The Only Option

This is the only place that I am permitted to post a thread. So here is what I have been trying to share with this website and its members. If it can be or should be moved to the philosophy section, then please do so! I've tried to post it there, but I am not able to, and this problem has not been resolved, nor have any moderators or technicians replied to me about it.

Greetings Homo-Sapiens,

The following submission deals with logic, and, I suppose, theoretical physics since there are elements of physics involved with the logic. Please enjoy. This is not necessarily a question, as will be obvious within the content of the text, rather it is the beginning of a testing phase of a slow release of information. I am attempting to gather feedback from the public so that I may beter understand how to manage the release of this and future information. Please feel free to comment, disseminate, critique and compliment. Yes, I am the mind that is purely behind this philosophy (and more to come), and yes I wish to remain anonymous here at this time, as I currently believe it belongs to all creatures in the form of a universal blue-print, and should not be attached to one name for the sake of popularity, personal interest or clout. This view is subject to change. ( I apologize in advance if my grammar and syntax is not perfect, though I do not believe that it is so atrocious that it is incomprehensible )

------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Dichotomy of the Immeasurable Singularity: The Logical Maxim of Material Interconnectivity

A logical transcript on the argument of assertion et al (Developmental Phase)

The Meaning of An Immeasurable Singularity:

I devised the phrase "immeasurable singularity" for the following reason: An eternal volume of space and time would leave no room and no time for another eternity to simultaneously exist. In material logic it would be a fallacy for two eternities to co-exist. One eternity would be all of space and all of time that has, will, and does exist; past, present, and future, anywhere and everywhere that time and space is. Ergo, eternity has no beginning and no ending, it is immeasurable. The introduction of the dichotomy is not that two eternities exist, but rather that the concept of immeasurableness applies to two seeming opposites: eternity and nothingness. This will be clearly revealed in the following examples and definitions.

The Immeasurableness of "Nothing":

A volume of "no space" and thus "no time" has no beginning and no ending, therefore it cannot be measured in totality, and hence as a consequence it is immeasurable. In this context we cannot measure that which does not exist. I will refer to this as "nothing" and "absence".

Explaining the Commonality of Eternity and Nothingness:

The concepts of both eternity and absolute absence cannot be measured in totality. Eternity because it has no beginning and no end, thus no points at which to measure the totality of such a thing should it exist, and nothingness because it too has no beginning, nor does it have an ending, henceforth the identical conclusion of immeasurability applies to its concept as well. Eternity and absence are immeasurable. Now we understand their logical commonality.

Defining the Material Inter-connectivity:

Because absence does not and cannot materially exist, then it follows that no space of absence can come between any two objects, so absence also acts as the concept that connects all things, whereas simultaneously eternity serves the same purpose. All material things are forms of energy. New energy can not be created and existing energy cannot be destroyed, therefore it is eternal, and it is thus eternity that connects all things, and therefore all things must be connected and eternal.

Laymen Mathematical Implications:

In mathematics I would identify both eternity and absence as the number 0. If we insert this into any mathematical equation, it either has no effect or it causes the value of the solution to become empty and/or null. Hence, we can not invoke the Eternal God nor can we inject false data sets into scientific procedures, i.e. substituting in make believe information into the place of an ABSENCE of evidence or missing variables.

Additionally, the concept of eternity also has a place with the idea of the number 1 and the number 0. Since there can only be one eternity, then eternity can be thought of as simultaneously 0 and 1 - immeasurable and singular. The universal language that represents the symbolically mathematical display of the immeasurable singularity can then be understood as binary.

a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

You couldnt START a THREAD anywhere...until you posted 20 posts on any topic. And you are still in the wrong place now. You are in the INTRODUCTION FORUM...for that purpose only.

Maybe a mod will come along and post you the rules and move this to the right place.

a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

Reply to me and you have 20 posts to your name. That's all it takes to post this thread on the philosophy forum. In order to post threads a member must have 20 posts, that's all.

Now, copy your OP (original opening post), and go start this thread in the correct forum. It may get deleted from the intro forum and we don't want to lose it.

Welcome to ATS.

Des

originally posted by: Destinyone
a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

Reply to me and you have 20 posts to your name. That's all it takes to post this thread on the philosophy forum. In order to post threads a member must have 20 posts, that's all.

Now, copy your OP (original opening post), and go start this thread in the correct forum. It may get deleted from the intro forum and we don't want to lose it.

You are sitting on 19 posts to your name, reply to anyone in this thread, you'll have 20. then start thread again.

Welcome to ATS.

Des

edit on 25-7-2014 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)

The Dichotomy of the Immeasurable Singularity: The Logical Maxim of Material Interconnectivity

The Meaning of An Immeasurable Singularity:

I devised the phrase "immeasurable singularity" for the following reason: An eternal volume of space and time would leave no room and no time for another eternity to simultaneously exist. In material logic it would be a fallacy for two eternities to co-exist.

No thanks.

a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

Your use of "time" is interesting but I dare say, it is the crutch by which you hold up your other theories. For a start, singularities are by their very nature immeasurable. Most (but not all) of our current understanding of macro physics break down in the environment you are suggesting. This is known physics. However, quantum physics throws us for a loop. For example, even in an eternity/ nothingness scale you suggest, quantum foam and the Planck length would most likely still exist. Hell, if you buy into the nutty string theorists then their crazy strings vibrating away would exist as well! And if they exist, so must time. You also fail to account for simple concepts such as superpositioning and quantum entanglement. Both of these principles preclude the possibility of either eternity or nothingness.

Your arguments, although very interesting, are philosophical in nature.

I look forward to further discussion.

I see. I took time to read over the always lengthy rules, terms, conditions etc., (for pretty much any website) but nowhere did I read that there is a 20 post requisite before posting in forums, other than introduction, can begin. Maybe I missed it. I do not know. I'll copy and paste and we can begin discussion there, in the proper forum.

a reply to: PW229

I didn't fail to account for anything within what was provided. The logic is indestructible, and actually perfect. It cannot be overturned. Therefore it must be ultimate truth. I think it may be your interpretation of what I have transcribed that is a bit eschew, but I will know this through furthering our conversation.

It is completely new and original, and you may need to read it over a few times to completely understand what it means. I suggest and advise this so that we can have a mutually comprehensive discussion.