The Evidence for and the Theory of Incompleteness

[Fredrick]

Thanks, Austin, I may, but I am still contemplating where I am going with my knowledge now. I consider this thread finished, but I am waiting for some ideas to help me move forward. They may come from within, or as you have provided they may come from without.

But as you know, I have some problems with how you pronounce certain ideas. Correct me when I am wrong, but reading "Totality is incomplete" turns me off, for it is not totality that is incomplete, it is incompleteness that is found at the overall level. Similar-sounding words, but definitively not the same things.

In as far as charge is concerned, when one accepts the notion that singularity can never be found at the material level, then one would not be surprised to find that not their individual state leads to understanding, but their collective state.

First, the material universe as we know it is moving outwardly, and can be seen as quite different — unique even — compared to the local states we find at galactic, solar, and planetary level. So, if we want to discuss charge, we must decide if we are talking about charge at the galactic, solar, and/or planetary level or if we are talking about charge in general; the local picture of charge is not the same as the picture of universal charge.

If we acknowledge the disconnect between the charge in the here and now and the charge in the whole scheme, then it becomes easier to see how this disconnect is actually the charge.

We know that matter and anti-matter are each others' opposites, and that the universe as a whole shows us a balanced outcome, not positively charged, not negatively charged. So, we should have an easy time understanding that all of matter's charge came forth out of one and the same neutral balanced state — and that at some point in time it became unbalanced, but just in location-specific ways.

So, to end up with materialization, we must have charges within matter that show how matter could escape their own overall balance while still maintaining it. We must have a scheme in which matter somehow is balanced at the overall level, yet is specifically charged at all other smaller levels. I propose that kidnapping is the only way to achieve that.

First, we need to accept that our universe had a starting point of materialization. And to overcome the neutrally-charged state, the threshold must explain why the neutral state got abandoned at specific local levels. Something must have been easy enough to do (or fall into) and leading to a totally diverse outcome that was nevertheless neutral at the overall level. I suggest that the beginning towards materialization was a set up of a certain kind within the neutrally-charged state. Next, steps of an innocent kind were taken, leading to lesser-innocent states. A diversification of the neutral energy occurred, and this lead to a tug-of-war. Better, this lead to tugs-of-war. In different locations, much like the weather, there were high-pressures and depressions of energy. As we know, high-pressure areas move towards low-pressure areas, and depressions lead to swallowing pills (joke! Yes, okay, of the kind I am able to make), leading to movement of those depressed states towards desired higher pressures. The normal state is to have a neutral area exist between the high-pressure and the low-pressure areas, but in reality that is not always the case. High-pressures have their own characteristics and so do depressions, and they sometimes get close to one another without a neutral area in between.

Just think of cold fronts coming down from the Yukon (okay, actually Canada) meeting with hot fronts that had been building up in the south. The outcome is no smooth sailing, my friend.

So, during the initial stage towards materialization, two conditions came to exist (in multiple versions), each desiring something specific from the other, but not the whole enchilada. Each specific movement desired just one part or just a few parts of the other estranged movement to climax its own state. A swap of a few oppositionally-charged particles took place, and that allowed for what we now know as galactic fields to start moving outwardly away from the other galactic fields. With just a few oppositionally charged particles, an entire field could be on the move. Remember the few women in a field of 10,000 men, or the few men in a field of 10,000 women, and you can understand how the now specifically-charged fields could be moved towards an outward motion, containing an extreme and volatile nature.

Or, and I do not know if you are politically aware as such, you can see it in the enormously-charged reactions when someone states something in a society when that society was not built on that premise. In some nations in South-east Asia, or in Cuba, those speaking out for democracy can encounter tremendous forces. The reactions by other people can be enormous when multiple participants of a certain political understanding encounter a single or a few persons of a totally different political perspective. That is what you need to keep in mind when thinking of charge.

And please, do not consider this to immediately be a state of murder and killings, but rather one of ostracizing, of down-putting, of declaring the other as less. It is the creation of the unequal thought, and the subsequent collective behavior towards those considered of a truly different nature that is the essence of charge. It is not freedom, and it is not brotherhood (our shared humanity) that is the cause of charge, and these highly-desired states are therefore also not the source for remedial of ills; it is the lack of equality that is the cause of demeaning others, it is the lack of equality that is the cause of evil.

So, I called this kidnapping, and I need to explain. The pre-galactic fields all were building up towards a new reality of the neutral state, yet none of them could become the new neutral state. By their own sheer existence, no pre-galactic field could ever be the actual new neutral state of the pre-Big Bang era; it was impossible. So instead of letting go of their own righteousness and accepting that unless there was full-acceptance of all states under the overall umbrella, there wasn't going to be a new neutral state; each pre-galactic field experienced deeply what was missing that would complete their own state. And to reach that new state, each needed to get just that tiny last piece of admission from the other side(s) to be in the right. By kidnapping the Queens, the men thought they were going to be alright and lead all to the new kingdom. And by kidnapping the Kings, the women thought they were going to be alright and lead all to the new kingdom. Well, long story short, they were all wrong. Not unless all agree, there simply is no neutral state.

My overall conclusion, Austin, is when telling anything about charge, one must declare that the story about charge is automatically split into an overall level and a specific level of charge. Of the two, only the overall level of charge can provide the answer, but is of course of a general nature only. The specific level on the other hand never tells the answer. Never — unless you understand the specific outcome within the whole story.

[labelwench]

We can reach the top position, but as soon as we do, we have become ourselves the top of the pyramid, both representing the top of the stone pyramid and taking in the top spot of the material pyramid. We can in that latter spot formulate the full information of the stone pyramid, but we can still not view ourselves as part of that overall material pyramid — except in our mind. Our physical limitation means we do not have full view over ourselves. We have no other option than to rely on abstractions to view the whole pyramid from the top position that includes ourselves. Only from the mindful abstract position can we provide the completed view.

Let me end by thanking all who contributed -it was a pleasure that you did, especially since there is so much agreement- and by providing one last religious remark.

The dice are out of gods hands.

Originally posted by Fredrick.

Hello Fredrick,

Are you quite refreshed now?

I do not challenge your views on God, yet I am curious as to what you mean by your last remark, which I have bolded in color.

As there seems also to be considerable agreement surrounding the 'incompleteness' as the status that allows for continuance at all levels, in what ways do you perceive our species may best participate in the process?

Take your time in ponders, if required, and interpret the questions in whatever direction they lead you.

Kind regards,

Labelwench

[austintorn@aol.com]

Her’s some help, Fredrtick,
from my dice files…


RIGGED

God longed for some surprises to come,
So He rolled the dice, this being random;
“Darn! I already knew the outcome!”


(fragment)
The Diviner would just sit around,
With nothing else to do,
His mind already full with
What would become as new.
He couldn’t play dice,
Scrambling the forecast,
For He would know all
Of which the die was cast.


—Undetermined Will —

The ‘free’ in free will has no real meaning,
Unless we take it to mean ‘random’, that
The will depends on nothing but dice rolls;
What good would be such a brain anyway?


THE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE
BEHIND OUR UNACCOUNTABLE ACCOUNT

Nature’s anti/matter books did not balance,
Possibly due to probability’s chance.

On a 1 in 30 million shot
The roll of the dice was hot.

(Good that Professor Pat was not there, pals,
Closing that account on nature’s thumbnail.)

There was a surplus
Which became us…

…To cash in
Before we cash it all in.

We would thank God for all us fools,
But now we see that probability rules.


(about evolution)
…
This is like supposing that
When an organism goes to a casino
And keeps on betting all it has
For billions of years cannot win—
And this is certainly true,
But this is not representative
Of natural selection at all,
For it is not all at once in a row
And so chance is not
The scientific answer to design;
Natural selection is.

Although an organism would
Surely go broke (die)
In this false scenario,
What is also really the case in evolution
Is that there are other organisms
Always taking over (surviving)—
Those that are of a stable platform
(The winnings are already in the bank)
Up to each moment
In between the “gamblings”
On the mutations
(The spin of the wheel
Or the play of the cards
Or the throw of the dice).


And, finally,
something I stole from Fredrick…

UNGROUNDED BELIEFS UPHELD

A belief hangs in the air,
Because it is only upheld
By the owner of the belief.

A pyramid stands on the ground
And shows that a single top
Can be held in the air through support,
But the single top can itself not
Stand on the ground without support.

[Fredrick]

Originally posted by Fredrick.

Hello Fredrick,

Are you quite refreshed now?

I do not challenge your views on God, yet I am curious as to what you mean by your last remark, which I have bolded in color.

As there seems also to be considerable agreement surrounding the 'incompleteness' as the status that allows for continuance at all levels, in what ways do you perceive our species may best participate in the process?

Take your time in ponders, if required, and interpret the questions in whatever direction they lead you.

Kind regards,

Labelwench

I am finished with this thread, Labelwench, but if others want to add to the idea and knowledge of incompleteness then of course they should feel free to post that here. I will try answering your question at this new thread: http://www.toequest.com/forum/altern...tml#post127478

Just meant as a quick note: I wrote the dice are out of gods hands in which I did not add an ' so one can read it as god's hands or as gods' hands.

[labelwench]

I am finished with this thread, Labelwench, but if others want to add to the idea and knowledge of incompleteness then of course they should feel free to post that here. I will try answering your question at this new thread: http://www.toequest.com/forum/altern...tml#post127478

Just meant as a quick note: I wrote the dice are out of gods hands in which I did not add an ' so one can read it as god's hands or as gods' hands.

Thank you, Frederick, and I shall look into the new thread directly.

Yes, punctuation makes a significant difference.

[KWAOUAR]

My overall conclusion, Austin, is when telling anything about charge, one must declare that the story about charge is automatically split into an overall level and a specific level of charge. Of the two, only the overall level of charge can provide the answer, but is of course of a general nature only. The specific level on the other hand never tells the answer. Never — unless you understand the specific outcome within the whole story.

Originally posted by Fredrick.

As there seems also to be considerable agreement surrounding the 'incompleteness' as the status that allows for continuance at all levels, in what ways do you perceive our species may best participate in the process?

Labelwench

Knowing God is in the smallest existence. I in my continuous charge sometimes do not have attention on to the communication that is transmitted. Words are made of symbols as are during all times been compiled together by beings. these seem to me as a charge, the words have letters and stimulations for reach. Are they math, are they motions?? All these senses we receive have a commutative action. In my crazy, can i read the words as one or go on with the major minority and read letter for letter? Being the binary of sort rather than the executable? Are these charges we reflect upon and act within reality. Are they automatic and are they from person to person zone to zone always right, surely not. Our action would and can be sorted from these pondered performances to objective as approved strategy to achieve. Can we read God, are our actions forced from circumstances that others propose during our surroundings.

[dipayankar]

So Fredrick do you disown the theory of Incompleteness??

I am finished with this thread, Labelwench, but if others want to add to the idea and knowledge of incompleteness then of course they should feel free to post that here. I will try answering your question at this new thread: http://www.toequest.com/forum/altern...tml#post127478

Just meant as a quick note: I wrote the dice are out of gods hands in which I did not add an ' so one can read it as god's hands or as gods' hands.

[Fredrick]

So Fredrick do you disown the theory of Incompleteness??

You make me curious about why you would say such a thing, Dipayan. Please explain.

Or are you referring to the fact that I want it both ways? I want ánd Incompleteness to be seen as actual and real ánd I want to have a theory about it?

[Fredrick]

Knowing God is in the smallest existence. I in my continuous charge sometimes do not have attention on to the communication that is transmitted. Words are made of symbols as are during all times been compiled together by beings. these seem to me as a charge, the words have letters and stimulations for reach. Are they math, are they motions?? All these senses we receive have a commutative action. In my crazy, can i read the words as one or go on with the major minority and read letter for letter? Being the binary of sort rather than the executable? Are these charges we reflect upon and act within reality. Are they automatic and are they from person to person zone to zone always right, surely not. Our action would and can be sorted from these pondered performances to objective as approved strategy to achieve. Can we read God, are our actions forced from circumstances that others propose during our surroundings.

Kwaouar, you seem to be grasping the split that exists within each person; I like that. I hope you are not afraid to say 'yes' to both sides of the question, and see that it is possible to be 'binary' and 'executable' — each when they fit you or when each seem socially most appropriate. You seem like me this way, and I would not want to choose between my left leg and my right leg, so I declare them equals even when they are not identical. I'll use my right foot when I see fit, and same for my left foot. I get farthest when I use both (but not at the exact same time).

[ggullet]

like steven h. says "god exist's but is not neccesary for existence" i paraphrase.