[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Tina I feel that "THREE" is going to figure prominently in the Final Theory of Everything.

Want to communicate your thoughts on this further, Tina?

[Fluent Piffle]

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

Thanks for that, MJA. I find the same with your = posts. I have realised that only Truth actually exists, Cosmologically, and that it takes an enormous amount of effort to suppress it, and even then can only be done psychologically, in the Human mind.

'Contradiction', is, in itself, also a 'truth' of sorts, one that cannot describe the Reality of existence, but that actually is the reverse of the process, that of hiding it! - And this happens in the rest of Nature too, the 'chameleon' being an obvious example. [If you have been following the 'nothing' thread, it would equate to the chameleon being able to have either 'infinite' colours, or change them to 'absolute' colours, but would not prevent the reality of the chameleon being the One same creature. It just is what it is, and that's its Truth. People think they can be subjective with Truth, and only accept its 'best' parts, but in Reality that always leaves us disappointed, because that doesn't make the 'worst' parts go away...just hides them from view.]

Tina: Beliefs are our biggest obstacles!

Sadly,Tina, they are! They have been invented and used for the most noble of reasons, and have possibly the greatest effect upon us, morally. However, because of the Humans lack of true understanding of himself, he cannot control that which he knows so little about. This brings us to 'contradiction', once again...Well, I think you probably know it anyway!

Fredrick: Because what about 0 as the beginning?

That's where contradiction begins. '0' is a human concept that does not apply to reality, as in 'nothing', or 'non-existent'. It can be applied in relative terms: "There is no water in the bucket", but still, the 'bucket' does not contain 'nothing', it just contains no water. Apply this to Cosmological existence of an Infinite Space. 'Space' is not 'nothing', but we still use the word 'space' to connote a 'gap' or 'lack' of something; all total misconception. Actually, we can use this as another method of understanding. Take this... If there were no 'spaces' between the notes in music, would it still sound the same? Likewise with these very words; the 'spaces' between them are what actually make them into words which you can understand, no? But the 'space' is not 'nothing', as it remains as the 'white stuff' appearing as background, so that, once again, you can define the 'black stuff' in the foreground. Cosmological Space is no different, because this is a Cosmological Truth, and must therefore be prevalent in ALL things.

Pif, I think you hit the nail right on. I do not know if I would have said it the same way.

That's the whole point, Fred. We are unique aspects, but unique aspects of the same fundamental stuff, 'Existence'. We seldom remember that we are attempting to describe the fundament, and not just our own unique perspective of it! - But as long as we are respectful of the idea of 'concept', and do not just blindly follow such things, we can make allowances for it, understand it, rather than just react to others' 'versions'.


pif.

[N0B0DY]

Space is absolutely full, with no room to insert things into it. Let alone things that move.

[Tina]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY Space is absolutely full, with no room to insert things into it. Let alone things that move.

Space is re-arranged to accomodate re-arranged matter. And now the space in my head has to entertain you idea

[Fluent Piffle]

Space is re-arranged to accomodate re-arranged matter.

Makes perfect sense when you realise that 'Space' and 'Matter' are essentially the same thing, and the 're-arranging' is its property of Motion.

Space is absolutely full, with no room to insert things into it.

Space is Infinite, and all 'things' are formed by its internal wave-motions whose wave-centres (as 'particles') keep frequency-harmonizing to form larger masses, until a 'mass' becomes so large and heavy it collapses into itself (nowhere 'else' to 'go'), thus returning itself to wave-form, where the eternal Space-motion process continues...

We would have a tough time (motion) tapping these ol' keyboards if nothing moved!


But this is the '3' thread, and my contribution to it is to understand the idea as a psychological metaphor for the Natural state of Cosmological 'play'. 'Infinite in '3' dimensions' has a huge impact on our understanding of Reality, and accurately explains that which we observe, unlike the 'bangs' and 'gods' of the past, although such things are also metaphoric intuitions, and thus not to be 'fought' but to be understood for whatever truth they may contain, and in whatever context they were originally posited. We are not 'done' yet, and so our understanding expands...


pif.

[Tina]

Originally Posted by Fluent Piffle But this is the '3' thread, and my contribution to it is to understand the idea as a psychological metaphor for the Natural state of Cosmological 'play'. 'Infinite in '3' dimensions' has a huge impact on our understanding of Reality, and accurately explains that which we observe, unlike the 'bangs' and 'gods' of the past, although such things are also metaphoric intuitions, and thus not to be 'fought' but to be understood for whatever truth they may contain, and in whatever context they were originally posited. We are not 'done' yet, and so our understanding expands... pif.

Quantum Physics must now discover the triangular (3) patterns of sub-atomic particle movement.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Fluent Piffle 'Infinite in '3' dimensions' has a huge impact on our understanding of Reality, and accurately explains that which we observe, unlike the 'bangs' and 'gods' of the past, although such things are also metaphoric intuitions, and thus not to be 'fought' but to be understood for whatever truth they may contain, and in whatever context they were originally posited. We are not 'done' yet, and so our understanding expands... pif.

Hi Pif, I think it is an excellent sign when someone else uses the same language as oneself. It means a similarity of mind exists. I don't think there is much of a disagreement. So, I'd like to expand the 3 thread with a discussion about the 3 dimensions.

I don't think there are 3 dimensions. I do think there are 3 dimensional directions, and 3 coordinates can indeed pinpoint a position. What I am trying to say here is that the idea of dimensions is not built accurately. No one has ever seen something with just a width, and therefore the overall image of dimensions is a rendition that exists only onto itself; the overall image is collective in nature, and not self-based on 3 individually existing dimensions. We are all familiar with a medium for 2D (television or movie screen or a painting), so that is a state that exists indeed, capable of delivering us specific information. However, there is no medium for 1D.

How can we build a house if the stones only exist as a collective phenomenon? We can't! The individual stones must exist first before one can build a construction. So, the collective idea of 3D is not correct, because a single D does not exist by itself.

My description of the dimensions is that there are only 2 dimensions, each being a field of length and width. Put these two dimensions with 4 directions together, and one part becomes the same for both dimensions (for instance, the width). That covers 2 out of the 4 directions. The other 2 remaining sides are not shared, yet they become subjected to the shared aspect; one becoming length and the other becoming height, dependent on the perspective. Not three, but only 2 dimensions are all we need. Together, the 2 dimensions contain the 3 directions we are familiar with.

We only have two eyes, but they are enough to capture what is outside in front of us, both close by and far away (height, width, depth). Same goes for dimensions, we only need two fields to capture what is outside (including us) in every dimensional aspect. Of both dimensions, one side is shared, one side is not shared.

I call the directions M, for measurement of dimension. And while there are 4Ms and 2Ds, one of the Ms is identical to another M of the other dimension, so we end up with 3 Ms total in 2D. The terminology may be a tiny bit confusing, because I state that old-fashioned 3D captures exactly the same as the modern 2D, and that the old-fashioned 3D should be written as 3M to minimize confusion. Old-fashioned 3D (3M) is built with 3 directions, modern 2D is built with 2 fields.

[Fluent Piffle]

Fred,

You cannot 'separate' things in the reality. 'Dimensions' are not separable, they are a concept by which we deduce the wholeness of things. A '2-d' thing cannot exist, nor a '1-d' thing. '3' dimensions refers to the height, width and depth of ALL things.

The association is not physical, but it is our psychological conception of how things necessarily 'work' the way they do. Thus '3 dimensionality' represents the whole reality, and not a 'divisible' one.


pif.

[Fredrick]

The point, pif, is not to say the 3 directions do not exist. The point is to show that the construct is not fully correct. A word use has been applied that does not cover what is going on well enough. However, either way, the result is the same, and you do not need to worry that I see things that other people cannot see. I see the same directions as anyone else. You could then say: why bother. But there is a difference in construct hidden in both versions worth looking into.

Either way, we end up with the same 3 directions, but the 2D & 3M delivery is actually more logical because media exist for both 3M (2D) and 2M (1D), while 1M (0D) has no medium/ it is not there. When we say that something added a whole new dimension to it, that means an new experience has been added. We can experience 2M (a movie, a painting, a picture), but we cannot experience 1M. Nobody ever has.

Naturally, there is a distinction between 3M and 2M: one is the real thing, the other is an artificial thing because in reality it is a flat surface. Real (2D) and art (1D). But 1M is truly not there (0D). And since a house cannot be built out of stones that only exist collectively, our dimensional construction must have been built up from slabs of concrete that only appear to be separate stones.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY Space is absolutely full, with no room to insert things into it. Let alone things that move.

I hate to mention it Nobody, but you are crazy, insane, out of your mind...