Since Mague poses no further objection I will proceed.
Now that existence has been defined unambiguously we may begin to discuss its characteristics, its nature. There are some auxilliary definitions that are useful if one is not familiar with them (such as time, motion, etc.) and I have defined several at the bottom post here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... f=8&t=1170
First off, a few minor details to tie up. I think JL asked me "why do objects have shape". I translate this sentence:
"Why do shapes have shape?"
And, as usual, JL has failed to make any insight or communicate any productive thought because of his blatant disregard for even the most basics of communication.
Still, some would like a definition of "shape" itself.
inability to blend or become continuous; possessing a continuous boundary; (syn.: discrete, finite).
Fundamentally, objects are finite. On the other hand the conceptual opposite:
the absence of shape
Fundamentally space does not have a border because it is the opposite of that which does have a border.
So JL's question could be "Why is something finite finite?" or "Why is something finite discrete?" or, even more fundamentally: "Why is something what it is?"
Now, in studying existence it makes sense to either start at the top (class I) or bottom (class III). Since class III is where we feel most familiar it makes sense to start there, with the most fundamental class III.
We pose the question "Why is consciousness?". Why do we observe this phenomenon? It is a special relationship that requires a special condition to be met. We observe consciousness as a phenomenon exclusive to aggregates of objects. If the fundamental constituents of the universe simply bounced off each other with no further interaction, the universe would inevitably become impoverished of any interaction whatsoever. This is a universe of separate, discrete particles and there is only the force of push. There is no conceivable way to arrange any number of continuous separate objects in such a way that their paths will continue to intersect in perpetuity. Indeed, it is inevitable that they will never cross paths again. Consciousness cannot exist in such a universe, and we term it a divergent universe
. It is devoid of both class II and class III existents (since class II's are predicated on the existence of class III's). A divergent universe is simply a collection of continuous objects changing location. We can provide a rigorous definition:
When the total distance between all continuous objects is *always* increasing, even on the smallest conceivable time scale.
An interesting side note is the concept known as "perfect vacuum". Here defined:
If, in a given region of space between at least two objects, no object is ever present.
C is between A and B:
If a straight object with less width and height than A, B, or C were placed such that it goes through A, B, and C and the distance from A to B is always greater than the distance from A to C or from B to C.
So, in a divergent universe, perfect vacuum is attainable. Indeed it is the default by definition.
Consciousnesses requires interaction and thus the fundamental constituents of a universe to aggregate, to converge upon each other. In a convergent universe the total distance between continuous objects may increase momentarily, but never perpetually. The only conceivable mechanism for a convergent universe is that all continuous objects are physically connected. Try as you might, if you are physically connected to something there is only so much distance you can put between you and the something, assuming you don't break the connection (which you can't if it's continuous, by the definition of a continuous object). So, the qualitative explanation for the observation of the phenomenon known as "consciousness" is that every object in the universe is physically connected. This is also the only conceivable physical explanation for light. The observation that light always travels rectilinear can only be explained by a physical connection between every class I.
Also, in a convergent universe, perfect vacuum is absolutely unattainable by definition. If all C1's are physically connected then, in any region of space between
them, it is inevitable that the C1's will converge upon this region of space between them. Note that, because we have laid out our logic rigorously, scientifically, and consistently we have come naturally to the correct conclusion (the one that explains ubiquitous observation). The conclusions follow logically from the premises.
On the other hand lizzie offers this quote to explain why perfect vacuum is never observed:
Nature never gives a vacuum consequently the space within the molecule not occupied by the atomic triplet must be filled with something. This is where the "all-prevading ether" has made its secret abode through untold aeons
I quote this not to attack her but to draw a contrast. Because the words "something", "vacuum", "space", and "ether" have not been defined we must infer their meaning. For one, the author proposes that vacuum is not attainable because ether fills all space. If vacuum is the absence of objects (conventional definition) then the author's argument must be that "ether" is the object that prevents perfect vacuum. Is the ether continuous or discontinuous? If it is continuous then it is also perfectly rigid by definition. How would anything move within a perfectly rigid medium? If it is discontinuous then it is a class II existent composed of smaller, continuous objects. What do they look like? What about the space between these objects that comprise the ether? In conclusion, the author's ether can't be continuous or nothing would move and if it is discontinuous it fails to corroborate his point.
So the author has failed to explain WHY perfect vacuum is not observed. This is primarily because he does not actually know what the words he's using mean. If he does, he has failed to communicate his explanation to anyone else and his theory is as useless right as it is if it is wrong. I have explained WHY perfect vacuum is not observed. I have learned something and explained it so others can know it. This should emphasize to everyone the importance of clear definitions and non self-contradiction. When we employ these methods our conclusions follow naturally from our premises.
Now we ask, is it possible for a convergent universe to become divergent? This is an incorrect question, however. A universe is either convergent or divergent by definition. However, we can ask if it is conceivable that the connection between some or all class I's may be broken? The answer to the latter question
is that, it is conceivable. Simply because objects are connected, does not require that they always be so. We can imagine continuous objects that look like ball and socket joints. A cylindrical object with a hollowed cavity on one end and a ball on the other. If the ball is inserted into the cavity the two objects are now connected (the cavity has a "neck" that is narrower than the radius of the ball. However, if the ball is not perfectly spherical, but rather is a spheroid, then when the ball is turned far enough in its socket it could present its thinner radius and slide out of the socket. If we imagine a universe of interconnected ball/socket joints like one big tangled rope we may ask,"What happens when/if a joint comes loose?" This depends on if the universe is closed loop
or open loop.
A closed loop universe is one where all class I's are interconnected such that there is no terminal link such as in a bicycle chain. An open loop universe is one where all class I's are interconnected but there is at least one terminal link (such as if you broke a bicycle chain in just one place but retained all the original pieces). If a joint comes loose in a closed loop universe then the universe simply becomes open loop. If a joint comes loose in an open-loop universe then it becomes two open-loop worlds
(you broke the bicycle chain in half).
A set of interconnected continuous objects.
They are both still convergent because their class I's are interconnected, but they are no longer connected to each other. In the extreme case, every joint may come loose. Whether this actually happens or not depends on the precise nature of the fundamental constituent. If the fundamental constituent is such that the ball may never leave the socket, the universe may never split into multiple worlds. If the ball can leave the socket then the number of worlds depends on how difficult it is to remove the ball. The splitting off of worlds may be balanced, for instance, when two open loop worlds present their terminal ends to each other, the ball falls into the socket, and they may merge again. We distinguish two types of convergence:
All class I's are permanently interconnected (one universe one world).
The disconnection of class I's are exactly balanced by the reconnection of class I's (One universe with a number of worlds dependent upon the equilibrium between disconnection and reconnection).
Which type of world are we in? This problem is difficult because other worlds do not transmit light between each other, and light is the primary method of observation by humans. One way to tackle this problem is to discover the nature of the fundamental constituents. If it/they are interconnected in such a way that they are inseparable then we are certainly in a perfectly convergent world. Not necessarily in a perfectly convergent universe. We can imagine a set of continuous objects interconnected such that in one region the objects are separable from each other but not in the other region. Eventually those that are separable will separate from those that are permanently interconnected. This can result in one world with perfect convergence and at least one
equilibrium convergent world. It is, of course, possible that some of the class I's will diverge perpetually if they are too loosely connected to other class I's.
It is also interesting to note that different worlds may possess different observed rates of the speed of light since its rate of propagation is fundamentally connected to the architecture of the fundamental constituent. Even more interesting to note is that an equilibrium convergent world will not necessarily have a "universally constant" speed of light. By definition the fundamental constituents of such a world are not all identical (or else they'd either all be too loose to stay together and diverge or they'd all be held tightly enough to be a perfectly convergent universe). Therefore, the observation of a constant speed of light is consistent with a perfectly convergent world with just a single type of fundamental constituent (all class I's have identical architecture). However, this is just one observation limited to whatever light we humans have been able to observe in our (potentially trivial) visible region so it is by no means conclusive.
Indeed, talk of "other dimensions" or "other universes" or "rips in space/time" are really discussions of other worlds that are invisible to us and discussions of the breaking off/reunification of class I's. They possess different physical laws simply because they are constituted of different fundamental constituents. Of particular note is the variation of light speed among different worlds (and within equilibrium convergent worlds). It is a bit disconcerting to note that these other worlds may be invisible to use but there is no reason to believe they will not interact with our world physically (via collision). This can explain any number of so-called "supernatural" or "mystical" phenomena in purely physical, causal, rational, and logical terms. Other worlds are still composed of physical objects and interact with each other and our world consistent with their identities. While there does not have to be anything supernatural/acausal going on, this line of reasoning does indicate that there is vastly more to study and learn about our universe than "meets the eye".
I have explained ubiquitous observation (lack of perfect vacuum) in addition to any number of inexplicable phenomena rationally by defining my terms rigorously and unambiguously then subsequently applying a self-consistent line of reasoning. Whereas many resort to non-causal, self-contradictory, or paradoxical explanations for such phenomena this discussion shows that this does not have to be the case.
The conclusions follow naturally from the premises.
I challenge other minds to engage in similar activity so that we may share our mental powers to teach and learn from each other (preferably in a separate thread). What I have constructed is certainly not "the only way" but it is definitely a way.