Nothing by Nobody Nowhere (No Where = Now Here)

[Drifter]

Can't have 'one', without 'the other'.
There's only one because of the other.
Like two sides of the same coin, inseperable.
Two but not two.
When a vase shatters the air inside becomes one with the air outside.
Clearly, Two but not two.
*Maybe thats what "the circle" encompassing the yin and yang symbol represents?

Re: Theory of Nothing - 10-30-2006, 11:45 PM

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

I don't imply that nothing or non existence exists. The point is that the ancient and modern scientists who aim to unify the forces into "one" and proclaim the universe is one, propose an absolute theory based on "one." I remain to proclaim that the absolute "one" doesn't exist and believing that it does is the same as saying that non existence exists. There can be no absolute one.

The magnetism was mentioned a while back I remember, and the response is the same. The separation of North and South is what makes the magnet, not the absolute combination. Absolutely combining North and South renders a non-dimensional point, which is neither North nor South, so only by separating the two poles (Yin and Yang) can you have a magnet.


MEST Regards,

Nobody

[N0B0DY]

Re: T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing) - 01-20-2007, 12:16 AM

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

"Nothing does exist. It's just that it's invisble like I said. Light passes right through it. Nothing has to exist as something invisible in order for everything to be defined by the light. For if nothing did not exist, there would be nothing for the light to pass through. You have to have counterpart. The "theory" of everything is based on balance." - purveyor of knowledge (Former ToeQuest Member)

I would suggest another further rendition as to the above-mentioned "balance" lacking absolute balance, but being based upon a broken-time symmetry whereby differentiation and variable densities result as illusory media for observable light to seemingly propagate.

[N0B0DY]

Can't have 'one', without 'the other'.
There's only one because of the other.
Like two sides of the same coin, inseperable.
Two but not two.
When a vase shatters the air inside becomes one with the air outside.
Clearly, Two but not two.

This was Lodestar's premise, and is understandable, but as previously noted in this thread, analogous to the Earth's polarity which requires two poles and is considered one Earth, when we further consider the consequence of absolutely merging the two poles, the result is none (neither North nor South), not one. Monopoles, like zero-Kelvin temperature (absolute zero), are non-existent.

This to infer the basis for relativity as time-dependent dimensions, extended from and carried by the Zeroth Dimension which correlates to the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics.

[N0B0DY]

Re: T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing) - 01-20-2007, 05:06 PM - purveyor of knowledge

"You'd have to be standing outside of time to do that. Only the highest observer can do that. It just means that everything is visible, because everything is defined by the light. There is a difference."

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

I would think that if you had enough time, you could see everything at different times because all senses require differentiation and time. Without which there can be no consciousness and no possible way to verify everything exists.

[Drifter]

"Nothing does exist".

It exists as "nothing".

Yin and yang/ time and space, encompassed by "nothing" represented by the cicumference of the invisble circle.

One big vibrating 3-D hologram in the vastness of nothingness, a black hole and a white hole.

This was Lodestar's premise, and is understandable, but as previously noted in this thread, analogous to the Earth's polarity which requires two poles and is considered one Earth, when we further consider the consequence of absolutely merging the two poles, the result is none (neither North nor South), not one. Monopoles, like zero-Kelvin temperature (absolute zero), are non-existent.

This to infer the basis for relativity as time-dependent dimensions, extended from and carried by the Zeroth Dimension which correlates to the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics.

[Drifter]

Imagine, if you can, being the observing/seeing, no "you", no observer or scene to observe or be seen, leave relative consciousness behind momentarily, drop all pretenses, all precepts and become the stillness of the void/abyss/the deep, lose yourself to find your Self, become the invisbility, the Primal Point. No one to see, nothing to see, just the seeing, the observing, nothing else. Then watch, as thoughts "materialeyes" out of that Nothing. The rest is His-story.

Re: T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing) - 01-20-2007, 05:06 PM - purveyor of knowledge

"You'd have to be standing outside of time to do that. Only the highest observer can do that. It just means that everything is visible, because everything is defined by the light. There is a difference."

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

I would think that if you had enough time, you could see everything at different times because all senses require differentiation and time. Without which there can be no consciousness and no possible way to verify everything exists.

[N0B0DY]

Re: T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing) - 07-26-2007, 04:09 PM - Magic (ToeQuest Member)

"A lot of the content in this thread is too complex for my simple brain. There is a lot I agree with and a lot I disagree with, but perhaps that disagreement arises from lack of understanding.

"One of the key planks in my own TOE is that language conceals more than it reveals, and that there are no fundamental differences, only confusion about the application of labels. I believe that Godel's incompleteness theorem applies just as much to language as to systems such as arithmetic or geometry. And, in the same way that, per Godel, you cannot prove the truth of a system such as arithmetic without stepping outside the system, I believe you cannot prove the truth (ie the true meaning of words) of language without stepping outside the system of language. Because fundamentally language is about the random application of labels to things. And over time, as the thing itself changes, disagreement arises as to whether the label is still appropriate to the thing."

[N0B0DY]

"Nothing does exist".

It exists as "nothing".

Yin and yang/ time and space, encompassed by "nothing" represented by the cicumference of the invisble circle.

One big vibrating 3-D hologram in the vastness of nothingness, a black hole and a white hole.

I would say only "existent" as a word, or can be scientifically-defined as a relativistic spatial construct.

Yet, I don't dispute relativists' sense of reality, primarily because it is based upon a subjective truth - "Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder."

Lies because it is based upon relativistic optical illusions limited by observational capacities.

[Drifter]

If "sight" were removed from our sensorial capacity, leaving no "eye" with which to see one would necessarily have to "see" with their imagination only, followed by the thinking labelling mechanism, from which the "dispute" [controversy] originally arose.
Stilling the activity of the relatively conscious thinking mechanism is akin to sleep where dreams, and sometimes epiphanies, materialeyes.
I'm sure uncle Albert was familiar with the faculty.
" 'I am' the consumate artist, I draw on [attract from] my imagination."
In relative terms it is a state of non-being.
As a useful faculty when developed, it is a Be-ing.

I would say only "existent" as a word, or can be scientifically-defined as a relativistic spatial construct.

Yet, I don't dispute relativists' sense of reality, primarily because it is based upon a subjective truth - "Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder."

Lies because it is based upon relativistic optical illusions limited by observational capacities.

[N0B0DY]

Re: T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing) - 08-11-2007, 07:01 PM - N0B0DY

Exactly, Fredrick (ToeQuest Member), no delivery can be neutral and egoless. The gateway is neutral and irrespective of personal views and deliveries.

My claim is merely that the toe, unification of forces, all-inclusive delivery, absolute, can't exist because if it did it would be differentiated from non existence.

Eternity is based on knowledge that cannot be known without perfect knowledge of all consequences, and therefore cannot be expressed in words based on partial knowledge. Your evidence would apply in this latter case, but there is no mathematician alive with the capability to simplify the complex math to the point where there can be an understanding. It is pointless to even try.

Just like there is a fine line between timelessness and eternity, and spacelessness and infinity, I think there is a fine line between our implications. Yours are based on an infinite number of relative frameworks existing for eternity; mine on the absolute framework not existing at any time.

Perhaps a good analogy would be trying to separate a drop of water amidst the ocean. It is only possible if the drop is differentiated from the ocean - as per taking the drop out of the ocean. Yet, attempting to conceive the same in order to account for "particles" or "waves" or "strings," in an absolute universe, is pointless because there is no differentiable "place" to conceive.

Relative separation is an illusion, and absolute unification is impossible.