[N0B0DY]

Regarding the finite, infinite, absolute, and the imaginary center of 3-D (or any number of dimensions): the finite is definable according to arbitrary measurements; the infinite is undefinable according to ambiguous measurements; the absolute is always already defined as zero without measurements. The absolute is the necessary non-existent starting point and ending point of all measurements. It is the non-existent interior and exterior of a finite and/or an infinite sphere, merged only through 0/0 because both the division and what is claimed to be divisible is abstract.

So to refer to the absolute as a property of the infinite is ok, though misleading, as long as it is considered as a non-existent property. The absolute carries throughout "existence," rendering the sphere, triangle, square, etc., illusory.

Understanding who you are, and understanding that you aren't, are synonymous.

[N0B0DY]

"The 'Interval' of light = zero. This is Einstein's most important formulation of light's 'non-local' symmetric energy state. The 'Interval' is a quantity of spacetime, a measure of 4-dimensional distance, invariant for all observers, regardless of their relative motion, including accelerated motion. The function of the Interval is to protect causality in Einstein's relativity theories. Light has no Interval because light has no x (length) or t (time) dimensions. Having no Interval, light's position in 4-dimensional spacetime cannot be specified. Having no distance or time parameters, and yet having intrinsic motion, light has, in effect, forever to go nowhere - within its own reference frame (spacetime). From this results the notion of light's 'infinite' velocity and the symmetric distribution of light's energy throughout spacetime - everywhere, simultaneously."

http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/...ightfield.html

[N0B0DY]

My proposed 0/0 would "lie" (rest) at the absolute point of both central axes; "lie" (deceive) because it cannot exist.

[N0B0DY]

It is only conceptual, or abstractional, that the one must retain a non-existent exterior, and is therefore a dualistic misconception. Again conceptually, non existence as representing the whole can retain the non-existent exterior without the attached dualistic misconception.

Ultimately, one absolute state and no state at all are synonymous. It is infinity that is an ill-conceived attempt at extending what cannot be extended, based on the mind's inability to remain absolutely still. It wants to move, doesn't understand stillness, and therefore creates the illusion of random motion all around which inevitably leads to replication and evolution to be perceived in a finite timeframe.

[N0B0DY]

I kant argue with this one:

"Everything intuited or perceived in space and time, and therefore all objects of a possible experience, are nothing but phenomenal appearances, that is, mere representations, which in the way in which they are represented to us, as extended beings, or as series of changes, have no independent, self-subsistent existence apart from our thoughts." Immanuel Kant - Critique of Pure Reason

[Drifter]

Apologies My Friend for, my part in the closing of your thread.
I won't be around much anymore so I wish you well.
Allone Allove
Namaste`
D.

Originally Posted by N0B0DY I kant argue with this one: "Everything intuited or perceived in space and time, and therefore all objects of a possible experience, are nothing but phenomenal appearances, that is, mere representations, which in the way in which they are represented to us, as extended beings, or as series of changes, have no independent, self-subsistent existence apart from our thoughts." Immanuel Kant - Critique of Pure Reason

[neutralino]

Thanks for starting another thread, Nobody. I'll try to help ensure this one doesn't go the same way as the other thread!

[N0B0DY]

Much appreciated, Neutralino.

Never any hard feelings, Drifter. You posted some great insights in my thread, and I thank you for that.

[N0B0DY]

Zeno's conceptual infinity implied that it would take an eternity to travel around the world because half the distance would always have to be covered before one could travel further, and half of that distance, and half of that, etc.; finitude dictates a particular finite time for one to travel around the world at a finite velocity; the absolute allows for both illusory relative motion and absolute rest because it carries throughout all relative breaks in position, serving as their absolute centre, and simultaneously connects all relative frames.

An analogy I like to use, is the equator of the Earth, which serves as the divisional break between North and South. It is imaginary, and you will also notice that each individual is a synonymous divider that carries infinitesimally to extend the zero point in all conceivable directions; of which, when merged completely could not be represented by one, but by none because all directions lose their direction at the absolute axial point - neither/nor.

To clarify the picture, if we think in terms of, say, a ball crossing a finish line, the radial measurements of the ball would allegedly move toward the line until they move away from the line; exactly at the to-fro point, movement is impossible, and timelike and spacelike geodesics are rendered as null geodesics.

[N0B0DY]

Could a larger number than the largest really be larger than the largest?

My premise is based on there being no place for space to expand into. The universal balloon and raisin-bread analogies represent space itself, and I liken the expansion of which to taking a step into a place that isn't there. Unlike the abstract numerical infinity, crystalizing a literal infinity is an impossibility, and that renders the absolute state of the universe - like the greatest-possible number - non-existent/zero; inclusive of all relative interactions, and values, both positive and negative, without ever requiring change.

The direct cognitive "real" physical universe is based on separating the whole into relative aspects required for relative functioning. It is each observer that detects according to the partial and detectible-light spectrum; the subconscious the "infinite" spectrum; but the absolute stillness follows all relative motion - referred to by some as "stillness in motion"...absolute calmness without subatomic or subconscious perturbations and fluctuations.

So it is natural and understandable that individuals continue to proclaim their existence, but individuals are only finite abstractions consciously extracted from an infinite number of illusory perspectives bred by a shared subconsciousness, which I propose sets the parameters for the seeming persistence of existence.

With that said, the zero, unlike the one or any other number, cannot be divided; and is the only (non) number that can accurately represent the absolute. We can break up any other positive or negative number into fractional quanta, but the zero remains changeless. Then questions of why there is something instead of nothing are rendered meaningless because there are no literal things, or "one" thing for that matter. Non existence is the epitome of fusion; ultimately based on the neither-nor/therefore-not argument, where all existence requires dimensions that extend from one position to another. The absolute central point of all dimensions is required to be non-existent to allow for differentials, and this non-existent center follows throughout any point of even a proposed infinite universe because lacking a common center, all points are then the center.