Nothing by Nobody Nowhere (No Where = Now Here)

[Nobody Nowhere]

Hi Nobody, and sorry for the outbursts, but some days my emotions also overcome by logics. It was just the 0/0 = n__that irked me so. n is always considered a variable, and 0/0 always equals 0 in math__so my logic can't accept it, even though such 0/0's do show up in certain complex uses of math__0/0 = n never shows up... I see above you are trying to use it to represent an abstract idea of a no mind position being a pseudo-observer, but what for? When you take abstracts to such Universally impossible limits__they lose all use and meaning, to me...

What you seem to be doing is building an abstract subjective model, basing on some sort of emergence prinicple, but all emergence models, are mere 'creation myths...' If, as you say, you are basing your ideas on physics and psychology, then that commits you to a sound acceptance of the established norms of logic, or no-one can have a sensible conversation with you__the linguistics of Universal grammar doesn't allow it... (Universal grammar simply meaning, word and sentence structure uses that are universally understood by us all, as logically valid...) You mention you'd like to use logic, then turn around and don't use logic... That doesn't work...

So, can you please use sound language, or offer clear analogies between your metaphysical models and physical models__of your ideas...? Then we can speak in a language both of us can understand... I have nothing against metaphysics, even though I think it's an impossible percept, concept, thought, idea or whatever anyone may name it...


Nobody, Charles Sanders Peirce took this idea up over 100 years ago, with the analogy of black and white paint drops on a sand colored piece of paper. Where does black stop and white begin, or both to the sand colored paper? How do we define the boundary? And he left it to only be defined by 'Vagueness'__a very important topic in philosophy, but it's not called 'nothingness', as it's our mere interpretation limit of certain concepts and realities, and 'Vagueness' fits extremely well. We know there's a boundary, but we can't define it by any of the three colors, but the boundary of 'Vagueness' still persists, as it does between many of our abstract ideas and concepts. Now, this was all before QM, as we can now define all vague boundary conditions as field extensions, from one color's particle fields to others__though the fields may not carry color, we know a certain part of the em-spectrum is extended, and often entangled__across all boundaries and borders__in proximity... It's still; "field is everywhere..." Einstein...

The Metaphysics of Habits__"Habits are hard to break, yet it's our habits that make up our opinions of the world..."

Field is everywhere, and the center of the field is nowhere in particular. Any point of the field is then the center of a unique reference point, whereby a unique observable universe extends. The laws don't change and I thought you would be extremely happy with that, but expressing it in clear terms when we must include singularities is sort of impossible. Vagueness is where science ends and philosophy begins, but we can extract relevant information from scientific evidence - which I do - and then logically extend the results so that we may gain a greater understanding of our pictures of reality.

Forgive me if I think that I am being logical. I use 0/0 = n because it is the only valid equation to represent my model without using english: 0 = n x 0; no other equation works. See? So I include "it" because all dimensions come from the zeroth dimension as the waves of the field intersect. Perhaps we can think of it in terms of a heartbeat pulsating, and posit a singularity at the center of the heart. This way universal laws can remain unchanged.

[melanie]

I'll be starting a new science thread on how the self comes to mind through consciousness, all of them of the brain, by the way.

'' Why are you unhappy?
Because 99.9 per cent
Of everything you think,
And of everything you do,
Is for yourself —
And there isn't one. ''


Now lets party!

[austintorn@aol.com]

Great image, Mel; I'm saving it.

However, it that without consciousness that we would be zombies, for then we would not have any information about what we are doing.

[Nobody Nowhere]

Ohhhhhhhhh...the vagueness of ideas present...

And ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh.......the vast vagueness from Austin...

Maybe we should found all sound thought on 'Vagueness'__How do ya think that mite' work...???

Maybe-Logic for the masses...

If truth were relative__Nature couldn't exist__Nature's an absolute__for the bio-periods, anyway...

An absolute is anything, that persists for a time...

I think this is similar to "The only constant is change." If we were to mix Newton's and Einstein's descriptions of time, as it appears you are doing above, we could say that it takes alot of time for information (light) to be carried from the microscopic past to the macroscopic future.

The bio periods are a gleam within only one observable universe that can cycle according to your thermodynamics model, but this would be a relative einsteinian timeframe within a newtonian timeframe, and hence can only be declared relative.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The brain is in consciousness, consciousness is not in the brain.

All this is spelled backwards.

[Nobody Nowhere]

Great image, Mel; I'm saving it.

However, it that without consciousness that we would be zombies, for then we would not have any information about what we are doing.

I can't really see it without my wide lens...

I think consciousness is just a tool, term, applied to describe the ability to differentiate things. If everything were to be the same, there could be no consciousness. This is why the universe can't be self-conscious because from what would be a universal perspective, everything is the same - negated to zero, or one if you prefer.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Field is everywhere, and the center of the field is nowhere in particular.

The center is always the same if we choose__wherever we choose to measure from. To argue about something that can't be measured__the entire Universe, is a moot point...

Any point of the field is then the center of a unique reference point, whereby a unique observable universe extends.

No, not quite. You're using a lotta maybe-logic here, Nobody. There exists only one unique observable Universe__any more is pure conjecture, except as to such foolishness as 'pseudo-philosophical many world's views...' One Universe, and many perception reference points available...

The laws don't change and I thought you would be extremely happy with that, but expressing it in clear terms when we must include singularities is sort of impossible.

And why would that be, just magnify the singularities, in your abstract logical visions, and all the laws and mechanics are always present... That's what the new 4D electron microscope is for, and shortly the Hadron, also...

Vagueness is where science ends and philosophy begins, but we can extract relevant information from scientific evidence - which I do - and then logically extend the results so that we may gain a greater understanding of our pictures of reality.

Agreed__I too...

Forgive me if I think that I am being logical. I use 0/0 = n because it is the only valid equation to represent my model without using english: 0 = n x 0; no other equation works. See? So I include "it" because all dimensions come from the zeroth dimension as the waves of the field intersect.

Nobody, there exists no such animal as the zeroth dimension. Planck scales already exist many orders of magnitude smaller than present science can even begin to measure__so what good would some fictional zeroth scale that don't even exist be to science, if it's unmeasurable? None...!!! Your formula is invalid, just as I told you 3 to 4 years ago... You keep trying to pass pseudo-science as science__when it's clearly not... When our minds go below measurables, all we have to deal with is 'Vagueness'__and it ain't science__It's pure 'Vagueness...'

As far as the field is concerned about waves meeting, there exists absolutely no place where the waves aren't eternally over-lapping, all the way to infinity, if we allow such a conjecture as infinity, but I don't see any possible way for logic to stop it, when all the laws and facts are considered... But nothing...? I can't find any nothing, just field everywhere... I thought Einstein was correct to you...???

Perhaps we can think of it in terms of a heartbeat pulsating, and posit a singularity at the center of the heart.

Why don't you start with science, math and logic__and figure where a singularity might just be, or be able to be constructed...? So far, science has no physical or mathematical evidence of a singularity, except conjectures, lacking all foundations... The Universe only shows the whole existing__so far...

This way universal laws can remain unchanged.

Singularities change no Universal laws. They comply with all the laws of thought, logic, maths and science__after you construct such model science__not until...

Wanna' build a model, or argue mathematical semantics__Models need no maths__The model comes first, then we apply the math to see if the model works, and is compliable with all the laws...

[austintorn@aol.com]

Consciousness is a brain process of the brain perceiving itself, kind of like an internal sense.

The perception takes time, as the self comes to mind, both of which are also of the brain; so, consciousness comes last, not first.

On cannot just latch onto a word, taking it of out its context, and then adore the word to say that it is All.

Within the brain, the map becomes the territory; indeed, an even better face painted upon. I'd really hate to sit around sorting out e/m waves directly, by hand.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I think this is similar to "The only constant is change." If we were to mix Newton's and Einstein's descriptions of time, as it appears you are doing above, we could say that it takes alot of time for information (light) to be carried from the microscopic past to the macroscopic future.

c being absolutely constant(Einstein's own words...), makes these statements impossible of science... I was only pranking above, Nobody...

The bio periods are a gleam within only one observable universe that can cycle according to your thermodynamics model, but this would be a relative einsteinian timeframe within a newtonian timeframe, and hence can only be declared relative.

There exist no relative time-frames__all time-frames are absolute. The measurement correction between time-frames is less than a 1/2% correction to Newton's absolute Universe__and that's exactly how the math figures it. The absolute Universe is always directly present to us all, and oh so many have tried to delude us into believing in relative truth, which is bonkers__just as both Einstein and Bohr tried warning the popular press about their foolish interpretations of math systems measurements to truth systems realities, back in the twenties. Finally they just gave up, and let the world become stupid to what relativity truly means__a measurement correction, and nothing more...

[Nobody Nowhere]

The center is always the same if we choose__wherever we choose to measure from. To argue about something that can't be measured__the entire Universe, is a moot point...



No, not quite. You're using a lotta maybe-logic here, Nobody. There exists only one unique observable Universe__any more is pure conjecture, except as to such foolishness as 'pseudo-philosophical many world's views...' One Universe, and many perception reference points available...



And why would that be, just magnify the singularities, in your abstract logical visions, and all the laws and mechanics are always present... That's what the new 4D electron microscope is for, and shortly the Hadron, also...


Agreed__I too...


Nobody, there exists no such animal as the zeroth dimension. Planck scales already exist many orders of magnitude smaller than present science can even begin to measure__so what good would some fictional zeroth scale that don't even exist be to science, if it's unmeasurable? None...!!! Your formula is invalid, just as I told you 3 to 4 years ago... You keep trying to pass pseudo-science as science__when it's clearly not... When our minds go below measurables, all we have to deal with is 'Vagueness'__and it ain't science__It's pure 'Vagueness...'

As far as the field is concerned about waves meeting, there exists absolutely no place where the waves aren't eternally over-lapping, all the way to infinity, if we allow such a conjecture as infinity, but I don't see any possible way for logic to stop it, when all the laws and facts are considered... But nothing...? I can't find any nothing, just field everywhere... I thought Einstein was correct to you...???


Why don't you start with science, math and logic__and figure where a singularity might just be, or be able to be constructed...? So far, science has no physical or mathematical evidence of a singularity, except conjectures, lacking all foundations... The Universe only shows the whole existing__so far...


Singularities change no Universal laws. They comply with all the laws of thought, logic, maths and science__after you construct such model science__not until...

Wanna' build a model, or argue mathematical semantics__Models need no maths__The model comes first, then we apply the math to see if the model works, and is compliable with all the laws...

Seriously, Lloyd, with respect, do you see what you are typing?

Half Planck is allowed to be included in science, and is beyond measure, but the zeroth dimension as a representation is not. Infinity, which is moot (debatable), is allowed for us to be logical, but the zeroth dimension as a logical representation of extension is not. It is simply used to differentiate the "larger (infinite) and largest (absolute), and to equate the nonexistence of absolute solidity and absolute vacuity. In other words, to say that neither exist.

The intersecting points I mentioned, clearly explained in RP's book: http://www.scribd.com/doc/42821561/Total-Field-Theory serve as the basis for my G=mc^2 equation and the FS Constant, whereby the interactions of the photons/gravitons, if you wish, produce the electrons/positrons. The matter or energy is not created or destroyed, but is expressed as mass (G=mc^2) or energy (E=mc^2) - no difference - (particle or wave). Note that two or more "photons" are observed as a result of annihilation.

The posting on antimatter that implies the weak exchange loses parity doesn't include an anti-mirror image of parity violation, which in itself would conserve parity. My point has been merely to propose an alternative, where all atoms are considered unstable (through annihilation), but continually stabilizing as decay rates over time. They are observed as stable because it takes time for light to carry the information, similar to seeing a star that has long since died.