Nothing by Nobody Nowhere (No Where = Now Here)

[RascalPuff]

This is your lucky day, Nobody, of your eternal return:
The chicken and egg problems was solved last night…

http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...tml#post131734

So, what have you been doing between now and when you died?

Another approach to simple resolution of the 'Which came first - the chicken or the egg?' question is:
Land bound wingless reptiles preceded flying reptiles and the former laid eggs before the latter evolved into existence. Moreover, feathers are evolved scales. The exemplay feathered and winged chicken - and all other birds - generate what is now a feathered design from what was formerly a scaled design. One look at the feet and legs of any feathered bird reveals their reptilian origins. That is to summarize:
The reptilian egg preceded the egg laying chicken; ergo, the land bound wingless reptilian egg-layer preceded the reptilian flyers and feathers.

Sure is good to see your return, Nobody. : )

Best regards to You and Yours,
- Kai

[Graybeard]

Yes it is. Good to see you again, Greg.

Any thoughts on this urgent "matter"?

Only that its nice to see you back ....... we feared the worst ... lol

greg

[PoPpAScience]

Thanks for the welcome, Allen. That's quite a theory you've put together. You might consider putting a few things together and maybe Lloyd would have a look. He's very patient and has a lot of insights into the "IS" of the universe.

For me, as I relayed to Austin, the zero point and the substance are the same because the zero point has no dimension to speak of and therefore can be extended from point to point as relative time. So the "IS" of which you speak can only then be a relative expression of space and time, or substance.

That theory of mine was put together from all the great postings and theories in this forum, oh plus the 30 years of study before the internet. Thanks for the notice.

I agree zero-point has no dimension or "REAL" existence. zero-point to me is strictly a focal point at the center of any whir/vortex/spin. This focal point(zero-point) seems to cause a reaction to substance. I hope to find some discussion on this concept so I can future my contemplation.

Lloyd and I have already interacted between our theories. There is only minor but important differences in the way we see things.

As for "IS", space and time are only relative to the motion of "IS". "Eternity" is not time, Eternity is the "Perpetual" existence of substance. Substance continues to BE as it has always been, just "IS". This is Eternity!

If Substance(Potential of Infinity for Eternity) is all there "IS', or ever has Been, or will BE, then there is no need for a void or empty space for Motion to accure. It moves amongst itself.

Great interaction going on here already between you and others, thanks.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I know what you mean, Lloyd. It's like my talking about a nonexistent zero-point center and referring to "it" as an "it". I don't think there is any language though that can be used, even if we made one up, that would satisfy our meanings - I think our pictures of reality should sometimes just stay in our heads.

I read the first pages of the book you referred me to. He sure is pissed at Einstein et al., but I think he is misunderstanding relativity. Gairdner is not a physicist, and just from his descriptions of relationism and relativism, and his deduction that relativity is somehow a denial of truth, I can tell definitions wouldn't be all that helpful to us.

Even if they were to become standard, there are many associative terms that just need clarification according to our own definitions - what we are trying to convey. Like when you say FS, am I to know what you mean, even if Gairdner says it is absolute substance? I don't think so, without you describing, thoroughly, what exactly you mean, what it is made of, temperature, boundaries, etc..

Further, Einstein has proven his theories experimentally, but there is yet to be an absolute found in nature or proven in experiments. Now, to define what I mean by absolute I can use an example of zero-kelvin temperature. That would be an absolute. As would absolute speed, which doesn't even make sense.

Gotta eat.

Anything to me is an absolute, if it persists for a time, or even if it doesn't, as its decay product still persists. So everything I see is absolute, even feelings. I take the vague general view of all reality, not as strict a definition as you use of absolute...

To me, it's a vague and general absolute reality, until we can put clear logical linguistics to that central meaning, definitions and communication to the problem of__'The One and The Many...'

[austintorn@aol.com]

If the “quarks” could be penetrated I feel it would open the “gates of time” to the presently-inaccessible time frames you (Steve) mentioned. How's that, Austin? — Nobody

I think its more like that much is duplicated throughout the universe, due to eternity and infinity, and that Earth's other nearest instances could be a near-infinite distance away.


Will you be passing through the Star Trek 'Guardian of Forever' gate again very soon?

(The adventures are on video now):

http://www.toequest.com/forum/anecdo...ce-agents.html

[austintorn@aol.com]

The picture of the All:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...tml#post131766

It turned from white to color.

[melanie]

The chicken and egg problems was solved last night…

Hi Austin.

My 2 sense on chicken and egg riddle.

This crazy riddle has no answer - it is infinitely recursive.

That is, it has no logical beginning.


Nothing, knows everything....Everything, knows nothing.

The idea is one (everything)

Impossible to separate 'egg' and 'chicken', or 'chicken' from grain and water and air and sun and soil and microbes and plants and...
chicken is also rooster and hen...one.

This idea is never changing.

A chicken only appears to be a separate thing when seen from a specific viewpoint in apparent time and space.
The image seen is nothing... a small patch of colours associated with sounds heard (especially crowing at two in the morning )
feelings felt (as it is apparently carried, or pecks you )some smells (sweet smell of chicken shit )
and tastes (fried, grilled or tossed in a wok )

So what is chicken? It is simply the meaning/idea associated with the colours, sounds, odours, flavours and feelings arising in the moment.

This 'idea' is not what is thought, though it gives meaning to any thought. It cannot be conceptualised, for it is Conception itself.

The label is all that makes the moment.
The label did not come into being some time and cease to be some time.
The meaning of the label is ever the meaning, unchanged... one with the knowing of it.


The words 'meaning/idea' simply point, as the word 'seeing' points.

Any meaning associated with these words is not what is being indicated.

Impossible to see seeing, yet here it is.
Impossible to hear hearing, yet here it is.
Impossible to feel feeling, yet here it is.
Impossible to smell smelling, yet here it is.
Impossible to taste tasting, yet here it is.
Impossible to know knowing, yet here it is.

Is that irrational enough for you guys?

Logically speaking for those who are obsessed with the word, it must have been the chicken /mother that came first, otherwise a newly hatched chicken would die without her love, but that's another story....

[austintorn@aol.com]

My 2 sense on chicken and egg riddle. — Mel

It only costs a penny for one's thoughts, so I'll keep the change.

And, yes, it is irrational enough.

THE IRRATIONAL

Indefiniteness didn’t sit well with Pythagorus,
Ever concerned with the perfection of numbers.

You can divide the circumference of a circle
With its radius but you cannot write the result
As a fraction or a ratio, for pi just keeps on going.

So, he pledged his disciples to secrecy,
For the ancient Pythagoreans
Had developed an entire religion
Based on the rationality of numbers.

Yet, one rebel vowed to let the word out;
However, he mysteriously drowned at sea.

[Nobody Nowhere]

Yes, I believe the theory will be constrained to being discrete. There appears to be little alternative. I've tried the analog route and there aren't hard edges to work with and when you get to the details, everything that a theory works with is constrained to being discrete and digital.

Notice that the senses can work with large quantities of information and this gives the appearance of blurry edges etc., but if we analize these closely everything is truly discrete - even the concept of a blur could be said to be discrete. To the extent a blur is not a precise blur is the extent to which we could not verify whether or not a theory describes that blur.

What happens when we assume water to be similar to a continuous field and analyze it closely in nature? Well it becomes discrete atoms and molecules. We could then attempt to say that the space in which these exist is continuous, but that ends up proving false because we find discrete photons. We might assume photons could describe a continuous spectrum, but that proves false and the spectrum is also discrete. We could attempt to assume some other form of continuiousness but fundamentally all such perceptions of infinite subdivisibility arise as discrete events in time and are accumulated by memory.

So we could analogize this with the influence of a discrete thing, relative to the network describing relationship of the whole as decaying similar to 1/n as n->infinity, but this is never truly 0 (and that's where many areas of mathematics blur over the details and arrive at singularities with no extent).

It's basically a given to me that it's fundamentally discrete. Understanding ways in which aggregates of discrete units operate in fluid manners in the link between the macro and micro.



It's in the perceptions, I'm rather certain.

If we look at a distant star or attempt to measure fine details of an atom, where is all the information integrated? It's integrated as discrete perceptual events. We can imagine that space is a massive volume that exists simultaneously on all scales and is everywhere, simultaneously subdivisible in some "objective"/external manner, but this isn't true. There's never anything more than the information immediately observable and this must be allocated to any specific observation.

I see this similar to the mind taking physical information available and constructing the equivalent of a virtual high dimensional "arm" that can reach a concept (similar to an address for a memory in a computer, or a set of instructions to navigate to a point) and then that "point" within a conceptual space is accessed or constructed and the memory accumulates these into the perception of a space of growing complexity over time, but at any moment there's only the equivalent of a single pathway through this reaching between an observational origin and the current observation.

The pathway can be "factored" into multiple simultaneous pathways that are fractal. For example, when observing a tree, quite a large amount of detail can be visible, but it's also highly fractal and the information context, relative to the mind is less than a "random" field of patterns (what's a "random" distribution is subjective and depends upon the matches between compression/decompression - for example, someone who understands a language can remember a few sentences easily, but someone unfamiliar with a language can have difficulty even remembering a half dozen phonems)



Yes, I believe the photon is fundamentally an non-physical energy - space and matter provide the context by which it's interpreted. An analogy would be that the sound of a flute is determined by its form (that's a product of oneself), but the breath/wind/white noise has no specific form and contains all frequencies.

An impulse in a Fourier Transform contains all frequencies/harmonics - that's a photon. When applied to a network, this network becomes similar to a filter that blocks various frequencies from being visible. This is similar to how atomic spectra can be generated.

Also, all such filters can be described by a single linear structure and also any form of computation can be reduced to a 1-D computation as well (basically a Turing machine).

In order to have an extension in 1-D though, you need to have properties present that can perceive these and distinguish between elements in a set, and that's where perceptions provide this ability to "break" such superpositions.

Without perceptions, you could fit everything into an indistniguishable nothing



I posted elsewhere an interesting idea regarding how neutral particles can be made to appear by folding space along some point in this - basically we can mirror two half planes into a single plane and have all particles be charged and interacting, yet an appearance of neutrality can arise between them because some are further apart that they appear in those two halfplanes (basically, if we unfolded them, a part of non-interaction protons could be assumed that at least one is neutral, but it could lie on the "left" half of a plane versus a right half or similar the past and future could exist folded around the present and particles could appear to be neutral, yet could be instead crossing a line of perceived symmetry - a percetual distortion that bends/folds/warps space. An isolated neutral particle would be the unstable form as it is in physics as well).



I tend to be of the other view that everything is fundamentally asymmetric and all things are unique and non-identical. It's perceptual/conceptual/mental limitations or simplications that give rise to the appearance of symmetry, regulatory, uniformity etc.

In a way, the "point origin" is a perceptual/mental one. Reality is infinitely extended and diverse - ones understand or interactions etc. arise from "nothing". So in a sense we could say everything preexists and we're continually accessing new properties that allow for greater asymmetry to be viewed and that expands the view and reveals things on larger scales, for which other properties are found etc. That's very similar to structures in number theory.

I think the same can be said of electron orbitals, but to start at the beginning to discover the source of electrons/positrons I think we need to consider the analog transitions between orbitals. The scientific method can only be used as far as empirical evidence is concerned, but we can logically deduce, as Einstein had done before being empirically-proven, that the missing analog energy escapes somewhere undetected. It makes sense to me that the energy provides the mass of the proton – all the energy is confined within – due to the background radiation pushing against the release of photons from all sides. The “strong force” which is said to be stronger with distance results from the interference of the background. This is why the electron always “falls” back to its lowest state toward the center. On this basis how could we deduce the energy spectrum is discrete?

Any analog-to-digital conversion results in a loss of information, and it is this missing information that I seek as the source for the relative functioning of discrete particles. There is even a link in the first posting of this thread on this very subject, but it seems it is human nature to categorize and divide into pieces. Just as human nature is bound by its ability to absorb a limited amount of energy in order to perceive an ordered reality, but I don't think we can gloss over the fact that the universe in its entirety differs from individuals.

The 1/n where n=infinity is interesting, and is the sole basis of my theory, save the n is literally zero. As previously touched upon in other postings, the zero is the only logical divider that can be considered the cause for the concept of outward and inward.

I agree with your theory, but I think we have to be careful when mixing theoretical and empirical science. When you say: “There's never anything more than the information immediately observable and this must be allocated to any specific observation.” it seems as though it doesn't mix well with infinities. This is why imo the illusory relative world (infinity and eternity of space and time) should be separate from the absolute (zero-point center).

On a theoretical basis I think you're right, but this is where we both get into to trouble with scientists who seek verification. I don't think an infinitely-extended universe could ever be ascertained.

[Nobody Nowhere]

The picture of the All:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...tml#post131766

It turned from white to color.

Truly wonderful artwork, Austin. Could we see that picture within a white sheet?