-sense produced by following Aristotle's weak syllogistic logic system. He created a powerful system of ratio-logics based on the old Pythagorean and Persian geniuses. At the same time, statistical mechanics was being birthed in both Germany and America...

We agree on this, Lloyd. The truth is found only within its own structure, not at the overall structure. Yet for all structures to have the ability to proclaim their own truths, there must be an empty seat at the overall structure. This is then a truth of the overall structure.

Though there is no there there, we can all agree on that reality indeed being there. So far, I have Austin and Melanie agreeing with me that the empty seat is a fundamental aspect of the overall level. If we do not include the portal (or whatever name tag we give that empty position that is a position nevertheless), then we do not get the ToE.

Boltzmann was the main leader in Germany, while J.Gibbs was America's star. This sordid history of formation is one of the world's most interesting periods, as at the same time math was being extended into what many thought was "Logical Certainty", logic was being extended into "Mathematical Certainty", and later to "Mathematical Uncertainty". Both logic and math would later be extended by Godel, to lower order "Mathematical Completeness" and higher order "Incompleteness", while Tarski would do the same for "Logical Incompleteness." Now truthfully, how many in the academic/intellectual/knowledge industry, do you think are fully aware of these historical intellectual battles...?

I would add Brouwer at this conjunction in time as well. Do you know if he met up with Einstein and Bohr in Leiden (he lived close by; he was born in Rotterdam and worked in Amsterdam)? Did he know Ehrenfest? I mention him of course, because — in my words — he declared the reality that there is no third way as true, except for those aspects that have nothing in common with the particular duality — i.e. the empty seat exists not only at the top, but also at the dual levels.

The problem comes down to what is mathematical and logical certainty, and what is not. If one follows it back to its origin, on the algebraic and geometry side, one will find a solid foundation, all the way back to the early Greeks, and similar earlier cultures, which gives credence to the Boolean logic right up to the present day. If one follows it back to its origin, on the logical certainty side, it chases to Aristotle's syllogistic non-sense, which is pathetically tautological, as was later proved by Ibn Sina and later by A. Magnus and George Boole, with many others along the way, alluding to Aristotle's logic problems. After Boole re-grounded the logics, maths and geometries back in sound territory, along came the great physicists, of the 19th century, needing better math and logic systems. Well, to make the story shorter, It was Boltzmann of Germany, who set the stage in "Statistical Mechanics", but to this very day, not a soul on Earth has been able to chase out his logical and mathematical validity, of either of his famous theorems, The H Theorem, and The Ergodicity Theorem, yet all of statistical mechanics, even Gibbs, is founded in parts of Boltzmann's ideas.

So, my point is; "What method of science should we truly be using to understand both the micro and macro worlds...?" Imo, if we know certain methods are un-grounded in sound rational logic and maths, they should be abandoned, especially since soundly grounded methods do exist in the field's of Boolean logic, algebra and geometry. There are also two methods of statistical mechanics, one sound and the other un-sound, which most are not aware of. These two methods grew at the same time, from the works of everyone from Pascal, Fermat, and Huygens to Laplace, Beyes and on up to Boole, DeMorgan, Jevons, Peirce and Boltzmann. But, the same problems exist in these schools of thought__There's the sensible factual statistical mechanics of Pascal, Fermat, Huygens, Jevons, DeMorgan and Peirce, and the defective statistical mechanics of Laplace, Beyes, Boltzmann and Gibbs, which most people sadly use, as it's the most taught, along with Aristotle's narrow tautological logic system, at most major and minor institutions.

If we follow this stream of logic then we can make the logic fail. Yet the fallacy is the creation of a single platform on which all must be considered to fit. I apologize for putting the pyramid forward all the time, but it is too handy not to use. The pyramid has two levels (the top and the grounded level, please notice that I do not say top and bottom level here to capture the fine distinction in words), and if we do not distinguish between them or if we link them together as fitting in a single concept, then we cannot move forward. The top is conceptual only. The conceptual truth is not identical to the actual truth we find at the basis.

It would be easy to say that the entire pyramid is conceptual (because that would be correct to say), but the point is that the conceptual pyramid contains a conceptual top and actual grounded positions. Proclaiming the earth's sky as blue is, for instance, a grounded position, shared by all beings in the entire universe. Yet talking about color is a concept. The word color is a concept, while blue is an actual distinction. In top we find color, or colors. At the grounded positions we find the actual distinctions. We cannot mix the two levels, because that makes us one-eye blind. At the grounded level, we find the large variety of truths there are, in top we find one truth only (the empty seat).

Here's the major difference between these two schools of historical thought; The "True" is "Uncertainty", and The "False" is "Certainty"__and these two systems are in contradiction all throughout our academic systems. "A Universal Law System" can not serve two or more masters. Even if we recognize our full "Universal Law Systems" as its true character of a truly "Triadic Universal Law System", of "Chance", "Choice", and "Complexity", or "Geo-Physics", "Bio-Physics", and "Meta-Physics", as the same "Triadic Universal Law System", we must accept no contradictions between it's three separable systems of "Universal Laws", within the "Greater Universal System." We can not have a contradictory law system of "Certainty" and "Uncertainty" applying to the same areas of knowledge. Either our extreme systems of "Measure" entail "Uncertainty", as per "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle", or they entail "Certainty", as per "Boltzmann's Ergodic Axiom of Certainty." One must go, to "The Dustbin of History..."

The Ultimate Triadic Universal Laws__Chance = Geo-Physics__Choice = Bio-Physics__Complexity = Meta-Physics...

Or Inanimate__Animate__Meta-Animate__The Geo- Bio- Meta-Spheres...

Science can only be "Truly" known as "Esthetics__The Science of Goals..."

Thank you, Lloyd, it is my pleasure reading your posts.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

...there is no there there, but the no-there-there is nevertheless there.

Flawed logic Fredrick__Contains contradictions__True logic allows zero contradictions__Throw away the foolish paradoxes, and gain the truth__Paradoxes do not exist__Ever...!

The Universe and Nature contain zero paradoxes__Man is the only dreamer of falsely self-constructed pseudo-paradoxes...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Fredrick, please see Post first(also included below...), as it was about your pyramid, also. I think you may have missed it, as it was in my reply to Leskey...

We agree on this, Lloyd. The truth is found only within its own structure, not at the overall structure. Yet for all structures to have the ability to proclaim their own truths, there must be an empty seat at the overall structure. This is then a truth of the overall structure.

Though there is no there there, we can all agree on that reality indeed being there. So far, I have Austin and Melanie agreeing with me that the empty seat is a fundamental aspect of the overall level. If we do not include the portal (or whatever name tag we give that empty position that is a position nevertheless), then we do not get the ToE.

I would add Brouwer at this conjunction in time as well. Do you know if he met up with Einstein and Bohr in Leiden (he lived close by; he was born in Rotterdam and worked in Amsterdam)? Did he know Ehrenfest? I mention him of course, because — in my words — he declared the reality that there is no third way as true, except for those aspects that have nothing in common with the particular duality — i.e. the empty seat exists not only at the top, but also at the dual levels.

If we follow this stream of logic then we can make the logic fail. Yet the fallacy is the creation of a single platform on which all must be considered to fit. I apologize for putting the pyramid forward all the time, but it is too handy not to use. The pyramid has two levels (the top and the grounded level, please notice that I do not say top and bottom level here to capture the fine distinction in words), and if we do not distinguish between them or if we link them together as fitting in a single concept, then we cannot move forward. The top is conceptual only. The conceptual truth is not identical to the actual truth we find at the basis.

It would be easy to say that the entire pyramid is conceptual (because that would be correct to say), but the point is that the conceptual pyramid contains a conceptual top and actual grounded positions. Proclaiming the earth's sky as blue is, for instance, a grounded position, shared by all beings in the entire universe. Yet talking about color is a concept. The word color is a concept, while blue is an actual distinction. In top we find color, or colors. At the grounded positions we find the actual distinctions. We cannot mix the two levels, because that makes us one-eye blind. At the grounded level, we find the large variety of truths there are, in top we find one truth only (the empty seat).



Thank you, Lloyd, it is my pleasure reading your posts.

Hi Leskey, and yes I hear what you state loud and clear, but do we truly know the "purpose" of our central being, or do we just think we do...? I pose this question to delve deeper into the minds of opposites, which will also relate to the opposites Fredrick, Austin, SB_UK and Labelwench, and really all participants on this forum, have also mentioned. As children, we all theorized about the differences of finiteness, infinity, complexity and simplicity, yet once the mind has early settled certain points of our childhood evolutions, it's natural to continuously think these areas of thought settled for life, when in truth, they are not. Some thought these ideas of differences at pre-school levels, others at the elementary school levels, other's at the high school level, and still others re-assessed them in college or later life__But, most do not re-visit the earlier established and settled thoughts of childhood, due to the habit of mind, not to repeat itself__and herein lies 'The Universal Cosmic Riddle'. What I'm talking about is; 'What is the difference between logic and general patterns of thinking?' If we thought about this idea at really early stages of life, we may have used simple ratios to settle the different areas of thinking__but, if we were later challenged by peers or school and college, teachers and professors, we'd have dug deeper into it__but again, we may have been steered a course opposite our early childhood knowledge of the simple ratios of natural logic, into the more complex areas of linguistic logics, or the syllogistic logics of Aristotle and others. Still others may have been steered into the non-intuitive complexities of higher order mathematics and logics__without realizing, and losing track of the deeper learned lessons of simple childhood 'universal ratio logic'. I don't know how to make this as simple a distinction as it truly is, but this is the center of the antinomies/contradictions__which exist in all our systems of thought. Stated as simply as possible__Most carry a mind of complexities in contradiction with simplicities...

Let's just take the one example of guage theories' maths' complexities, verses, the extreme simplicities of global/universal ratios. Now, all our minds have the capacity to function at the simple ratios levels, but not all minds have the capacity to function at the high mathematical complexities' levels. We are all evolved somewhere between the simple universal and global ratios level of mathematical logic, and the more complex levels of guage theory maths. So now, let me ask this simple question; "Does it make more rational logical sense for an extremely Huge Universe, to come from a single h Planck point; or from a near infinite number of the same h Planck points...?" Which is more rational__The complex guage theory analyses syntheses of complexity to a single h Planck point, or our simple childhood realization of a ratio of many h Planck points producing this huge Universe...?

You may see from the above where I'm going with this. The ratio logic maths are in dire contradiction with the complexity maths. There are two math systems, occupying this planet, with opposing answers to the greatest questions of the ages__Simplicity verses complexity__The opposites of Universal Comprehension__This must be dealt with, at the highest level of Fredrick's Pyramid, or the highest level's of my Omega Wisdom Diamonds. The highest levels of Wisdom Logic is presently undefined and incomplete__I think it only possible of a completion in Genericity/Parameterizations; therefore imo, the highest position of 'Fredrick's Pyramid' or my 'Wisdom Omega Diamonds' must be a new form of simple'Wisdom Ratio Logic', as complexity is thus far incomplete, but genericity ratios, can allow us a deeper vision and understanding of the whole; and therein possibly find new self-purpose of and in the quest...

Bottom Line: Can we do the single h Planck point experiment?__No. Can we do the many h Planck points experiment?__It already exists__The Macro Universe...!

Wisdom is what we seek...

[Fredrick]

FS__Fundamental anything must come from an absolute fundamental, no matter what. It's just absolutely required of all, or any logic, math and true experimented upon reality. You can't get matter from energy, as energy is the secondary state of fundamental matter/energy in motion__Inseparable in logical speculation__A triadic necessity of FS Matter, Energy and Motion__Separate any one of the three out completely, and the other two collapse, as a logical, mathematical, experimental and experiential reality__It's simply the scientific facts of both physical and meta-physical speculation__Rational logic, math and experimental conceptualism, simply and necessarily requires a triadic FS__And, absolutely nothing to do with hocus-pocus religious overtones__Just pure scientific facts of necessary existence fundamentals...

Thank you, Lloyd, I now have no problem seeing FS for what it is. I can do without the name tag, but I can use it also. It is simply stating that if there is an overall truth it must be true for everything that is from that overall level. Good, we have a factual description here about the overall level. And within it, we have a fact (the empty seat) plus the variety of outcomes.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Thank you, Lloyd, I now have no problem seeing FS for what it is. I can do without the name tag, but I can use it also. It is simply stating that if there is an overall truth it must be true for everything that is from that overall level. Good, we have a factual description here about the overall level. And within it, we have a fact (the empty seat) plus the variety of outcomes.

Na Da__The Fact is (The Completely Full Seat), Fredrick. No empty seats allowed, in a Universe, where "Field is everywhere..." Einstein... FS is everywhere__Eternity to Infinity__Sound logic, math and real physical experimental decay necessitates it so__The tick, tick, tick of the caesium atom..!

[Fredrick]

Fredrick, please see Post first(also included below...), as it was about your pyramid, also. I think you may have missed it, as it was in my reply to Leskey...

No, you only placed an empty seat on top of the empty seat. And that is a confirmation, Lloyd.

To reach a conceptually higher level is always possible, but also removes one from the ground floor.

The pyramid starts with a square of blocks placed on the ground. They represent the actual matter (connects to the ground). We must often move towards abstractions to capture a deeper truth (1 + 1 = 2). Consider this the following square of blocks, placed on top of the first level, and smaller than the first square of blocks.

If this is not enough, we can step up the ladder one more time, and create a third layer of blocks on top of the second level. Slowly, but certainly, we find greater truths, but they are also further removed from the ground level.

Finally, we reach the top, where a single absolute truth is declared that is valid for all. Yet this position is also farthest removed from the ground, and their levels are smaller and smaller.

What you did was add a single block in top on top of the single block. this is always possible, but never correct, because it invalidated the entire pyramid as being grounded at every level within the structure. You built on a truth from two pyramids, not on a single pyramid. Therefore, you created not a pyramid, but something that resembles a pyramid.

If I have apples and oranges at the bottom of the pyramid, I cannot say anything about them as a whole. Yet one step up, I can declare them all fruits, and I can say something about fruits ("healthy"). One level up, I can declare them objects and I can do some interesting math. Etc.

Pyramids are mental concepts, and need to be considered carefully. The connection to the ground must always be made. We are not allowed to add a block on top of the highest block. Sorry, Lloyd, it cannot be done, because that is declaring apples and oranges the same thing.

As an example of the complication and attention we need to pay to the pyramid to make it correct: if I take a mother, a father, a son, and a daughter as the basic building blocks at the ground level, then I bump into trouble when the mother turns out to be 93 and the son and daughter to be 2, and 3. We must split the pyramid into two pyramids, when the mother is the mother of the child's mother (i.e. the grandmother). So, we have two pyramids in which the grandmother and the mother are the mother & child, and one pyramid in which the mother and the son and daughter and mother & children.

Please notice that with each step up the pyramid, each level contains empty positions (the edges on top of the level below). Your delivery to leskey did not contain an empty position to stand on next to it (because it was not built on solid grounds, but a singular conclusion on top of the overall singular truth). That is a bridge too far.