No subject

Does nothingness exist? I don't think so. At the end of every deduction what remains is energy. That is what we are essentially, energy or more factually lots of energies brought together by attraction and that attraction is owing to the grand design of existence which all energies trace. Follow?

Originally posted by Juran


Does nothingness exist? I don't think so. At the end of every deduction what remains is energy. That is what we are essentially, energy or more factually lots of energies brought together by attraction and that attraction is owing to the grand design of existence which all energies trace. Follow?

Im with you on that bud, but there is no way to prove it so im open to any theory. But yes I to believe that nothingness is only a word to controle and put fear into us

Originally posted by ZeroReady
reply to post by 20COMEtMYanELENINe11

 

Quarks, muons and gluons. Whats else? Beyond that, 1 dimensional string. Beyond that, quantum foam. Eventually there's probably just empty space. Even atoms are 99% empty space. So then we are as well.... Mostly empty.

After reading your other post...I just want to sit down and drink a pitcher of beer with you, and talk about anything!

Regards and Nameste,

-Chung

Originally posted by ChungTsuU

Originally posted by ZeroReady
reply to post by 20COMEtMYanELENINe11

 

Quarks, muons and gluons. Whats else? Beyond that, 1 dimensional string. Beyond that, quantum foam. Eventually there's probably just empty space. Even atoms are 99% empty space. So then we are as well.... Mostly empty.

After reading your other post...I just want to sit down and drink a pitcher of beer with you, and talk about anything!

Regards and Nameste,

-Chung

Dude that sounds great, im always down to have a intelligent conversation and get a good buzz!

Cheers my brother

I can tell you what everything reduces to, but it may not be what you expect to hear. In fact, whenever I've suggested this here, it's either been ignored or dismissed. However, in the interest of being a good little messenger and pushing forward, I'll suggest it once again.

At the very bottom of everything is the event. Change. That's the very essence of physical existence, but it only lasts as long as the URC - or Unit Rate of Change. That rate describes the duration of the unit of change from initiation to the initiation of the follow-on unit of change. Change occurs in collectives known as event trajectories, and there are two versions of event trajectories - linear and redundant.

Linear - A ball rolling across the floor, and the material existence of the ball and the floor

Redundant - The material structure (atoms and stuff) of the ball and the floor

The event unit is the basis of all material existence.

The event unit's "partner" is the unit of information. Without the collective of information units, the event trajectory would not exist. It is the symbiotic relationship between the event unit and the associated unit of information (one unit of info emerging as a result of the unit of event that it has emerged to represent) that allows for all that has ever and will ever come into physical existence.

A common name for an organized event matrix (linear and redundant trajectories held intact due to an associated information collective's response to its relative existential status within a specific contextual environment - or reality confine) is "the particle".

In other words, material existence is actually holon structures of organized event matrix trajectories. It can get insanely complicated and the trajectory traffic can become amazingly dense. That density - and the ramifications of such traffic density - is what causes the emergence of "natural forces", as information does what it does to mitigate collisions through a system of defaults that exists as established channels of progressive potential. This is why you can't fly or disappear or time travel. For whatever reason, those channels aren't open to you (who, as an enormously complex and multi-layered event matrix trajectory, is extremely limited as to what you can and cannot do within such a dense contextual environment). At the quantum level, the traffic isn't nearly as dense, and the contextual precedences aren't as rigidly established. Hence, the weirdness that our advanced technology is revealing to those poor puzzled physicists who simply refuse to let go of their "God-particle" notions.

I have actually written and published a book that fully details how and why this will eventually become the common way that science will view physical reality. In fact, it explains it all from the instant just before the initiation of physical genesis, and takes it to the moment that the being we call God has fulfilled its own version of the existential imperative.

You're not required to believe me or to accept any of this, but I often feel as if I'm required to make the information available to anyone who actually wants to know. It's the price of having received the information, as far as I see it.

Kind of reminds me of the more you look into it its like facing two mirrors at each other and standing in the middle--

infinity-eternity-existance

and we all know the dinosaur that hatched it lol came first

reply to post by NorEaster


How many copies of your book have you sold? Just reading that post hurt my head!!
Your theory starts with an assumption and builds from that. You say that at the very bottom of everything is the event. Change. How do you know? I thought that in the begining there was the void. I would be more inclined to believe that there has to be nothing on which the something appears.
Events appear to happen, but can we actually measure an event, where does it begin and where does it end? Can you measure now? And is there any other time than now?

reply to post by ZeroReady


Exactly. I think you answered this thread about as good as it can be answered. Paradoxically, through reduction, we conclude that everything must arise out of emptiness, yet "emptiness" is not a concept we can understand because conceptual understanding is "something".

Peace.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by NorEaster

 

How many copies of your book have you sold? Just reading that post hurt my head!!

That's nothing. You should try reading what it takes to prove it. 9/10 of the book is establishing the proof. It's pretty dense material.

Your theory starts with an assumption and builds from that.

Okay, so that's where you are assuming that I made an assumption. I didn't. In fact, I prove every assertion I make in that book. It takes 136,000 words to accomplish that, and some serious structural work to keep the whole thing from devolving into endless digressions. It was actually a full year of just working on the structure of the information rollout, since so much of it is dependent on the establishment of concepts that are in-turn dependent upon the establishment of what is in the process of being established. It was harder to present than to determine.

You say that at the very bottom of everything is the event. Change. How do you know? I thought that in the begining there was the void. I would be more inclined to believe that there has to be nothing on which the something appears.

The void is the absence of everything. The change from the absence of everything to the existence of nothing - in essence the emergence of the concept of existence, and the conceptual something, via a primordial qualification requirement that precedes the impact of that requirement (which is what Identity actually is) - was that 1st ever event. The next event was the emergence of the fact of that occurrence, as information. That information still exists, and will always exist, because the event occurred and can't ever return to not having ever occurred before.

Events appear to happen, but can we actually measure an event, where does it begin and where does it end? Can you measure now? And is there any other time than now?

There is the informational continuum that exactly tracks the innumerable event trajectories, and that informational continuum provides the specifics of the URC per full contextual environment. There is one informational continuum per full contextual environment, and no two informational continuums can physical associate with one another. Each is isolated by the URC from any other, since even the slightest change in URC makes change synchronization progressively impossible between incompatible wholes.

And yes, we haven't got the technology to accurately measure the Unit Rate of Change, and I'm not very confident that measuring our own rate of change is even logically possible. After all, the instruments we'd use would be also subject to molecular, atomic and sub-atomic structural reconfiguration at the same rate, so how would it ever work to be able to define that unitary rate? That'd be some serious problem solving required to accomplish such a measurement.

For the corporeal (event trajectory centric) being, there is no actual instant other than NOW. The span of the URC is what we call NOW, and that's all that really exists for the corporeal matrix. We do have the capacity to anticipate and remember, but that's residual information data clusters being configured as part of the brain's survival management effort (on behalf of the umbrella matrix whole that is the human body). So, I suppose that you're right that Now is all that actually exists for the corporeal human being and every material thing that does exist. However, the informational continuum does also exist, and that continuum is where our memories reside (stored conveniently within the carbon of our memory cells for quick access by our brains). The informational continuum doesn't gather as a cloud. It has complete dominion over the entire contextual environment (reality confine) and leaves its keys and wallet right out there on the coffee table (metaphorically speaking, of course).

I prove all of this in my book, by the way. The whole thing is pretty airtight and I've given many copies out to professional people to debunk. No one has debunked any of it to date.

I believe z-->z^2+C describes this notion you speak of.

I've always wondered if we live in a fractal universe, where once you've zoomed into the smallest particle of this universe you realize it opens an entirely new one (and vice versa [as in you zoom out of our universe to find its vastness is still only the smallest elementary particle of another larger universe]).

Good Post; Provided A Pleasurable Morning Ponder.

this BBC video explain few things that this thread as generated:

Originally posted by ZeroReady
reply to post by 20COMEtMYanELENINe11

 

Quarks, muons and gluons. Whats else? Beyond that, 1 dimensional string. Beyond that, quantum foam. Eventually there's probably just empty space. Even atoms are 99% empty space. So then we are as well.... Mostly empty.

Perhaps the 1 dimensional string is made up of the tone itself resonates?

That sounds about right for Quantum mechanics..

i can kinda understand wot the op is talkin about.

first we thought everything was made of the elemants, then with the advancement of microscopes we descovered elements are made up of atoms, but then we broke that down into electrons, and protons ect, and now we have string theory.

the thing is, with the advancement of new technolagies we can look deeper and deeper into the building blocks of the universe. who knbows how small things really go. it could indeed be neverending

reply to post by DaveNorris


The thing is.... the 'things' are appearing in something that can not be a 'thing'. A cloud can not appear (be seen)unless there is a sky prior to the cloud, the backdrop. All these little tiny 'things' that we find appear in and to this not a 'thingness'.
Within each particle is 99.999% emptiness, no thingness, and in the little 0.001% is 99.999% no thingness.
That no thingness is the real mystery. Out of that comes every 'thing'.

Originally posted by 20COMEtMYanELENINe11

Originally posted by ChungTsuU

Originally posted by ZeroReady
reply to post by 20COMEtMYanELENINe11

 

Quarks, muons and gluons. Whats else? Beyond that, 1 dimensional string. Beyond that, quantum foam. Eventually there's probably just empty space. Even atoms are 99% empty space. So then we are as well.... Mostly empty.

After reading your other post...I just want to sit down and drink a pitcher of beer with you, and talk about anything!

Regards and Nameste,

-Chung

Dude that sounds great, im always down to have a intelligent conversation and get a good buzz!

Cheers my brother

Hey....I am right here too. Right beside the both of you and this is my kind of conversation. Thanks for bringing this subject to light. Oh....I prefer bud light ;-)

I will ponder my thoughts before typing. I have many, many thoughts in regards to the subject but first I must say that my family has always thought of me as weird. We deep thinkers are not the norm.

Peace and love to you and yours!!!!! xoxoxox


Jenn

reply to post by NorEaster


WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ok.....

Im thinking...... ;lol:

1. I love you!!!!

2. I love your words.

3. Your words make sense to me and I often describe what you said...only in different words.

4. Science, God, and Geometry together make sense to me....but not separately.

5. I would buy your book in a heart beat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wish I could give you many stars and flags!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Awesome thread and the words within are the best yet I have seen on ATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Peace and love to you and yours!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! xoxoxox

Jenn

Originally posted by 20COMEtMYanELENINe11

Originally posted by jazkaat
reply to post by 20COMEtMYanELENINe11

 

Skin is made up of cells ...
Cells are made up of "cellular structures"...
Cellulars structures are made up of proteins and amino acids
etc etc...
and it all runs down to Atoms... lots and lots of atoms ...
unless THOSE atoms contain tiny little universes... and skin

Ok, so what makes up the tiny universes, and then what makes up those? Nothing just is, everything must be made up from somthing else, and it never ends

Its all about dimensions. The first dimensions is vibrating lines, or strings. Beyond that is single points. The crazy thing about points (0d) is that they are what is indefinite. For instance, if you have a single point in space, how big is it? It is infinite. It doesn't really have a size because at the point where you would supposedly arrive at a definite size, there would always be a size smaller and then smaller.

This fluctuating dimension seems to be infinity itself. So it would be the first and the last.

The nature of this dimension is such that it is a singularity. It is a singularity that is at the root of all matter in the universe, but more than that, there is only one of them and its everywhere. Now that's mind blowing.

reply to post by MamaJ


If you love him so much, why don't you marry him?

hahaha. JK.

NorEaster's a smart dude. I'd read his book too.

reply to post by smithjustinb


Hmmmmm....well I love you too.....should we marry? I may say YES......

I love this topic as well.....ya know....the mind boggling stuff.

When the singularity of energy became aware of thought.....it manifested. In order for anything to exist it must first be observed. Is this a correct statement???

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

Hmmmmm....well I love you too.....should we marry?

I may say YES......

hahaha!

I love this topic as well.....ya know....the mind boggling stuff.

When the singularity of energy became aware of thought.....it manifested. In order for anything to exist it must first be observed. Is this a correct statement???

I would say that is a correct statement.

I have this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...