[N0B0DY]

Zach,

It was a rather good start, and the problem I see is that the common knowledge is not necessarily the correct knowledge. We have to use our own little beans to discover our own knowledge. There isn't a scientist alive who knows what the correct structure of an atom is, no matter how smart they are. This site however is very tolerant and we can share ideas, and arguments, with others to make up our minds.

Physical existence, for instance, can be thought of as concretely existing in a particular place and time. Even what is commonly thought to be non-physical, like goodness or intelligence, can be said to have originated at a particular time and place. On the other hand, nothing can not have any existence because there can be no place and time for it to exist. For this reason I say that time is the basis for everything, every concept, all information, to observably exist because without time there can be no time to exist.

I propose that all times are extensions from points that have no place and time, and therefore there is really no particular time and space at all. The model I propose is therefore based on abstract objects and processes that serve as the basis for relativity and evolution, two of the great theories of today. I remain until it is proven otherwise to myself, that any literal model is logically impossible to be correct. You can never literally walk into a place that isn't there, and in the absolute universe there is literally no place to walk to no matter how much time (eternity) is granted.

[N0B0DY]

I thought I would share the following article, as it is most relevant to all theories in general:

"Under the heading of 'structuralism in physics' there are three different but closely related research programs in philosophy of science and, in particular, in philosophy of physics. These programs were initiated by the work of Joseph Sneed, Günther Ludwig, and Erhard Scheibe, respectively, since the begin of the 1970s. For the sake of simplicity we will use these names in order to refer to the three programs, without the intention of ignoring or minimizing the contributions of other scholars. (See the Bibliography.) The term 'structuralism' was originally claimed by the Sneed school, see e.g., Balzer and Moulines (1996), but it also appears appropriate to subsume Ludwig's and Scheibe's programs under this title because of the striking similarities of the three approaches. The activities of the structuralists have been mainly confined to Europe, especially Germany, and, for whatever reasons, largely ignored in the Anglo-American discussion."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-structuralism

[N0B0DY]

4. Problems with Belief in Nonexistent Objects

"The foregoing considerations suggested that the claim that there are nonexistent objects has considerable explanatory force. Why, then, is this claim not generally accepted but, rather to the contrary, so controversial? Is the reason just, as Meinong has put it, 'a prejudice in favor of the actual?' — Although ontological prejudices may play a role, there are also some good reasons for reservations (to put it very carefully).
Even in Meinong's own writings, there are (roughly) two versions of the theory, the original one and a later, revised one. In what follows, we will refer to the original Meinongian object theory by means of the abbreviation 'MOTo'."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonexistent-objects

[not2too]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

Have a pleasant trip. Though I hope it is business and you'll be working on a modern martial arts remake of "My Name is Nobody" with Nobody roaming the streets saving everybody.

See ya soon!

From Spaghetti Western to Kung Fu Bodhisattva...hmmm...wonder if David Carradine is available? Steven Seagal maybe? Only Kidding. I haven't gotten to work on this one yet, but I did stop by the No Name Bar in Sausalito and had a cold one while thinking about this thread.

Best,
not2too

[N0B0DY]

Nice to see you back and kicking, not2. I went to that bar too, but nobody was there and I left.

I think I must have seen My Name is Nobody over a hundred times. For sure one of my favorites.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

Would you be able to stick your finger in my cup then, Felix?

I look forward to reading your article.

Sorry I took so long, Nobody, been away.

I don't have fingers, only paws but watch out for my claws!

My article is now on-line (The Dance of Shiva) but it makes little sense without the diagrams which are in the attached Word document.

regards
Felix

[N0B0DY]

Okay, I'll have a look, Felix.

Thanks.

[r.p.bibra]

Hello Nobody, It looks strange that though you have been appreciated (thanked) in so many posts, but not even once you have extended the courtesy of reciprocating? Perhaps in your yardstick of logic 'Nobody' comes to your standard! Nothing personal! ls. has high regard of your intelligence. Love&regards.ls.

[N0B0DY]

The name, theory and philosophy is many-fold, R. P.. Like equating everything and nothing, thanking nobody equates to thanking everybody.

My theory is based on a question that was asked by someone who was repeatedly ridiculed as being stupid, and I was the only one at that site who supported him. So, it goes without saying, I appreciate all folks because all posts are useful imo, if not only in part. Being thanked shouldn't be a factor, unless you post messages just to be thanked.

[r.p.bibra]

ls. hardly join any discuusion,as he has nothing to contribute. He is not a student of science.He is here to learn,so he does not seek any'thanks'.Anyway world is as one 'sees' it!.love&regards.ls.