[N0B0DY]

I was going to ask, "Is that what you think, Lloyd?" Which would imply to me that you are basing material reality on thought.

If we can see mind waves as matter, we shouldn't have any problem understanding each other, because I see matter as mind waves. From the absolute unconsciousness mind that carries throughout the infinite/infinitesimal subconscious mind waves that posit the parameters of the bio era and beyond, to the finite conscious mind waves that perceive a time of mutation and evolution.

I can agree with you that the absolute is the solid state, but only suggest that the solid state at that level is no different than the absolute vacuous state. In the sense that hitting a wall that is absolutely solid and hitting nonexistence is the same.

[N0B0DY]

I think the ancient and modern interpretations of brahma and maya, absolute and relative, are interpreted in such a way as to not differentiate between the infinite and the absolute - the death of consciousness and the death of subconsciousness that eternally clings to "imaginary equatorial lines" - and the difference may lie in a mathematical finagling wired into the brain (DNA).

[N0B0DY]

Re: T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing) - 09-12-2007, 11:46 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"Sincerely, I enjoy your posts to push my mind to its limits also, and we seem to only disagree on these fundamentals, yet the fundamentals are huge dis-agreements___So I trudge on.

"You seem to not realize the fundamental universe/FS can always move through itself, just as any fluid can move through itself. I stated this elsewhere. Take a theoretical look at a FS, that can add to itself, subtract from itself, go beyond itself, through itself, heat itself, cool itself, contract itself, expand itself___or do all the other seeming tricks, the universe actually does do. Sorry, but it does it. I see it. You see it. You're just not thinking it completely through, due to your absolute fundamental choices of thought, i.e., linguistic analyses.

"It can be the unmoving mover, just by linguistic division of understandings of its extremely complex mechanics___It's infinite side can be the unmoving, while its finite side can be its moving. Redo your fundamental mechanics using any form of absolute fundamental substance, you choose, and you'll see the finer points of the universe's true science actions and reactions. No matter how hard and dense a fundamental substance may be, an infinitesimally finer density fundamental substance can pass clear through it___thus your solid immobility of density becomes mythology." - Lloyd Gillespie

[N0B0DY]

Fair enough, Lloyd. I'll use my reserved right to opinion and say that metaphysics includes physics, but physics/science cannot include metaphysics.

Physics is bound by the limitations of what is coined physical through observable interactions based on a relatively small part of what is logically an infinite spectrum. I have agreed with both you and Dave on the matter of laws remaining applicable, even granting that they remain where scientists have suggested they break down. Yet, metaphysics is based on the first-philosophical substance/frame/spectrum that not only must include the infinite spectrum, but beyond it - like the "whole is greater than the sum of its parts."

Imagine two parallel tracks and two trains a mile apart pointing in opposite directions - one at point A facing point B, and the other at point B facing point A. It doesn't matter if one is stationary or both are moving anti-parallel, discounting the reduction in time that they would meet, because we are concerned only with the absolute reference frame and, besides, it is impossible to sense which train would be moving and which one not.

The point is the imaginary line perpendicular to the tracks, drawn across them at the point in space and time where the two trains or two observers would meet perpendicular to the direction of motion. At that point there is a switch from a sense of motion towards to a sense of motion from each observer, and that is the absolute point where motion ceases - as well as all physical laws.

If that point would be in only one place and time, I would concede to your position, but there is an invisible ghost that always remains perpendicular to the tracks as you ride the train. You can't see the ghost, but the ghost can see you with its gamma-ray eyeballs. The absolute frame isn't required to move relative to observed motion, as was and is thought, because it carries throughout due to its imaginary absolute speed.

Therefore, all relative motion must be superpositioned and only observable due to the non-existent point of reference (the imaginary line) that allows for the sense of going towards and moving away from objects. And this can be applied in a particular fashion to consciousness: whereby you are unconscious of the imaginary absolute line; subconscious of the infinitesimal breaks of space and time; and conscious of finite distances over finite times at subluminal velocities.

[N0B0DY]

Re: T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing) - 09-15-2007, 11:47 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"Nobody,

"I'm still not sure if the subconscious mind is so talented to calculate and collapse the super-luminal.

"Are lower species or plants doing this, too, or are they our phantasms? And isn't the subconscious somehow hampered by being part of the 'dream', as well, in what it forms?" - Austin Torney

[N0B0DY]

The planets, plants, animals, raw materials, atoms, etc., are phantasmal because the subconsciousness is universally shared. The whole of evolutionary procession is based on time, and it is time that is proposed as being the sole governor of the grand illusion. The precessional and processional markers are imaginary, like memories and predictions, and are related to the imaginary dividing line of the poles I often refer to. The mechanism is the splitting of the absolute state, the unconsciousness, into the two abstract perspectives (one and zero) which serve as the basis for infinity or relativity because there are an infinite number of fractions between them.

You're correct about the subconscious not being talented enough. It is one-sided with regards to "this side" of the universe, the other being the parallel antiverse. The correlation being the positive and negative infinity/subconsciousness on both sides of the absolute/unconsciousness. So to be talented enough, there has to be a meeting of the minds so to speak, and the one side has to pass through the absolute zero point which I refer to as the gateway to perfection.

You've proven to me from enough indirect analyzes that you get the correlations. I have tried to make things real by considering various mechanics that could be applied, but none are as yet applicable in order for there to be a literal break in the symmetrical zero state. Though there is no difference in feeling whether or not one feels due to literal stimuli, or due to an illusory change in quantum states that are interpreted as real. Aside from that, Lloyd's contraction, RascalPuff's expansion, and Geoff Haselhurst's wave front can apply as logical mechanics.

For those who require mathematical interpretations of the mechanics, Fredrick's binary math can be applied to subconscious infinity. The only factor missing, imo, is the absolute 0/0 which is the default of such an absolute state - it is a non-existent abstract divided by non-existent abstracts to render our geometrical x-y axes of which the potential state can realize the probability states of infinity along those imaginary axes.

[N0B0DY]

A little poem I dedicated to Austin for all his contributions to my old thread:

Everybody everywhere;
Somebody somewhere;
Anybody anywhere;
Nobody nowhere.

Oh what in this life
can we call our own?
What in this universe
have we really sown?

We continue to strive,
travelling near and far;
The problem just might be,
we don't know where we are.

[N0B0DY]

Re: T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing) - 09-16-2007, 10:16 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"The abstract metaphysical can never produce the physical scientific universe, because, it's overly obvious to me, and many sound scientists/physicists that the physical scientific universe, of the infinite and infinitesimal whole and parts, produces the evoluted physical structures, and all abstract metaphysical aspects of, at the later dates of evolution. It's a simple mechanical universe___It's not as complex as most are making it. Get waves, fields and crap like that out of your head, and start looking at it as purely physical, governed by varrying degrees of thermal motion, and it all becomes very quickly clear.

"The solid state motion model of FS is the easiest to understand, when the meta-additions are purged. Start with infinite eternal infinitesimal photonic parts and thermal motions of their less dense state/less motion, as all thermally colder states, by 19th century proven science, are slower motions, not faster, as you continue to suggest. Take away the motion, and you get cold, just as Botlzmann proved over a century ago, and the law that states this fact is: "The entire kinetic energy of any closed system, is equal to its entire thermal/motion content." The entire universe can be scientifically seen, by the laws of physics, as a closed system, since it's the entire system. So, when atomic decay removes heat/motion from any system, it does not increase velocity, as you have mistakenly stated, most every post. The scientific facts are counter to your meta-science. Every scientist knows, there is no science, unless the laws of thermodynamics are respected___Boltzmann and Gibbs are still scientifically correct___Sorry." - Lloyd Gillespie (ToeQuest Member)

[N0B0DY]

No problem, Lloyd, I understand what you mean, but you've neglected that I have conceded to your logic. What you are not considering is that the absolute is beyond the infinite extension of those logical laws.

Although, even at the undefinable infinite and infinitesimal, you are invoking a priori substances and properties that run contrary to scientific methods that are based on the knowledge of experimental/observable evidence. Aether, absolute FS, infinitesimal real solids, and even virtual containers are beyond the planck event horizon - you can't get much more metaphysical than that, only you are referring to the unsupported as an a priori reality whereas I am basing reality only on what is observable. So, honestly, who is being the more scientific, if your empiricism is based on observation?

Further, I'm not basing consciousness as the means of creation, only that mind and body are different realizations of the eternal virtual reality manifested through cumulative effects. I guess it is fair to say with respect to this conversation that virtual energy isn't enough to produce a change, eventhough some suggest the extreme opposite, but keeping to classical newtonian physics as you suggest, there is no energy at all in the photons. With mass being a factor in both e=mc2 and f=ma, noumenal photons play a more tubular role is transmitting the effects of massive interactions. So I concede that heat and energy are reduced relative to velocity, but that the "photons" don't need speed or energy because there is no dt involved...no heat production... constant thermal equilibrium.

It is ironically the relative velocity changes, that you suggest I steer clear of, that are required to produce phenomenal effects. Without which neither mass nor detectable light is possible, but we can understand that the conservation lies in the absolute frame, whereby the mass of energy of massless particles rests in the frame and the energy of massive particles rests in the frame respectively. Then what is illusory is the "matter in motion" to produce your proposed time, which I understand as ass-backwards, because the motion of matter through space is a result of conversion itself, whereby closed systems are recreated according to m=e/c2 by stretching out distances - less speed, more distance; whereas no distance equals absolute speed.

Again, absolute speed equals no speed because speed isn't required to cover a distance that isn't there, Lloyd. "It" or whatever we wish to call it, is already everywhere in no time at all.

[N0B0DY]

Austin Torney - Re: T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing) - 10-01-2007, 03:21 AM