Reality - Version 0.0

Arcturus Descending

I can tell you that I know there is an efficient way to do it and an inefficient way. The efficient way involves a a type of bow from memory. I will bring matches, just in case.

Cool. Androids could be made to enjoy things and I vaguely remember an episode or two where Data did indeed experience enjoyment.

I read two more tough questions and one question that would depend on how you were to define a good philosopher.

The concept of GOD is not so clear to me the way that people explain him/her/hermaphrodite/it/etc. My belief in GOD is dependent on there still being many hints out there. Absolute proof . . . interesting notion.

OMG - four more tough questions - flowers are interesting - brings to mind Fibonacci Numbers.

=D>

Dont ask me, I am lost.

:laughing:

My youngest daughter’s middle name is Joy. Isabelle Joy. I will refrain from posting our surname in public however - I can say that it is over two thousand years old and British Celtic in origin.

Astronomy is sadly not my strong suit. I love the heavenly bodies and I probably have enough Physics behind me to get it.

Suffice to say her book: Measuring the Universe - made me feel rather inadequate given it is supposed to be for layman and I still found it tough going - in my defense I was approaching my mid twenties and leaving Aerospace behind for Software Engineering. I might get it better these days though. I know one can be surprised by what one remembers.

Diving into the depths of the mind and reality are my things these days.

:-k

:greetings-wavegreen:

James

I would be very interested in discussing the topic.

While we are discussing the topic I would like us to cover the concept of zero and infinity. I initially use zero and infinity as tools for contrast, to make “stuff” stand out among the background.

I have three questions for you James:

  1. What is zero?
  2. What is infinity?
  3. What is stuff?

:-k

:smiley:

…and welcome back. :sunglasses:

James S Saint

  1. So a placeholder for something?
  2. In reality or concept?
  3. Now we are talking.

:-k

:sunglasses:

:sunglasses:

What initiates the original change(affectance)? Surely it must have always been there.

Yes. Affectance has always existed and always must exist … everywhere. There can be no absolute void anywhere … ever. It is a mathematical impossibility.

James S Saint

I totally agree with you on this - the problem I face is both sides of the coin. How does one go about proving no absolute void? How does one go about proving such a void?

Would it not be important to understand how the both cancel each other out? That understanding would lend credence to such a scenario of something always being there.

:smiley:

@ James: An opinion at this point would even be welcome.

James

I will keep this short and imprecise. You should still be able to catch my gist. You could say it is compressed delta encoding.

[b]∴ Reality - Version 0.0 is impossible.

There can only be Reality - Version 0.000…0001 ∨ PtA.
[/b]
The number of zeros is arbitrary.

because Absolute Homogeneity is impossible as you have proven in your previous post.

:sunglasses:

encode_decode stated:

Other than in mathematics, how do you know for sure nothing exists? Even some particle physicist such as P. Higgs will disagree with you. What used to be considered as a vacuum no longer exists. The term “vacuum” has an entirely different definition today. “Consciousness” is everywhere. Surely consciousness is something rather than nothing.

It is impossible for the human mind to comprehend infinity or something that has always existed, doesn’t end or have a beginning. The same applies to consciousness.

This indicates or suggests you are playing intellectual gymnastics rather than tying to understand something.

eaglerising

First of all let me say: Welcome to the forum.

Intellectual Gymnastics

It would seem so . . . Tell me though, how does a new philosophy come into being? More precisely, how did the first philosophy come into being? The human mind has a hard time comprehending zero too. So does the mathematics exist for a good proof of infinity? Since mathematics can describe nothing. I think it would be just as difficult for the human mind to comprehend what has never existed along with what has always existed. So many interesting questions could be asked.

If necessity is the mother of invention - why are there so many unnecessary things, thoughts … et cetera?

Is not gymnastics more healthy than sitting around?

Look what part of the legacy of P. Higgs will be. What exactly are we going to use the Higgs boson for? I am sure the proposals will be “interesting”.

I have stated: ∴ Reality - Version 0.0 is impossible - because Absolute Homogeneity is impossible as James has proven in his previous post. I understand something because I had no understanding of something - someone came along and explained something that changed my state of no understanding - not too bad for intellectual gymnastics.

Intellectual gymnastics is not the form I always use but this time around it served me well.

Despite all of this, I appreciate your post and I do mean that. My apologies if for some reason my original post has offended you.

:-k

If on the other hand what you are saying is akin to the word “preposterous” then yes my original notion is indeed that.

:smiley:

This is what was originally in my head: You can not place something where something already is - if infinity is the largest something then it must be inside nothing - if an infinity is already in that place then another infinity is not going to fit there. Nothing is known as a placeholder. But what would I know?

:laughing:

Probably nothing.

Vacuum Definition

What is today’s definition of vacuum?

I am truly interested in what you have to say here - as you point out I lack understanding.

“Consciousness” is Everywhere.

This sounds even more interesting to me - care to elaborate?

Thank you for your input eaglerising, I hope to hear back from you soon.

:slight_smile:

[size=85]Social engineering is unkind . . .[/size]
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . .
[size=50]Disclaimer . . . While the fine print is often too fine - it is not something that I have invented - so read this at your own risk. No responsibility will be taken for eyestrain.[/size]

endode_decode – Please one question at a time. That way we can stick to the subject at hand and not get sidetracked.

So let’s start with, how do you know with absolute certainty there is nothing? I ask this question because it is impossible for something to come from nothing. Just because you cannot see something doesn’t validate or prove that it doesn’t exist.

eaglerising

I can respect that. Fair warning though - even when it appears I am getting sidetracked, I probably am not totally sidetracked - in that event, ask for clarification, on the other hand I have been known to get sidetracked, even on this forum.

Certainty is a big call . . . I agree with you that something can not come from nothing.

If you are referring to the following from my original post then allow me to clarify:

This statement confused me when I wrote it; this is the main reason why I posted it; if infinity actually exists then zero and infinity exist at the same time - nothing and everything exist at the same time.

Because:

So if infinity is an actual quantity(which I do not believe it to be) then it can only exist inside of a non-quantity. I say this because of the common definition of infinity - which I believe is the opposite of zero.

Zero would be nothing - whether zero came first or not is not the central point I am trying to make - I am saying that everything(infinity) must exist inside of nothing(zero) - not come from nothing.

The biggest mind-bender for me is that zero and infinity must be two sides of the one thing. I will give that thing a name:

Anu-eternal - king of the eternal.

But the name is beside the point. You can not add anu-eternal because it is both nothing and everything. Infinity then needs eternal zero to spread out into.

Please don’t look at this as gymnastics as much as it may look like that - zero and infinity must be among the hardest questions to answer for deep thinkers.

:-k

My explanations might suffer from being figurative but they are illustrative of deeper thought. You can not place something where something already is - you can only add to it - I don’t believe you can add infinity. When you add zero to itself then you still get zero. With anu-eternal all the adding has already been done. My rule here is that infinity can only be added to zero so:

Anu-eternal = zero + infinity

Indicating that if infinity exists then so does zero.

If you were to give infinity and zero hypothetical volumes then those volumes would be identical except one volume describes substance and the other describes non-substance. Here it is the hypothetical that does not exist - in which case we get infinite recurrence(a story for another day).

Where

0 = Zero
I = Infinity
A = Anu-eternal.
Z = Infinite Recurrence

A = 0 + I

A → Z

A big pain in the proverbial . . . A leads to Z . . .

encode_decode - Thank you for the clarification. Now I am able to comprehend you.

encode_decode:

In a manner of speaking what you are correct. What is not correct, there never was a zero because it has always existed. Your statement illustrates the human brain cannot actually conceptualize or picture it. Like Albert Einstein said: “Time is a persistent illusion.”

P.S. We can comprehend and understand something that actually exists such as a tree, a PMS color code of 00010, or tides.
How do you make sense out of an illusion, something that isn’t real and doesn’t actually exist?

Which are you saying there; that it is incorrect that it has always exited or the opposite?

Jame S Saint –

Hopefully the following well help. If God, Life, Nature, Consciousness Absolute, or whatever you choose to call it has always existed, It has a value greater than zero. Likewise, infinity has a value greater than one. In other words, life cannot be reduced to a mathematical equation.

eaglerising

Or: there was always a zero because it has never existed.

Is the displacement of zero the same as the displacement for infinity?

:-k

You are saying no. Yet zero represents that which has never existed or does not exist - and that is the perfect place to put infinity unless infinity also does not exist.

I agree with James that infinity is a misunderstood concept.

Zero is also a misunderstood concept.

But surely they are two sides to the same coin.

:laughing: