Let me start out with saying that I do like both visualizations, and they do make sense to me intellectually. I have an idea where you are going.
But...
I have bumped my nose once too often on people using words, symbols or numbers, and the communication about them turning out to not be correct. I will admit immediately that I have found myself on both sides, with being the one who correctly understood the word and its context, and being the one who had it wrong.
When I look at your circle, you are using the numbers 1 and 0. I have all by itself no problem with that. Yet I now realize that these two numbers cannot be used in one context with 1 indicating the whole, and 0 indicating the nothing. The problem is that 1 (with meaning the whole) already includes the zero, so using the zero yet again is superfluous. Ordinarily, there is no problem with using 1 in a combination with 0, but that normally only happens when 1 stands for something else than the whole.
The image I am using is the donut, or the bagel. We all know it comes with a hole, otherwise it would not be a donut. But to indicate that only the edible part is 1 and the hole the 0 is incorrect. The donut comes with the hole, so the 1 (the donut) includes the hole. So, if the hole is already included, what the heck is the 0 doing around there?
The other example is that of a car, with a spacious interior. We cannot say that the car is 1 and the spacious interior 0, because we would have then doubled the 0. As you can understand, this does not matter one singe bit for the outcome, because two times zero is still zero, but it is not well used language from a logical perspective. We wouldn't be saying: here is the car plus the steering wheel, because we know that the steering wheel is already captured by the term car.
There are therefore two levels involved: the whole and the parts. At the level of the parts we find the steering wheel, the tires, the back seat, and the spacious interior. On this level, we cannot place the car too. The car belongs to the overall level. And the nothing belongs to the part level.
I don't know if you read my posts to this thread (I am sorry, I always seem to use so many words to get the idea across), but I can come up with only two distinct mathematical systems: the binary system and the decimal system. (I can create an 8-based system, but in reality that is only a different but similar version.)
In both systems, there is no such thing as a 1 that is the whole. In the binary system, many 1s are used to express information, and not a single one of these 1s is the only 1.
In the decimal system, the 1 is not the whole, but the first, the winner, the best, the unification (which is an occasional, unusual situation). Number 1 can be: me, the guy to beat, the odd person out, the vague and generalized one (as in: one should be aware of these things). But 1 in the decimal system is not to be confused with the whole (because there is 2, and 3, and 4, and etcetera).
In philosophy, and in religion, and in stories, 1 can be magical. 1 can be god, 1 can be the finish (all's well that ends well). 1 can be the whole. But in science, the word universe is not uni, it is uni-verse. There is a component of duality hidden in this word. In Dutch the word for universe is whole-all (I believe the old English word is similar to this word); clearly, when words were created, the word whole was not enough to say it all — as if they knew the whole cannot exist as unified.
So, Purveyor, I think I have a good idea where you're heading, but I simply want to check what it is that you are saying. Does your 1 stand for the whole and does 0 stand for absolutely nothing? Because then we have a communication problem.
I would like it very much though if you are willing to discover this together with me!
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.
Let me start out with saying that I do like both visualizations, and they do make sense to me intellectually. I have an idea where you are going.
But...
When I look at your circle, you are using the numbers 1 and 0. I have all by itself no problem with that. Yet I now realize that these two numbers cannot be used in one context with 1 indicating the whole, and 0 indicating the nothing. The problem is that 1 (with meaning the whole) already includes the zero, so using the zero yet again is superfluous. Ordinarily, there is no problem with using 1 in a combination with 0, but that normally only happens when 1 stands for something else than the whole.
Does your 1 stand for the whole and does 0 stand for absolutely nothing? Because then we have a communication problem.
I would like it very much though if you are willing to discover this together with me!
May I interrupt here to make a few points about the conceptual understanding
+1/0 /-1
The number line prepresents the potential of infinity.
Infinity by definition must be found from any point in any direction.
The [0] does not represent no-thing in terms of infinity - it represents a [neutral] anywhere within infinity then proceed up/down/forwards/backwards to infinity.
When I look at your circle, you are using the numbers 1 and 0.
Let's just get one thing straight to start with. The theory I have discovered is based on the dichotomy between 0 and 1/0, not between 0 and 1. There is a very very big difference between just plain 1 and 1/0. 1/0 is also different than the number 1 taken as a universal because when somebody considers the number 1 as a universal they usually don't take it to be both positive and negative, like the number 1/0 actually is. It is a very important fact that 1/0 is the only number that is simultaneously both positive and negative. That is why it is a consistent contradiction, which is contradictorily consistent. This is what shows us the fact that there is a negative time in addition to our positive time. This is important because, if true, it means the laws of thermodynamics are reversible and these are the types of insights you have to realize if you are going to benefit from realizing the theory about 1/0 and it's definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrick
these two numbers cannot be used in one context with 1 indicating the whole, and 0 indicating the nothing. The problem is that 1 (with meaning the whole) already includes the zero, so using the zero yet again is superfluous. Ordinarily, there is no problem with using 1 in a combination with 0, but that normally only happens when 1 stands for something else than the whole.
Keeping in mind what I said above that 1/0 is the number that stands for the whole, not 1, I will address what you are saying here. The number 0 does not exist, or at least by it's definition it is nothing. So you see 0 is the number that is undefined, not 1/0. Mathematicians have it backwards. 1/0 just means there is no division, which is what we mean when we say unified field. So since 0 is the actual number that does not exist there is actually a hole @ 0 on the Circle of Irony. This is something I have to update the circle on. What the zero represents actually is the quantum leap that the big bang takes from negative time to positive time. understand? It is a quantum leap over a hole.
Incidentally that's what you have to do to exceed the speed of light. You have to make a quantum leap over the speed of light by going from speed A to speed B in less than a planck second where speed A is less than the speed of light and speed B is greater than the speed of light, and the force it takes to cause this acceleration is calculated using the relativistic mass of the object at speed A, not speed B. In this way quantum mechanics sidesteps general relativity and allows you to exceed TSOL. Another way to put it is that you can exceed the speed of light by garnering absolute acceleration, because there is no law that says how fast you can accelerate and that is the key my friend for us to realize. I don't know how I figured it out but I guess I can combine QM and GR easily in my mind, as easily as I can define 1/0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrick
In both systems, there is no such thing as a 1 that is the whole. In the binary system, many 1s are used to express information, and not a single one of these 1s is the only 1.
I know, that's why this theory is different. This is the first theory to define 1/0 correctly.
Quote:
In philosophy, and in religion, and in stories, 1 can be magical. 1 can be god, 1 can be the finish (all's well that ends well). 1 can be the whole. But in science, the word universe is not uni, it is uni-verse. There is a component of duality hidden in this word. In Dutch the word for universe is whole-all (I believe the old English word is similar to this word); clearly, when words were created, the word whole was not enough to say it all — as if they knew the whole cannot exist as unified.
1/0 is composed of a strict duality. It is the combination of positive and negative infinity. Like I said, 1/0 is the only number that is both positive and negative. Therefore it is the duality representation. That is why the symbol I showed you makes sense because it shows the coming together of the duality. Understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrick
So, Purveyor, I think I have a good idea where you're heading, but I simply want to check what it is that you are saying. Does your 1 stand for the whole and does 0 stand for absolutely nothing? Because then we have a communication problem.
1/0 stands for everything and 0 stands for nothing. They are reciprocals. No communication problem. There is a hole in the Circle of Irony at 0 and at 1/0 there is nothing but pure consciousness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrick
I would like it very much though if you are willing to discover this together with me!
Infinity by definition must be found from any point in any direction.
No, sorry Tina, 'Infinity' itself can have no 'points' or 'direction'. This is our chosen method of description, but not the Reality, and this is how we have misinterpreted it for so long. We have simply not evolved within the kind of environment necessary for us to understand it...until now. Now, we are 'Space people', and our understanding must also evolve (or, our 'Universe' must 'expand'.)
Try this...
Quote:
'Infinity' is not a concept, it is the only possible realistic view, when understood.
It is understandable, because all things within it are a part of it, and thus may develop (evolve) the ability to 'know what they are'. However, it is not 'measurable', and so poses a problem to 'science' which currently determines the 'truth' of things by measuring them. 'Measurement' is a Human concept which is rendered null and void when attempting to measure the unmeasurable.
Real Infinity in 3 dimensions (Space) can only exist as One Thing. This gives us a problem with the term 'Universe', but this term is also explainable if we use it to express 'that which an entity is able to sense'. Thus, our current understanding appears to sense an 'expanding Universe', but is actually our understanding which is expanding, and not Space itself.
Also, our observations of the Cosmos appear 'spherical' because we will view it at an equal distance from ourselves, as the 'viewer', and in infinite 'directions', outwardly producing a 'sphere of observation'.
This also explains the idea of 'infinite universes', or 'multiverse', as has been suggested, as there would be an 'infinite amount of universes', by default of there being an infinite amount of positions within Space from which to observe. The moment you posit yourself as a 'point' in Space, you create a 'sphere of observation' around yourself, and this leads to questions such as "what is 'outside' the sphere'"? - When it is your own subjective view of a 'sphere' in the first instance, and not the fundamental property of infinite Space.
Thus, the thing we currently refer to as 'Universe' is a subjective amount of Infinite Space, which we have so far been able to detect.
'3' is subconscious intuition of the very same 'Infinite Space in '3' dimensions'. This is 'what exists', and all attempts at conceptualisation can only refer to 'what exists'. When the 'concept' fits the Reality, it becomes a valid description. This is the basis of 'science', but it must also understand itself, in order to achieve its 'goals'. No different from us, as individuals.
First, thank you Tina for posting here at Scott's 3 thread. I don't think we've communicated before. I do like your thinking. I am not very versatile in infinity thinking, so you must forgive me for not saying much about it. I do think, however, that you are saying the same thing as me, but then using a picture from infinity. I too think that nothing can be more than nothing: it can be no-change. In a picture of color, a gray area would be such middle ground where no specific coloring takes place.
And Purveyor, I think you are saying the same here as well, though I do not know if you would agree. I have no problem following what you are saying, but I am left wondering why you are using the symbols 1/0. It looks like you have created/discovered something that simply needs a new word all to itself. Or, maybe you can explain the separate parts of 1/0 (being 1 and 0) better. Would you say your 1/0 is like playground, a word made up of two words but different than either word play or ground and meaning something more/different than just those two words?
Pif, each of us living in our own version of the universe, do you think it is possible to communicate with each other in such a way that a collective universion becomes possible?
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.
Pif, each of us living in our own version of the universe, do you think it is possible to communicate with each other in such a way that a collective universion becomes possible?
Hi Fredrick, That's why we are all here, is it not?
We must overcome our own contradictions to leave no room for 'paradox'. This is an intellectual-speak word for, "I don't actually know about this aspect of existence yet. There seems to be two things opposing each other, and yet instinctively I feel that this should not be so!"
Because we have become creatures of contradiction ('opposed' to Nature), we intellectualise such as 'paradox', and then try to make 'theories' based around it, as, after all, we are 'superior' beings, aren't we?
Someone with their thoughts on 'prizes' will have to follow the currently incorrect protocol for achieving such things, but they will not understand the reality. This is an example of someone who truly does 'live in their own universe', and is not the reality; that we all have to share the same Reality, and that our 'observable spheres' overlap each other within it.
We can only truly communicate what we know, but people have become accustomed to deceiving each other, and this is considered 'normal' because we essentially deceive ourselves, at source, with our own contradictory thinking.
You have to understand that all of our methods of understanding are psychological actions. The moment you draw a veil of 'science' versus 'religion', or 'philosophy', all semblance of what is real goes flying off to la la land; that is, the Human contradictory mind. The cure for this is to return to a (Natural - 'non-doubting of nature') non-contradictory state.
Parts of reality that contradict their surroundings find that they no longer have the ability to exist within and as part of it. This is essentially because Reality 'operates' as One Whole Infinite Thing. Sometimes this is a forced (blind) action of existence, as in the rapid changes 'forced' upon the Dinosaur Earth, but this is no less true for modern Humans' current state of psychological being. We are forcing ourselves out of existence by being opposed to the reality of our very own being. We are Space (existence), and when we deceive we only deceive ourselves. Eliminate the self-contradiction, and we certain can communicate the reality.
There is no 'right' or 'wrong' metaphor. That's why there is an element in everyone's understanding that they can see no 'wrong' with. They then latch 'on to something' and pursue the 'path'. Eventually, all 'paths' lead to Truth, because nothing else truly exists. We just have to be as Honest as the rest of Nature Naturally is...and we once were!
People who align themselves on some 'side', remain contradictory in their thinking (unbalanced). They only see the thing they feel they have to defend, because they themselves have 'chosen' it, and they would have to admit to a 'wrong' choice, in order to progress their thinking.
The unidentified person, who seeks to understand honestly, will allow Space for all methods of understanding, and indeed embrace them all (including the psychology of 'understanding' itself!), whilst not pledging allegiance to any, other than Truth (which is true understanding).
Hope some of this helps. We are strange little things, because we don't think we are!
Hi Fredrick, That's why we are all here, is it not?
"I don't actually know about this aspect of existence yet. There seems to be two things opposing each other, and yet instinctively I feel that this should not be so!"
Because we have become creatures of contradiction
Eliminate the self-contradiction, and we certain can communicate the reality.
We just have to be as Honest as the rest of Nature Naturally is...and we once were!
People who align themselves on some 'side', remain contradictory in their thinking (unbalanced).
Hope some of this helps. We are strange little things, because we don't think we are!
pif.
Beliefs are our biggest obstacles!
The Following User Says Thank You to Tina For This Useful Post:
Hi Fredrick, That's why we are all here, is it not?
We must overcome our own contradictions to leave no room for 'paradox'. This is an intellectual-speak word for, "I don't actually know about this aspect of existence yet. There seems to be two things opposing each other, and yet instinctively I feel that this should not be so!"
Because we have become creatures of contradiction ('opposed' to Nature), we intellectualise such as 'paradox', and then try to make 'theories' based around it, as, after all, we are 'superior' beings, aren't we?
Someone with their thoughts on 'prizes' will have to follow the currently incorrect protocol for achieving such things, but they will not understand the reality. This is an example of someone who truly does 'live in their own universe', and is not the reality; that we all have to share the same Reality, and that our 'observable spheres' overlap each other within it.
We can only truly communicate what we know, but people have become accustomed to deceiving each other, and this is considered 'normal' because we essentially deceive ourselves, at source, with our own contradictory thinking.
You have to understand that all of our methods of understanding are psychological actions. The moment you draw a veil of 'science' versus 'religion', or 'philosophy', all semblance of what is real goes flying off to la la land; that is, the Human contradictory mind. The cure for this is to return to a (Natural - 'non-doubting of nature') non-contradictory state.
Parts of reality that contradict their surroundings find that they no longer have the ability to exist within and as part of it. This is essentially because Reality 'operates' as One Whole Infinite Thing. Sometimes this is a forced (blind) action of existence, as in the rapid changes 'forced' upon the Dinosaur Earth, but this is no less true for modern Humans' current state of psychological being. We are forcing ourselves out of existence by being opposed to the reality of our very own being. We are Space (existence), and when we deceive we only deceive ourselves. Eliminate the self-contradiction, and we certain can communicate the reality.
There is no 'right' or 'wrong' metaphor. That's why there is an element in everyone's understanding that they can see no 'wrong' with. They then latch 'on to something' and pursue the 'path'. Eventually, all 'paths' lead to Truth, because nothing else truly exists. We just have to be as Honest as the rest of Nature Naturally is...and we once were!
People who align themselves on some 'side', remain contradictory in their thinking (unbalanced). They only see the thing they feel they have to defend, because they themselves have 'chosen' it, and they would have to admit to a 'wrong' choice, in order to progress their thinking.
The unidentified person, who seeks to understand honestly, will allow Space for all methods of understanding, and indeed embrace them all (including the psychology of 'understanding' itself!), whilst not pledging allegiance to any, other than Truth (which is true understanding).
Hope some of this helps. We are strange little things, because we don't think we are!
pif.
Dear FP,
This piece you have writen on truth is the best I have seen on this forum, and perhaps anywhere. Well done and thank you! I have found unity in your communication, and believe truth is slowly and carefully replacing theory on this forum. Nature's truth is equally one.
= MJA
The truth of everything is less than one inch,
it is only equal and the lion is one.
One is free when the door is opened,
education has the key.
=
The Following User Says Thank You to MJA For This Useful Post:
You have to understand that all of our methods of understanding are psychological actions. The moment you draw a veil of 'science' versus 'religion', or 'philosophy', all semblance of what is real goes flying off to la la land; that is, the Human contradictory mind. The cure for this is to return to a (Natural - 'non-doubting of nature') non-contradictory state.
Pif, I think you hit the nail right on. I do not know if I would have said it the same way. For me the existence of various contexts at the same time, is clue. For instance, the confusion when talking about the whole and then using the number 1 to express this. No problem yet, but then when talking to someone else who thinks as 1 as the winner, we get it more convoluted already. And that is just number 1, as the beginning. Because what about 0 as the beginning?
So, I fully agree, but I look for the answers in our use of contexts, and I would even go as far as to state that all energy is captured in certain contexts; and that they are not captured in all the same contexts.
For me, the mind is what followed the context, but perhaps the mind was there at the beginning as well, creating the context. Probably a different mind, the one at the beginning, and the one that had to learn from its self-created contextual alignment.
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fredrick For This Useful Post:
