[N0B0DY]

Originally Posted by 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.

Relatively-speaking this is true, however similar to self-concsiouness capacities, there is the pre-requisite differential quality within the mind of the dreamer inwardly observing the dream.

The point be-ing that without differentiation any type of consciousness is impossible, and for this reason I would proclaim that consciousness is the key to relativity, which in turn is the time-dependent key to all senses of reality as well as that which is deemed imaginary.

[N0B0DY]

Re: T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing) - 09-21-2007, 06:59 PM - Fluent Piffle (ToeQuest Member)


"No description from the past has been 100% correct, otherwise we would not be arguing over it now. Some intuition has been close, and not much has been closer than Tao, imo, but science has been necessary to physically test that which we intuit. The moment someone posits a possibility, whatever it may be, a correct cosmological description is waiting to be found, and we will find it eventually, whatever it is. We cannot drag 'doctrines' from the past and expect them to still be relevant when the rest of existence is in a constant flux. With this in mind, any 'TOE' will have 'motion', perpetual change, as its prevalent property, or it will be invalid. 'Tao', at least, has this as a foundation, and is thus much closer to Cosmological Truth, as a description.

"If you haven't read 'The Sleepwalkers' by Arthur Koestler, I can recommend it as a great introduction to the collective Human endeavour to KNOW. The 'next' step from this was probably Fritjof Capra's 'Tao of Physics', but another step has to be taken at this point. We are on a journey of becoming, and right now is actually an extremely interesting point in Human evolution. We are at a crossroads of understanding, about to take another 'giant leap', but it is a psychological one. The Earth we have evolved as a part of, is governed by 'laws' (properties) that are not physically apparent from the inside. Not until we have evolved far enough can we explore the Cosmological truth, as opposed to the Earthly truth."

[N0B0DY]

Re: T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing) - 09-21-2007, 01:45 AM - Everymansmedium (ToeQuest Member)

"We constantly step into a place that does not exist. The future does not exist and the past is an impenetrable existence that can not be changed. The point of creation is NOW, as this is where we create the past as we step forward. The steps we made can not be erased. We can not go back to the time that we created them. We can only create again and again as that is what we do."

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

This above is a good point imo, as the points of creation and annihilation of charges can be a continual process which is observed asymmetrically as past events.

[N0B0DY]

Re: T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing) - 11-26-2007, 05:09 AM - Melanie (ToeQuest Member)

"The mind is illusional, as is all things, awareness requires no ''thing'' to be aware of objects. All objects even our 'brains' have no cognition, .. cognition has them, .. All naming/concepts are first sensation sensed never changing, they appear and disappear, all hidden/known and then named, and then turned into things."

[N0B0DY]

Re: T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing) - 01-25-2008, 08:36 PM - Rufus (ToeQuest Member)

[Quote: "The gist of the thread has to do with the cause of conscious thought, and I infer that it is unconsciously caused, not consciously." - N0B0DY]

"All of us began as babies so all of our thought processes would develop typically within the constraints of that system. Unless one accepts some other thinking system beyond us, we would therefore unconsciously cause conscious thought. In other words I agree with the quote."

[N0B0DY]

Re: T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing) - 02-03-2008, 08:20 AM - Dipayankar (ToeQuest Member)


"Science does not depend on Mankind. The laws of physics will always be there and was there long before the existance of Mankind and after the existance of mankind."

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

I think this can be deduced, but impossible to prove using the scientific method, Dip.

[N0B0DY]

Re: T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing) - 02-05-2008, 10:11 PM - Dipayankar (ToeQuest Member)

"Absolutely. And I also believe that if space-time can be quantised, then probably light will go from one quanta to the other (incremental quantum leaps) and might as well pick up some latent energy from enach quantum zone which will help keep its velocity constant. Just my thoughts."

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

I like the way you think, Dip. I would also equate the quantum zone with newtonian spacetime, which would imply that there are no intervals between leaps. In this way we can come closer to merging both spacetimes because the quantum zones naturally contain much more energy than the concentric systems.

[N0B0DY]

Re: T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing) - 01-31-2008, 05:15 AM - Fluent Piffle (ToeQuest Member)

"Anything 'more' than Infinite, in 3-dimensions, is not needed."

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

This is true when we think of how a sphere would extend spatially, and if all extensions are governed by time, would render einsteinian spacetime as: i + e = E; where i is infinity, e is eternity, and E is Entirety.

[N0B0DY]

Re: T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing) - 02-06-2008, 06:51 AM - Fluent Piffle (ToeQuest Member)

[Quote: "Yes, I see what you mean, pif, and I responded that both our propositions are only seemingly absurd." Cosmologically-speaking and -seeking, my proposition of motionlessness is the seemingly-absurd result of two superficial opposites being (abstract) aspects of the same "thing." - N0B0DY]

"I agree! And it seems we are not so far apart after all, regarding the Cosmological."

[N0B0DY]

"The Greek philosopher Zeno, who lived in the 5th Century B.C., decades before Socrates, dedicated his life's work to showing the logical paradoxes inherent to the idea of indefinite divisibility in space and time (i.e., that every line is composed of an infinite number of points). One of these paradoxes is known as the arrow paradox: if the motion of a flying arrow is divided ad infinitum, then during each of these infinitesimal moments, the arrow is at rest. The sum of an infinity of zeroes remains zero, and therefore the arrow cannot move. One can imagine how someone giving a flying arrow quick, repeated glimpses, can actually freeze it in place. Zeno inferred from this that movement cannot happen. Indeed, he was a true follower of Parmenides, his teacher and mentor, who advocated that any change in nature is but an illusion."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/ancillaries/time-sup.htm#H18