Understanding Totality—the Basis of All and More

[NMSquirrel]

Complete solidity (One) is impossible

point proven..(how many parts?)

 

[SciWriter]

point proven..(how many parts?)

The number varies, but sums to zero in Totality's overview.


Are there an odd or even number of stars?

Some say there are 300 sextillion, an even number, ha, ha.

Oops another one just formed…

Be odd; never get even.(unfamous mystical saying)

 

[glaucon]

.

So, this is an attempt to explain all, beginning with the explanation for Totality, which is All. For variety, I may also sometimes loosely call it the cosmos or the universe. Reasons will be provided for Totality, as well as how it works. After that, someday, we’ll go on up through protons/electrons to stars to atoms to molecules to cells to life to brains to consciousness and try to figure all that out.

Mod Note:

Sorry, but you're trying to cover far too much ground here.
Pick one single position, and begin from there.

Furthermore, I'm assuming that you're actually going to provide a supportive argument for your position. If, alternatively, all you are proposing to do here is proffer your personal opinions, then I'm afraid we will have to move these discussions to say, Free Thoughts.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel
point proven..(how many parts?)

The number varies, but sums to zero in Totality's overview.

you mean you don't know how many parts you are gonna post?

but if your parts are zero the why are you posting them?

(lol..you missed original intent..)

 

[SciWriter]

OK, let's forget the 'someday' part of going back up the chain and just focus on the logical points of why something must exist and how and what it is made of, beginning with the lowest numbered points. (I posted all of the points for those who like to look ahead and/or get more out of it by seeing the entire proposal all at once.)

Any comments, pro or con, supporting or refuting the logic?

Is the 'problem' of existence adequately surrounded and bounded, enough details to grasp the flow, clarity of reasoning, etc.

This proposal is necessarily beginning with the empirical of what is, then going on into logical-rational philosophy to try to get to the point where the buck stops—the basis of All.

I don't have all the answers for what experiments can be done, or have been, as this is just the beginning to see if the proposal has any potential.

Existence is a question that people have been addressing since they had the capability to wonder about it.

Life, consciousness, and squirrel behavior are probably the next most asked questions, but they can wait for separate threads.

 

[SciWriter]

you mean you don't know how many parts you are gonna post?

but if your parts are zero the why are you posting them?

(lol..you missed original intent..)

Yeah, I missed it. Those are all the parts. Complete and done.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Any comments, pro or con, supporting or refuting the logic?

i would need an interpreter for most of that..too many terms i am unfamiliar with.

Life, consciousness, and squirrel behavior are probably the next most asked questions, but they can wait for separate threads.

you have questions about my behaviour?

 

[SciWriter]

Squirrel, was stuff around forever or was its formation basis that which was around forever, as then explained, for and against, those two positions even converging. That's all, plus that the basis has to be a balance of opposites, such as that QM pair production produces an electron and a positron at the same time, which maintains the zero-balance of, well, nothing, since nothing is apparently the most unstable state, so much that it cannot even stay as such.

I once favored the stuff forever theory, but as you said (that I misinterpreted), that if there was stuff forever, as is, then that would have been a certain, definite amount, yet there could have been nothing prior (since forever) to define that precise amount. Thus, I gave up on that approach, realizing that stuff comes and goes, from its creation basis, which, itself cannot be stuff.

 

[NMSquirrel]

, plus that the basis has to be a balance of opposites,

can't have good without evil..

such as that QM pair production produces an electron and a positron at the same time,

there can never be a 'one'

sciforums is a perfect place to see that..
whenever our discussions become lopsided and uneven someone will step up to restore balance, whether it be good or bad..

 

[SciWriter]

can't have good without evil.

Good example. We also have on/off, hot/cold, man/woman, up/down, left/right, here/there, in/out, past/future, -/+, mountain/plain or valley, and so on; so, none could exist without the other, for the existence of one of the pair makes the other necessary.

 

[glaucon]

OK, let's forget the 'someday' part of going back up the chain and just focus on the logical points of why something must exist and how and what it is made of, beginning with the lowest numbered points. (I posted all of the points for those who like to look ahead and/or get more out of it by seeing the entire proposal all at once.)

So, to clarify, your purpose here is to specifically analyze the nature of existence?

 

[SciWriter]

So, to clarify, your purpose here is to specifically analyze the nature of existence?

Yes, and to completely identify the one and only way that it can logically be, thus answering the ultimate question (of Why and How).

We already see the What (stuff), the Where (space), and the Who (beings, like us).

Time, being the Then, Now, and When, still has some questions, remaining in a kind of middle ground between figuring and being 'seen' as motion, but the full answer, as noted in some of the points, comes out, too.

Everyone stops too soon, whether it be the religious prematurely halting at a word (God), as an answer, or science theorists halting at, say, "What are strings made of." ("It's metaphysical" or that the stuff was always there, both of which are incomplete 'solutions')

Nor are the ramifications of 'forever systems' fully gotten into, either.

 

[glaucon]

Yes, and to completely identify the one and only way that it can logically be, thus answering the ultimate question (of Why and How).

Very well.

You do realize that this has been attempted by numerous minds over hundreds of years of history yes??

And just to help out, your first major stumbling block will be the illicit assumption you made: that existence can only logically instantiate in one way.

Tread carefully.

 

[SciWriter]

I know; we keep trying, for we are ever curious, even though "can't know" already fully frees us to be, to make whatever meaning out of life that we choose.

This theory will also help those, and us from them, who just assume wild notions and then preach them as fact and truth, this not being the aim of the theory, but surely a huge bonus, even in part, if not all.

Time will tell, for any final proofs, but in practical life we still have to decide direction, in those rare moments when essence comes into play over the many activities of existence, which is still the way I feel it should be there, but, here, on places like SciForum, we try to figure things out, thankfully, as many on the outside may not like to get into these things.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Very well.

You do realize that this has been attempted by numerous minds over hundreds of years of history yes??

you do realize that numerous minds are attempting that here..and all at the same time..

 

[glaucon]

you do realize that numerous minds are attempting that here..and all at the same time..

You miss the point.
An intelligent person does not ignore the work that has come before them.....

 

[glaucon]

This theory will also help those, and us from them, who just assume wild notions and then preach them as fact and truth, this not being the aim of the theory, but surely a huge bonus, even in part, if not all.

You miss my point: the premiss you stated as part of your 'theory' is itself an 'assumed wild notion'....

 

[James R]

Critique:

1. Either stuff was here forever or stuff is a distribution of nothing into positive and negative displacements about A zero point—a balance of nothing, essentially, being a ‘sum-thing’ of QM (Quantum Mechanics), as noted in the vacuum fluctuations.

False dichotomy.

3. ‘Nothing’ never sleeps, as we see from QM; it is always up to something, being, one might say, a perfectly unstable ‘state’. Everything melts, via uncertainty, as when we try to measure a quantum property—and so this means that no quantum property can ever be zero, for zero is a precise amount, so, it must be that motion can never cease, it being the natural state, and ever in that fuzzy QM way.

It is not true that "no quantum property can ever be zero". There are lots of quantum quantities that are zero.

6. Cause and effect cannot go on forever, thus there must be a causeless prime mover that depends on nothing before it, for there couldn’t be anything before, both due to an impossible infinite regress of actions that would take forever, and also since then we would not then be identifying Totality, but something secondary or higher.

The premise here is unproven: "cause and effect cannot go on forever".

9. Yet another reason that the same stuff itself could not have been around forever without its making via the QM jitterbugging is that there was/is still nothing to make it out of, and, while that is the answer, I mean that there were no ‘more original’ stockpiles of stuff just sitting around to then make the regular original stuff out of.

This assumes that it is impossible to create matter and energy, which is probably false when you're talking about the big bang.

11. There are only two possible stable matter particles, the electron(-) and the proton(+), which suggests that that is all there can be, perhaps since pair production has but two ways to make matter particles (and their antiparticles). The third arrangement is the energy particle, the photon, its positive and negative aspects residing in peace and summing to its neutral charge. 1 + (-1) = 0. Empirically, it appears that Totality is electrically neutral, there being as many positives as negatives

Neutrons are also stable matter particles. So are anti-protons and positrons.

18. The cosmos is so tremendously large because the Planck size (and within) is so minuscule.

You have established no reason to connect the Planck size (whatever that is) with the size of the cosmos.

19. We can only reside at the finite mid-point between the largest infinity and the smallest infinity (infinitesimal), perched in this finite realm. While ‘size’ may be seem to be somewhat relative, there is a definite ordering to sizes.

What we "can" do and what we "do" do are different things. What you're doing here is setting up some kind of anthropic pronciple.

20. Our 4D existence is completely nullified by electric charge’s polarity, but again, only in the overview. Charge’s polarity is like ‘time’, the 4th dimension, which is the difference of space, and not a compositional dimension like space. I’m choosing charge, rather than matter and antimatter, since those make light, but one still argue that photons contain both positive and negative which could nullify in principle, if not in the actual. Others, like Hawking, see the positive kinetic energy of matter being balanced and canceled out by the negative potential energy of gravity. It always comes down to zero, these theories.

What a mess. You haven't even begun to explain how "electric charge's polarity" would "nullify" a "4D existence". Lots of fancy words, but no substance. Also, photons are not agglomerations of positive and negative charges.

22. The largest infinity times the smallest infinity equals unity, or 1, where we exist.

Such an "equation" is meaningless. Mathematically, infinity multiplied by negative infinity is undefined, not unity.

23. A finite 4-D hypercube is proposed that is a singularity of sorts, the one and only boundary condition of Totality. Extending Einstein’s block universe suggests that there is a finite 4-D hypercube consisting of 3-D infinite spaces that are indexed by time, the spaces being the infinite 3-D ‘surface’ of the 4-D hypercube, just as t here is a 2D infinite surface on a 3D sphere.

The word "singularity" is being used here in a way that makes no sense.

24. Time is the difference of space and space is the difference of time.

Meaningless blather. A "difference" is a relation between two things, not one.

26. Distance^4 = c(time-distance^3)

This equation must be wrong because it is dimensionally incorrect.

Distance^4 / (time-distance^3) = c = distance/time

And this one.

27. The hypercube has dimensions of quadratic distance; however, any incomplete representation of this hypercube, such as half of unit hypervolume, has units of time-distance^3.

More meaningless blather. Also "quadratic" doesn't mean what you think it means. Look it up.

The space of our universe is three-dimensional because this is the only dimension whose volume is compositionally consistent through all levels of infinite size while forming the surface of its own hypersphere.

The term "compositionally consistent through all levels of infinite size" is undefined and amounts to more meaningless blather.

30. Proof of the non-statistical universe: Variability Inversion: The larger an object, the less its universal variability, which is precisely the opposite of what would be expected in a statistical universe.

The term "univeral variability" is undefined and amounts to more meaningless rubbish. So is the term "statistical universe".

32. If there was no Big Bang, then redshift would really mean that photons are expanding, not space, because they are taking several million years to decay, finally quantum emitting decay-photons in the microwave range, this constituting the CMBR.

Photons do not decay into other photons.

CMBR electric currents would also play a role, and this could be the banding seen in galaxies.

There are no electric currents in the CMBR.

What is fourth-dimensional, intrinsically polar, external to space, and a metric for spacial distance? Time.

The term "metric" here is being used in a non-standard way. Also, time is one-dimensional, not four-dimensional.

34. Complete solidity (One) is impossible, and the same for total vacuity (Zero); thus the in-between zero-balance ‘sumthing’ of positive and negative.

I think we've seen near-total vacuity in this thread.

---

The rest is so vague that it can't be analysed. There's lots of scientific-sounding jargon put together in random patterns there, but it's all essentially meaningless.

Probably you should give up trying to do physics and stick to art and poetry. Either that, or start doing some physics for real rather than pretending.

 

[glaucon]

The rest is so vague that it can't be analysed. There's lots of scientific-sounding jargon put together in random patterns there, but it's all essentially meaningless.

Probably you should give up trying to do physics and stick to art and poetry. Either that, or start doing some physics for real rather than pretending.

Indeed.

Thanks for the critique James.
You're much more patient than I...

 

[NMSquirrel]

Probably you should give up trying to do physics and stick to art and poetry. Either that, or start doing some physics for real rather than pretending.

wow..thank you james for having the expertise to critique such a thing,i am sure there was more than just me who did not understand it..

is there a way you can direct her to info relative to her positing?
other than a generic 'grow up' .