The Dichotomy of the Immeasurable Singularity

a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

Contemplating eternal nothingness in definition presents a condition that implies an effort to suggest that nothing is something.

Just like water cannot freeze at 100F nothing cannot be something.

Any thoughts?

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

Contemplating eternal nothingness in definition presents a condition that implies an effort to suggest that nothing is something.

Just like water cannot freeze at 100F nothing cannot be something.

Any thoughts?

Correct, but only conceptually. In thought we can logically deliberate the concept of nothing, but in physical reality we know that it does not and cannot exist, and that is its very definition. We use physical reality as a compare and contrast tool to understand the -concept- of nothingness.

I am not implying that nothing is a physical something. What I have defined is a dichotomous definition, at least at one level of comprehension, that combines the two into an indistinguishable singularity of immeasurableness, in which they share the same attributes.

this is crazy, i can believe it too
do you think it will go mainstream?

a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

Imagine you walk into a room made of playdoh objects and you get so close to one object that you cannot see anything because there is nothing within sight to approximate with - nothing to draw correlations from.

And then you start to define what you see.

That is what you are doing.

Eventually you might be able to see that everything is playdoh, even yourself, and that playdoh is the Holy Ghost / will and the one who saw the first shape/image is Father / awareness / soul and by seeing he did create the Son / image / word / shapes / body.

Nothing is blindness. Willed blindness, or not, it is still the same.

As I mentioned above: everything we think of as an image is approximations and for that reason, math and science cannot work to truly see.

e.g. What is the true image of one? Is it 1 or is it the image of a single apple? Which 1 is the true 1 in my sentences? The answer: They are all 1... and their images are all based on approximations of their one will - their function. The function or will is what sets things apart. And it is the function or will of eternity / will itself which is what you're "seeing" by looking at the unseen.

e.g. Grasshoppers have 6 legs - but what of a grasshopper born with extra limbs? He is still a grasshopper because 6 legs is an approximation of his will.

e.g. How many numbers is between 1 and 1.1? Infinity. And you will then try to think something like well 1 and 1.1 are static, but no, they are just approximations between .9 and 1.2 - they too are apart of eternity and are as dynamic as will itself. One, 1, uno, apple.

1 Corinthians 15:24

The Playdoh will be the end once we all have sight of what is good or just. It is the only way and is the basis for everything we are as good concept reproducers. Everything must be good that is willed, and for the spiritually minded, it must be just or holy to be good.

Okay, I think that's enough. If you do not understand still, I will leave you to go insane by trying to figure out the continuum hypothesis or something similarly impossible as "nothing", in the way you define it.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

Imagine you walk into a room made of play-dough objects and you get so close to one object that you cannot see anything because there is nothing within sight to approximate with - nothing to draw correlations from.

Those are called points of reference.

And then you start to define what you see.

That is what you are doing.

Sort of. Not entirely. I am comparing and contrasting, but not using it to represent a location in space as one would to correlate the distance from the Sun to the Earth. I am using concepts, one such concept that cannot be physically actualized as material, only realized as a definition. That would be "nothingness" or "absence".

Eventually you might be able to see that everything is play-dough, even yourself, and that play-dough is the Holy Ghost / will and the one who saw the first shape/image is Father / awareness / soul and by seeing he did create the Son / image / word / shapes / body.

I'm not going to entertain or create religious agendas out of my logical maxims. You will keep that to yourself, between you and I. That is not my purpose for creating my philosophy. Obviously you possess an underlying Abrahamic religious agenda. The same could be said of all religions, just use interchangeable words for Father and "Holy Ghost". Not interested in proselytic agendas.

Nothing is blindness. Willed blindness, or not, it is still the same.

I'm sorry, what? If you'd like to logically discuss the topic outside of religious dogma, I'd love to. I'm not religious and I do not have a religious agenda.

Nothing has a dual meaning. If "nothing is blindness", then everything is sight, but this doesn't mean that nothing can not be sight. Nothing is also sight. No offense, but I'm the teacher here, not you.

As I mentioned above: everything we think of as an image is approximations and for that reason, math and science cannot work to truly see.

Well, that is your belief, held in place by no logic whatsoever. just loose words and empty assertions that I assume you'll never let go of. Math and science are true sights within themselves. You continuously segregate forms of thought, you lack integration of them, and you place a hierarchy on them. As if one is better than another.

e.g. What is the true image of one? Is it 1 or is it the image of a single apple? Which 1 is the true 1 in my sentences? The answer: They are all 1... and their images are all based on approximations of their one will - their function. The function or will is what sets things apart. And it is the function or will of eternity / will itself which is what you're "seeing" by looking at the unseen.

Right. Those things are one. I am one body. A singular apple is one apple. An atom is one atom. Just because a thing is thought of as singular, doesn't mean it has no parts. Although some singular concepts have no physical parts.

I've never said otherwise. Why you keep claiming that, "eventually I'll be able to understand this and that", is very disturbing. It reveals that you

1.) claim to know what I know and think before I tell you what I know and think. Which is impossible for you to do with me.

2.) have an ulterior motive to make it appear or seem as if you're teaching me all of this for the first time, and as if you're right without providing any substantial proof, whether in the form of crisp and sound logic, visible evidence, or mathematical and scientific representation.

3.) attempt to steal my theory as your own through making both 1 and 2 appear to be true.

Sorry. Not having any of it, and not into discussing religious ideologies within a strictly logical theory.

If that's wha you want to continue to do, then I'll have to block you. I don't even want to read a single word of it.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

You're also putting together arguments against fabricated, or false positions of mine. You're making arguments, then concluding that I oppose them and that I will "say that" or "say this". Until I do, you don't know what I think, and until I do, I have not. Only you. You're creating a fake me to make yourself believe, and to make it appear as if you're right and I'm wrong. Again, it's all in your head.

Again, I'm not trying to be offensive, but it appears as if you might suffer from level of schizophrenia.

Best of luck in your future.

a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

You are as a child who has learned the numbers 1-15 and then shouts to his parents when he self-discovers that 16 must be after 15 - as if he has done something genius by seeing what is already known by billions of others. Only instead of calling it 16, you call it "nothing" because you couldn't see the numbers.

What you are saying about "nothing", as a thing, is not new - it is one of the major principles in many religions... And so your arrogant demands, that I not speak to you about religion, are out of place, as such. I can speak about religion if it is on topic, so if you do not want to be replied to, don't post.

Further, I haven't learned anything about the topic from you. What I said in my posts are what I already knew about this topic. After reading your opening post, and seeing the errors, I knew what you were saying better than you did yourself because it is not an original idea - not in the least. And that is why I have written in the manner of a teacher: to try to help you work through your false sentiments. The post of mine above reduced my previous posts in this thread to baby talk so that you could understand what I had said in them - I was not reiterating what you had said.

Have you worked on this notion for a long time and that is why you are so hostile to corrections? Dichotomy of nothing is your life work?

Lastly, when I said "nothing is blindness" I was using nothing as a term or word and blindness as its definition. I was not saying that there is no such thing as blindness, and therefor everything is sight. I was saying there is a will or function which is blindness and the image or word for that will is nothing.

nothing:
4. indicating the absence of anything perceptible; nothingness
5. indicating the absence of meaning, value, worth, etc: to amount to nothing.

Nothing: blindness of something. All things which exist must be something. That is, your "logical" analysis is based on a flawed understanding and so your dichotomy is flawed. What you have perceived is not nothing, which is itself, perceptual blindness, but what you have perceived is some of the properties of eternity, or will.

See I'm not just saying you're wrong, I am trying to help you see what is right by explaining it all to you in this overly simplified baby talk.

a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

Schizophrenia? No. I was covering the bases or anticipating and explaining the next logical hurdle by thinking ahead for you. I was trying to make it easy since this all seems to be so difficult for you.

The only thing I should need to say is: Will. But then that isn't simplified enough, now is it?

Besides, how do you know a thing without seeing its fruit or will? What does the scientific method use if not a test of fruits?

You fault me for seeing your fruit and say that I couldn't possibly know you but then you type and make words and I see your will... that's how it works. Sorry if that is too deep or spiritual but that is just how it is.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Thank you for proving me right, from here on out you will not receive anymore acknowledgement.

a reply to: dinogirl

Yes. I believe it will. My only concern is that it will be stolen by someone and portrayed as their own, instead of revealed, exposed, introduced by me.

In my city, this has already happened. While explaining it to someone I went to highschool with, on facebook, I later saw that the person was repeating it as if it was their own.

This is hard for me to deal with, as I have dedicated years of my life to thoroughly refining and perfecting this theory so that it can be understood by almost everyone, given that they have the desire to. I think I've done a pretty good job of making it self explanatory.

I also have a lot more that I have yet to share. This because of fear of others stealing it. If I can see that enough people are able to understand it, and enough people can realize it, then I want to be recognize for being the body that was used as a conduit to bring forth the knowledge, not some random intellectual thief. If you wish to share it with others, which I condone, please at least give me credit.

I think I understand your idea... I understand that you are taking the logical junction that you as an observer can only guess or label the eternity or nothing by symbols to attempt to measure them but since eternity and nothing have no measurable beginning and end they cannot be sufficiently studied when applied with math or science. And by using maths or science you will conclude that eternity or nothing come out to represent the same as nothing and eternity at the same time because we cannot fully understand the concept of eternity therefor leaving us with the same reality of how we attempt to understand nothing. And that there cannot be nothing because even in the absence of something there will remain something. Are you attempting to point out that science has a flaw in trying to understand the universe?

a reply to: Stuprimori

No. Not at all. We can fully understand their concepts. That is not what I'm saying at all.

No. I am not claiming that science has a flaw in trying to understand the universe. I think science has a flaw when it comes to integrating logic into the understanding of the universe.

On another note: I think atheists have a flaw in their beliefs. Some atheists hold that there was a beginning to the universe and that "nothing" caused it. This is impossible to know, for we cannot see before the first visible instance, nor can we provide proof that "nothing" is the cause for anything.

Basically, for these types of atheists, their silly logic simplifies down into: Nothing was existing, then suddenly nothing happened to nothing, and for no reason whatsoever nothing exploded into something and magically everything rearranged itself into the universe.

It's really silly and stupid, and it's not the work of science, it is the work of fallacious logic and atheistic blind faith passed off as a sorry excuse for science and legitimacy.

Maybe I wasn't too clear sorry I did write that on a break on my cell.
I don't think that we do not understand the concepts of eternity and nothingness.
In in your op, the points you present lead me to the conclusion that you are pointing out that math and science cannot properly or logically be apply to eternity or nothingness since in math and science it represents them as one and the same.
You also say that science flaw is not integrating logic into the understanding of the universe. People will argue that science and math is the most logical way you can propose and idea or thought. But I do see where you are pointing out the conundrum that sometimes this tool cannot be uses in certain situations due to not enough or incomplete information. Such as, not having a beginning or end points.

Little lost on the atheist rant and how it applies to your original op... But as for that being silly, I agree but if you switch just a few words in your paragraph about their silly logic, you have yourself a religion! Its the same pattern but just has single or multiple figures who represent why the nothingness magically sprang out of nothing into something. Are you religious yourself and are you trying to convey in your original op more of a backing for a religious stand point? I am truly interested in what your view point is I'm just trying to clarify so we are on the same page

originally posted by: PansophicalSynthesis

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis
Contemplating eternal nothingness in definition presents a condition that implies an effort to suggest that nothing is something.
Just like water cannot freeze at 100F nothing cannot be something.
Any thoughts?

Correct, but only conceptually. In thought we can logically deliberate the concept of nothing, but in physical reality we know that it does not and cannot exist, and that is its very definition. We use physical reality as a compare and contrast tool to understand the -concept- of nothingness.
I am not implying that nothing is a physical something. What I have defined is a dichotomous definition, at least at one level of comprehension, that combines the two into an indistinguishable singularity of immeasurableness, in which they share the same attributes.

In context and if I may you seem to imply that, "Mankind/Consciousness," is inherent?

One of the factors that make human awareness apparent is the "Present"

originally posted by: [post=18271306]Kasha

In context and if I may you seem to imply that, "Mankind/Consciousness," is inherent?

No. I'm not saying that, but I'm also not claiming anything against it. All I'm doing is presenting a logical theory that shows a dichotomy between two immeasurable concepts and also wht it leads one to inevitably conclude that physical reality must be connected.

It's not the common assertion that "all things are connected", without any logic or proof to back it. I'm actually providing you and other wih a way to entirely understand why everything physical is indeed connected.

a reply to: Stuprimori

Yes. We agree. The type of atheism that I described utilizes the same dynamics as religious fancy. Insert magical reason here and wa-la, we have the universe. Same type of thinking, different word.

No. I am not religious myself, I am also not atheist. My perspective on religion is that I cannot prove or disprove the claims of God or holy prophets, nor am I subject to being converted, I remain strongly fixed in a stance of agnosticism.

I do not believe in God and I do not disbelieve in God. I do think religion can instill good morals, but I believe Humanity can do this on their own without religion. I do not oppose religion. I oppose evil. Personally, I oppose Islam and I wish to see its destruction in my lifetime. Nothing would make me happier than to see Mecca and Medina obliterated. The only sensible Muslims seems to be those who have been Westernized and moderated. The only thing I like about Islam is its merciless approach to criminals. Unfortunately, its savagery knows no bounds.

The above is just my personal opinion on religion, since you asked, and has nothing to do with my theory.

My theory does not stand for or against religion. Only that it is false to attribute unknowns to "God". It gets us no where.

I have revised the language to more accurately reflect my intents.

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

The Dichotomy of the Immeasurable Singularity: The Logical Maxim of Energy Interconnectivity
December 2, 2011 at 5:07am
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 physical 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 physically exist, then it follows that no space of absence can come between any two forms of energy, so absence also acts as the concept that connects all physical phenomena, whereas simultaneously eternity serves the same purpose. All physical 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 physical things, and therefore all physical things must be connected.

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.

Boolean Logic also deals with 0 and 1, a photon is said to have a rest mass of 0 and a spin of 1.

I also thought that adding this would help.

Logical affects on physical celestial systems and bodies:

All systems possessing matter will be defined as materially interconnected within themselves. These systems will be a subset of many supersets, or a macrocosm of many microcosms. For example, any celestial body can be thought of as materially interconnected. More specifically, a planet can be thought of as a materially interconnected body that is made up of many smaller bodies of matter, i.e. biological entities and organisms. Stars are also bodies of matter.

Materially separated celestial systems such as galaxies, stars, planets and solar systems, though not materially connected, are connected by forms of energy such as light and the substance that is referred to as the vacuum of space that accounts for the immaterial space between them.