The True Origin of Reality

[outhouse]

^^^ word salad shooter.

 

[Quadrivium]

Nope, because that isn't trifold.(three). That's two.
'0' is not a value in those sets.

uh... really? It's an analogy. Fine, if we must...

[0+0=0] I see one 0, one 0, and one 0. 3 elements

[0+1=1] I see one 0, one 1, and one 1. 3 elements.


It doesn't have to be numbers, it's just an appropriate analogy.

[red with red is still red] 3 elements
[red with blue is purple] 3 elements


A "more literal" analogy I suppose...

(f)x↣y

 

[Quadrivium]

^^^ word salad shooter.

^^^has nothing useful to contribute

 

[Quadrivium]

Good luck waiting for that. Look, you can't on the one hand say that I'm "not understanding" your theory, then present different theories that would contradict each other. Further, the conclusion you drew from said theor(ies?) was bogus and unrelated to the "scientific evidence" you presented me. It's fail/fail at this point unless you have something else.

Which theories contradict each other?

And what is bogus? Specifically?

So one could cross reference your claims?

 

[Thief]

uh... really? It's an analogy. Fine, if we must...

[0+0=0] I see one 0, one 0, and one 0. 3 elements

[0+1=1] I see one 0, one 1, and one 1. 3 elements.


It doesn't have to be numbers, it's just an appropriate analogy.

[red with red is still red] 3 elements
[red with blue is purple] 3 elements


A "more literal" analogy I suppose...

(f)x↣y

So this would be a discussion wherein the place holder '0' has a value?

My old algebra teacher always did insist....'0' holds nothing but a 'place'.
It serves only to hold a position as needed for clarity.

It has no actual value nor does it represent a substance or force.

I think you have gone just a bit to far.

Reality is the same for you as it is for me.
We are simply at different points of perspective.

 

[Quadrivium]

The exact same thing you verify yours with.

Harvard? Oxford? Cambridge? I'm backing up my claims with sources from institutions and researchers from around the globe.

 

[Quadrivium]

So this would be a discussion wherein the place holder '0' has a value?

My old algebra teacher always did insist....'0' holds nothing but a 'place'.
It serves only to hold a position as needed for clarity.

It has no actual value nor does it represent a substance or force.

I think you have gone just a bit to far.

Reality is the same for you as it is for me.
We are simply at different points of perspective.

You are discussing classical algebra with numbers...

...completely missing the meaning, which was an analogy of trifold synthesis.

Maybe these will help you.

One is a definition of analogy which you don't seem to comprehend.
Analogy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And a link which I already provided that describes this concept in more detail
Injective function - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[outhouse]

^^^has nothing useful to contribute

Just like the OP :biglaugh:

 

[outhouse]

Harvard? Oxford? Cambridge? I'm backing up my claims with sources from institutions and researchers from around the globe.

No you are not.

You are perverting something to fit your personal unsupported view, that is probably POE

 

[Desert Snake]

And what is bogus? Specifically?

"trifold synthesis" theory, where did the elements come from?

You say, red + blue =purple, ok great, where did red come from?

But, it gets worse. You also posit complete connectivity to the point where you didn't agree that neither of us painted the Sistine Chapel, which is the height of ridiculous logic, it's like saying because China exists, you are China or something, this is all nonsense.

Add to that, you say that humans 'created everything', yeah, whatever, does anything indicate that? I don't think so.

 

[Desert Snake]

"Man made the universe"...

is analogous to the fact that coherence requires realization. Certainly an infinity of potential exists regardless of mind, but the universe is actual, not merely potential. Only essences that are realized will be of any coherence. In this sense only self aware minds offer any possibility for the realization of actuality.

I should have stopped reading right there.

 

[Sir Doom]

My description of nothing? Please try to understand (if it's possible for you) as you keep repeating the same misconception.

It is not a misconception and I keep repeating it because you have yet to address it effectively. Your repeated assertion that I don't understand is not an effective argument, nor is your insistence that logic does not apply.

I understand it's probably beyond your capabilities so no worries if you can't get past your own "beliefs", which you fail to backup with any sources other than "because you said so". But that's really irrelevant, as most of your utterances have proven to lack any solidity.

I thought I did a pretty good job of showing that your notion of nothing is false as opposed to being a paradox that requires special consideration. Forgetting, of course, that I personally don't find ANY linguistic paradoxes to illuminate anything profound aside from the human inability to invent infallible language. That's an entirely different conversation, naturally. You have yet to demonstrate that your idea must be treated as a paradox, and therefore classic logic is more than sufficient to show your thinking is faulty.

I'll try one last time to spell it out for you, though I doubt you'll grasp it still. Also this is but one small part of the whole package which you've chosen to ignore yet you still claim folly without considering the meaning.

It forms the basis for the rest of your thoughts. If its wrong so are they. And it is wrong. Demonstrably.

Absoluteness is the quality or state of being without restriction

That is what the word means, yes.

Absence is a state of being without something

Two for two on literal definitions. I'm very glad that you know what people mean when they say these words.

The combination of these terms "absolute absence" creates a new meaning.

The quality of a state that is both absent and without restriction. (you may choose to see this as contradiction, that's okay. But you are failing to understand that we are intentionally describing an actual embodiment of conflict)

Actually, absence necessarily is absolute or it isn't absence at all as any presence of the supposedly absent thing necessarily causes 'absence' to be a false description. Unless of course you can meaningfully define 'restricted absence' in a way that doesn't eliminate what 'absence' means in the first place. I assume you'll have considerable difficulty accomplishing that task.

This quality is an observable one. We observe it when we acknowledge that we exist.

No we don't. You do. I do not see absolute absence of absolute absence. I just see presence. Because that's a sensible term that actually describes what I see as opposed to what I imagine I don't see which is what you are doing.

Not by observing our existence, but by observing the impossibility of our non-existence.

Right, that's a leap. You can't rule out non-existence as a possibility simply because its impossible to observe. Our observation is not essential to 'possible'.

This observation illuminates before us a hypothetical inversion of everything.

An inversion of everything is... nothing.

Why invert everything at all? You haven't shown why this is necessary. You just jump right to it as if its a matter of course. You are insisting that 'nothing' must exist specifically because it is impossible. That's nonsense.

Nothing is the translation of an absence. And this absence, is without restriction.

Therefore logically we can understand nothingness, in the real world and we CAN refer to it as the absolute absence of absolute absence, while maintaining logical coherence of meaning.

That's funny, I thought 'absolute absence of absolute absence' was supposed to describe 'everything'. Now you are using it to describe 'nothing'. Tsk, tsk...

J/k I know what you meant. Anyway, it doesn't make much of a difference that we are able to use the word 'nothing' to communicate the concept 'nothing' to each other. The word and the concept it represents do not correspond with reality objectively as you've pointed out with, "...the impossibility of non-existence..." Your application of the term to reality is subjective at best and in this case is also arbitrary. That eliminates any real explanatory power that it has and reduces it to mere aesthetics.

Above all of that, there is something much more important and definitive than linguistic construct, (which you claim is meaningless) is the unending amount of supporting evidence for the larger picture which reflects this conflict described through real world analogy.

I have no doubts that incredibly intelligent people are exploring the origin of reality far more effectively than I ever could. You, however, are not doing that no matter how much you try and force the issue by insisting I don't understand.

Was it really that hard to grasp? Or do you just enjoy playing games and trying to change focus?

Not hard to grasp at all.

I'm not going to bother with responding to your other nonsensical comments most of which are expressions of frustration, sarcasm, and attempts to insult.

There was no frustration nor did I attempt to insult you. This is incredibly entertaining to me.

You have not bothered to provide any credibility other than your opinion and that's not worth any more time on this topic of linguistic meanings. But should you be able to provide some sources for claims that allows one to cross reference, then I'll be happy to do so.

You are my source in this case. Following your ideas to their logical conclusions makes it very easy to see that you are off the mark.

And one final note. When you reject this notion you are denying many accomplished and credible sources that support it. Sources like Harvard's philosophy department, just to name one.

Allow me to be absolutely clear about this. You will not be able to shame me into agreeing with you. Feel free to contact the Harvard philosophy department and encourage them to sign up for the forum. Then you can direct them to this thread and they can make me look foolish for you. Barring that, you can simply address the objections I have.

 

[Desert Snake]

uh... really? It's an analogy. Fine, if we must...

[0+0=0] I see one 0, one 0, and one 0. 3 elements

[0+1=1] I see one 0, one 1, and one 1. 3 elements.


It doesn't have to be numbers, it's just an appropriate analogy.

[red with red is still red] 3 elements
[red with blue is purple] 3 elements


A "more literal" analogy I suppose...

(f)x↣y

Is that an analogy? If you are claiming value to nothingness in your theory, it isn't an analogy, it's just really bad math.

 

[Sir Doom]

Nice to see the reality here.

I see it everywhere, myself. Reality, that is.

 

[Quadrivium]

It is not a misconception and I keep repeating it because you have yet to address it effectively. Your repeated assertion that I don't understand is not an effective argument, nor is your insistence that logic does not apply.

I thought I did a pretty good job of showing that your notion of nothing is false as opposed to being a paradox that requires special consideration. Forgetting, of course, that I personally don't find ANY linguistic paradoxes to illuminate anything profound aside from the human inability to invent infallible language. That's an entirely different conversation, naturally. You have yet to demonstrate that your idea must be treated as a paradox, and therefore classic logic is more than sufficient to show your thinking is faulty.

It forms the basis for the rest of your thoughts. If its wrong so are they. And it is wrong. Demonstrably.

That is what the word means, yes.

Two for two on literal definitions. I'm very glad that you know what people mean when they say these words.


Actually, absence necessarily is absolute or it isn't absence at all as any presence of the supposedly absent thing necessarily causes 'absence' to be a false description. Unless of course you can meaningfully define 'restricted absence' in a way that doesn't eliminate what 'absence' means in the first place. I assume you'll have considerable difficulty accomplishing that task.

There is no evidence supporting this claim. And we can describe evidence that supports restricted absence, beyond the linguistic attempt to do so... using analogy. Not just random things, fundamental core things that are the very basis for this theory which is why the whole of the theory is more important than any summary in order to consider the large amount of supporting evidence and "seemingly insane logic".

You said, "Actually, absence necessarily is absolute". That implies if anything is absent, say my life, then my life has always been absent? Even during this moment right now? that seems at least strange, if not a paradox or contradiction.

Consider the quaternion . It's a 4 dimensional representation of fundamental space according to the the wave structure of matter. 4 dimensional, meaning it contains a mapping of information that defines transition from one state to another through time and space creating spin.

Absence is not necessarily absolute. But absoluteness is necessarily absent, specifically in the case of "absolute-absence", and everything as a whole.

But the main point here is the fact that it's not just quaternions and nothingness that coincidentally fit this function in some analogous way. It's the fact that everything does. Even the concept that's preventing you from acknowledging the shear amount of analogy expressed by nature that supports this. Nothing is finite, permanent, measurable, definable, etc... And when I say that I mean it literally, like nothingness is fintie, because it's absolute, even though it isn't. "It" isn't a thing, these are words. But it is everything.

Can you kind of understand why I'm speaking this way now? That it's not out of pure confusion, but of intent to describe the reality of a "conflict", that actually is logical in the case that this concept is true, which I am suggesting is.

No we don't. You do. I do not see absolute absence of absolute absence. I just see presence. Because that's a sensible term that actually describes what I see as opposed to what I imagine I don't see which is what you are doing.

It's naive to trust your senses alone. Color is only in your mind, your're interpreting waves of information. Think deeper.

Right, that's a leap. You can't rule out non-existence as a possibility simply because its impossible to observe. Our observation is not essential to 'possible'.

We're not ruling it out exactly, we're understanding the complexity that doesn't require either ruling it out or accepting it, rather it requires both, for a reason.

Why invert everything at all? You haven't shown why this is necessary. You just jump right to it as if its a matter of course. You are insisting that 'nothing' must exist specifically because it is impossible. That's nonsense.

It certainly appears like non-sense I feel the same way, everyone should. The reason for inversion is because we're really talking about infinite potential. Alan Guth has proved the notion of cosmic inflation. Think of infinite potential and inflation as the same type of thing. If infinite potential is all there is, just an eternal inflation of information, how would any mind ever make any sense of it? Through an inward vector, not an outward one. You understand the big bang describes all of our space at one time being the size of a marble. It also describe that marble as being in the position of where you are now. As in, we are inside of it. And then there's use of deduction, and... really just everything is of the same concept, but we are insanely complex instances of this with countless systems involved, nonetheless at the core they all function within this pattern.

That's funny, I thought 'absolute absence of absolute absence' was supposed to describe 'everything'. Now you are using it to describe 'nothing'. Tsk, tsk...

J/k I know what you meant. Anyway, it doesn't make much of a difference that we are able to use the word 'nothing' to communicate the concept 'nothing' to each other. The word and the concept it represents do not correspond with reality objectively as you've pointed out with, "...the impossibility of non-existence..." Your application of the term to reality is subjective at best and in this case is also arbitrary. That eliminates any real explanatory power that it has and reduces it to mere aesthetics.

The only thing subjective is interpretation and perspective. I'd suggest truth is objective.

I have no doubts that incredibly intelligent people are exploring the origin of reality far more effectively than I ever could. You, however, are not doing that no matter how much you try and force the issue by insisting I don't understand.

I'm trying my best to communicate it. Of course I can't make people understand, or "believe" if you prefer.

 

[YmirGF]

I'd suggest truth is objective.

I think so-called "truth" can be objective, but tend to see it more as a variable that is based on understanding and the information at hand. What is true today may not necessarily be true tomorrow. In a manner of speaking, if one gets hung up on the truth that may serve to cut them off from expanding understanding.

 

[Sir Doom]

There is no evidence supporting this claim.

Which claim do you mean? There are about 15 in the quoted message. The final one about absence? I'll just guess that's it, I suppose. Yes there is evidence. Its called reason or logic or rationale. Whichever you prefer. It may be insufficient to convince you that you are wrong, but that's totally irrelevant.

And we can describe evidence that supports restricted absence, beyond the linguistic attempt to do so... using analogy. Not just random things, fundamental core things that are the very basis for this theory which is why the whole of the theory is more important than any summary in order to consider the large amount of supporting evidence and "seemingly insane logic".

I like how you say you can describe evidence that supports restricted absence... but then you don't actually do it. Maybe it will come later in the post. We'll see, I suppose.

You said, "Actually, absence necessarily is absolute". That implies if anything is absent, say my life, then my life has always been absent? Even during this moment right now? that seems at least strange, if not a paradox or contradiction.

Nope, not what I meant. If your life is absent it is not present. Any instance of presence defeats the description 'absent'. There are no partial absences, therefore absolute absence is an unnecessary redundancy. In this case added to create an imaginary paradox.

Consider the quaternion . It's a 4 dimensional representation of fundamental space according to the the wave structure of matter. 4 dimensional, meaning it contains a mapping of information that defines transition from one state to another through time and space creating spin.

Consider it considered. The only thing this proves is that human beings are capable of making calculations in four dimensions. Now, bring it home. Why do you think this is relevant?

Absence is not necessarily absolute.

Except that it is because any instance of presence nullifies absence, so there is no partial absence and all instances of absence are absolute absence as opposed to less-than-absolute absence. Anything less than absolute absence is not absence at all and is instead presence. See how that works?

But absoluteness is necessarily absent, specifically in the case of "absolute-absence", and everything as a whole.

Why is absoluteness necessarily absent from everything as a whole? I know why you say its absent in 'absolute absence' (despite that being a contradiction) but I can't figure why you think its absent from 'everything as a whole' as well. I suspect this is another instance of you expecting your words to shape reality for you.

But the main point here is the fact that it's not just quaternions and nothingness that coincidentally fit this function in some analogous way.

Which function? You haven't mentioned a function in this response yet.

It's the fact that everything does. Even the concept that's preventing you from acknowledging the shear amount of analogy expressed by nature that supports this. Nothing is finite, permanent, measurable, definable, etc... And when I say that I mean it literally, like nothingness is fintie, because it's absolute, even though it isn't. "It" isn't a thing, these are words. But it is everything.

There is no correlative object in reality for the concept 'nothing'. You are attempting to inject it into reality by association and then treat it like the other objects in reality that actually exist. That's not reality, that's imagination.

Can you kind of understand why I'm speaking this way now? That it's not out of pure confusion, but of intent to describe the reality of a "conflict", that actually is logical in the case that this concept is true, which I am suggesting is.

I understand why you are speaking the way you are, yes. Something tells me we don't agree on what that reason is.

It's naive to trust your senses alone. Color is only in your mind, your're interpreting waves of information. Think deeper.

I meant 'see' in the metaphoric sense. 'Perceive' would be more accurate to what I meant. Sorry to add to your confusion.

We're not ruling it out exactly, we're understanding the complexity that doesn't require either ruling it out or accepting it, rather it requires both, for a reason.

Then why did you rule it out and what is that reason it requires both?

It certainly appears like non-sense I feel the same way, everyone should. The reason for inversion is because we're really talking about infinite potential. Alan Guth has proved the notion of cosmic inflation. Think of infinite potential and inflation as the same type of thing. If infinite potential is all there is, just an eternal inflation of information, how would any mind ever make any sense of it? Through an inward vector, not an outward one. You understand the big bang describes all of our space at one time being the size of a marble. It also describe that marble as being in the position of where you are now. As in, we are inside of it. And then there's use of deduction, and... really just everything is of the same concept, but we are insanely complex instances of this with countless systems involved, nonetheless at the core they all function within this pattern.

Why would you assume infinite potential? Why do you expect this imaginary concept to correlate with inflation? And exactly which 'function' are you talking about?

The only thing subjective is interpretation and perspective. I'd suggest truth is objective.

Suit yourself. Good luck finding it.

I'm trying my best to communicate it. Of course I can't make people understand, or "believe" if you prefer.

I bet you could try harder. Not that you should.

 

[Windwalker]

In a manner of speaking, if one gets hung up on the truth that may serve to cut them off from expanding understanding.

Amen to that. "I have found the Answer", is a sure sign you haven't. It's foundation is the myth of the pregiven world. "All I need to do is find the right formula". Esotericism is interesting, and useful as a model to approach reality with the cognitive mind, but hardly "the Answer".

 

[Thief]

ok....so now we have to argue.....
I know.....no you don't......yes I do.....you can't know.....yes I can......

oh boy....

 

[YmirGF]

ok....so now we have to argue.....
I know.....no you don't......yes I do.....you can't know.....yes I can......

oh boy....

Not quite fair, Thiefy. For the most part, Sir Doom has handled this discussion quite well. I can't tell if the writer of the OP is just cutting their teeth on philosophical concepts or has simply read too much on the subject.