...Another time the moon materialized in my room for a millisecond. There was a lot of dust to clean up.
Ain't it the truth that you can all of a sudden see what you didn't see before until the moon materializes into your room! Let that moment of becoming consciously aware of your surrounding be a lesson to clean up your room more regularly!
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
I can reply to this post only after I have read your book. I have just bought one...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrick
You are amazingly good at asking questions, Dipayankar, and I feel honored you are asking me.
I consider QM the point in knowledge gathering at which we realize we cannot know for certain anymore. It is, however, a certainty that we cannot know for certain anymore at that level. As such, we have a fact about not-knowing facts.
Just like we have reached the outside of our knowable reality, each quanta has an outside of its being, too. Mass and energy are not all based on a single source, they are based each on themselves. The environment created by energy and mass influences energy and mass, but in essence each part is self-based. So we have quanta and we have mass.
In the pentaist theory the universe came into a material state because of an ongoing inward movement. Inward movement is the only direction that contains a limitation. To get out of a densely packed inward-movement situation, each part needs to be conscious about itself and about the whole. And that is unfortunately an almost impossible task, especially if the situation has not been experienced and understood before.
It is like packing as many people into a telephone booth as humanly possible. If that is done for the first time, and those unfortunate enough to find themselves all of a sudden in this situation, I assure you a pandemonium takes place: blood is shed, and actually only very few of the people will walk out of the phone booth alive.
Contrast this with a well-trained group of people, knowing what to do when and where to put all their arms and feet neatly, and these people will win a big prize, all going home unharmed.
The original beginning was not a nice place for our universe. And what we have become we only became after billions of years. We are products of an incredibly complicated re-organization process within very complicated circumstances. Our self-image is not the same as the self-based image of each quanta. We are a unified product, each of us, but our image that the outside universe must therefore also be unified is not correct. We are fine as we are, but we came out of a Big Bang (or even several of them).
Back to the math: in the binary system we have many 1s. And none of them is the only 1. In the decimal system we can turn 1 into first or best or highest or singularest. Of the 1 in one and the 1 in the other system: never the twain shall meet.
I can reply to this post only after I have read your book. I have just bought one...
Thank you, Dipayan (can I call you this way),
You just made me and my publisher very happy!
I am looking forward to communicate further with you on the secret of why scientists are not discovering the toe.
Fredrick
P.S. You did see there is an online version, too?
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
What would I do with a million dollars (or is it more as in some million dollars)?
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
I grew up with a two big brothers, so I am used to being abused. Also, they turned out to be okay later in life. Don't know if I can say the same of Unohoo.
I have not heard about any conspiracy theory about scientists knowing the toe for decades already, and unwilling to tell anyone because they would stop receive funding for their pet projects by wealthy governments and eager businesses ready to profit from evil serendipity fallouts, even willing to go as far as harm anyone ready to tell the truth about the toes of this world and doing anything they can to expose these miracle thinkers as nutwitty dumbells and potheads. That is, except for the conspiracy theory that I started spreading.
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Welcome Fredrick. The mail version will take a month to reach me in India. I will check the online version soon.
Excellent, Dipayan, I like that better too, since I worked on the book (published in 2000) some more, added a variety of religious structures into the book, to come to In Search of a Cyclops. The main difference is that The Proof of Nothing was written for lay people and scientists, while Cyclops was written for all people (including religious people).
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
I sincerely hope the book does not have too much religious connotations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrick
Excellent, Dipayan, I like that better too, since I worked on the book (published in 2000) some more, added a variety of religious structures into the book, to come to In Search of a Cyclops. The main difference is that The Proof of Nothing was written for lay people and scientists, while Cyclops was written for all people (including religious people).
Linear Mode
