The Evidence for and the Theory of Incompleteness

[Fredrick]

Is there a reason that you did not select a tetrahedron as your model, Fredrick? It would seem a more encompassing model to me.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahedron

That is an excellent question, Labelwench. I am reminded of schoolchildren, learning to count to ten, wondering where that number 3 was coming from. Some kids seem to understand the logic of 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 really easily, but have no idea why that 3 comes into play.

To share my meditations on 3 with you: this number can only come about when the whole has come about; there is no independent 3. One can find three as part of a row (the earth is the third planet from the sun), and one can find it in the stages of frozen, fluid, and gas, and in the primary colors (red, yellow, blue — but think of black and white as the spoiler, or red, green, blue for the 3 colors of light as source), or with the three universal laws of motion Newton pronounced first. Yet I cannot find 3 in any manner that together as a whole contain 3 parts of an equal nature (three one-thirds).

Allow me to state the same differently. We have even and we have uneven numbers. There are no other numbers, with as single exception the neutral number (zero). Combining these characteristics of numbers, we then have two categories. Allow me to first state here that that is the simplest basic state: 2. The pyramid's base is the AA, AB, BA, BB outcome (2 x 2) culminating in the abstract single top (1 x 1).

Still, you can ask if we should add the neutral number here as well in its own category. That is possible of course and we would then have three categories indeed. But in as far as results are concerned, there is nothing to add. To clarify this, we can then indeed add the neutral to the set of two.

I am mentioning this, because this third category is the freedom allowing us to do more than just stick with the two categories. In effect, we can add up the categories (2 + 1 + 0) and end up with 3. Please notice that we have now moved beyond the pyramid of AA, AB, BA, and BB and have instead gone to a tetrahedron of A, B and 1.

In an example, we can use the regular pyramid for father, mother, daughter, and son, while we would use the tetrahedron for mother, father, and child. Combined, each of these abstract constructions still point to the same single unit of 'family' in top — an abstract word that we all understand perfectly well without our having to think about it. The true oppositional word to 'child' should be 'parent' and we would have our normal 2-structure here (parent, child), but somehow we consider it correct when we hear "mother and child". It may be something of the old days when people agreed that kids can be swept up a heap, collectively refered to just as kids, while specifically mentioning the important roles mothers and fathers play and calling them out separately. In ordinary language, that is all just fine. But in the abstract, a faux-pas has been made of adding an apple to two oranges to come to three. Interestingly, adding up 1 + 2 + 0 = 3, and we have used three parts (of an inequal nature). I think this makes us believe the answer is correct (because three parts indeed add up to three), but this support is not of the cleanest kind.

Using a tetrahedron is fine, but we need to understand it contains a minor flaw.

If you can think of anything that adds up to three, and you consider all three parts each other's equal, and can use a single abstract word that points to just these three parts, players, or aspects, please let me know.

[labelwench]

The understanding of three-dimensional space in humans is thought to be learned during infancy using unconscious inference, and is closely related to hand-eye coordination. The visual ability to perceive the world in three dimensions is called depth perception.

The dimensions of our immediate surrounds add up to three, and I would consider them all of equal importance.

For those of Christian persuasion, I would expect someone to answer with The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost, the Trinity.

[Fredrick]

The dimensions of our immediate surrounds add up to three, and I would consider them all of equal importance.

For those of Christian persuasion, I would expect someone to answer with The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost, the Trinity.

Nice replies, Labelwench. The three dimensions, though not containing anything by themselves, are indeed three of a kind.

The Trinity, however, is definitively a not, but it is a great example of a tetrahedron: the Holy Ghost takes in the place where we should be seeing the mother and the daughter. In this example, the reality of people being spirited is set separately next to two males of the parent-child category. Whether there is a spirit before/next/after life is pointing to its own question. All that we know of, can know of, are the spirits within.

So, we have a new pyramid of spirits: within and without, before and after. (Amen.)

Thank you for the dimensions: the perfect but empty version of three.

As you know, I have an alternative to 3D (when D is seen as a field and not a direction, then one can write old-fashioned 3D(irection) as 2D(imensional field). A dimensional field is according to me the minimum possibility of having a singular dimension refer to something actual. You will see me admit to Pat's one dimension as possible, when considering a path (which is a plural condition within 3D).

[melanie]

The understanding of three-dimensional space in humans is thought to be learned during infancy using unconscious inference, and is closely related to hand-eye coordination. The visual ability to perceive the world in three dimensions is called depth perception.

Although no three dimensional world has ever been seen, it is only known, by the one that knows? = perception.

[SteveA]

That is an excellent question, Labelwench. I am reminded of schoolchildren, learning to count to ten, wondering where that number 3 was coming from. Some kids seem to understand the logic of 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 really easily, but have no idea why that 3 comes into play.

A tetrahedron has 4 corners and is symmetric (though not symmetric if we have a specific orientation in space). It depends on the context as to what might be the most appropriate description.

You comment here regarding powers of 2, as well as a specific form of uniqueness regarding 3 happened to match up very well with something I was even working on right now and it triggered a chain of ideas that go along with a reply I was trying to post earlier this morning (but didn't finish to satisfaction).

Anyway, I just wanted to thank you and other posters on the thread (as well as put this up as a reminder to myself to finish that earlier reply! )

Basically, the idea fits in to many things but overall, if we spiral through all the dimensions and then curl up this line into a point, we have the equivalent of a timeless singularity containing all times and spaces.

If we then invert this, the natural initial "motion" can be seen in dual form (an exterior view would be imaginary as nothing would exist outside this and hence it would truly exist as an unbounded and timeless space of all possible experiences, but it can be useful to construct correlations with it in the context of a point being replicated or unfolding in space - and it would be a fundamental quanta in this context).

But anyway, this natural initial motion can be seen in many contexts as a splitting/bifurcation/outward motion/compression between objects/mixing, but it's fundamentally the initial transition from a single timeless instance into a change that allows an initial dual contrast and possesses a new attribute of change/difference/contrast.

If we recursively apply this process we can either see it incrementing by 1, if we apply it to the "head" of this sequence or as bifurcating layers growing as powers of 2 (dividing cells). If we apply this slightly differently between 2 adjacent layers we get a Fibonacci/phi/golden mean structure. If we continually loop a linear growth back to the origin we get polygonal forms approaching a circle and there are ways of interpreting these as waveforms or sounds.

It's interesting to see correlations in this sequence with birth and life as well. Anyway, I'm still drifting a bit here, but yes, we could consider a quantity of 3 to be a secondarily derived "structure" and not the primary division into 2 and from there we would only have powers of 2 if we constantly remained on a bifurcating shell expanding outward, whereas 3 way symmetries require that we make a connection between two adjacent layers and this form of construction adds new characteristics of growth (we can either get Fibonnaci or (2^n)-1 (associated with Mersenne primes) forms).

There are characteristics of this as well that, depending upon which form of connections are spanned across these layers we can have effects much like reverberations to a sound (echoes within a fixed form).

Basically though it's a lot like how binary numbers are represented as powers of 2 and summed together to make numbers that are non-powers of 2. When this is done, the logarithms of these relatively prime components create irrational ratios and none of these spaces can be described precisely (unless we use approximations over a limit approaching infinity) by other spaces and I believe this is similar to how perceptions exist - no quantity of a visual experience would ever be able to precisely convey the quality of hearing a sound, though these disparate spaces are still linked via a common origin (which is not any specific perception but appears likely to be the lack of any perception - the mind appears to transition through such a state when connecting different perceptual forms together).

... hmmm ... yes, it's a lot of stuff to pack into a little post, and I appear to have a habit of "killing threads" with my posts as well , so I better stop, but thanks for the comments and ideas. Your comment there just "hit home" with what I happened to be working on that the moment too

Have fun,
Steve

[Fredrick]

Anyway, I just wanted to thank you and other posters on the thread (as well as put this up as a reminder to myself to finish that earlier reply! )

And thank you as well, Steve, your contributions are valuable and very much appreciated by me.

Basically, the idea fits in to many things but overall, if we spiral through all the dimensions and then curl up this line into a point, we have the equivalent of a timeless singularity containing all times and spaces.

Okay, but I forgot where the book of instructions is, so can you tell me how to curl a line into a point? Where the cube can be seen as a pyramid whose top was stretched, and where the pyramid can be seen as having a contracted spot in top from the cube, in no way does this confirm the existence of singularity. The pyramid has a single top, but one cannot show the top without also showing the base. The singularity is not based on the ground, but is in top, removed from the basics. It is a position only that can fit in in-between all positions, but that can never be thé only position.

Now, in the abstract, it is not difficult at all to create a single overall position. 'Universe', 'everything', 'we' — that is easy. Yet having a word that portrays the singular state and having something that is actually singular are two different things.

If we then invert this, the natural initial "motion" can be seen in dual form (an exterior view would be imaginary as nothing would exist outside this and hence it would truly exist as an unbounded and timeless space of all possible experiences, but it can be useful to construct correlations with it in the context of a point being replicated or unfolding in space - and it would be a fundamental quanta in this context).

But anyway, this natural initial motion can be seen in many contexts as a splitting/bifurcation/outward motion/compression between objects/mixing, but it's fundamentally the initial transition from a single timeless instance into a change that allows an initial dual contrast and possesses a new attribute of change/difference/contrast.

If we recursively apply this process we can either see it incrementing by 1, if we apply it to the "head" of this sequence or as bifurcating layers growing as powers of 2 (dividing cells). If we apply this slightly differently between 2 adjacent layers we get a Fibonacci/phi/golden mean structure. If we continually loop a linear growth back to the origin we get polygonal forms approaching a circle and there are ways of interpreting these as waveforms or sounds.

It's interesting to see correlations in this sequence with birth and life as well. Anyway, I'm still drifting a bit here, but yes, we could consider a quantity of 3 to be a secondarily derived "structure" and not the primary division into 2 and from there we would only have powers of 2 if we constantly remained on a bifurcating shell expanding outward, whereas 3 way symmetries require that we make a connection between two adjacent layers and this form of construction adds new characteristics of growth (we can either get Fibonnaci or (2^n)-1 (associated with Mersenne primes) forms).

There are characteristics of this as well that, depending upon which form of connections are spanned across these layers we can have effects much like reverberations to a sound (echoes within a fixed form).

Basically though it's a lot like how binary numbers are represented as powers of 2 and summed together to make numbers that are non-powers of 2. When this is done, the logarithms of these relatively prime components create irrational ratios and none of these spaces can be described precisely (unless we use approximations over a limit approaching infinity) by other spaces and I believe this is similar to how perceptions exist - no quantity of a visual experience would ever be able to precisely convey the quality of hearing a sound, though these disparate spaces are still linked via a common origin (which is not any specific perception but appears likely to be the lack of any perception - the mind appears to transition through such a state when connecting different perceptual forms together).

... hmmm ... yes, it's a lot of stuff to pack into a little post, and I appear to have a habit of "killing threads" with my posts as well , so I better stop, but thanks for the comments and ideas. Your comment there just "hit home" with what I happened to be working on that the moment too

Have fun,
Steve

I now understand why you created that transgression towards singularity, Steve, because it shows the reality of everything being self-based. And while self-based excludes singularity at the overall level, when everything is self-based, then this can be seen as universal nevertheless. So, I am quite happy with your post, Steve.

I myself was moving towards the beginning of our universe. Unlike Lloyd and others, I follow the concept in which our material reality has come from a different state. When viewing E, M, and C in Einstein's equation, then I'd see only E as the possible source for matter to occur. So, I start out with a further not explained existence of E in the pre-Big Bang state.

In order to get from there to materialization, one should require a mechanism of transgression. The previous state must have been a sustainable state by itself, yet motion of some kind was possible. I envision some kind of Borg state, but then of a nicer kind with more freedom. In this state something had to go wrong to make a move towards materialization possible.

Only when the internal conflict of the moment is high enough can one transgress (or push others for them to transgress) to materialization. A conflict means there are two sides, but there cannot be an obvious flaw on either side. If there is an obvious flaw, then it would have been discovered and both sides in the conflict would have made peace.

So, the tetrahedron Labelwench provided is the perfect tool to show how a minor flaw can be hidden from sight and lead to two overall positions by different sides claiming to be the one that is right (and therefore correct in positioning themselves in a self-based state). The claim to be correct can then be seen at the beginning of the pre-Big Bang's end.

If you read my words correctly, then you see that I do have one assumption: that the pre-Big Bang state contains a consciousness, but which is not a consciousness of the divine kind, at least, it is capable of being flawed.

But it is not just the tetrahedron that contains the flaw. If we have 2 as the basic reality, then 1 would be the flaw (the top of the pyramid is and will always be a contentious place: a tip in top, or flat, or truncated). And yet, that position is taken in by anything self-based (considering oneself to be #1). So, we have the pyramid, and yet the validity of the pyramid is that it points to the flaw.

I can also envision the pre-Big Bang containing a moment when a mistake was made, and if all was Borg-like, then fingerpointing to the source would have been replicated by the entire Borg community. This would lead to automatic flaws, since the force of any collective fingerpointing would be so much larger than the actual flaw (reactions would be disproportionate to the single action that was a mistake). The reactions would also all be doing something singular, because the mistake was singular, and the Borg-entity is a collective, so that would also mean that the collective fingerpointing to an internal mistake is a mistake at the overall level.

Anyways, that is just a story. But, because we are on this side of materialization, we now have two abstract visuals representing the whole: the cube (with its ever-changing ground base) and the pyramid (totally sturdy sitting on the ground). The question which one represents the ToE depends then on the question itself. And the question is asking for the abstract that shows where the singular position is located. The word 'everything' is singular, so the ToE is asking us about something singular. So, the cube, more perfect as it is, is not the answer to the question; the pyramid is. And yet, to get the full answer about everything, we need both the pyramid and the cube to be shown/known for what they can represent. The flaw must be exposed, simple as it was to not give it any attention. And sure, I have not known anything or anyone without flaws.

And don't worry about killing this thread; it will taper off all by itself at one point in time. My goal for this thread was and is to show how incompleteness takes place within the whole and is therefore of the whole, and I feel I have succeeded that already (some would state it was like kicking a door in that was open already; and that would be fine with me).

[SteveA]

And thank you as well, Steve, your contributions are valuable and very much appreciated by me.

Well, thank you. Though when/if you get tired of me, just drop a couple hints

Okay, but I forgot where the book of instructions is, so can you tell me how to curl a line into a point?

Maybe "stacking" line segments would be a clearer discription. As an analogy, if we described a timeline in term of events that are believed to have occured, similar to counting a sequence 1,2,3,4,5,...n we can describe the common "unit" across all of these as the constant "motion"/change of +1.

Absolute truths are timeless and unchanging. Falsehoods exist only in contrast to truths. A bent object is only known to be bent because there exists a reference that is straight. Bends can come and go and bending can be perpetual because there always remains a truth that is not bent.

What can be learned to be is not inherently an absolute truth as it can be a construction, that can altered or changed, though the ability to make these changes is not itself subject to its own alterations.

As an analogy, we can perceive day changing into night and visa versa but the capability to see these changes isn't something that either day or night determines.

We can find the links back to the timeless "origin" in this manner by looking at what determines changes and alterations in things over ... time, and that's basically it right there - time is the source of change, and absolute logic (inherently timeless) is the reference by which everything else is measured and seen to be different. Absolute logic is never conflicted or incompatible with itself - it simply is. It neither creates nor destroys but is the common measure across experience by which illogic, conflict, incompatibility and change are perceivable.

Because logic is never altered and neither creates nor destroys, it must be a preexisting structure. That's a "quantum unit", in a fundamental sense. It allows for wave functions to be constructed, though it could not create a transient photon. A photon must persist. Creation is a relative measure - a thing that is created is not something that already exists (creating something that already exists is not a creation) and in order to witness a specific thing as transient, a non-transient reference needs to preexist, hence logic must already contain the components by which a created thing, observed as "different" in any sense, could be known.

Logic can't derive an explanation of its own existence as it cannot derive anything outside itself. If a logical explanation for itself exists, it would be a similarly timeless fact, though there would appear to be no need for such an explanation to exist, just as there is no need to visually search for a source of sight - the act is the fact and needs no causal origin.

Logically, time is deterministic and a straight line. Perceptions and knowledge etc. do not see the entirety of this and this line becomes compressed into a smaller perceptual space. This creates bends and distortions, masking the information via. superpositions that make objects appear to reintersect where they have been, but they're fundamentally within a new context within the whole (which is not visible). These bends create the appearance of acceleration (gravity) and interaction, though things are fundamentally moving synchronously and in parallel - but space is fundamentally "flat" and photons 'magically' know how to follow the shortest path in spacetime (which is a straight line)

Where the cube can be seen as a pyramid whose top was stretched, and where the pyramid can be seen as having a contracted spot in top from the cube, in no way does this confirm the existence of singularity.

How do you maintain a specific orientation to the pyramid? There must be a preferential and asymmetric manner that you orient this pyramid in space such that you can distinguish between the vertices, otherwise it would collapse into a indistinguishable singularity.

It's unavoidable - you need asymmetry and a causal chain in order that specific things can exist.

The pyramid has a single top, but one cannot show the top without also showing the base.

Then the entire pyramid is a singularity.

The singularity is not based on the ground, but is in top, removed from the basics. It is a position only that can fit in in-between all positions, but that can never be thé only position.

You're referring now to the singularity that constructed every point within the pyramid.

Now, in the abstract, it is not difficult at all to create a single overall position. 'Universe', 'everything', 'we' — that is easy. Yet having a word that portrays the singular state and having something that is actually singular are two different things.

I agree. There is no way, unless maybe if we had an "infinite" time that we could see all of a singularity Anything constructable within time is something that changes and not an absolute truth. Absolute truths are the inexpressible compliments (the silohuette).

I now understand why you created that transgression towards singularity, Steve, because it shows the reality of everything being self-based. And while self-based excludes singularity at the overall level, when everything is self-based, then this can be seen as universal nevertheless. So, I am quite happy with your post, Steve.

Yes, it appears unavoidable. Any direction or manner of description in trying to describe "everything" comes out the same. If we say that, for example, everything is predetermined and oneself is a robot, then that similar chain of causation also says that the universe was predestined to be as it is now ... so that you could, for example, move an arm or chat about the rest etc.

If we go the other route and say that we can't see reality, but only experience a limited subjective perspective, then once again, that "containment" by a single concept means that concept contains everything (and in that case we can say that all the irrelevant stuff is objective because it doesn't apply to anything that a "subjective" description or experience or awareness etc. could interact with).

In physics, the attempt has been to say that light speed is the maximum velocity of anything, but this would mean that space would "fall apart" as this would create a delay in communication between motions, and these could not remain corrdinated - one end of the universe would evolve independently from the other and events would have no comparable rates. Instead there is an effectively instantaneous "process" or unit that preexists any form of change in the universe, by which the "universe" as an entity can exist.

[SteveA]

I myself was moving towards the beginning of our universe. Unlike Lloyd and others, I follow the concept in which our material reality has come from a different state. When viewing E, M, and C in Einstein's equation, then I'd see only E as the possible source for matter to occur. So, I start out with a further not explained existence of E in the pre-Big Bang state.

If appears that Relativity arises from statistical measurements of chaotic motions (and "randomness" is generally related to objects moving with relatively prime period wavelengths, in which case knowledge of the position of one object tells us nothing regarding the position of the other).

But we could rewrite time in relativity as the sums of the squares of various changes (and the manner in which this is done implies a linear space or memory in which these motions are accumulated):

t^2=vx^2+vy^2+vz^2+va^2+vb^2+...

Notice that if an object moved randomly left or right with a 50/50 probability and we computed the average of the square of its distance, this appears to create a constant velocity motion:

d(t+1)^2=((d(t)+1)^2+(d(t)-1)^2)/2
d(t+1)^2=(d(t)^2+2d(t)+1+d(t)^2-2d(t)+1)/2
d(t+1)^2=(2d(t)^2+2)/2
d(t+1)^2=d(t)^2+1

So constant velocity light speed need not be a fundamental, but instead can arise from a chaotic diffusion in a single dimension. Notice that we could then explain gravity not as an attractive force but instead as the net statistical influence of a chaotic diffusion of objects in space and that, for example, the Earth would be diffusion outward and pushing upward on someone. The Moon would similarly be expanding and moving away from the Earth, but our yardsticks would be larger as well and hence this would rescale space and make the Moon appear to remain closer, though with a lateral motion, instead of a spiralling away from the Earth, though if we look at a spiral arm galaxy, we can see such a spiral form arise.

Also, a diffusion follows a gaussian profile with has roughly 3 main features - the parabolic falloff near the central lobe (a 1/d^2 function) a roughly linear transition region and an exponentially decaying tail. I believe these can be correlated to various physical forces as well on difference scales of space, though it depends upon which properties are interacting to determine which scale is appropriate (much like interactions of waves in the ocean are derived from faster acoustic properties and these are similarly derived from faster molecular interactions and those are derived from faster interatomic interactions etc. and we have a single fast process being multiplexed and interleaved over space along a single timeline that constructed diverse properties on larger and larger scales, much like computing a mathematical function in the limit as some number is allowed to grow unbounded).

In order to get from there to materialization, one should require a mechanism of transgression. The previous state must have been a sustainable state by itself, yet motion of some kind was possible. I envision some kind of Borg state, but then of a nicer kind with more freedom. In this state something had to go wrong to make a move towards materialization possible.

Yes, it does appear that though the ability to perceive time might be considered something that could be logical, the actual experience of time and change doesn't appear possible to describe via. logic - there isn't a manner to describe change as contained by any box, unless the "box" itself changes (in which case we might consider it more like a surface of experience between past and future (potentially interior and exterior), but this similarly appears to require that these structures preexist.

If we really take things literally though - logic could not construct anything, including an explanation for itself. In fact, it may seem hard to believe, but I don't even think that what we might consider as solid and immutable facts are actually timeless and most all the logic we use could actually be the equivalent of random (but non-conflicted) facts. In this case, logic reduces to memory and storage - simply the seed information upon which the universe was built, but not necessarily "true" in an absolute sense either (and yes, we could go a step further and say that all our beliefs were constructed as well ... at which point there's basically nothing to be said for certain except for what would then be the "fact" such things are possibilities, but still this doesn't quite "plug the hole" and we never could by having such doubts. On the other hand, we can go the other direction and begin with certainty and find that uncertainty never existed except to the extent that we (with certainty) decided to belief in it or create it etc. In that "direction" things appear rather clear ...).

Only when the internal conflict of the moment is high enough can one transgress (or push others for them to transgress) to materialization. A conflict means there are two sides, but there cannot be an obvious flaw on either side. If there is an obvious flaw, then it would have been discovered and both sides in the conflict would have made peace.

Yes, I agree that there does exist a fundamentally non-conflict logic to everything and we're witnessing (from limited vantage points which are self-determined, though to be accurate that witnessing is truly singular and to what extent communication with anything "else" is possible, at least to me is really an unknown - but that's one of those things that's simply a surprise, but it does "fit in" and makes sense).

So, the tetrahedron Labelwench provided is the perfect tool to show how a minor flaw can be hidden from sight and lead to two overall positions by different sides claiming to be the one that is right (and therefore correct in positioning themselves in a self-based state). The claim to be correct can then be seen at the beginning of the pre-Big Bang's end.

I think it is a good example of how an assumption of symmetry can lead to confusion (every vertice is identical, unless these are seen with different subjective contexts - but then we can still convert this to a single vertex being seen in 4 different ways, so it doesn't have to be a tetrahedron but instead a singularity viewed by 2 binary properties 2*2=4 otherwise identical quanta).

If you read my words correctly, then you see that I do have one assumption: that the pre-Big Bang state contains a consciousness, but which is not a consciousness of the divine kind, at least, it is capable of being flawed.

I agree that whatever "runs the show" isn't something we'd be capable of experiencing or describing in time, except in abstract terms. I don't even know if such a thing would be conscious in a typical sense, though obviously it would have to be capable of constructing such (which might actuall mean that the "logical" timeless form is not conscious, if consciousness can be detected as something that is "different" or derived via. change or time - then again, I couldn't consciously be aware that consciousness is not timeless ... as that would appear a paradox, so consciousness (not in any specific form) might be timeless, though that might be better described as awareness).

(Dang, I've got to run for now ... I assume there's already plenty of stuff in there to read ) I'll have to check back later.

Enjoy,
Steve

P.S. Regarding time, a recursion in logic would just be a loop, but static - if we say 1=1, then is not really an absolute truth in that there are two ones and they can be perceived in different positions in the equation. The ideal of 1 remains itself and is not equal to anything else.

Well if something in logic is a self identity and such self references could be counted - that's a source of replication, time and change. (For example, a number should fundamentally only exist once - there are not two different 5s. It would be interesting to find that most any equation or identity in mathematics is based upon a paradox that would imply the existence of time or change and require non-identical things to be considered identical - thus, superpositions and a compression of space and an appearance of reproduction via. perceiving as identical, things that are inherently not etc.)

[labelwench]

In order to get from there to materialization, one should require a mechanism of transgression. The previous state must have been a sustainable state by itself, yet motion of some kind was possible. I envision some kind of Borg state, but then of a nicer kind with more freedom. In this state something had to go wrong to make a move towards materialization possible.

Originally posted by Fredrick

Borg state?

Fredrick......There was no way I could resist.....

http://www.treelobsters.com/2010/07/175-overborg.html

[SteveA]

Borg state?

Fredrick......There was no way I could resist.....

http://www.treelobsters.com/2010/07/175-overborg.html

Cute

The Borg won in a decisively short battle - it all happened before time even began. It was undefeatable as it provided no resistance, nor set any terms by which to define a loss. It simply let everything be as it is. Such a strategy was utterly overwhelming and engulfed "everything"

Nothing left to do now but kick back and enjoy a little peace, love, anarchy ... and share a few stories about the rest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1FaflUn4Co