Is there an impetus required to generate existence? Isn’t there a paradox in nothing having a quality, such as the quality of existing?
Categories
-
Join 496 other subscribers
- Follow Climate of Sophistry on WordPress.com
Recent Comments
- Philip Mulholland on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- CD Marshall on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- Joseph E Postma on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- CD Marshall on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- Joseph E Postma on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- CD Marshall on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- Joseph E Postma on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- boomie789 on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- boomie789 on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- Joseph E Postma on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- boomie789 on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- Joseph E Postma on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- boomie789 on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- boomie789 on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- boomie789 on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
Climate of Sophistry 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics#:~:text=Metaphysics%20is%20the%20branch%20of,causality%2C%20necessity%2C%20and%20possibility.
“Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality, the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, causality, necessity, and possibility.[1] It includes questions about the nature of consciousness and the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.[2] The word “metaphysics” comes from two Greek words that, together, literally mean “after or behind or among [the study of] the natural”. It has been suggested that the term might have been coined by a first century CE editor who assembled various small selections of Aristotle’s works into the treatise we now know by the name Metaphysics (μετὰ τὰ φυσικά, meta ta physika, lit. ‘after the Physics ’, another of Aristotle’s works).[3]
Metaphysics studies questions related to what it is for something to exist and what types of existence there are. Metaphysics seeks to answer, in an abstract and fully general manner, the questions:[4]
What is there?
What is it like?
Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. Metaphysics is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with epistemology, logic, and ethics.[5]”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism
“platonists do not necessarily accept all of the doctrines of Plato.[1] Platonism had a profound effect on Western thought. Platonism at least affirms the existence of abstract objects, which are asserted to exist in a third realm distinct from both the sensible external world and from the internal world of consciousness, and is the opposite of nominalism.[1] This can apply to properties, types, propositions, meanings, numbers, sets, truth values, and so on (see abstract object theory). Philosophers who affirm the existence of abstract objects are sometimes called platonists; those who deny their existence are sometimes called nominalists. The terms “platonism” and “nominalism” also have established senses in the history of philosophy. They denote positions that have little to do with the modern notion of an abstract object.[2]”
Thanks for those boomie!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)
“In mathematical logic, a tautology (from Greek: ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation. An example is “x=y or x≠y”. Similarly, “either the ball is green, or the ball is not green” is always true, regardless of the colour of the ball.
The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein first applied the term to redundancies of propositional logic in 1921, borrowing from rhetoric, where a tautology is a repetitive statement. In logic, a formula is satisfiable if it is true under at least one interpretation, and thus a tautology is a formula whose negation is unsatisfiable. In other words it cannot be false. It cannot be untrue.”
Somebody told me you are doing this.
“I don’t see how it solves anything at all, it’s a tautlogy.”
“It’s a neat tautology but tautology no less.”
He didn’t watch the videos though just me trying my best to explain it to him.
“The presumption that forms somehow exist in themselves and they manifest themselves in this world by some projection whether through a soul into a body or as ideas that artists or artisans get. There are no such ideal forms, there are stable forms, forms which have to be taken to survive under various pressures, whether physical, evolutionary, sexual, market etc., whatever applies.”
It’s Martin from the Natural Law Institute. (Propertarian)
@Boomie…the tautology is the only thing which gets around Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem. In effect the person is insisting that we use an axiomatic system, but Gödel showed that all axiomatic systems are inconsistent and incomplete. The tautology is the only thing which gets around that fact of logic. Hardly anyone comprehends this or why it is important though…so, good luck.
Mathematics, for example, is tautology:
1 + 1 = 1 + 1 = 2 is tautology
e^(ipi) + 1 = 0 is tautology
e^ (ix) = cos(x) + isin(x) is tautology
F = ma is tautology
Q = s*(Th^4 – Tc^4) is tautology, etc.
V = I * R is tautology
So, the person would be arguing that mathematics is meaningless because mathematics is tautologous…yet…mathematics allows us to understand, engineer and manipulate reality, which is the most meaningful thing that there can possibly be. There are some pure math, but also some physics equations listed above. These are PHYSICS equations! Equations describing REALITY, for goodness’ sake! And they’re tautologies, because they have the equal sign! Physical properties and behaviours in FN REALITY are g-damned tautologies between phenomena! The physical phenomenon of voltage is tautologous with the physical phenomenon of current times the physical phenomenon of resistance! WTF! OMG! And then they call tautologies meaningless!? LOL!
This is worth doing a video on too.
You see how badly people think? They attempt to discard that which is full of meaning – tautologies – with that which is full of contradiction – axioms – and think that they’re getting somewhere. This is why we have flat Earth in modern physics.
We have our work cut out for us. Should be fun, great!
@boomie – I will demonstrate precisely, yes, precisely, how Platonism actually works. Plato was writing from the perspective of his time, definitely without mathematical comprehension of how it works. People still interpret it that way, as if there are “ideal chairs” as the “forms”, etc. Plato’s philosophy is still true, but it all becomes analogous for mathematical operations, which I will explain.
The fundamental “forms” are the circlings and monads in the singularity. These transform into space-time to create what we experience here. Coming soon.
“The difference is that in physics, you’re actually putting in some real measurements and then math allows you make predictions. But without that measurement, you’re not talking about anything real.”
Martin
Here boomie, everyone etc., read this. It explains everything regarding incompleteness, axioms, and tautologies, etc. In the video above they’re simply creating axiomatic systems which then of course contain incompleteness and contradiction, as per Gödel. Ontological Mathematics though, the mathematics of base existence, is tautologous, based on a single tautological equation, Euler’s Formula.
“The difference is that in physics, you’re actually putting in some real measurements and then math allows you make predictions. But without that measurement, you’re not talking about anything real.”
Martin
That identified Martin as a sensing psychological type…the only “real” things are those which he can touch or see. Why should matter follow mathematics? Why should matter follow F = m x a, or V = I x R. Define matter. What is matter? Define real…what is real?
They need to read the God Series, if they’re able. Most sensing types are not able…they simply cannot do it. You have to be an N intuitive type to be able to read it, and understand it.
Can Martin define what is “real”? I doubt he can even approach the question in the context of the intellectual tradition. Ask him to define energy.
I’ve explained what energy is in and of itself and why it exists at all and how it exists, and in a coming video I will demonstrate how space-time and matter originate out of the singularity of energy. The P guys can’t come anywhere close to that…they’re great, but should stick to politics, which I grant to them. They’re extending a system quite specifically applicable to HUMAN behaviour, which they’ve done excellently, but as if human behaviour is representative of base-existence and fundamental existence, physics, the ontological nature of reality, the metaphysical nature of reality, etc. Why would they think that human political nature explains where physics comes from? Humans have only been around a few million years, conscious only a few thousand. Why not pick frogs as the species whose political nature explains where physics comes from and what mathematics? Why not crocodiles? Crocodiles have at least been around a few hundred million years…so maybe crocodile politics explains physics, the fundamental nature of existence, what mathematics is, and what is “real”.
The P guys get quite out of their depth, and do their excellent work a huge disservice, when they extend it into the metaphysical nature of existence itself. Their work concerns human politics and governance…quite well…but nothing more.
The problem with propertarianism and many other socio political programs is that the leaders want to be the decision makers over the legal, the judicial, the religious, scientific, and all fronts and be all things to all men. In other words top dog. It becomes Communism or Fascism in effect but differently packaged to make it smell better.
Ok they have may “Departmental Heads,” “Offices” etc but they are just a front for the ideas of the Leader. It’s basically an elected dictatorship.
This autocracy ( which can be an overlay for plutocracy, oligarchy etc) is counterproductive and leads to all sorts of social and political and religious tensions.
It’s not really viable in the long term, so Pythagorean Illuminism ( Hockney ey al) adopted the Myers Briggs scheme, identifying that all men are born with different inherent skill sets that are sometimes fundamentally different than the next man but are all equally valid and meritorious.
Hence Meritocracy was born and introduced into Illuminism. Matching the best man for the job based on merit and not on elitism or nepotism etc.
Their is no good or bad Myers Briggs category; we are all born with different skillsets that tend to fit
into one of the MB categories, and it will be beneficial to follow that life path to best make the most of your career potential, skills etc and Meritocracy rewards you for being the best version of yourself which is also highly beneficial to the system as well in return.
That’s my take anyway. However, I always think of Animal Farm by George Orwell, when I think of any top down authoritarian systems, being promoted.
And the phrase “Everyone is equal, but some are MORE equal than others” still haunts me to this day, from the day I first read it at school!
So I imagine you would argue math is a discovery, not an invention?
Martin Štěpán, [4/11/2022 2:20 PM]
Of course every system of math was internally consistent so if you get corresponding operations and corresponding numbers, you’ll corresponding results. But the system may otherwise be very different.
Martin Štěpán, [4/11/2022 2:24 PM]
I know Spengler goes into this but I haven’t read him yet.
OMG he is such a sensing materialist. Humans invented maths lololol Game Over.
So as Joe rightly says, best to leave the metaphysical nature of existence to the Intuitives lol
Wow you really see the Myers Briggs at play here, this is fascinating.
lol. I’ve been talking with these guys for years now. It’s always a good idea to get varying perspectives.
You know, its embarrassing when you get found out. Joe nailed it bout P in his comment just now.
Stick to politics boys lol.
You know I’m not enamoured and certainly not aligned with the Illuminati, but they piss all over the Propertarian Party and all other imitators. There really is no comparison.
@boomie…they’re simply not actually familiar with ontological mathematics…they’re unaware of it and haven’t studied it, and haven’t read it. Which is fine…because almost no one is or has.
And yes, they are sensing-type materialists.
The Laws of physics ARE math. That’s what the laws are in and of themselves.
F = m x a
V = I x R
Those are mathematical relationships, IN AND OF THEMSELVES.
The “tools” are the symbols we use to represent the math…the tools are the letters we use to write down what the underlying math is. But the letters are not the math itself. The law is the math itself…and we use the tool of “letters” to write down what the law/math is.
Yes, math is discovered. As something which is discovered, our use and comprehension of it becomes more and more aligned with math’s true nature, which is ontological mathematics, and once there then you have fully discovered at least the theoretical philosophical basis of what math is.
So, yes, Romans had Roman numerals (integers) and no way to represent decimals. Decimals weren’t needed then. But then our desires to manipulate and understand the universe kept growing, and we discovered we needed numbers in between the integers. We discovered it was possible to do that…and that such numbers represented quantities in the universe. Other cultures had different numbering systems which lent themselves more easily to decimals than Roman numerals did, etc. But the letters and symbols we use for math is not the math in and of itself…the numbers and letters are the tools…the math is what is being represented by the tool.
In ALL cultures, though, 1 + 1 = 2 ALWAYS, no matter if they used different symbols and numbering systems or different bases of scale, etc. Just because one country might use base 10 and another base 16 doesn’t mean that 1 + 1 no longer equals 2 depending on which country you’re in and which counting base they use.
See…people really just have no clue what they’re talking about.
Send them my OM-TOE series.
“I know you really love Postma and his word is gospel but he’s clearly going in the wrong direction. Laws of physics aren’t math, they’re described with mathematical grammar. That’s not the same thing at all. And where math gives precise answer, physical laws and any laws that correspond to something external only give you probabilistic prediction. Sometimes the probability may be very high but you’ll never get absolute certainty as in pure logic like math.”
-Martin
Their comprehension of Platonism is in the ancient and basically “childish” terms of “a chair in the universe is representative of the perfect form of the chair which exists in the domain of forms as a real object”.
We must appreciate that Plato was describing things as best as he could.
A number in and of itself does indeed correspond to something real – the circling, and the frequency it represents, i.e., energy. They are correct that a number doesn’t exist in and of itself representative of nothing. You can thus see how they are close to coming to the correct conclusion, but then their sensing bias requires them to conclude that a number can only represent something you measure, and has no meaning otherwise. That’s close…but, they can’t define energy, or what matter is or why it should exist, or why energy exists in the first place, etc.
The solution they’re looking for is that ontological numbers in and of themselves do represent something real – the basis circling, the logical structure of existence, and energy. These would be the ontological numbers.
Of course, we make up numbers given the SCALE we wish to use them at. So sometimes we use numbers as integer millimeters, because we’re measuring something tiny. Other times we use numbers as integer feet, because we’re building a house. Other times we use whacky units from physics with gigantic exponents and many decimals, because that’s just the way it works out. You can use numbers quite generally.
But in the singularity, in the frequency domain, there exists the basic form of mathematics via Euler’s Formula, and all the different circlings, which are ontological numbers. In this domain, the basic integer is the Planck scale. 10^-42 or something.
More discussion in future videos.
Martin Štěpán, [4/11/2022 3:54 PM]
If I describe something real, something physically measurable, I’m not just going to use a number, I’m going to use actual physical units or else I’m not referring to anything. Frequency isn’t a number, it’s a quantity of Hertz’.
Martin Štěpán, [4/11/2022 3:55 PM]
Planck scales only refers to the limits of our ability to measure, doesn’t at all mean there’s nothing smaller.
Ok, still trying to wrap my brain around this… it is known that if a ‘pure’ vacuum were somehow able to be created (no matter, no fields), time and space would collapse to nothing. Hence, I agree that static nothing cannot exist. It is the fields of the quantum vacuum which ‘create’ space and it is entropy (the constant march of all processes toward higher entropy) which ‘creates’ the arrow of time.
Entropy implies that movement had to have happened, so this net nothing must imply that movement took place to separate the positive and negative potentials such that they could not immediately annihilate into static nothing.
Movement implies a force applied over a distance. A force requires an impetus to generate that force.
What was the original impetus to generate the force to create the movement which separated the positive and negative potentials spatially (and thus temporally) such that they didn’t immediately annihilate, thus allowing net nothing to be populated with something?
“Laws of physics aren’t math, they’re described with mathematical grammar.”
What else is math besides its grammar? Is math supposed to exist without its grammar? Math is a language…any language has a grammar and syntax, and semantics. The basis circling has a grammar, which is the grammar of the point moving about the circle, which has an equation, which is math. If laws of physics follow math, then they follow the mathematical grammar, and the only way this could be is if the laws are themselves mathematics, else how in the heck should some random system be able to describe physics laws? The argument is incoherent.
“That’s not the same thing at all.”
So, the English language is not the same thing as its grammar? Who knew!? lol How could we use the English language AT ALL, in any way whatsoever, without its grammar? Why can’t I just randomly place words and punctuation and communicate what I like? Because that would be incoherent. English is only meaningful with its grammar, which makes its grammar the same thing as itself, else it is just random gibberish. Same for mathematics, numbers, and their grammar – they are the same thing, because they only have meaning in the context of their grammar. The different is that English and its grammar is relatively arbitrary, made up simply for human communication; whereas mathematics and its grammar explains existence and the laws of physics and allows the manipulation of existence, which is the most meaningful thing of all. English allows you to manipulate other humans…math allows you to manipulate existence, which can only be if existence communicates in math as a language, just as humans communicate in English.
“And where math gives precise answer, physical laws and any laws that correspond to something external only give you probabilistic prediction. Sometimes the probability may be very high but you’ll never get absolute certainty as in pure logic like math.”
This is merely measurement accuracy, and also the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. I will discuss how Ontological Mathematics resolves the contradictions of QM and the sill Copenhagen interpretation and its uncertainty principle and the ridiculous “probabilism” interpretations. The math is precise, right. Is your ruler? No. FFS. Just because your ruler doesn’t go to 42 decimal places but is graded at 1/32 inch, doesn’t mean that existence is only accurate to 1/32 inch in and of itself. You see…these people, materialists, REALLY confuse what you can measure and how you measure, with existence in and of itself.
“If I describe something real, something physically measurable, I’m not just going to use a number, I’m going to use actual physical units or else I’m not referring to anything. Frequency isn’t a number, it’s a quantity of Hertz’.”
Right. That’s what energy is…what an ontological number is, in the circling…a frequency, which is a number, in Hertz. In the frequency domain, the singularity, it is ontological Hertz, about the complex number plane.
“Planck scales only refers to the limits of our ability to measure, doesn’t at all mean there’s nothing smaller.”
Glad he seems to get this, but what is smaller only exists in the frequency domain, not in space-time. There is nothing smaller in space-time. The Planck scale comes out of the way the singularity transforms into space-time, and is a property of the mathematics of the Fourier Transform. The Planck scale is basically the limit of integration.
“What was the original impetus to generate the force to create the movement which separated the positive and negative potentials spatially (and thus temporally) such that they didn’t immediately annihilate, thus allowing net nothing to be populated with something?”
Well, as discussed in the video, the “impetus” to generate movement is the resolution of the paradox of nothing being the only thing which can exist, yet nothing not being to have such a quality without turning it into something. Movement is then what allows nothing to exist as something, and this movement, the circling, is energy, which is mind, which is mathematics. The resolution of the paradox in movement is what allows nothing to exist as something which nets to nothing.
The movement is what keeps it from collapsing and annihilating to static nothing non-existence…and this state exists permanently.
But this is all still just inside the singularity. It does not imply anything about or properties of space-time, nor does it necessitate the existence of space and time. The universe, and its space-time, is a temporary construct which the singularity sometimes creates.
I will show how it performs this creation, coming in future episodes.
Ask the Propertarian people this, and you’ll be able to decide whether they have a legitimate metaphysical philosopher and the answer to existence, or, if they should stay within human politics:
Why does something exist rather than nothing? A fully developed answer, with mechanistic logical answers, not just “it’s a given”.
What is a fundamental particle? An answer which fully explains their origin, where they come from, why they exist, why they behave like both waves and points, etc.
What is energy? An answer which explains what it is in and of itself…not merely that it is an abstract relation between things – explain why the things exist in the first place then, and why there should be any relation between things at all in the first place?
I know that they can’t answer these things though, so the questions are unfair.
Did we invent the shape of a pyramid or did we discover it?
I suppose that works for the wheel as well?
“You’re asking for the impossible, other than that it’s all energy and energy is just information. If anybody tries to sell you some first cause, he’s not doing physics, he’s giving you a religion.”
-Martin
And there you go. 🙂
Just because it is impossible for them, does not mean it is impossible for others.
It’s like saying that because you wrote a book which says that you’re special, then any other books which don’t say that you’re special are not real books.
In any case, ontological mathematics does indeed define energy, and it definitely is information – the information of the circlings.
They can understand it, it is just difficult to get out of the pre-existing definitions and modes of thought. Given what he just said about energy and information, if he would allow it to be explained he would see that it is not in conflict with what he asks for, and is in fact precisely what he asks for.
But because they’re working from prevailing paradigms, they insert their fear of “first causes” because they think, correctly in almost all cases, but not in my case and ontological mathematics, that the intention is to then go to “God”, and thus, faith, etc.
So, his thinking is correct in all the basic points and what he wishes to avoid…just needs to have it explained to him that ontological mathematics is in fact satisfying what they want.
Yes, energy is indeed information. And we can explain where it comes from in the first place and why it exists at all, rather than nothing, and that it comes from first principles in logic and sufficient reason, without appeal to extraneous “first causes”, which, of course, I have made the point of avoiding via something as net nothing. They wish to avoid “first causes” like God because of course they correctly recognize the problem of infinite regress inherent in it: “God just exists and creates everything”, etc.
So, I quite precisely provide what they’re looking for, in these first videos. This conversation went extremely well! Got to exactly where it needed to.
I’ll also point out that there’s nothing wrong inherently with religion per-se, although of course most of our examples are terrible, and of course I agree with not replicating those examples re: faith, chosen people, etc. And ontological mathematics doesn’t do that.
Joseph E Postma wrote:
“Well, as discussed in the video, the “impetus” to generate movement is the resolution of the paradox of nothing being the only thing which can exist, yet nothing not being to have such a quality without turning it into something.”
But wouldn’t the universe resolving the paradox of static nothing being unable to exist, and movement allowing something to exist within net nothing, imply some sort of intention on the part of the universe to resolve the paradox, and therefore some sort of thought process by the universe, and therefore, given that every thought process requires an impetus, is irreversible and thus increases entropy (which cannot be increased in a maximum-entropy static nothing universe), just move the impetus from that of movement to that of the thought process which presaged the movement which separated (spatially and temporally) the positive and negative potentials such that they didn’t immediately annihilate, allowing something to exist within net nothing?
Is mathematics discovered or invented?
“False dichotomy. Math is just another variation on language. Is speech evolved, discovered, or invented? Speech evolved. All speech require a paradigm in order to produce a logic that satisfies demand for continous recursive disambiguation (grammar). Math is one of the many paradigms, logics, grammars within our language. It is just the simplest possible logic we can invent. It has only one property, positional name. As such it produces a near prohibition on ambiguity, scale and context independence. With scale and context independencde it produces quite by accident, an incdrease in the human capacity for prediction. It seems complicated but it’s dead stupid simple. It’s the equivalent of a monkey using a stick.”
-Curt Doolittle
@boomie – this is where they’re at:
“You’re asking for the impossible, other than that it’s all energy and energy is just information. If anybody tries to sell you some first cause, he’s not doing physics, he’s giving you a religion.”
And I can answer that for them.
And yes, mathematics is indeed a language. It is the ontological language of existence, due to the nature of the only thing which is possible to exist as net nothing, which is the circling, which is mathematical in and of itself. Just because math is a language doesn’t mean that it is human-invented. Existence itself has to consist of a language; existence communicates with itself: force communicates to acceleration through mass, voltage communicates to current through resistance. How can these things communicate without a language? They communicate in the ontological language of existence, which can only be mathematics. Existence has to be able to, and must always be, communicating across itself, within itself, and at itself…information is itself language! Information IS language. Fundamentally, in terms of physics, the language of information is mathematics, which is energy, etc.
Everything Curt says there actually fine with ontological mathematics…except where he imagines it only to be a human language, and not what reality is actually doing in and of itself. Existence does 1 + 1 = 2…which simply means reason and logic, and our math is what describes that reality.
This is also a bit silly though: “With scale and context independence it produces quite by accident, an increase in the human capacity for prediction.”
This is like the quotes in my first book where scientists are perplexed, and believe it to be an accidental miracle, that mathematics allows us to do physics. Wouldn’t this be the most ridiculous accident imaginable? That some arbitrary, meaningless thing, nothing to do with reality, allows us to manipulate the base physics of reality, which is the most meaningful possible thing that you can do? He’s incoherent here.
“But wouldn’t the universe resolving the paradox”
The universe does not resolve the paradox. Movement resolves the paradox, and this occurs in mind, in the singularity, and has always existed…no beginning. The universe comes afterwards.
“of static nothing being unable to exist, and movement allowing something to exist within net nothing, imply some sort of intention on the part of the universe to resolve the paradox”
No intention required, nor a universe…only the resolution of the paradox in and of itself, in mind, in the singularity, which has always been the resolution, existing and having existed, forever.
“and therefore some sort of thought process by the universe”
Yes, it is a thought process, self-generated, by the movement itself. The resolution of the paradox in movement IS thought, IS mind…again, not of the universe, but of the singularity. The universe comes afterwards. The singularity exists just fine without the universe we know of…this universe is quite temporary.
“and therefore, given that every thought process requires an impetus,”
Right, the impetus being the resolution of the paradox, in and of itself.
“is irreversible and thus increases entropy (which cannot be increased in a maximum-entropy static nothing universe),”
Entropy belong to the space-time domain of this universe. In the singularity all that you have are monads and their circlings, which are permanent and have and will exist forever, and therefore have zero entropy. Entropy is a product of this universe.
“just move the impetus from that of movement to that of the thought process which presaged the movement”
The movement IS the thought process. They are one and the same. Self-existent, permanent, always having and will been. They are simultaneous, the same thing, being the same thing and “occurring together” because they’re in fact identical.
“which separated (spatially and temporally) the positive and negative potentials such that they didn’t immediately annihilate, allowing something to exist within net nothing?”
Space and time are properties of this universe, not of the base singularity from which this universe springs. The circling movement occurs in thought, in mind, in the singularity. The movement is what allows nothing to exist as something, via net nothing. This is about explaining base existence, pre-existent to this universe, which is finite since it had a beginning. Our universe as we know it is a temporary creation.
The resolution of the paradox in movement IS thought.
It is not that thought needs to be pre-existent and resolve the paradox or create the movement.
Thought IS the movement.
This is about a permanent state of being…that which has always existed. Existence itself cannot have come into form at some finite point…but has always been. The universe is different from existence in and of itself, and comes afterwards, and there have been many, likely an infinite number of them. But existence is one thing only – itself, base existence, the permanent thing which has always been.
The permanent state of being is this, which is all simultaneous and identical: the paradox of nothing being what must exist resolving in net nothing via movement, which is thought (i.e. ontological mind, not merely human thought).
This is the crux, the sliding knife-edge, the infinitesimal spinning ball point, the unstable-stable equilibrium, the infinite impetus…
This has been and will be the eternal state of existence, all simultaneously occurring together as the exact same single “event”, though it is a permanent event always occurring, always having had occurred, and always will be: the paradox of nothing being what must exist resolving in net nothing via movement, which is mind.
It is a permanent event, which has and will sustain existence forever, for it is existence itself; it has never come into being at some point, and will never go out of being at any point.
It is a permanent event, which has always been, which is self-simultaneous, all the same thing: the paradox of nothing being what must exist resolving in net nothing via movement, which is mind.
It is a permanent event. It is a permanent “impulse”. It is the permanent impulse, the permanent “impetus”, which is the permanent state of affair of existence.
Wow boomie…really impressive! “I’ve got one that can SEE!” 🙂
I didn’t make it lol
No no boomie…I know that…but to even post it, to know it belongs here…to know what it means. You SEE! 🙂
Interesting theory JP
How do you see past and future within the realm of this theory? Both nothing, with the manifestation of current time in between?
And if so, would that exclude the possibility of time travel?
“The error is because universe is internally consistent and math is by design internally consistent and thefore has relations that correspond to relations observable in the universe, it follows that universe is itself math. But that doesn’t follow at all.”
-Martin
Hermes Trismegistus proposed that “God is an intelligible sphere, whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere”. It was later written about in the Latin treatise Maximae Theologiae by Alan of Lille… now I know where Ken Wheeler gets his contention that:
“The reason for that, is that magnetism is a Poincare’ disk extrapolation of a charge in discharge with a resultant spatial vector but no point of temporal CAUSATIVE measurement.”
In reality, magnetism (at least in a permanent magnet) is a hypotrochoidally-traced hyperboloid and can be modeled via the Hyperboloid Model, which is only related to the Klein model or Poincaré disk model dual-projectively… Wheeler is still thinking in 2-D, whereas magnetism is 4-D (3 spacelike dimensions, one timelike dimension transformed to a spacelike dimension by multiplying by c (using a system of units in which c = 1) to give a differential 4-vector).
And it most certainly does have a “temporal causative measurement”… magnetism comes about due to a point charge (an electron, in this case) undergoing acceleration (angular acceleration, in the case of a bound electron) in relation to its electric field, which causes it to emit Larmor radiation in the form of virtual photons, those being the force-carrying bosons which mediate a magnetic field. It is the acceleration which is the ‘temporal’ part of Wheeler’s contention. And as I’ve shown previously in the links to 4 studies, the energy emitted in the form of virtual photons is exactly balanced by the energy absorbed from the quantum vacuum, which is what sustains a bound electron at its orbital radius and thus prevents the electron from ‘spiraling-in’ to the oppositely-charged nucleal proton(s).
So rather than accept that we’re merely using words as abstracts to describe empirically-observed phenomena, Wheeler, in his odd hobby theory, has turned all of physics on its head and claims that all fields are non-spatial and non-localized phenomenological modulations of the “aether”… and all while claiming that fields don’t exist (!)… but he forgets that a field, in being a descriptive and mathematically quantifiable abstract construct used to quantify, predict and extrapolate or interpolate the force we’re measuring over time and space, must have points of measurement… a gradient that we record… ie: it must be localized and spatialized in order to quantify it. He says a “field” has no points, and “whose locus is simultaneously everywhere and nowhere” (while simultaneously claiming fields don’t exist)!
Funny thing about “fields”… being the descriptive and mathematically quantifiable abstract constructs that they are, used to quantify, predict and extrapolate or interpolate the force being observed… that set of points called a “field” which describes that force can subsequently be used on identical objects without having to bother to measure each identical object (that’s kind of the point of creating these abstract constructs called “fields”, after all… it allows us to take a set of measurements of one object emanating a force, and apply it to identical objects, or extrapolate / interpolate those measurements to take into account non-identical objects using mathematical algorithms that are derived empirically). And that’s all a “field” is, at least to those who don’t confuse the force being observed with the field describing that force.
So Wheeler not only pilfered bits and pieces from Russellian Theory, Dollardian Theory, Circlon Theory and even from QM (while bashing QM) to cobble together his odd hobby theory, but also from Pythagorean cosmic philosophy and Monadal cosmogony.
His contentions led him to believe that magnetism can travel faster than the speed of light, that the speed of light was proportional to the radiant exitance of the emitter and that “there are no electrons, what we call electrons are massless waves”. LOL
Electrons have rest mass, they reject quantum vacuum field modes longer than their radius (the Compton radius) which is what imparts invariant mass to the electron… both of which have been proven mathematically and experimentally, and by none other than JJ Thomson, whom Mr. Wheeler kept quoting as supportive of his hobby theory. Cathode rays (electrons) are also known to travel slower than the speed of light in vacuum, if they were a wave, they would travel at c in vacuum.
From my prior writings:
“What accounts for “positive” and “negative” particles? As near as I can figure, it has to do with the manner in which that matter is rejecting the quantum vacuum field wavemodes, and which modes it rejects. Picture a sinusoidal standing wave pattern as an analogy to a quantum vacuum field wavemode… the electron would be riding along the negative ‘troughs’ of the sinusoidal wave pattern, whereas the proton would be riding along the positive ‘peaks’ of the sinusoidal wave pattern. Thus, the energy the electron receives from those rejected quantum vacuum field wavemodes impinging upon it is negative, and the energy the proton receives from those rejected quantum vacuum field wavemodes impinging upon it is positive. Of course, the electron and proton being different sizes, different quantum vacuum field wavemodes would be impinging on each. That’s the best analogy I can come up with from my reading of QM, QED, SED, and SR. I’m still uncertain as to why matter acts in this way, but I’ll uncover it eventually.”
I’ve still not uncovered it.
As to Boomie’s graphic… I guess I’m a psychic suffering from materialism and a tinge of nihilism, but I’ll be damned if I descend into nominalism, postmodernism, egalitarianism or globalism. I know there’s more than what we know… I’m just frustrated that we can’t figure out what that ‘more’ is definitively, and this philosophical and cosmogonical approach appears to my mind as Platonistic metaphysicalism based upon abstractions and few if any concretisms, which is, in my opinion, a step backward from the Scientific Method.
What do you think of this?
https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11943
“The discovery of superconductivity in Nd0.8Sr0.2NiO2 [1] introduced a new family of layered nickelate superconductors that has now been extended to include a range of Sr-doping [2, 3], Pr or La in place of Nd [4-6], and the 5-layer Nd6Ni5O12 [7]. A number of studies indicate that electron correlations are strong in these materials [8-14], and hence a central question is whether or not magnetism is present as a consequence of these interactions. Here we report muon spin rotation/relaxation studies of a series of superconducting infinite-layer nickelates. In all cases we observe an intrinsic magnetic ground state, regardless of the rare earth ion or doping, arising from local moments on the nickel sublattice. The coexistence of magnetism – which is likely to be antiferromagnetic and short-range ordered – with superconductivity is reminiscent of some iron pnictides [15] and heavy fermion compounds [16], and qualitatively distinct from the doped cuprates [17]. “
“How do you see past and future within the realm of this theory? Both nothing, with the manifestation of current time in between?
And if so, would that exclude the possibility of time travel?”
Not sure I follow what’s being asked here. No comment on time travel. Time is of course movement
“The error is because universe is internally consistent and math is by design internally consistent and thefore has relations that correspond to relations observable in the universe, it follows that universe is itself math. But that doesn’t follow at all.”
-Martin
This is simply an assertion. Devoid of logic of reason. He is simply making the statement “it doesn’t follow at all” after just listing something which indeed does appear to follow.
“See how these things follow? They follow very nicely.”
“Yes.”
“They don’t follow at all.”
And then with no justification or reasoning or explanation. It is merely an assertion.
Also, the only “design” of math is that it is logical, and rational, and ultimately, tautological. It is absolutely meaningful to find that the universe follows reason, logic, and tautology, i.e., mathematics, and that this is what allows us to manipulate the universe precisely (to measurement error). Yes indeed, it becomes one and the same thing. If it acts like a duck, it’s a duck. That simple.
I’ll fix it for him:
Given that existence must be internally consistent and complete, and that it must have a language which is internally consistent and complete identical to its manifestation and nature (grammar is not separate from language), and we exist in this existence and are in some way or another a manifestation of its language, then we should be able to discover the language of existence since the language is us. Why would we, as the result of the language, not be able to understand and discover ourselves?
In fact, that would be true for a an axiomatic system suffering from Gödelian Incompleteness…it indeed would not be able to discover itself. But existence cannot contradict itself, hence, is based on tautology, and not axiom; existence is consistent and complete, hence can understand itself. We are of existence. We are of existence’s language. Hence, we can discover the language which makes us, and understand ourselves fully.
Yes, mathematics is positional logic. And what else could existence be? Could existence be anti-positional logic? Could existence be positional anti-logic? The answer here gets back to the previous item: if it acts like a duck, it is a duck. Existence is itself positional logic…what other logic could apply to the universe? And as Curt often says, mathematics is positional logic. So then: positional logic is positional logic, although in one case we call it our senses and the empirical world, and in the other case we call it a language. Of course, the language of existence creates the products of existence…how could there be a differentiation between the language of existence and its products? THAT is what would not follow. It does, however, naturally follow that the language of existence is identical with the products of existence, these being the products of itself.
Let’s look at his statement again:
“The error is because universe is internally consistent and math is by design internally consistent and thefore has relations that correspond to relations observable in the universe, it follows that universe is itself math. But that doesn’t follow at all.”
Ontological mathematics and the algebra of the complex number plane in Euler’s Formula is the only math which is internally consistent and complete. The only one. We’ve discovered no other such languages. And this math is the basis of quantum theory, thermodynamics, and relativity. Just a meaningless coincidence, or is this existence’s base language in fact?
Existence must be made out of a language. We are the product of that language. We thus should be able to know that language.
Does he rather wish to subscribe to Kant and the justification for faith, that ultimate reality is unknowable? That the language of existence is unknowable? They wish to leave room for faith, then? Or just mysticism? Or just nihilism?
“universe is internally consistent”
Then it must have a language.
“math is by design internally consistent”
Set theory math is in fact not internally consistent or complete. Set theory math suffers from Gödelian Incompleteness, because it is based in axioms. They’re likely not aware of the subtleties here. Ontological mathematics is based on a single tautology…the circling, defined by Euler’s Formula, and then many of them, which can create any empirical signal in space-time via the Fourier Transform. (Future video discussion ready to go on this point.)
“But that doesn’t follow at all.”
If you’re careful, then it does. For example, set theory math wouldn’t follow as the universe’s language since set theory math is inconsistent and incomplete, whereas the universe must be: despite set theory math being able to model a lot of reality…it is still “not it”, because it doesn’t have the internal consistency required to be universe’s own language. So, the claim is true in this case.
Yet, the universe must have a language, which must follow positional logic, and must be rational, logical, complete, and self-consistent. That HAS to look a heck of a lot like mathematics, because that’s exactly what math can do too. The trick is to find which math satisfies self-consistency and completeness. And now, we’ve identified that math. It is the math of the circling.
{Hope you send that back!)
Yes, I don’t follow Wheeler or waste time there. It is all just a cobbled mess.
“I’m just frustrated that we can’t figure out what that ‘more’ is definitively, and this philosophical and cosmogonical approach appears to my mind as Platonistic metaphysicalism based upon abstractions and few if any concretisms, which is, in my opinion, a step backward from the Scientific Method.”
We will get to it. I will demonstrate precisely how to create a “concrete” universe out of the metaphysical “abstract”.
In fact the sensing-bias rears its head here again. At the end, you will have to accept that the Platonist Metaphysics (updated to terms of ontological mathematics) and the circling/movement/etc. is what is “concrete”, and the empirical world is what is abstract. Yes, indeed, although what you sense seems “concrete”, the things you sense with your body are entirely abstract.
“The burden of proof is on him to demonstrate his own assertion which he has in no ways done. He’s conflating a lot of things with universe being consistent that have nothing to do with it. Language of existence is an entirely nonsensical statement. Existence just means persistence of a given stable relation. Language is a tool for communication.
That the language we’ve developed to describe physics does in fact describe physics is obviously no coincidence because that is, in fact, what we designed it for.”
-Martin
So, they admit then that they have no theory of origin, no theory of how existence works, where it comes from, why it works that way, what its language is or if it has one, etc. They refrain from any ontological explanation of existence, or the universe, entirely.
So, what are they doing then?
They’re doing religion. They’re supposed to be doing human politics…they should really stay there.
“Language of existence is an entirely nonsensical statement.”
So, existence has no relations within itself whatsoever?!
Yes, this gets into the difficulty of the signifier vs. the signified. Because they’re empiricists and materialists, for them all language is arbitrary and a product of convention only, and so there’s no fundamental relation between signifier and signified.
In ontological mathematics the signifier and the signified become the exact same thing…the language is what exists…the circling, and how it works, is what exists: the math of Euler’s Formula through the complete and consistent complex number plane. Signifier = signified.
Just because we can write it down with arbitrary symbols (e, x, i, etc.) doesn’t mean that what is being signified with our letters is now not what is signified.
They put mathematics on the same terms as English, basically. It really helps to appreciate that English is axiomatic and is therefore inconsistent and incomplete, whereas ontological mathematics is consistent and complete: these couldn’t be any more opposite…they in fact define opposite. They’re both languages…sure(!)…but they’re not the same kind of language at all! They’re totally opposite in nature, in fact.
Anyway, my first few videos on this provides the burden of proof. If they want the full detail, then they can read Hockney. The burden of proof is happily provided.
The burden is now on them to comprehend the philosophy, and refute it on its terms. Otherwise, as they’ve demonstrated, they’re just scratching away in the dark having no idea what they’re doing or where they even are in the first place, just making things up about an existence they’ve refused to ontologically define and explain its origins and first causes.
What are you doing if you don’t know where you are? Well, the only thing you can do is, like Plato’s prisoners, establish transactional relations between the shadows, and that’s it. And of course, that’s exactly what they’re doing. See how easy that was!? lol
They admitted themselves that they can’t do first causes. That’s basically the whole point of philosophy. I can do first causes, and everything which follows, including the universe and why it works the way that it does.
They refuse first causes because they’re afraid of it being religious, which means that they haven’t even begun to think of the problem in rational terms at all that can have nothing to do with religion but pure self-justified complete and consistent self-generating logic…as I have done with ontological mathematics.
This is fun!
“and so there’s no fundamental relation between signifier and signified.”
For example, the word “tree” has nothing to do with what a tree actually is, in and of itself. The word “tree” is totally arbitrary, a convention, an axiom. The signifier-word “tree” actually has nothing intrinsically to do with the actual object tree. This is why axiomatic language is inconsistent and incomplete…the signifier, “tree”, has nothing to do with the object, tree. The language word “tree”, in and of itself, could never discover what tree actually is.
However, in ontological mathematics, base existence is the circling, which is doing Euler’s Formula. It DOES Euler’s Formula, in the complex plane. The signifier is “e(i x) = cos(x) + isin(x)”, and this is indeed the signified. They are one and the same thing. The signifier “e(i x) = cos(x) + isin(x)” totally explains itself, the signified. From “e(i x) = cos(x) + isin(x)”, it can totally understand itself and discover what it itself is.
You see how important the difference is here?!
Joseph E Postma wrote:
“In fact, that would be true for a an axiomatic system suffering from Gödelian Incompleteness…it indeed would not be able to discover itself.”
But the Gödel Incompleteness Theorem implies that any system which is sufficiently mathematically complex (and completely mathematically describable) cannot simultaneously exhibit completeness (consistent, and for every closed formula describing the system, that formula or its negation is demonstrable), consistency (does not lead to logical inconsistencies), and effective axiomatization (the set of theorems describing the system is a recursively enumerable set, recursively enumerable meaning that the functions describing the system are defined if and only if their inputs are members of the domain containing those functions… ie: not external inputs).
Obviously the universe is consistent, and obviously the set of theorems describing the system doesn’t depend upon external inputs (how could it? The universe is all there is, there is no external input unless you shift to the multiple universes model, which opens infinite cans of worms because now you’ve got to explain a multitude of universal geneses.)… so doesn’t that imply that we’ll never be able to suss the full set of formulae describing the system (ie: we’ll never be able to demonstrate completeness), for the simple reason that we are temporally removed from the conditions existing at the start of the universe, we only have a very tiny snapshot in essentially a single present-time frame, and thus we can never know how the universe actually began?
We can surmise, but we’ll never know.
“But the Gödel Incompleteness Theorem implies that any system which is sufficiently mathematically complex cannot simultaneously exhibit completeness, consistency, and effective axiomatization.”
This requires correction. This interpretation comes out of Cantor’s Set Theory, which is likely the greatest blunder in mathematics ever conceived, which is the attempt to define mathematics via axioms, via an axiomatic system of definitions. The Gödelian Incompleteness which arises out of an axiomatic system is as simple as this: you’re defining things with other things than the thing.
Take my example above of the word “tree”. The word has letters with specified pronunciation rules and grammar, and if you follow those axioms, well, you still have no idea what the object tree actually is! The axiomatic definition has nothing to do with the object itself, and so, this is inherently incomplete because it can’t describe itself…the axiom doesn’t actually carry the meaning of what it conventionally is supposed to represent. The signifier “tree” does not actually represent the signified object tree.
So, Gödelian Incompleteness arises out of axioms themselves, i.e., the incompleteness and inconsistency is a necessary property of any axiomatic system. This is why Set Theory gets mathematics all wrong, and misunderstands ontological mathematics, and in fact, never gets anywhere near to comprehending the concept of an ontological mathematics…the whole academic establishment is taken by Set Theory, hence, they are structurally prevented from ever even stumbling upon the concept of an ontological mathematics, and are actively prevented from doing so.
“Obviously the universe is consistent, and obviously the set of theorems describing the system doesn’t depend upon external inputs”
That’s exactly what I’ve shown, with net nothing, the circling, and its inherent motion. It depends on nothing else and is self-explanatory and hence self-existent. The base unit of existence is the circling. In this case, the signifier is the signified. If you follow the rules and grammar and pronunciation of the signifier e^(i * x) = cos(x) + i * sin(x), then you find that you create a circle in the complex plain, and that’s exactly the signified object. The signifier is the signified. Hence, we have consistency and completeness. There is no system of axioms…there is a single generator and basis of existence, the circling, and since constitutes all that is, there is nothing else to be inconsistent with it, and a single thing cannot be inconsistent with itself, because it is itself…i.e., this is the tautology, and is why Gödelian Incompleteness does not apply.
“The universe is all there is, there is no external input ”
And this is what I’ve provided.
“unless you shift to the multiple universes model, which opens infinite cans of worms because now you’ve got to explain a multitude of universal geneses.”
Exactly. Infinite universes is just another infinite regress! It’s so retarded and intellectually dishonest, and doesn’t explain or answer what the question was in the first place: why does anything exist at all? Infinite universe doesn’t explain why any universe exists at all, let alone infinite of them.
“so doesn’t that imply that we’ll never be able to suss the full set of formulae describing the system”
This has now been explained above again as originally discussed to boomie. I will soon demonstrate how the universe arises out of this basis.
“for the simple reason that we are temporally removed from the conditions existing at the start of the universe, we only have a very tiny snapshot in essentially a single present-time frame, and thus we can never know how the universe actually began?
We can surmise, but we’ll never know.”
This is materialist bias. We are only empirically removed from it; this does not mean that we are absolutely removed from it. Again, as discussed with boomie above: WE are a product of existence. Existence is imbued in us. We are made of the substance of existence. So, why should we be unable to understand ourselves? Why should existence be unable to understand itself?
It is true that an axiomatic system couldn’t understand itself, as we know, any axiomatic system is incomplete and inconsistent. But also as we know, the universe must be consistent and complete. As explained above, a consistent and complete system must be able to understand itself, because it is itself. And so, we CAN know. We can know via the Principle of Sufficient Reason. This doesn’t mean that we instantly or should have always known. But that one day we can and will know. That has been the entire endeavor of the development of philosophy.
And now, we DO know…we’ve arrived.
We’ve halted the problem infinite regress, and, we discovered the basic form base-something must take, and, we discovered what its grammar and logic is, and what signifies it in and of itself.
We’re here…we’re there…we’ve arrived at the end.
Now, what I will want from you is to engineer it to produce everything we’ve ever envisioned in science fiction, and beyond. I will show the basic mechanism and how it works. But it will be up to people like you to engineer it, manipulate it, and make it do new things, as that’s your wheelhouse and impressive skillset. You will have almost no limits in what you can do with it.
“any system which is sufficiently mathematically complex”
Existence is actually built from something mathematically incredibly simple, in fact, from a SINGLE thing: the circling. This is the simplest possible, and singular, ingredient.
Because it is based on a SINGLE thing, it is therefore not a system of axioms, but a tautology of the single thing.
From the simplest thing, one can then build the most complex things, and yes, there is mathematical complexity there, but, it all still reduces to a single thing at the basis.
You will understand this soon. From the single simplest possible thing, it is possible to create the most complex things.
Think of if you started with the less-than simplest thing. Say you started with a fish-hook. The complexity of the fish-hook would prevent a lot of more complex things which would be imaginable, but not actualizable.
Now start with points. With points, you can gather them to build anything you want, including the fish-hook, and things less complex than the fish-hook, and the things that the fish-hook can’t build.
“What do you think of this?”
Room-temperature superconductivity, if it can be made widely-deployable, cheap, and easy, will mark a total phase-change in how we exist on this planet. Given the context, on par with the development of electricity itself.
Thanks Joe,
Just reposted all of your OM videos we’ll see.
Joe,
You claim that your mathematics is reality, this is an impossibilty. One can say that all mathematics and all logical symbolism are at least one dimension away from the reality they represent.
Your circle with the mathematical point has 2 dimensions, a physical point in reality has no dimensions. This means your circle is not reality and ontological mathematics is just cycling in the air as we say in Holland.
I can write 7 + 5 = 12 but I can also write 7 + 5 -12 = 0, does this mean that zero exists?
Math is simply our way if trying to decipher the language of the universe as I see it.
The Big Bang seems to contradict entropy especially if it were a cycle. If the theory “the end of the universe is remade again”. After entropy has completed its course where does the new energy come from to remake the universe? It can’t it has to use the same energy in the universe which has just finished all of its work.
Then again, our “perceived universe” is very small, we don’t know what exists outside of that/at least not yet.
Relevant to Beverley’s video
Math is just our language we use to talk to the universe. The physics of the universe is not man made.
*or however you want to word it.