"Within "Infinity for Eternity" a "Paradox of Potential popped Aware"

[PoPpAScience]

Hi Allen, thought I'd drop a few notes to see what you think, as relates to your ideas of space and time. First let me define my symbol, in case you may have missed it over at my threads: / | \ is my logic symbol for 'not same, yet related'. So here goes:

Space / | \ Space = Discrete / | \ Open
Time / | \ Time = Progression / | \ Occurrence
Occurence / | \ Occurrence = Conceptual / | \ Non-Conceptual

Does that help or hurt your positions?

Hi Lloyd, I have been contemplating on what you wrote here for days, and what you wrote in other threads trying to see where you are coming from with your post. Sorry Lloyd, I could not come to an understanding. Explain further please.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Lloyd, I have been contemplating on what you wrote here for days, and what you wrote in other threads trying to see where you are coming from with your post. Sorry Lloyd, I could not come to an understanding. Explain further please.

I was just simplyfing things a bit. There's discrete space_Point. There's open space_Field. There's time as progression_Motion. There's time as occurence_Precise point of motion. I.E., the first Time would be flowing, and the second Time would or could be stopped, as in a car crash. Conceptual occurence is all those ideas, objects, etc., we can conceptualize. Non-conceptual occurence are those moments like Happy, we can not conceptualize. We may conceptualize the attributes/actions of Happy, but never the pure state...

That's all, I was just offering the simple logic symbol to create clear distinctions between discrete states easier for ya...

I didn't mean to confuse you Allen, just the opposite...

Hope that helps,
Lloyd

[PoPpAScience]

Lloyd I see where you where coming from now, I think. There was no confusion, just miss understanding, I think.

You are giving a philosophical flavor to my explanation of "Infinity for Eternity in Motion". If I understand, you are saying there is a duality to space, time and thinking. I would agree with Conceptual occurrence, but these days I see Space and Time in a different light.

See if I can, of the top of my head, give a response to your post from my perspective at this point in time and space.

Space and Time are strictly human concepts of "Infinity for Eternity in Motion" in their local area of existence(Universe).

Space is, where a human points to in Infinity.

Time is, a recollection of that point in space, in the past.

Sorry Lloyd, I no longer see FS as discrete points in a Field. I see FS as only one Thing that can be compressed and thinned. Or a better word, Attenuated.

Now this is only my perception of what could be the womb in which our Universe evolves in. When it comes to conceptual thoughts, the I contemplate about the possibility that there is a "Fundamental essence to Motion" that I like to call "Aware", that is evolving through "Complex Motion".

This is why I am enjoying your postings on the "Middle Way" of looking at "Conceptual Thought" and "Free Will".

This IMHO at this time and space.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Sorry Lloyd, I no longer see FS as discrete points in a Field. I see FS as only one Thing that can be compressed and thinned. Or a better word, Attenuated.

"Fundamental essence to Motion" that I like to call "Aware", that is evolving through "Complex Motion".

This is why I am enjoying your postings on the "Middle Way" of looking at "Conceptual Thought" and "Free Will".

This IMHO at this time and space.

Allen, in you statement above regarding FS, what would be the difference here? That's exactly as David, Tim and I, amongst others, have described it...? No...? Attenuated -> Condensed...? No...? Isn't the sun a big point in a field, or many fields, especially if theoretically looked at, at infinite distance...? It may just all be no more than perspective...? No...?

As far as "FE in motion"...? What's the difference, except Terms/Names/Info/Data, as we scientists/hacks/humanists can not yet know the substance of a photon/wave anyway...? "What's a photon made of", as per my post here: http://www.toequest.com/forum/logic-reasoning/4690-east-meets-west-logic-2.html#post96226 as I think you've already seen...?

None of us know if a photon is aware/alive/dead or not. I personally don't think so, but I can't prove it, and no-one can prove the other side, either__Yet_but we think were alive, and there's the puzzle between innanimate and annimate. I only know it's the energy carrying particle/wave/boson, and can act both kinetically and thermodynamically__Beyond that__'Ya gut me...' But the whole idea does raise the further question__'Is bio-life alive/dead'...? We know it's aware, I guess, but the larger question alive/dead is still open to even many famous scientists_but then we're spinning in circles... It may stay an open question...? When looked at deeply__Are we photonic, etc., machines...? Many are asking these questions, and many are afraid to even contemplate this deep... Oh well... It may come down to free will's choice here... We may opt for the "Death of Physics" as Hawking has contemplated... Who knows...? We all await the Hadron...?

Anyway, I enjoy the ride... Have fun...

Photon / | \ Photon = Kinetic / | \ Thermodynamic

Them gamma photons are really hot, especially strontium_I worked in the nuclear industry_Live nuke plants...

BTW, I do believe in "Infinity for Eternity" myself, but it's my un-provable belief, only, and ya know what that's worth...

[PoPpAScience]

Lloyd just for the record I'm a philosopher and not a scientist. I enjoy taking all the knowledge I can get my hands on and contemplating about it. I deliberately try to push my Mind to think beyond the norm, where others are afraid to go. My views are based this way and can not be proven. BUT! Many a theories start from just philosophical thoughts. I.E. Big Bang theory.

Now there is a difference in the way I see things, and the main stream science see it. They except Void or vacuum as an entity. This means they except something(FS) in a Nothing(vacuum). I rather look at there never being a Nothing or ever being a Nothing, just everything. Right now I am trying to push my mind to visualise a FS that is indivisible and attuatable.

I do agree that no one knows for sure what FS is made of and thus leaves all science just like philosophy, Conclusions based on experimental thought. I do believe the photon is the carrier of information and the life force that dictates Evolution. I believe that all so called particles are condensed FS in Motion, but never separated or individualized from "Infinity or Eternity". Thus no void or boundary to be found.

Your belief is worth a lot!!! Because, it makes more sense then 'something from nothing' or 'something in nothing'. The only thing to contemplate is, if "Infinity for Eternity" can operated from a one thing aspect without individual points?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Allen and thanks for the support. I don't see much different in your views or mine. Some three or four years ago I posted about not knowing if it's a big bang universe, or a many small bangs universe forever continuing, on and on and on. I still hold that view__I don't know, and don't have any way of knowing. To me the CMBR could just as easily be more galaxies to the trillions, and the most distant galaxies with the high velocity accelerations away from us could be, as many cosmologists have surmized, just that ol' tired light theory__there's a lot of em waves between us and them 'thar' distant galaxies we see with Hubble, that may cause extremely weak inteference_enough to slow distant light, and the red shift make us think the velocities are true_I don't know...? I think they still need more evidence, and how they'd get that is beyond me, and I think beyond science's ability.

Also, the place I have trouble with David's theory is the fixed amount of absolute motion, as that requires a boundary. Einstein believed in an unbounded finity, but both Dave's and Einstein's ideas put the initial conditions at an infinitely small point, when one truly and fully mathematically theorizes them out, and I do not accept that as provable either, so that leaves me with an unbounded finity to infinity, yet different than your position, as I see this required by Hawking theoretical, yet mathematical, total finity decay mechanics of 10^137 years, as leaving a universe filled with infinitesimals of photons, and not unitable into a 'oneness', but just the potentia for another universal re-cycling. It's just supposition, but I see no need for the 'oneness', as that simply complicates logic beyond comprehensibility, 'iffa ya know whatta I meen...'

So in my opinion, we're all left with a bunch o' models none of us can prove. And further, I see no void no-where, as that is just another complication and impossibility of proving. I know David states his absolute finite quantity of motion must be so, for the laws of physics to be true, but if one considers the thinnest densities of em wave space, upon a theoretical decay of total finity, then the wave motion being so thinned would reduce the temperature to as close to absolute zero as possible, which would self-create a hydro-dynamic force on such a thin density of infinitesimals of photons, quarks, gluons, etc., that a re-formation of a center would be on its reverse journey of Hawking's theoretical 10^137 years in reverse.

It's only conjecture, but the most plausible to me... Then of course is the question of void which I do not accept, as one of these em wave/particles is absolutely required to make up fundamental space, and if space be made of em wave/particles in here where we know it is, then why not all the way to infinity? I see no reason for the boundary under the entire symmetry of all the laws of physics and thermodynamics, as the hydrodynamic effect would create the infinite container of infinity, but that's only my theorizing. For what it's worth__Nothing...

So, in summary, no void, no nothing anywhere, and no oneness, except the one infinite universe of infinitesimals and their condensation into the ball we live on, and the rest of our visible and invisible solar, galaxy, galaxies, etc. systems, etc., on and on forever...

These questions are still open, though, IMO, DaveW is correct, as far as the sensible part of his quantum wave mechanics is concerned. It's just when we get way out there, we've no possible verification process__just theory...

As to this statement of yours: "I believe that all so called particles are condensed FS in Motion, but never separated or individualized...", there is no true separation, as it's like a Venn diagram, all is always over-lapped by em-waves_and in two directions_in and out waves, and I use the formula X/X=1+IEE, or any object divided to the theoretical infinitesimals, can still be represented by that same 1 object plus all its isomorphic extentions and entanglements, to eternity, if you will, and even back, but we still, for practical language purposes, describe and define with a necessary fixed language, or we couldn't talk and understand, and that's the common universal grammar, basically formed by nature__A tree is a tree, a frog is a frog, a house is a house, etc., on and on almost forever... That may be different than your views, but it's the way I see it...

Lloyd just for the record I'm a philosopher and not a scientist. I enjoy taking all the knowledge I can get my hands on and contemplating about it. I deliberately try to push my Mind to think beyond the norm, where others are afraid to go. My views are based this way and can not be proven. BUT! Many a theories start from just philosophical thoughts. I.E. Big Bang theory.

Now there is a difference in the way I see things, and the main stream science see it. They except Void or vacuum as an entity. This means they except something(FS) in a Nothing(vacuum). I rather look at there never being a Nothing or ever being a Nothing, just everything. Right now I am trying to push my mind to visualise a FS that is indivisible and attuatable.

I do agree that no one knows for sure what FS is made of and thus leaves all science just like philosophy, Conclusions based on experimental thought. I do believe the photon is the carrier of information and the life force that dictates Evolution. I believe that all so called particles are condensed FS in Motion, but never separated or individualized from "Infinity or Eternity". Thus no void or boundary to be found.

Your belief is worth a lot!!! Because, it makes more sense then 'something from nothing' or 'something in nothing'. The only thing to contemplate is, if "Infinity for Eternity" can operated from a one thing aspect without individual points?