The Evidence for and the Theory of Incompleteness

[melanie]

there's billions like you__thinking you're on the other side, or there is another side, when all there is__is this side of FS matter, motion and energy...

T-here is THIS only (sideless)

There is an appearance of sides, of which also appears in the sideless, as idea- where is the other side of your perceptual arena?

There's absolutely no evidence for the other side of foolishness__just this side of foolishness...

I'm Humpty Dumpty, who put his self__Back together, again...

An egg can make an omelette- but an omelette can't make an egg.

''' Only your sense I am though in the world, is not of the world.
By no effort of logic you can change the I am into I am not.
In the very denial of your being you assert it.
Once you realize that the world is your own projection, you are free of it.
You need not free yourself of a world that does not exist, except in your imagination.

The sense I am is composed of pure light and the sense of being.
The 'I' is there even without the 'am'.
So is the pure light there, whether you say 'I' or not.
Become aware of that pure light and you will never lose it.
The beingness in being, the awareness in consciousness, the interest in every experience that is not describable,
yet perfectly accessible, for there is nothing else. '''

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Or like Lloyd, you claim Humpty Dumpty cannot be put back together again immediately followed by stating you are the one who put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

I agree with all you say, but how would your words look if instead of using the galactic framework, you would use the universal framework for all the information you have? Remember, there is only one Now and there is only one Space, and neither are delineated onto themselves; they have characteristics that we are all familiar with, but there is no actual delineation. Had there been a galactic overall framework to the universe, there would be a clear delineation. There is no assembly at that level.

Fredrick, may I point out to you, that you are projecting your own 'Enframing' onto others minds, by forcing an undue respect for your own pre-supposed and pre-designed framework__This is esthetically displeasing to others minds. You can state your views freely, but the overall esthetics of ideas must be left free to roam, as our esthetic natures are all background independent, in the free play of our ideas, and others' and nature's freely given states of input... This is the central core of the mechanics of esthetics, free-will, responsibility and the liberty of all of us, to others__and the respect of ourselves to nature... 'Enframing' is the disease society has suffered from, called the 'soft-fascism of liberalism', for the last 200 years__it should be avoided, though I am often guilty of it myself...

There is no 'assembly' at the universal level required, as it's already assembled as an entire Universal continuum, by all our conbinatoric knowledge of it so far__Why would you think it's not...? We are possibly living in and on the decaying side of its prior formation, and the known decaying side of our galactic and solar systems__Cosmological science already knows this, and the quantum science already offered by this very forum has already filled in the best possible quantum universal formation theory, though this is far from any, more than likely, impossible ToE... So, all I see again, is your 'Enframing Style' is simply entering logical inconsistency, where none truly exists... You seem to be implying the Universe is not, what others know it already is, and are offering no proof of such statements, ideas, theories or whatever. Even theories require logical consistency, to stand...

"Do we see, what we do not see...? No, it's a contradiction of the existing, the possible, the probable and the necessary__thus, to state so, is a logical contradiction of the principle of consistency, and not allowed in any truth statements__as they are impossible to truth consistency..."

'Enframing' What Can Not Be Framed is Ideologies' Sin__Also Religions', and much of Science's__Any True ToE Must Have Background-Intependent Freedom__A Quantum Necessity, especially since none of us can fully know the unknown, and unknowable...'

[austintorn@aol.com]

The Clarity of Existence series continues:

Our Finite Existence

We are suspended here
In our finite realm,
Where we must be—
In a balance of
Infinite largeness
And infinite smallness.

Of course, we have knowledge
Of the ever increasing vastness
And dispersion of the very large—
It all going away, in a sense,
As well as
The ever decreasing compactness
Of the very small,
It, too, seeming to vanish;

Yet, we can neither see nor live
At either of these extremes
Because both of those paths lead
To very much the same state,
Which is well away from existence,
Going towards nonexistence,
Nothingness, even,
For there is only that
One alternative to existence—
The lack of anything.

So, it is, that,
Due to the one limiting case of the non,
The large is the same as the small—
The same vacant truth
On both ends of the size scale.

There is no ceiling to the universe,
And, just as importantly,
There is no floor.

The infinitely large and vast
Is too large to observe
And the infinitely small and compact
Is just as inaccessible.

Our finite existence lies suspended—
Well above the microscopic world
Of the infinitely small
And well below the immensity
Of the infinitely large.

What keeps us hanging there?

Why does our reality not shrink
Into a single point?

Why this location
On the cosmic size scale?

It is because
We are the singularity of existence,
Perched here between
The infinitely large and small,
The only place we can be,
Halfway between
Infinite largeness and infinite smallness
Because they are the same thing.

It’s no wonder, then,
Why zero and infinity
Cause some of the same problems in math,
For they are two different viewpoints
Of the same thing…

And so, too, is this always reflected
In the problems that particle physicists
Have in trying to find a connection
Between the macro and micro universe.

Well, we have already come far
In this essay,
Even to the end, in a way,
If you have absorbed these ideas
To see where we have gone,
But, the explanations will continue.

[Fredrick]

We will get to that, but first…

…to shore up the groundwork so far…


Noether’s First Theorem

First proved in 1915 and published in 1918,
Amalie Emmy Noether’s First Theorem
Gives a profound connection
Between continuous symmetries
And conservation laws
For certain classes of theories.

The familiar consequences of Noether’s Theorem
Are that space translational symmetry
Gives us conservation of momentum,
Rotational symmetry gives us conservation
Of angular momentum,
Time translational symmetry gives us
Conservation of energy, etc.

More carefully,
Noether proved that a physical system
Described by a Lagrangian invariant
With respect to the symmetry transformations
Of a Lie group, has,
In the case of a group with a finite number
Of independent infinitesimal generators,
A conservation law for each such generator.
(These, luckily, are what are used in physics)

If we have the case of a countably infinite number
Of independent infinitesimal generators,
We still arrive at certain, profound, dependencies.

And at the galactic level (and below) that is correct.

[Fredrick]

Unbounded Space:
The Large and the Small

There can be no boundaries to space
Because a boundary is a quantity—
And a quantity, as seen, is existence.

Space is unbounded,
Although we will later see
That it is closed in a way
Much more profound than its size.

The universes’s size
Is the largest possible
Quantity of existence
And is fixed throughout time,
Having the same volume today
As it had yesterday
And will tomorrow.
(A necessary symmetry)

So, too, must it be flat
And shapeless.
(More symmetry)

While from the standpoint
Of symmetry in three spacial dimensions
The totality of the universe is cubic,
The universe cannot be the shape of a cube as such
Because it has no boundary…

And the same for an infinitely small “point”:
It, too, must have no form since
That is a consequence of infinite smallness.

All the way correct but to the infinite smallness. The actual consequence of infinite smallness is that an entity is not capable to reach infinite smallness. Said differently, there is no infinite smallness except for the abstract that we can conjure in our minds. Reality deals with the infinite smallness quite swiftly, Austin. Before reaching anything close to infinity, all matter has been swept off their feet by reality. Nothing, nada, niente and niksniet can continuously move towards smallness, but the human mind.

[Fredrick]

"The Age of The World Picture"

I accept unity through the universal beauty of nature's ways, Fredrick__By way of the aesthetic/esthetic distinction, or the science of our senses and feelings... This was discovered and popularized in Germany from the early 1800's to the early 20th century, at least the modern version of esthetics deep understanding of nature's true mechanics of beauty and values__until the two world wars put a crimp in people listening to what the Germans had to say. This has been a big mistake in the modern world, by the way of losing track of our nature's most important central mechanics of the esthetic enjoyment and knowledge of our nature's most important and deep mechanics and values operations...

Here's a small example of what I speak:

"To abandon the utopian impulse in thinking is to imprison ourselves within the world as it is and to give up once and for all the prospect that another world is possible, however small, fleeting and compromised such a world might be. In the political circumstances that presently surround us in the West, to abandon the utopian impulse in political thinking is to resign oneself to liberal democracy which, as we showed above, is the rule of the rule, the reign of law which renders impotent anything that would break with law: the miraculous, the moment of the event, the break with the situation in the name of the common."

This isn't something we learn, it's what we are all about__at our deepest understanding of our own epistemic mechanics, at the level quantum nature has a hand in our everyday functions... Seeing this deep esthetic level of nature within us, allows us to see the quantum functions, of not only ourselves__but QM's greater functions of the entire unified continuum of our Universe... This, imo, was and is why such geniuses as Laotzsu and Heraclitus, among hundreds of other ancient greats are so important... Imo, when we know the quantum mechanics of our own deepest levels of function, we know the functions of the entire Universe__as they be identical, with the slight bio-conplications of quantum states' human, and other bio-natures', interactions... The estheticians from the 1800's to the present day, have described this best, as there's, imo, more quantum truth in these estheticians, than in all the quantum mechanicists, in the same period__as the quantum mechanics becomes self-evident by studying the estheticians, as the best ones were all logicians and mathematicians__many being autodidactic polymaths, as well...

Btw, survival of the Pyramidal Communities, was achieved by the protective overwhelming sublime beauty and power projection of their city's fortresses of esthetics__the physical objects of beauty's true mental, subjective and objective powers...

"No higher state of mind can be reached, than the sublime esthetic beauty of it all..."

Btw Fredrick, if you wish to see a full explanation of the "no-thing" states of mind, just read Heidegger's aesthetics__it's one of his central premises... "The 'no-thing' that isn't 'no-thing', yet leads to everything..." The title, 'The Age of The World Picture' is Heidegger's... (P.s.; Sounds like you already may have, and would I be guessing correct that you are German...?)

I still prefer the 'state of unknowing...', as it's more recognized and accepted by more people, and since my ideas and writings are always geared to a future general audience, when I publish__I prefer it due to this fact, also...

I am originally from the Netherlands, Lloyd. My last name used to be a lake north of Amsterdam ('mer' or 'meer' refers to different kinds of water in various European languages), but the lake was reclaimed in the 17th century. If I understand the name correctly, it meant either flat lake or choppy lake (or both). I was born on the island of IJsselmonde in suburban Rotterdam.

Once you know the nature of nothing, then all falls into place. Yet communicating about it is one of the most difficult tasks. It almost automatically requires one to communicate about everything, or about the boundaries of all things.

It is good to have this mentioned, Lloyd, that you accept unity through the "universal beauty of nature's way." I like how you write that. And all the way up to the galactic level, I agree with you: unity is a force to be reckoned with and fortunately for all of us unity will succeed wherever it can.

But at the universal level, we disagree. Good for us that we are probably only disagreeing at this level, or better said we are only disagreeing about anything of significance in the big picture of it all at the universal level. You have made your choice, and I view that as indeed your choice. And I need you to make that choice, otherwise we would end up with a single agreement, and that would undermine the ToE in which differences (not many perse, but at least one difference) play their role. At the largest level (but not below) we disagree.

Thank you, Lloyd. A pleasure communicating with you.

[Fredrick]

Fredrick, may I point out to you, that you are projecting your own 'Enframing' onto others minds, by forcing an undue respect for your own pre-supposed and pre-designed framework__This is esthetically displeasing to others minds. You can state your views freely, but the overall esthetics of ideas must be left free to roam, as our esthetic natures are all background independent, in the free play of our ideas, and others' and nature's freely given states of input... This is the central core of the mechanics of esthetics, free-will, responsibility and the liberty of all of us, to others__and the respect of ourselves to nature... 'Enframing' is the disease society has suffered from, called the 'soft-fascism of liberalism', for the last 200 years__it should be avoided, though I am often guilty of it myself...

There is no 'assembly' at the universal level required, as it's already assembled as an entire Universal continuum, by all our conbinatoric knowledge of it so far__Why would you think it's not...? We are possibly living in and on the decaying side of its prior formation, and the known decaying side of our galactic and solar systems__Cosmological science already knows this, and the quantum science already offered by this very forum has already filled in the best possible quantum universal formation theory, though this is far from any, more than likely, impossible ToE... So, all I see again, is your 'Enframing Style' is simply entering logical inconsistency, where none truly exists... You seem to be implying the Universe is not, what others know it already is, and are offering no proof of such statements, ideas, theories or whatever. Even theories require logical consistency, to stand...

"Do we see, what we do not see...? No, it's a contradiction of the existing, the possible, the probable and the necessary__thus, to state so, is a logical contradiction of the principle of consistency, and not allowed in any truth statements__as they are impossible to truth consistency..."

'Enframing' What Can Not Be Framed is Ideologies' Sin__Also Religions', and much of Science's__Any True ToE Must Have Background-Intependent Freedom__A Quantum Necessity, especially since none of us can fully know the unknown, and unknowable...'

A nice reply, Lloyd. And as often in our communications we communicate in the fascinating manner of disagreement, while at the heart of our words there is a lot of agreement. Yet we do have this one disagreement about the overall framework. Your choice is to see it as a unity, mine is that unity plays an important role, but has as a second position the neutral next to it. Two positions, not one. And that means unity is a goal that is being held high by everything in the universe. But the goal is not reached, it is not the status quo.

[Fredrick]

The Clarity of Existence series continues:

Our Finite Existence

We are suspended here
In our finite realm,
Where we must be—
In a balance of
Infinite largeness
And infinite smallness.

Of course, we have knowledge
Of the ever increasing vastness
And dispersion of the very large—
It all going away, in a sense,
As well as
The ever decreasing compactness
Of the very small,
It, too, seeming to vanish;

Yet, we can neither see nor live
At either of these extremes
Because both of those paths lead
To very much the same state,
Which is well away from existence,
Going towards nonexistence,
Nothingness, even,
For there is only that
One alternative to existence—
The lack of anything.

So, it is, that,
Due to the one limiting case of the non,
The large is the same as the small—
The same vacant truth
On both ends of the size scale.

There is no ceiling to the universe,
And, just as importantly,
There is no floor.

The infinitely large and vast
Is too large to observe
And the infinitely small and compact
Is just as inaccessible.

Our finite existence lies suspended—
Well above the microscopic world
Of the infinitely small
And well below the immensity
Of the infinitely large.

What keeps us hanging there?

Why does our reality not shrink
Into a single point?

Why this location
On the cosmic size scale?

It is because
We are the singularity of existence,
Perched here between
The infinitely large and small,
The only place we can be,
Halfway between
Infinite largeness and infinite smallness
Because they are the same thing.

It’s no wonder, then,
Why zero and infinity
Cause some of the same problems in math,
For they are two different viewpoints
Of the same thing…

And so, too, is this always reflected
In the problems that particle physicists
Have in trying to find a connection
Between the macro and micro universe.

Well, we have already come far
In this essay,
Even to the end, in a way,
If you have absorbed these ideas
To see where we have gone,
But, the explanations will continue.

Well said, Austin. But just to be the spoiler: there is a floor, and it is built from matter. Where the infinite smallness fails to continue, that's where we have the floor. But I agree everywhere else with you. It is not worthy to live at that level where infinite smallness gone awry, so matter gets built-up to the level where we find the states we are accustomed to.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

A nice reply, Lloyd. And as often in our communications we communicate in the fascinating manner of disagreement, while at the heart of our words there is a lot of agreement. Yet we do have this one disagreement about the overall framework. Your choice is to see it as a unity, mine is that unity plays an important role, but has as a second position the neutral next to it. Two positions, not one. And that means unity is a goal that is being held high by everything in the universe. But the goal is not reached, it is not the status quo.

Fredrick, no neutrality can truly exist in the four forces of Nature__We, as humans, merely pretend to be neutral, at any given time and state__to keep the peace, yet in the back of our minds, always know these positions to always be tentative__and ever changing... Were there to be a true neutral position, the quantum universe would have a 'frozen in time' absolute disruption in the absolutely necessary flow of information__Even black holes must decay over time, thus releasing all their previously stored information__The knots always Untie__Even at the center of any near infinitesimals... Locked neutrality motions can never hold to eternity__Only actual motion of change exists at the limits__The ever-changing and changeling Tao...

You see, you believe in 'Framework' at the Universal level__and, I don't think there can be any 'framework' at the Universal level__as that would far too far restrict the Universe's freedom of necessary motion, to fuel this Universal engine... Freedom, within freedom is the central Universal mechanics__to me... At the Universal level, only freedom restricts freedom__as always, it's a self-functioning, self-boot-strapping Universe of necessary infinite eternal motion of matter, producing energy__to me... "Only the Universe's Freedom of Freedom, Restricts Freedom"__I like that, as that gives the Universe complete background independence of matter, motion and energy... And, that ain't neutrality__It's freedom producing just a/the tentative passing state/s__of seemed neutrality, at all macro states, as well as all micro states__'The Quantum Freedom Rules__Even If At Random...', to produce what we view as passing uniform states of organized matter and thoughts...

Remember Fredrick, the status-quo__of the problem__is the problem...

"Our freedom, and others' freedom, meet in civil discourse__to produce what we know, as liberty__our highest ideal, real state..."

"The quantum mechanics of the Universe be identical__at limits, large and small..."

[austintorn@aol.com]

Our Self-Referencing Existence
And its “Vanishing”

Our reality is self-referencing,
For we have lengths of varying finite sizes,
Giving a clear order to the sizes of things,
Except for the infinite extremes;
However, this is because finite size
Is the only size available
For us to measure,
Mired, as we are and must be,
At the midpoint
Of the existential scale.

With no ceiling and no floor
We are a mean between
Nothing and everything,
Each having no real information content.

We are a Nothing
Compared to the Infinite,
Although we are an All
In comparison with the Nothing;
Yet, All and Nothing
Are synonymous perspectives
Of the same thing;
For nothingness is the only form
That the completeness of symmetry can take—
The only place to go from finiteness,
The only place to go from existence.

All that a point in space
Has going for it is
Its position relative
To other points;
For it has
No intrinsic
Properties.

From the “outside”
All existence vanishes,
Like the grin
On the
Cat.

A superposition of
Any number of points
At the same position
Is indistinguishable from a single point;
Thus, the multitude is the same as the one.

There can be no
Beginnings or ends
To the universe
In the eternally infinite
And perfect symmetry.

We exist in this everlasting universe
In the finite middle of nowhere
Between the two infinities—
In the reality set upon the stage of forever,
On the knife edge of the infinite balance.