[N0B0DY]

That means that you see and agree, Lloyd, and that you have no valid counter argument.

[Tina]

Originally Posted by Fredrick Want to communicate your thoughts on this further, Tina?

Well there are many concepts of "duality" - but these are mainly metaphorical ideas of oppisitness. But opposite literally refers to physical position and the metaphors do not reflect reality.

Likewise there are many refrences in our cultural history of things in "threes".
But this goes beyond metaphor...it is represented in mathematics by the number line +, -, and 0 (positive, negative and neutral) It is prepresented in Quantum (but not clearly recognised yet) in superposition eg

Quantium Cats 3 potentials Alive +/not alive -/ not (not alive) and not (not dead) - the "We don't know state" of superposition = 0

Wave action is triangular/3 movement plus much more in natural laws.
Protons +/Neutrons -/Electrons 0)

I derive these ideas from Protheory.

[Fluent Piffle]

A sphere is a sphere because it exists in a '3-dimensional' and Infinite environment. If there were such things as 'borders' to the cosmos, we would not observe planets as spherical. Rather, they would take on the shape of whatever defined Cosmological bordering. Because there is NO border of Space, the only shape possible to form within it is the sphere ('sphericalness' is actually proof of an infinite state, in this regard!). This is why the standing spherical wave is the Infinite backdrop to finite existence. All within is formed as a consequence of its properties.

In terms of 'direction' 3-dimensions and Infinite are the same thing. However, 'direction' is another concept based on 'particle/finite' mis-conception and 'separateness'. You must posit the idea of a 'something' from which to measure direction from and to, in order to have 'direction' at all.

Hold a spherical object up and turn it in a clock-wise 'direction'. View from above, while maintaining the direction of spin, and then view from below maintaining the same 'direction'. You will note that the sphere now appears to rotate anti-clockwise, even though you spin it yourself in the same 'direction'. What does this say about 'direction'? That's right. It's a mental construct, and not a Cosmological (true) action. This may give you some idea of how far we have removed ourselves from the reality.


pif.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY That means that you see and agree, Lloyd, and that you have no valid counter argument.

Wrong again NObody, the counter-intuitive complexity can always counter the intuitive simplicity, as it's the only valid scientific truth___The counter-intuitive sciences, that is...

Lloyd

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Tina Well there are many concepts of "duality" - but these are mainly metaphorical ideas of oppisitness. But opposite literally refers to physical position and the metaphors do not reflect reality. Likewise there are many refrences in our cultural history of things in "threes". But this goes beyond metaphor...it is represented in mathematics by the number line +, -, and 0 (positive, negative and neutral) It is prepresented in Quantum (but not clearly recognised yet) in superposition eg Quantium Cats 3 potentials Alive +/not alive -/ not (not alive) and not (not dead) - the "We don't know state" of superposition = 0 Wave action is triangular/3 movement plus much more in natural laws. Protons +/Neutrons -/Electrons 0) I derive these ideas from Protheory.

Thanks, Tina, I like your deliveries. I too believe that in some respect three is the answer with a neutral or gray center, but I believe there is always a flip side to it as well, such as black and white as one side (with gray in the middle) and having a color spectrum on the other side with a more complex situation (but still with gray in the middle). I too find a third option in your Q Cats 3 in maybe, but I also see a fourth position in maybe not. There is not really much of a difference between maybe not and maybe so, but it tells me the duality can still be found, even in that what is not immediately known.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Fluent Piffle A sphere is a sphere because it exists in a '3-dimensional' and Infinite environment. If there were such things as 'borders' to the cosmos, we would not observe planets as spherical. Rather, they would take on the shape of whatever defined Cosmological bordering. Because there is NO border of Space, the only shape possible to form within it is the sphere ('sphericalness' is actually proof of an infinite state, in this regard!). This is why the standing spherical wave is the Infinite backdrop to finite existence. All within is formed as a consequence of its properties. In terms of 'direction' 3-dimensions and Infinite are the same thing. However, 'direction' is another concept based on 'particle/finite' mis-conception and 'separateness'. You must posit the idea of a 'something' from which to measure direction from and to, in order to have 'direction' at all. Hold a spherical object up and turn it in a clock-wise 'direction'. View from above, while maintaining the direction of spin, and then view from below maintaining the same 'direction'. You will note that the sphere now appears to rotate anti-clockwise, even though you spin it yourself in the same 'direction'. What does this say about 'direction'? That's right. It's a mental construct, and not a Cosmological (true) action. This may give you some idea of how far we have removed ourselves from the reality. pif.

I don't think I have much with you to argue about, Pif. We agree, it seems, on the basic delivery. However, what I am aiming for is showing that the building blocks are not as obviously 3D as we expect. Still, I do state as anyone else that we can deliver the directions with up-down, left-right, and front-back. I do not call them 6D because I consider each pair to be the same direction, albeit each the opposite of the other. And then, I find that each dimension is not static, but 'dimensional.' So two circles, perpendicular to each other, are all it takes to declare a sphere.


If I take just the left-right pair, out of the three pairs, then I can only go into one direction, say right, and not left. While doing so I can then still go into the other four directions of up-down, front-back, and go to the right nevertheless as long as the other four directions are micro-movements. In this example there are therefore 5 directions, and a 0 direction for 'left.'

The same can be said if I hadn't chosen right, but left: 5 directions (with left as the main direction) and 0 direction for 'right.' I don't know if you recognize anything, but I could say that I have 11 dimensions here. Actually, that should be 12 dimensions because I have 2 directions with a zero value.

But I won't call them dimensions. For me, dimension means experience, and these directions are not full enough to be called dimensions.

I like that you mention the dual nature of a sphere's spin; I see that as the completed view. If we entertain the idea that a sphere is made up of two personalities (a little silly, I admit), both personalities may experience themselves as being on top, the other on the bottom, spinning exactly in the direction they like, while 'the other' has to tag along in what appears from our perspective the direction they don't want to move into. Together, these 'entities' are each others opposite, though they must cooperate as well along the equator.

I see the same duality in our dimensional world: on the one hand two aspects of going it alone, on the other hand one aspect of doing it together. One could say that is three, but one could as easily say that it is only two. I prefer to call it two because I can identify both sides, and duality seems to explain reality better (though I do give a position of importance to the combined outcome as well).

[Fredrick]

Looking at the binary system may be the fastest way to discover how a TOE must look like — from that particular perspective. Though the system is quite simplistic, it can cover anything, everything, and nothing.

The basics of the binary system are ones and zeros. We should not say that the binary system is based on 1 and 0, because that is not the case. It clearly is made up out of 1s and 0s, and the single 1 and the single 0 cannot be found. These single 1 and single 0 are actually concepts from the decimal system in which they do have a place.

From this, we can see that a TOE must cover multiples, is based on multiples. We can say that the zeros are truly nothings, so in that case it doesn't matter whether the TOE is based on multiple aspects or that it is singular. But from the 1s, we can read that the TOE must include plural aspects. The 1 does not exist in the binary system. And we agreed already that the binary system can be used to cover anything, everything, and nothing. And that includes any other delivery; they must all somehow incorporate this simplistic system.

[Tina]

Originally Posted by Fredrick Looking at the binary system may be the fastest way to discover how a TOE must look like — from that particular perspective. Though the system is quite simplistic, it can cover anything, everything, and nothing. .

A binary system but based on 1/0/-1

This woud represent positive/neutral/negative

Quantum Computers are heading in this direction - and Protheory has described it.

[Profpat]

Hi everyone;

I agree with Fredrick the binary system can express all. And I need it for my binary number-I Ching Idea of mine.

Would your system be " trinary " Tina? You are right on computer systems are evolving to open, closed, and maybe.
Actually it sounds like a number of women I've known.

Best to all,

Pat

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Tina A binary system but based on 1/0/-1 This would represent positive/neutral/negative Quantum Computers are heading in this direction - and Protheory has described it.

Hi Tina,

At first I thought I could agree with you, but I changed my mind. First, you are using three single entities, while I only see the binary system as a concept that is based on multiple versions of 1 and 0. Multiple 1s and 0s are not black and white (cannot be black and white), while the singular 1 and 0 would be. So I see computers heading to the direction of becoming more functional, but I'd state the real binary system already is more functional than the computer can capture/could capture. The true binary system can express anything, including maybe.

The negative is just a specific expression. One can see the use of 1 to -1, for instance, as a statistical significance expression. However, these 1 and -1 are not the original numbers, they are derivations of the data. I do not consider them part of the binary system, just like I don't consider the decimal system part of the binary system. The 1 to -1 captures the whole range, while the binary system is not based on such features. But of course, there are similar areas/overlapping areas.

This may be a completely separate topic, but I don't know if negatives really exist. If I walk up a hill and call that distance from the bottom all the way up 1, then walking down that hill, I end up at the bottom with -1 as distance (if I walked the same direction down). But it is just an expression of the distance; I ended up where I started so I must not have walked in positive territory. I counted from the position from which I left, and kept counting at that spot: I ended up with zero. However, if I counted taking myself as the measure, I walked an amount of 2. In that case, the -1 was in reality is just like 1 — only in the opposite direction.