Nothing by Nobody Nowhere (No Where = Now Here)

[Meem]

It's not a denial of reality. I'm holding something right now, but you can't hold everything at the same time. I remain to proclaim that everything, at once, equals zero.

Sumthing is not zero, and it is not one, but many? You're holding everything (sumthing) right now, I would stress. Where are you holding it, I would progress.

I think I have to add a new word or two (Austino, you have my permission)

"Everything, by Manyone, Manywhere (Manything = sumthing)"

[Nobody Nowhere]

Perhaps in the same manner that the first cognitive idea registers in our brain and expands into a lifetime of remembered experience and infinite alternatives that can be imagined?

Are we not comprised of that same 'stuff' as everything which we externalize, be it measureable or not?

Later........off to work.........will check back on the morrow.......provided this wing of reality is still accessible.......

I think it was Einstein who said, paraphrased, "People like us, who believe in physics, know the distinction between past, present and future is an illusion, although a convincing one."

I think the cognitive ideas are conceived, retrieved and believed via a medium. Without a medium there can be no travelling, and the Big Bang is a Creatio ex Nihilo theory developed by a priest who may have been biased toward those ends, expansion without a medium.

I agree that we are made of the same external and internal stuff, whether measureable or not, but we only consist of a small part. Again, it has been both theoretically and empirically proven that the stuff we're made of, when wholly combined, equals zero.

[Nobody Nowhere]

Would you think it would be something like, how does an apple falling on man's head expand his awareness? I would, but you don't have to.

How would you say that you exactly came to this thought? If tried to explain how I came to this thought exactly, I don't think I could do it. I've forgotten a lot since 1977.

If there were no space between the apple and his head, he may be aware that the apple will never hit him. The Big Bang is suggestive of the universe falling into (?); it's not space because it is said that the space itself is falling.

[Nobody Nowhere]

Sumthing is not zero, and it is not one, but many? You're holding everything (sumthing) right now, I would stress. Where are you holding it, I would progress.

I think I have to add a new word or two (Austino, you have my permission)

"Everything, by Manyone, Manywhere (Manything = sumthing)"

If you've read through a bit of the thread, especially the first posting, the experiemnts of which I base my thoughts on support that if something is neither this nor that, it doesn't exist in time. I don't agree that it is many, but non-dual - the whole shebang - sum of the many that negate to zero.

[SteveA]

It's the asymmetries that allow things to be distinguished. How many things occur at once? One thing.

Imagine you could view any and all possible properties simultaineously from an infinite number of systems that repeated (and we can even extend this to systems that don't repeat).

We can sort them all by their period of repetition. All systems with a repetition of a single period can have their properties unified into the single whole experience that is presented at that phase of time.

So for example, let's say two different systems existed and each had a period of repetition of a single cycle and one presented the property of red and the other green.

So we have a pair of systems presenting both red and green simultaneously. Well red and green together are perceived as yellow, so we can combine them into the single system that continuously shows yellow. We could combine any number of these together (there is no "correct" manner to perceive a quality. The only significant component for science is information - whether things are equal or different, from there objects and quantities are determined).

So we can just call the single repeating perception, A.

We can do the same for all systems that repeat with a period of 2 and combine their first phases together and call this the property of experiencing B, and combine their second phases together can call that C.

We do this for all finite periods (DEF for the 3 phase system. GHIJ for the 4 phase etc.)

Now watch how these line up in time:

AAAAAAAAAAA..... (the single period continuous experience - similar to a common experience of self)
BCBCBCBCBCBC.....
DEFDEFDEFDEF.....
GHIJGHIJGHIJGHIJ....
KLMNOKLMNOKLMNO....
PQRSTUPQRSTUPQRSTU....

At the first moment of time, all the first phases of experience are combined together into the total experience: ABDGKP... (This is simply the first experience and we can lump it all together into something completely novel without precident)

At the second moment of time, everything changes, except for the A component of the experience.

So we can see this similar to a split in experience all of the (BDGKP...) components change to something else that's completely unpredicted (CEHLQ...), but the A component repeats and because it repeated with a period of 1, we can predict that A will repeat forever in this system. The observation of A in the future provides no more information and we can remove it.

At the third period of time, the B component repeats again and we can determine that every 2 units of time, B will repeat again, so B no longer provides information and can be recmoved as well.

At the third unit of time, we see C repeat (with a period of 2) and D repeats with a period of 3. We now can predict, via past experiences that AAAA... exists, as well as BCBCBC... and that D is the beginnig phase of a length 3 cycle.

Notice that because A always repeats, then by knowing whether we're at B or C, we can effectively include B and A together as well as C and A, so we can see an effect similar to A splitting into two halves as the combination BA and CA. It began as A and then became informationally redundant upon observing that it's a repetition of the composite BA and CA experiences (this is where the complexity begins to arise).

At the 4th period of time, we witness the second phase of the 3 cycle system as E and the first phase repeting of the 4th phase.

Now notice that the length 4 phase is double the period of the length 2 system and that everytime we observe G, we'll also always observe a B and A (or the previous BA merged pair).

So we can now see the prior splitting of A into BA and CA, now become a second splitting of BA into a half that is GBA. Later we'd see that upon observing the 3rd phase of the length 4 cycle as I, this will also always be associated with the other half of BA. and so by knowing which phase of the length 4 cycle we're on, we can always predict the length 1 and length 2 components and so, once again, the length 2 cycle becomes information redundant and splits into different phases of the length 4 system.

Length 5 is prime and begins a new ring. Length 6 shares components of both 2 and 3 and once again masks these out in terms of information.

If we continue on like this and place all these rings into the context of a constant velocity space (such as a ring of photons orbitting at different distances from an observation point), then this forms a chaotic multidimensional structure in the manner in which the rings are interleaved over time, though we could also lay it out flat into a the equivalent of magnetic field lines intersecting at a point, though from the other perspective of information in time it appears to be a chaotic spectrum associated with prime wavelengths. Both representations are "true" though I guess one version is the flat "nothing"/"void" space view and the other is a complex Riemann type space.

That appears the natural manner of evolution over time when making simulataneous observations of an infinite number of systems synchronized in time and there's actually a transformation that appears to allow this to be applied to not simply periodic systems, but an infinite array of "random" representations as well (... it's statistical though and depends upon what infinite form of growth is used for the quantity of these (the number of simultaneous systems observers), relative to the relative rate of expansion in time "forward") ... or at least there's a close approximation possible.

[Meem]

If there were no space between the apple and his head, he may be aware that the apple will never hit him. The Big Bang is suggestive of the universe falling into (?); it's not space because it is said that the space itself is falling.

So, if the man were underwater, where there is "no-space," would the apple be allowed to hit his head then? Why can't expansion itself be the medium? I'm not sure I would understand the falling, at all. I can't fall "in space." But I can fall right here on earth, which is in space. The idea of falling space seems funny to me. Falling stuff however doesn't. But, space is stuff, or just filled with stuff?

[Meem]

If you've read through a bit of the thread, especially the first posting, the experiemnts of which I base my thoughts on support that if something is neither this nor that, it doesn't exist in time. I don't agree that it is many, but non-dual - the whole shebang - sum of the many that negate to zero.

That's a funny idea. I wouldn't say time is this or that, but clearly, here it is. Apparently everything and nothing. So time, doesn't exist in time? I like you

(edit)

come to think about it, there's another problem.

A particle points at a wave and complains to Herr Schrödinger

[Meem]

If I were to tell you, nothing is impossible to 'realeyes' (that's for Austino, realeyes) you would .....?

[melanie]

Originally Posted by Nobody Nowhere.

It's not a denial of reality. I'm holding something right now, but you can't hold everything at the same time. I remain to proclaim that everything, at once, equals zero.

Yes, everything at once equals zero.
Sum thing is really zero, because things can only appear in that which is no thing
Consciousness and the contents of consciousness are the same thing

Originally Posted by Meem.

Sumthing is not zero, and it is not one, but many? You're holding everything (sumthing) right now, I would stress. Where are you holding it, I would progress.

The idea that there is 'something' is a movement within the mind...
(when awareness knows sensation, consciousness/mind is born)(one and the same phenomena)

''Looking from the inside out, the developing Body:Human is always formless.
It does not experience its own mass; it only experiences its own movement.
An outside observer observing and evaluating the movements of the Body:Human
creates the illusionary notion that what it is observing has mass.''

There is no something to experience itself. There can only be ''Experiencing''
....Experience-IN ....for no thing/one.

All is ever One = ZERO

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The Incompatible Thermo-Hydro-Dynamic Mechanics of Atomic Wave-Particle Hydrodynamics & EM-Wave-Hydrodynamics…

Lloyd, I understand your position, but I said "if we focus" on what you said we can then realize that the one is vacant of all possible motion[thermodynamics]. Similar to when smacking your hand against water, it stops due to the immense pressure.[hydrodynamics] The pressure is proportional to mass/energy density[hydrodynamics], so "chocked full" is equal to fully choked - the cessation of all possible motion[thermodynamics nor hydrodynamics never ceases__they oppose each's cessation = gravity].

You can't put anything into a room that is absolutely full[a room chocked full of waves without pressure__thermodynamics__has plenty of room for more wave pressure__hydrodynamics], just like you can't put anything into a room that isn't there.[There exists no isn't there...]

Nobody, let's look at this as a theoretical model in the making, as it's the same problem I've always had with Dave's Wave Mechanics Model, and Greg's Thermodynamic and NS Models... To me it seems more a problem with how the mind itself processes Time/Distance Occurrences and Time/Distance Progressions than anything else. The Universe works fine, and we see this from all our evidence__But, the mind doesn't process complex Time/Distance Occurrence Events well, with the more longer term Progression of Time/Distance Events. It's like the Uncertainty Principle is always present and interferring with our mind's properly uniting these two opposite ended velocity mechanics of reality, into a one perception/view of the actual mechanics. It seems we do not recognize this mechanical short-coming in our mind's processing mechanics__But, it is the major controller blocking us from properly processing all the laws, logics, occurences, and progressions of the Time/Distance events of science__We are so hard trying to do so. What I'm talking about, is the fact the mind is required to process these two major mechanics by two separate velocities of light processing, at the same time__and the mind seems only capable of clear processing one velocity at a time__So, we are always blind-sided to our own Logic's Perception of doing exactly what we need to do, to see this complex and general mechanics at the same Time/Distance of its happenings...

I don't know if that makes sense or not, but if you're willing to wade through this process, I think we may be able to make sense of it__or at the least, get a bit of a glimse of the mind's short-comings of processing two different Velocity of Light's Time/Distance Events/Progressions__At the same exact perception view's moments. To me, perception can only process Short High Velocities of Occurences in one concentrated mode, and perception can only process the Long Slowed Look at High Long Distance Velocities of Progression in its second mode of concentrated use__It seems most impossible to do both at once, but the brain tricks itself into thinking it is... Just guessing, but I'd say its a short-coming of perception's brain muscle's contraction and expansion mechanics, required to do this unified processing, and only able to be in one state or the other__Contracted or Expanded, as any other muscle of the body__Thus limiting the Unified Processing required to see the exact mechanics of two disparate Time/Distance Processes...

Nobody, you can't look at a progressional process as an event/occurence... You can't look at an occurence/event as a progressional processs, when in fact these two__event and progression processes__are entirely separate mechanics of the Universe, and it seems the mind.... I think we always mistake our perception's views of thinking it's seeing the whole picture of the mechanics involved, when in fact, we are only seeing one or the other of these two Mechanics at once. The more we concentrate on the small, the more we lose track of the large, and vice versa. Of course, this is that same old 'One and The Many' problem__But, it may be able to be solved by looking into my Decay Model, as this model is a slower progression view of all Universal Mechanics__at the large progression of Time/Distance, slowed down, or at least able to seem more slowed, so's the mind can get a handle on its total, and The Incompatible Thermo-Hydro-Dynamic Mechanics of Atomic Wave-Particle Hydrodynamics & EM-Wave-Hydrodynamics…

I think if we just keep paddling around in the existing models and ideas, we'll always be confronted by perception's short-comings...

...the one is vacant of all possible motion.

Nobody, you know I always do see where you're trying to come from, but the fact is, the Universe is behaving with its motion, waves and particle structures, just as I've described. It's just the mind is a bit shy of a whole dollar's processing abilities__and that's mine as well as yours' and everybody elses... We just need to figure how to word the mechanics, and to me it's the Mechanics of the Bolded above__But, very complex to wrap one's mind around all the progressions and occurrences, of complex state changes__At Once...

If one looks back in history to the intellectual battles between Germany, France, the rest of Europe and England, verses, American intellectualism, one may just find the root of all these problems of interpretations. They in Europe, etc., processed from a mind built by history from a far more subjective base of transcendental abstract existentialism and nominalism, and America processed from a mind built by it's history, from a far more hustler's objective base of realism__and these two major differences created two disparate meaning systems within all the world's interpretation systems__so's different schools have different systems of interpreting even how to use the basic mathematical, logic and science systems... Tiny Tree's recent posts and links address this very issue, especially at his web site... Link... Link... Link... Link... Link... Link...

One must think about this, to get to the bottom of what one reads, and how one processes what one reads and hears...