The Dichotomy of the Immeasurable Singularity

The Dichotomy of the Immeasurable Singularity: The Logical Maxim of Material Inter-connectivity

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.

Some other correlations is the rest mass of light being 0, while having a spin of 1, and Boolean algebra.

Websites are like magazines and ATS is the national enquirer, I think you would be much happier with a popular mechanics or a new yorker.

a reply to: Poppcocked

I don't mind ATS. It has helped me devise many theories and figure out a lot about myself. The people here are very knowledgeable and think outside of the common status quo box, and that's exactly what I seek.

a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis Read The Kybalion is right there. Basically what it says is that All exist, so if All exist then all the possibilities exist (including nothing). You cannot create matter or energy (they are both one), they always have existed (eternal). You only can change them, matter and energy are constantly evolving but they never end.

a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

Instead of thinking of things as their qualia, think of them as the will which manifests the qualia as you look at it. Yet, "nothing" is not a qualia manifest by the will. Instead, "nothing" is a simulacrum which should express an inability to see the infinite - nothing is blindness willed.

Further, math and science are based solely on approximations of sight, so you shouldn't bother with them if you want true sight. If you want true sight, you need to seek God - Father is the one manifests the images of will.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

I am one with the eternal and the eternal is one. That is what was described above. In fact, we all are. Whether aware of it or not, whether we accept it or not. It does not change the actuality.

I have nothing to seek in that respect. I am all but completely found.

A true sight, in reality, would involve seeing something, or everything, or anything, from every perspective. So, seeing from the perspective of science and mathematics is important as well.

But, thank you for your suggestions and advisories.

a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

We will only be one when we have the same will, and to achieve that, we need the same awareness in order to will the same [true] images. (Such as the true understanding of nothing.) It is spirit or will which separates us by purpose and only when we share the same purpose will we be reunited.

Nothing doesn't actually exist as it is defined - there is not a thing which is "nothing", so it cannot manifest any of the qualia as you tried to express it. Nothing should be relabeled and redefined as blindness of qualia and then maybe people can see that nothing is not so comparable to eternity?

But yeah, so long as you're aware that many of the perspectives of science and mathematics are falsehoods, and should be understood as such, then I have no problem in agreeing with your sentiment (the importance in seeing them.)

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

We will only be one when we have the same will, and to achieve that, we need the same awareness in order to will the same [true] images. (Such as the true understanding of nothing.) It is spirit or will which separates us by purpose and only when we share the same purpose will we be reunited.

Ah, well, that would be having ONE identical will between two or more people. I was actually referring to myself as an individual consciousness. In that respect, I am one. However, we can definitely be thought of as one in more ways than you mention.

Furthermore, the only -false- understanding of "nothing" would be one that does not logically make sense. Hence, what I am portraying in the above manuscript is a true definition of "nothing".

Additionally, two or more people working together for a common cause can will a shared "image" so to speak. This has been happening since the beginning of recorded history.

Well, it sounds like you have a whole bunch of opinions regarding the "trueness" of things, and those opinions appear to be very vaguely defined. I'll help you out by defining them with more specificity.

When I state that my academic findings are "an ultimate truth", I did not state that it is "the only way that 'nothing' can be thought of".

Nothing doesn't actually exist as it is defined - there is not a thing which is "nothing", so it cannot manifest any of the qualia as you tried to express it. Nothing should be relabeled and redefined as blindness of qualia and then maybe people can see that nothing is not so comparable to eternity?

You missed the entire point. My entire theory defines the dichotomy between nothingness and eternity. Their difference is not anything special, and has been known and discussed since the beginning of recorded intellectual history. What I have revealed for you is that in essence, at least at one level of comprehension, they are logically one and the same and not two different things at all. At this level of comprehension they are known as an immeasurable singularity. This is where material and immaterial logic combine for a synthesis of an ultimate truth.

But yeah, so long as you're aware that many of the perspectives of science and mathematics are falsehoods, and should be understood as such, then I have no problem in agreeing with your sentiment (the importance in seeing them.)

Not necessarily false, just not exact matches with reality, but this is known to be a true phenomena. Pure mathematics are nothing but truth. Science, when carried out correctly and thoroughly, also leads to undeniable truths and working theories.

I'm not here to falsify or claim falsehoods within real science and math. I never said that and never claimed that, nor do I believe it to be true.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

But yeah, so long as you're aware that many of the perspectives of science and mathematics are falsehoods, and should be understood as such, then I have no problem in agreeing with your sentiment (the importance in seeing them.)

If my stance on whether or not I believe or am "aware" that mathematics and science are falsehoods is what portends whether or not you agree with my "sentiments", then I could care less.

I'm not here to convince anyone to agree with anything. My logic is impeccable and will stand the test of time and scrutiny.

To add to the above mentioned, it is not a "sentiment". This isn't an emotional, opinionated piece of poetry. It is a well put together logical premise that is defined and explained perfectly within logical parameters, and, after being thoroughly read and understood, comes to a logically sound conclusion.

The idea that 0 and 1 can be integrated is fascinating.

However in relation to your logic being impeccable?

You will need to provide the math and then afford an article to, "Nature" or "Science", which are scientific periodicals.

Nonetheless you have provided and interesting insight into a realistic potential.

Any thoughts?

PS: In relation to how it is immeasurable you will need to show how your math points to an infinity.

a reply to: Kashai

This theory explains how two immeasurable concepts, thought to be opposites, have their opposite qualities break down at at-least one level and become a singularity.

It doesn't require infinity.

An infinite would be something like a ray in math. Having a beginning point but no ending point, or vice versa.

To keep it mathematical, what this theory does is sort of combine a "point" with a "line". Where a point is a dimensionless coordinate. Due to the fact that a point has no dimensions, thus no beginning and no end, hence immeasurable, the same can be said of a "line", more specifically a non-circular line. At this level of comrprehension, locality and non-locality become a dichotomy.

a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

By definition a Gravitational Singularity is Infinite.

How are you defining a Singularity?

a reply to: Kashai

Taken from the OP.

"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."

"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"."

a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

It's a boundless singularity with no event horizon. It is not a curvature singularity.

I'm just curious, beacuse I am only familiar with one kind of "singularity" and it would be impossible to measure it in the first place, thus, ALL singularities are "immeasurable", because they are no longer "in" this Universe. Thus they occupy no "space", have infinite mass, and enjoy lemon flavored pixie sticks and playing with puppies. Why not? It makes just as much sense as the phrase "immeasurable singlularity" and who DOESN'T like puppies ? ALso, this was the final "bit" of information on ATS that I can consume today, your supposition has just converted my mind into a virtual mobius strip. I need to activate my emergency recovery protocol, also known as Forza Motorsport ! have a great day and thanks

a reply to: tencap77

All singularities are not immeasurable.

I'm not sure I understand the tone of your post at all, since it's so hard to comprehend people's intents, but taking it for what it appears to be: why such a negative approach? If you want to private message me, feel free.

I don't understand the parallel that you place between my work, that has consumed almost a decade of my life now, and your idea of puppies and lemon flavored pixie sticks.

In fact, I don't think your response really has much of any serious substance to it at all, except to attempt to merit a response. This is usually referred to as trolling.

a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

The word 'Singularity" is defined as such...

en.wikipedia.org...

Understandably you have invested time in this. But in relation to what is commonly accepted as immeasurable today, is what is infinite.

You see if something is infinite? By definition anything can happen.

To a scientist that takes the prose of a "modern day skeptic', the issue is that in consideration? That if one claims an immeasurable singularity exist? One must also do the math in order to allow for your position to end up on Wikipedia.

In relation to my own thoughts and in a way you are addressing the present.

Any thoughts?

a reply to: Kashai

Okay, well, let's get back on track. The types of singularities that I was referring to are not immeasurable. I see what definition that you are using. I understand that. So that we comprehend one another, I will remain using the definition of immeasurable singularities.

The singularity that I have begun to define, and have generally defined, is NOT infinite.

The three/four important definitions to be aware of are: eternal/nothingness, infinite and finite.

Immeasurable, Eternal and Nothingness - without beginning and without end. Completely immeasurable.

Immeasurable, Infinite - having beginning and no end, or having end and no beginning. Partly measurable, at least a beginning or an end can be theorized or witnessed.

Measurable, finite - Having beginning and end. Completely measurable.

The singularity that I have defined falls under the category and definition of the eternal/nothingness.

Again, it has no event horizon and is non-circular. It is not a naked singularity, a conical singularity, nor a curvature singularity.

This singularity is a perpetual motion machine. It does not lose and does not gain energy.

The nature of this singularity as you have asked me to consider is as follows: In a physical sense: Anything can happen within the laws of naturalism, or physics. Anything can exist within thought, though not all thoughts can manifest into physical reality, until and unless they align with physics and the natural physical laws of the physical reality.

For example; I can imagine freezing water at 100 degrees Fahrenheit. However, although this is permitted within thought alone, it is not permissible within physical reality. Water cannot and will not freeze at 100 degrees.

a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis

My entire theory defines the dichotomy between nothingness and eternity. Their difference is not anything special, and has been known and discussed since the beginning of recorded intellectual history. What I have revealed for you is that in essence, at least at one level of comprehension, they are logically one and the same and not two different things at all. At this level of comprehension they are known as an immeasurable singularity. This is where material and immaterial logic combine for a synthesis of an ultimate truth.

"Aleph" has been described in many mystical forms of thought as a place where time and space converge into nothing (singularity). It is where the implicate orders (enfolded realities) and explicate orders (unfolded realities) meet. It is where eternity exist within a second and the universe in a grain of sand, so to speak. It is where every part contains the whole, and where the whole contains every part.

I feel ya.

a reply to: Involutionist

Interesting, but not exactly what I'm proposing.