Understanding Totality—the Basis of All and More

[NMSquirrel]

It's a new hypothesis, and so it is ongoing, plus it is philosophy. There will be more. Can't build the universe in a day; I may need 6 or 7.

it seems the scientific on this board is more concerned with pointing to what is wrong with new hypothesis's rather than helping to make the hypothosis's valid,although one must consider(give thought) that a new hypothesis can be in error to be scientific,

to me (at least on this site) whether the new hypothesis is valid or not is not the issue, the attempt at such is in itself very informative (providing one understands the terminology in the hypothesis)

sometimes it says that the user (who normaly does not have a science background) is attempting to conform to the scientific standard that is sciforums. credit must be given for the attempt, as well as instruction as to how to refine such hypothesis,without condemning the individual.
(there is a fine fuzzy line between constructive criticism and destructive criticism)

some of the scientific on this board are just as guilty as the theist on this board of demeaning the individual just because they don't understand/agree with their ways.

 

[Dywyddyr]

it seems the scientific on this board is more concerned with pointing to what is wrong with new hypothesis's rather than helping to make the hypothosis's valid

Um, not quite. Whenever any hypothesis is put forward it is subject to stringent "attacks" for viability,consistency etc. It is up to the proposer to make sure it stands up, not the recipients.
The wording "Defending your thesis" when attempting to gain a degree should be a clue.

although one must consider(give thought) that a new hypothesis can be in error to be scientific

How does that work? If my "Theory of Jelly Babies" is based on my mistaken assumption that 1+1=3 surely the fact that 1+1 actually = 2 invalidates any conclusions following, no?

to me (at least on this site) whether the new hypothesis is valid or not is not the issue, the attempt at such is in itself very informative (providing one understands the terminology in the hypothesis)

If it's not valid what's the point of it? Obfuscation? Deflection from something that may prove to be of worth? And, also as JamesR has pointed out, the terminology is being misused.

sometimes it says that the user (who normaly does not have a science background) is attempting to conform to the scientific standard that is sciforums. credit must be given for the attempt, as well as instruction as to how to refine such hypothesis,without condemning the individual.
(there is a fine fuzzy line between constructive criticism and destructive criticism)

Ah, there's another point of contention: a poster calls himself (herself?) Sciwriter and fails to show a requisite understanding of science. Witness the continued mathematical (dimensional mismatch) error of Distance[sup]4[/sup] = c(time-distance[sup]3[/sup]) even after James pointed it out.

some of the scientific on this board are just as guilty as the theist on this board of demeaning the individual just because they don't understand/agree with their ways.

Only if the poster continues to post nonsense after having errors pointed out.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Um, not quite. Whenever any hypothesis is put froward it is subject to stringent "attacks" for viability,consistency etc. It is up to the proposer to make sure it stands up, not the recipients.
The wording "Defending your thesis" when attempting to gain a degree should be a clue.

i am aware of how critisism plays the part in refining ones thesis.
(see fine fuzzy line)

How does that work? If my "Theory of Jelly Babies" is based on my mistaken assumption that 1+1=3 surely the fact that 1+1 actually = 2 invalidates any conclusions following, no?

so the correction must be 1+1=2..not 'your wrong'

If it's not valid what's the point of it? Obfuscation? Deflection from something that may prove to be of worth? And, also as JamesR has pointed out, the terminology is being misused.

yes..this type of correction i can understand,but to just say the term is used incorrectly is not responsible,to be responsible one must communicate the actual meaning of the word.

Ah, there's another point of contention: a poster calls himself (herself?) Sciwriter and fails to show a requisite understanding of science. Witness the continued mathematical (dimensional mismatch) error of Distance[sup]4[/sup] = c(time-distance[sup]3[/sup]) even after James pointed it out.

math is the easiest to correct..no insults needed..

Only if the poster continues to post nonsense after having errors pointed out.

sometimes the poster only has a clue as to what he wants to communicate,that does not mean he has the proper terminology to communicate some concepts,
phrases like 'do you mean?' or 'are you saying?'
IE did you mean 1+1=2?
or how does 1+1=3?
or what do you mean by 1+1=3?

my point being not to discredit/devalue one just because he is trying to communicate a difficult concept.
(see usage of the word 'theory', and how often users berate other users without confirming context of how they are using the word..)

all i am saying is be patient with some users here,yes they may be wrong but you do not need to posture yourself to get them to understand they are wrong, use wisdom and understanding to lead them to the correct understandings..

 

[SciWriter]

Are you joking, you tell me to post knowing what my answer is then dont like it, I'm not going to add anything more to this thread.

That was my plan. (I wasn't in the DIA for nothing.)

 

[SciWriter]

Thanks squirrel. Some kinds of criticisms are helpful, like using 'quadric' or something instead of 'quadradic'. Others may come with some positives, and James may yet respond to my responses. All in all it wasn't too bad, as no one really directly philosophically refuted the basic points beyond only stating some generalizations.

Meanwhile, I have sent my brain off to complete the theory's proofs, but it hasn't gotten back to me yet, and, yes, I know this statement will be fodder for more 'humor'.

I'll have more, whenever.

What do you think about the problems with 'stuff having been forever' and the resort to 'nothing' necessarily then having to play a role?

 

[Dywyddyr]

All in all it wasn't too bad, as no one really directly philosophically refuted the basic points beyond only stating some generalizations.

Then you have failed (spectacularly) to read those replies.
It has been pointed out, repeatedly, that the "philosophy" of your "basic points" fails to hold up. You have made assumptions. You have made assertions without support (let alone, as claimed, "proof").

As for James getting back to you may I suggest that you read his objections and correct them (if you're hoping it will hold up) as opposed to glossing over them with a flip reply essentially saying "that doesn't count". (For example, as I mentioned above, the dimensional error in Distance[sup]4[/sup] = c(time-distance[sup]3[/sup]) - hint: rather than just looking at the number of each on each side, write it out, expand the expression in parentheses and see what you end up with).

 

[SciWriter]

dddd = d/t * tddd = tdddd/t = dddd

 

[NMSquirrel]

What do you think about the problems with 'stuff having been forever' and the resort to 'nothing' necessarily then having to play a role?

there are points and counterpoints..

i think what you mean by saying 'stuff having been forever' (or at least a piece of it)
when a body decomposes its elements do not disappear, its elements are broken down by microbes/bacteria and utilized for other natural processes, this process qualifies for a 'stuff is forever' viewpoint.

as far as there not being a 'nothing', space was at one time thought to contain 'nothing', but as our knowledge advances we discover that there is something in the nothing..

as far as nothing existing before the big bang. scientist only assume nothing until something is discovered.

0 (the number) was not with us at the beginning of history, as math was discovered 0 did not enter into math till a latter date,(see the history of zero)

because humans consider that there is nothing, does not mean there is nothing,it only means there has not been a something to explain the nothing.

 

[SciWriter]

i think what you mean by saying 'stuff having been forever' (or at least a piece of it)
when a body decomposes its elements do not disappear, its elements are broken down by microbes/bacteria and utilized for other natural processes, this process qualifies for a 'stuff is forever' viewpoint.

I'm referring to the problems with so-called fundamental, elemental, lowest level, original stuff like electrons and quarks and whatnot having been there forever.

 

[Dywyddyr]

dddd = d/t * tddd = tdddd/t = dddd

You see: now LOOK AGAIN AT YOUR EQUATION. Don't go from memory, but look at what you've written.
Spoiler: if you're still insistent you're correct the solution is below in white.

llll = l/t(t-lll)
It does NOT expand to what you claim.
It's actually llll = l - lllll/t.
Fail.

 

[NMSquirrel]

I'm referring to the problems with so-called fundamental, elemental, lowest level, original stuff like electrons and quarks and whatnot having been there forever.

same process as a dead body, they just get broken down and reused elsewhere.

 

[glaucon]

I'm open to hearing of another way than either 1) elemental stuff having to have been around forever or 'elemental stuff' having to have been created [but not from other stuff, of course, for then I'd just leap to that as the 'elemental']. All of the theory is not yet set in stone. A third alternative would be fine.

Also, we are going beyond what known science has found, where it didn't yet find out yet, but time will tell, and it's been pretty good to us so far.

(So, first the main, and then the 'asides', or forget them until we might need them.)

SW,

Apparently you misread what I wrote. Or simply misunderstood it.

You are attempting to build some sort of exhaustive explanatory system based on nothing but an illicit assumption, and 'supported' by an array of selectivly interpreted scientific hypotheses. Even forgetting the purported supportive facts, your argument alone is logically flawed, as has been pointed out. Any argument built upon faulty premisses cannot stand.

You have yet to establish that you have any real intention here of doing anything but oratory.

Even if you choose (as you apparently have) to ignore logic, selective interpretation of scientific knowledge cannot be admitted in any reasonable argument. You would do well to note James' criticisms in particular.

ergo.... as the wise Dywyddyr noted:


Mod Note:

Threads moved to Free Thoughts due to irrationality.

 

[SciWriter]

Free thoughts is a good place.

The short logic (new and improved Intro):

Quantum fluctuation is a part of the real science of quantum mechanics, also called vacuum fluctuation. It shows in the Casmir effect. There can be no such thing as nothing. Energy cannot be zero. Thus this happens everywhere, so we have infinity. As it must ever happen, we have eternity. The Big Bang may have come from a low probability fluctuation. Even more experiments will soon be under way, for example, to see if a small spinning object is slowed down by the friction of the fluctuations emitting photons.

Complete vacuity is impossible. Something has to exist because ‘nothing’ can’t, this ‘state’ ever jiggling as loose ‘change’. This is the Why of existence. Opposite matter pair production emission and that of photons is the How.

Here, then, the buck stops, for ‘nothing’ is the root that cannot be or stay as such. Existence must adhere to the balance of opposites, which is the prime candidate for why there must be conservation of energy and momentum. ‘Nothing’, by virtue of not being able to occur anywhere, is the infinite, eternal, causeless, prime mover, and necessarily the only one possible to meet the criteria of infinite and eternal. There is no actual, ageless stuff that was just sitting around forever. The theory of everything IS that this state is causeless, a basis that itself had no creation. So, no Creators, no fundamental substance, no beginning, and no end to All, just the balance of opposites.

The zero-balance extension notion requires more evaluation. (I have to go meet with Lawrence Krauss and talk about nothing.)

 

[NMSquirrel]

The short logic (new and improved Intro):

The theory of everything IS that this state is causeless, a basis that itself had no creation. So, no Creators, no fundamental substance, no beginning, and no end to All, just the balance of opposites.

The shorter logic;
There is no God, and you can see a why.

?

 

[SciWriter]

Nothing for a Creator to do.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Nothing for a Creator to do.

doesn't watching and laughing qualify for something to do?

 

[SciWriter]

The cosmic joke is self-contained, but one could imagine scripts being written for our Earthly soap-opera.

 

[Dywyddyr]

There can be no such thing as nothing.

Why?

Thus this happens everywhere, so we have infinity.

Your "thus" doesn't actually follow.

As it must ever happen, we have eternity.

Doesn't follow.

Here, then, the buck stops, for ‘nothing’ is the root that cannot be or stay as such.

That's self-contradictory. On one hand you claim it cannot be and on the the other you're saying that it can be but isn't stable.

Existence must adhere to the balance of opposites

Why? What "balance of opposites"?

which is the prime candidate for why there must be conservation of energy and momentum.

How?

‘Nothing’, by virtue of not being able to occur anywhere, is the infinite, eternal, causeless, prime mover, and necessarily the only one possible to meet the criteria of infinite and eternal.

If "nothing" cannot exist then how can it be the "prime mover"?

The zero-balance extension notion requires more evaluation.

You're damn' skippy it requires more evaluation.

 

[SciWriter]

“
There can be no such thing as nothing.
”
Why?

First, it is observed as such by QM, but that is just a fact, and not a ‘why’, so, the best we can say at this point is that this is the default law in the land of no laws, for cause-and-effect has reached its end, there necessarily then being no cause or ‘’why’ before to speak of. We still like to say things, though, so we could say that the simplest state must be perfectly unstable, for we note the trend that the simpler and simpler readily combines and/or goes through phase changes. In fact, even way up at the molecule level, molecules are neither inclined to react nor not react, yet the simpler stuff, aside from the inert, usually does.


“
Thus this happens everywhere, so we have infinity.
”
Your "thus" doesn't actually follow.

Well, at least everywhere that QM looks, which is anywhere, so we extend.


“
As it must ever happen, we have eternity.
”
Doesn't follow.

We extend to this since we always observe it, and because laws here have been noted to be the same ‘way out there’, such as when we predicted many neutrinos coming from supernovas far away, using science developed here.


“
Here, then, the buck stops, for ‘nothing’ is the root that cannot be or stay as such.
”
That's self-contradictory. On one hand you claim it cannot be and on the the other you're saying that it can be but isn't stable.

It can’t be, even for an instant, but it must still be the basis since the basis cannot just be yet another ‘something’.


“
Existence must adhere to the balance of opposites
”
Why? What "balance of opposites"?

Pair production of positive and negative charge, matter and antimatter, always paired.


“
which is the prime candidate for why there must be conservation of energy and momentum.
”
How?

All must ever sum to this balance of opposites: nothing, or at least to the near nothing of quantum uncertainty.


“
‘Nothing’, by virtue of not being able to occur anywhere, is the infinite, eternal, causeless, prime mover, and necessarily the only one possible to meet the criteria of infinite and eternal.
”
If "nothing" cannot exist then how can it be the "prime mover"?

Because it cannot exist, everything must then move. Movement, not stillness, turns out to be the natural state of affairs. Perhaps there is no absolute reference point for absolute stillness (I know, just free thought.)

It probably would take a God to hold nothingness intact, but there we have run out of outside influences and forces, so it is not restricted. Possibility reigns, requiring not anything before, for that would only be more possibility. This is the only way the downward chain can end, for there cannot be infinite regress, which is the sure doom of other theories.

 

[Dywyddyr]

First, it is observed as such by QM, but that is just a fact

No. It's a "fact" now. We don't know (and can't begin to guess) what rules applied "before" the Big Bang.
So we come back to "Why?".

Well, at least everywhere that QM looks, which is anywhere, so we extend.

Just because it happens "here" doesn't mean it must happen everywhere.

We extend to this since we always observe it, and because laws here have been noted to be the same ‘way out there’, such as when we predicted many neutrinos coming from supernovas far away, using science developed here.

In other words you're guessing.

It can’t be, even for an instant, but it must still be the basis since the basis cannot just be yet another ‘something’.

So it can exist and it can't? More waffle...

Pair production of positive and negative charge, matter and antimatter, always paired.

So if there's a balance between matter and anti-matter where's all the anti-matter? Why hasn't existence mutually annihilated itself? More guessing.

All must ever sum to this balance of opposites: nothing, or at least to the near nothing of quantum uncertainty.

Supposition stated as fact.

Because it cannot exist

Make your mind up.

everything must then move.

Supposition again.

Movement, not stillness, turns out to be the natural state of affairs. Perhaps there is no absolute reference point for absolute stillness (I know, just free thought.)

More supposition. And no there is no absolute rest.

It probably would take a God to hold nothingness intact, but there we have run out of outside influences and forces, so it is not restricted. Possibility reigns, requiring not anything before, for that would only be more possibility. This is the only way the downward chain can end, for there cannot be infinite regress, which is the sure doom of other theories.

Waffle waffle waffle.

I note that you haven't acknowledged (let alone corrected) your dimensional error.
Ho hum...