Paradox of Potential popped Aware.

[PoPpAScience]

Hi Tim;

Your last post here is beautifully worded. It hits right to the point of the philosophical thinking, of why do we need to reduce further from what we already know about the fundamental aspects of our universe. Those being, as you state and I agree with, particle, motion, and space.

I have read what you have said in your post three times now, because it so begs for a reason to go further in to the realm we do not know of. The reason to go further is, that the answer to the need for life is tide to the reason or cause for the universe to come into existence. Yes it is fine to stop at the basic fundamentals of the universe for everyday life. But, for those of us that want to seek the great why, most have the strength climb over that peak of the mountain, that hides our view of the beginning.

If you look deeper into my theory you will see that I say this universe popped into existence from an infinite Paradox of Potential. You will see that "Aware" having no medium to exist in, but itself, created its own volume by going in upon itself. This creating of volume was not intentional, it only was the continuation of direction from being "popped". This volume is only relative to its own existence. My singularity is only the point in this volume where creation of this volume ends and "Aware" waves back upon itself, adding motion and purpose to its existence.

You asked if I was trying to reduce to a singularity. My answer is, no. There are enough people trying to do that. I do not go back, I start from an infinite potential, that a volume popped into, that is influenced by a wave of will that started at the singularity of the volume of a sphere.

[analog]

Allen,

Thanks for the compliment.

I am of the opinion that an eternal universe needs no reason or cause to exist. It only needs the ability by means of it's interaction to maintain it's motions (the HOW), else it becomes static (motionless).

This is the hardest part of an eternal framework, trying to configure/define the three fundamentals so they don't become static through equalization. Even an admission to absolute particle motion doesn't completely solve the problem due to the need to explain the coming together of particles to form more massive objects. An ever swirling gathering of particles with no rhyme or reason could perpetually swirl due to absolute motion with no need to prevent equalibrium. It could be in a state of everlasting random motion, but this too is static to the ability to form. When motion becomes less random, allowing for mass (motion density) to increase, whereby our observable universe of varying motion dense regions of space is observed, a mechanism must be accounted for.

Even though the universe is full of particles with absolute motion, this mechanism is now at risk of becoming static, due to the need for it to give direction to particle motion. Thus, I feel the true quest is for the directional mechanism, that allows for an ever motionally evolving universe, to be understood.

Life (apparently free moving forms within a world with a directional mechanism) is a construct of that fundamental mechanism, and an important part to how that mechanism maintains itself. While the stars and planets seem to behave as they universally should, biological life seemingly goes and does as it wants.

The first steps to a true Theory of Everything, in my opinion, will be explaining how biological motion fundamentally relates to galactic motions. They both must have a common relative potential. Though one seems erratic (life) and the other patternable (galactic), they are both dancing to the same song. Though our bodies dance and sway with every beat, our minds are tone deaf. We don't hear (acknowledge) the music, but we dance to it none the less. Our consciousness keeps us in rythm, but it doesn't allow us to sing along.

A study of life, in my opinion, won't reveal a reason or cause for the eternal system itself, but it will reveal an insight to the inner workings of a beautifully orchestrated universal symphony of motion. Life is cause for nothing. It's an essential formation of matter to maintain everything. Life is perhaps better viewed as an effect.

I hope this makes sense.

[PoPpAScience]

Tim;

Once again you add to this thread the most perfectly worded post that I could ask for, and respond to.

The mechanism that you speak off, is the key. There has to be a mechanism that gives the fundamentals of the universe a reason to be more then it was before. This is what motivates me to seek a more refined answer.

Everyday I look into the mirror and see a human being that can not be. It is absolutely impossible for me to imagine how random chaotic interactions can bring together trillions of individual particles to create a being that can look at itself in a mirror. My logical mind can not except the notion of random luck creating life.

For me there has to be some properties that are inherent at the core of this universe. I feel that one of these inherent properties is the ability to be imprinted with experiences, why I come up with "Aware". The second inherent property would be its first experience, the seeking of the zero point of a volume.

I think that the core substance of this universe has to have as an inherent property, the need to seek the zero point of any volume (perpetual motion). Also, the inherent nature of imprinting experiences on its being.

[analog]

Allen,

I sometimes imagine our universe as a huge three dimensional checkerboard and the only pieces on it are the red ones, they represent particles. The black pieces are left off, they aren’t important. The black squares are what’s important, and every square on the board is black, unless occupied by a red piece.

The red pieces represent the particles of our world, and are proportional in quantity to the black squares, and the black squares represent definable volumes of space, the whole checkerboard is our closed universal system. The quantities of both entities are now static, finite, and absolute. Also, with every plank instant of time, the red pieces must move to another square, thus we have absolute motion, and the total amount of motion of the system is also static, finite and absolute.

Now, due to absolute motion, we can view the black squares as thermodynamic degrees of temperature, and we can explore the universal interactions by applying the laws of thermodynamics. We already conserved all of the fundamental elements, because nothing is added or taken away, they are merely rearranged. All we must do now is explain what they are trying to do.

If the black squares are degrees of temperature, then a solid object contains less black squares within the area it occupies than does a liquid or gas. A solid object has so few black squares within it that the red pieces that make it up can’t get passed each other because there isn’t enough of a square showing for them to go to, the whole unit must move as a whole, and it will move through any less dense formation. The gas formation has more squares between the red pieces that make it up, so it is in more of a state of random motion because any one particle cannot be trapped by the others.

Now, if we apply a set velocity to the red pieces, and we view the pieces as maintaining their current square due to colliding with the others around it, we can now see the entire board in a new light and proximity of piece to piece becomes relative to the whole system. The whole thing is interacting and the spatial (amount of squares) separation of everything is relative to everything else. The gas surrounding a solid formation has proportionally more and more squares within it as you travel outward from the object. The spatial arrangement of the gas between two solid objects is relative to the spatial arrangement of both solid objects. Thus the position of all of the pieces are at the mercy of a near equilibrium of sorts, and the changing of one pieces motion changes the proportions of the whole board. This is our view of perceived “electromagnetic energy”, but it is just a slight shift, whereby everything ends up back in position.

Being as the black squares can be viewed as “thermal degrees of temperature” we can apply the interactions of two thermal bodies to this system and realize that it isn’t energy that’s being distributed, as one body cools (condenses) and the other heats up (expands) along with the gas surrounding them, its black squares (space).

This allows us to understand how two solid objects affect each other’s motion, as seen with our planet and the Sun. The red piece (particle) interaction doesn’t stop at the visible edges of the planet or star, the whole system is filled with it, and the distance between the Sun and Earth is maintained by less dense particle interaction proportional to their mass. The particles within the Sun are so dense that they constantly affect the amount of squares between the two bodies, thus we go round and round maintaining near spatial, not energy, equilibrium by means of imbalanced motion.

The only question is what causes the pieces to want to come together on the board?

Does any of this make any sense? And am I close to what you were getting at, in your search for why?

[PoPpAScience]

Tim;

Up a few days ago I would say that your descriptive post above would have worked great for the way I used to see the interactions between particles, that I looked at as wave functions. The same way that dleviwing sees things. But after over a decade of trying to advance my theory to reason why the particles came together in the first place, I had the break through thought that I needed last week, that changed my way of seeing things. Now I see the the particles as vortices of, what ever we want to call the core entity. This core entity that has the inherent draw to the centre of the vortex(volume) creates a draw on the environment around it (maybe a vacuum). Other vortices now interact with other vortices to create vortexes, like quarks interact to create a proton. Now picture all that you see as particles, as vortices, that draw upon each other. Now picture this vortices interacting like the particles in your description above about the Sun and Earth. I find that this vortex as particle idea works in any scenario I can think of.

Instead of me describing how vortices operate, I ask you to go to the thread of Vincent about " The Universal Vortical Singularity" and look at the last post he did for me, I could not explain more perfectly the idea of a vortex. This will help immensely with what I am trying to get at.

[analog]

Allen,

I'm glad to hear that you have furthered your thinking of our world.

I won't act as though I understand all that is presented about vortices, because I don't, but I don't see how they simplify things all that much. I ,too, have long been aware of a vortex being a natural formation, such as the many wonderful pics Vince shows. The golden spiral is present in many natural things, but I think it's more telling of either the motions of particle interaction or material aether interactions, due to spatial dynamics.

Perhaps a system of fundamental vortices would do well to explain things/particles/other vortices coming together, but our universe goes both ways, that's what makes it so hard to describe. Unless a system has potential for motion in both directions, inward and outward, towards the center of a massive body, I can't see how it can build a world.

Does a vortice system have directional potential both ways? And if so, what is the mechanism? Just curious.

[PoPpAScience]

Tim;

Thanks for that last post. Thanks for the great questions you put forth there. I'm only a few days into my new way of seeing things. So, I am going to contemplate and study more on the nature of vortices's tonight, and see if I can answer your questions to my satisfaction. I have ideas in my head on how vortices can do the things you are asking, but I want to be sure. Thanks for giving me a direction of thought to pursue.

But, I can answer one question you have asked, even though I have before. That life, can only come from the core substance having the will to be more then it is. It is impossible for life to come from random interactions of particles or vortices. That's my opinion right now.

more to come.....

[analog]

Allen,

Please take this constructively, as that is how it's intended, because I think it might help you on your journey.

I, too, used to view life formations as something spectacular, but I don't feel it got me very far in my quest to truly understand. I was trying to make the sun go around the Earth again. For some reason we must feel that we are at the center of not only our universe, but all of creation. I don't feel that the universe was created to sustain life, I feel that life is an effect to help sustain an eternal universe. Our bodies and our interactions are merely part of the mechanism, and I don't feel that a true understanding of our universal system will be obtained until we can allow for ourselves to become an equally important part of the system, not just the reason for it.

All things within an eternal framework are equally important and work to maintain it as a whole. If any one was more important than the other, would it not be finite?

Now that I've found my place in the world, and realise it's not at the center, I can enjoy a much better understanding of a planet going around a sun.

[arthur]

Paradox of Potential popped Aware.In the beginning there was, "The Paradox of Potential".

Hi allen, sorry to intrude on your tet-a-tet but I detected what *might* be a fundemental flaw in what could turn out to be The Answer.

In the beginning of what?
If the beginning happened to be the point when absolutely nothing became something and that something was potential at that point it could not have been a paradox, as you know for a paradox to be, there must be at the very least two 'things'. now, if soon after the beginning the Paradox of Potential came about, that being two things, what was the other???http://www.toequest.com/forum/images...s/confused.gif



arthur...PS. I hope that this helps in the solving of the universal conundrum.

[PoPpAScience]

Hi allen, sorry to intrude on your tet-a-tet but I detected what *might* be a fundemental flaw in what could turn out to be The Answer.

In the beginning of what?

If the beginning happened to be the point when absolutely nothing became something and that something was potential at that point it could not have been a paradox, as you know for a paradox to be, there must be at the very least two 'things'. now, if soon after the beginning the Paradox of Potential came about, that being two things, what was the other???http://www.toequest.com/forum/images...s/confused.gif



arthur...PS. I hope that this helps in the solving of the universal conundrum.

Hi arthur;

Any civil input is welcome and appreciated.

In actual fact my theory states that the 'nothing' before there was 'something', is the "Paradox of Potential". This "Potential" has the duel nature of being both something that can be thought of as a real something(force), but also has the nature of being nothing physical. This is the Paradoxical nature of the "nothing something"(Potential), that "Aware"(Universe) popped out of. The Universe is now inherent with this "Potential" and its "nothing something" nature.

This is why in the last two weeks I have been very exited about vortexes. Because, here is something in our everyday life that holds this Duel Paradoxical nature for all to see. If you walk into any of the many vortices that we see everyday and scoop into the effect with a test tube, you will not find any something that can be seen or studied that could be called a vortex particle. Yet we can see with our own eyes, the effect the vortex has on the material, that becomes involved as both the cause and effect, of this something that is a nothing(Paradoxical Vortex).

The great "nothing something" of paradoxical nature, that the "physical something" of "Aware" popped out of, is the "Paradox of Potential". And our Universe is inherent with this paradoxical potential.