I. What they wont tell you - What does 'physical' mean?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

I. What they wont tell you - What does 'physical' mean?

Unread postby AmagnonX » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:24 pm

Prior to any attempt to do 'physics' it is important to understand the subject matter, and that means having a concrete definition for what 'physical' means.

The word 'physical' is derived from our definition of the universe. We define the universe as something that occupies all volume, and physically exists. Due to the rules of logic, the universe physically exists completely - and it occupies all volume completely. Therefore any part of the universe also physically exists and occupies a volume. We can demonstrate this idea with a rubber ball - if the ball is entirely comprised of rubber, then any piece we take from it must be made of rubber. That the universe occupies a volume can be called a 'property' of the universe, and that property is shared by every piece of the universe.

By definition, anything that occupies a volume is called a substance. Therefore the sum of all substances is the physical universe.

We are also aware of things that do not physically exist, these are things we call concepts. If we look at our shadow for example, it has no thickness - it does not occupy a volume, it is not a substance. When a bubble of air is suspended in water, we can see the interface between the water and the air - it is an area, it has a location - but it has no thickness and it is a concept. When we look at a photograph, even though the photograph physically exists - we are seeing light bouncing off the surface - and that forms the image. In a similar way to our shadow, the image is a surface - it is not a substance, and it does not physically exist.

We are aware of concepts that exist in our mind, and these can all be rendered into writing, or images on paper. The medium we can store them is two dimensional, and the concepts in our mind can be transmitted in that fashion. So far all attempts to locate peoples memories in their brains, has failed. Therefore all the concepts in our minds might be stored as surfaces. It is therefore not unreasonable to conclude that all concepts are in fact surfaces. While this is inductive logic, it is well supported by the evidence.

Concepts do not physically exist, they do not occupy a volume, fundamentally they are surfaces.

Therefore the physical universe is the collection of all volumes which are occupied by substance. Dividing the substance are surfaces with no thickness, these are concepts.

Therefore physical reality is all substance, and conceptual reality is all surface.

I will continue my reasoning with another post shortly, and discuss the arrangement of these volumes and surfaces.
AmagnonX
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2015 9:09 am

Re: I. What they wont tell you - What does 'physical' mean?

Unread postby kevin » Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:20 pm

IMHO,
All is memory.
Memory is in the consciousness field, consciousness holds all memories in fields within fields.
Brains are not storage, they switch at the command of consciousness.
Our memory is external to our physical, and permeates it.

Universe is a perfectly packed super conductive solid, consciousness trips across the dimensions of the planes created by the packing geometry.
Kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: I. What they wont tell you - What does 'physical' mean?

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:09 pm

Nice one Kevin.
I was going to say that the OP is predicated on there being a physical rather than there being only the appearance of a physical.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: I. What they wont tell you - What does 'physical' mean?

Unread postby seasmith » Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:51 pm

Amagx wrote:
I will continue my reasoning with another post shortly, and discuss the arrangement of these volumes and surfaces.


Was considering that summary through the day and was going to come back with one of my usual long interminable rambling postitians, essentially requesting the actual Connection between, rather than mere "arrangement of" your "volumes and surfaces"
[i.e.between fiber and its fascia?], but Kevin and Grey Cloud have already done the heavy lifting,
so i will just take a powder.
;)
seasmith
 
Posts: 2622
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: I. What they wont tell you - What does 'physical' mean?

Unread postby AmagnonX » Tue Jan 17, 2017 3:53 am

This reasoning is not my opinion or theory - these statements are the product of observation, definition or exclusion. Exclusion means that something is A or 'not A', there is no other alternative. These conclusions are facts, this is an accurate (but very basic) description of the universe.

I will define the words 'substance' and 'concept' as detailed below - these are precise definitions, which is required in order to do logic. It is not possible to use standard definitions, because they are too vague.

You can't use ambiguous or vague definitions and get exact results from logic. Mathematics for example is precise because we have exact definitions for numbers and operations. If we had a vague definition for 'one' (1) that varied between 0.5 and 1.5, then the expression "1+1=2" is only one possible answer. The correct answer to the expression "1+1 =" becomes a range between 1 and 3 inclusive. If we want to be precise in logic (philosophy) we need precise definitions.

Substance, definition. A substance is defined as anything that occupies a volume.

1 (Fact): The universe fills all volume. (definition)
2 (Fact): The collection of all substances is defined as the physical universe. (definition)
3 (Fact): Every volume is occupied by substance. (definition)
4 (Fact): No volume exists which contains 'nothing'. (exclusion)

Concept, definition. A concept is defined as anything that is not a substance.

1 (Fact): The substances of the universe are separated into parts by surfaces. (observation)
2 (Fact): The universe consists of all substances divided by all surfaces. (definition)
3 (Fact): Anything that is not a substance is a surface. (exclusion)
4 (Fact): All surfaces are concepts. (definition)

Concept, more precise definition. A concept is a surface, collection of surfaces or a change of surfaces.

Conclusion (Fact): The universe is entirely comprised of substances and surfaces - the interaction between them produces information, time, motion, force and everything we experience.

Next question.

Motion.
1 (Fact): The universe is in motion. (observation)
2 (Fact): The universe occupies all volume. (definition)
3 (Fact): There is nothing 'outside' of the universe. (definition)
4 (Fact): The cause of the motion originates inside the universe. (exclusion)
5 (Fact): The universe is entirely comprised of substances and surfaces - nothing else exists. (definition)
6 (Fact): The motion is caused by either surfaces or substances. (exclusion)
7 (Fact): Surfaces do not physically exist, they cannot cause physical changes. (definition)
8 (Fact): The motion is caused by a property of substances. (exclusion)
9 (Fact): At their surfaces, the properties of substances change. (observation)
10 (Fact): Motion is a change in position. (definition)
11 (Induction): The motion of the universe is caused by a change of properties at the surface of substances.

Conclusion (Inductive Logic - this may be a fact, or it might be incorrect): The motion of the universe is due to the sudden change of properties at the surfaces of substances - this may cause instability, and lead to motion.

Conclusion (Fact): Because the universe occupies all volume, there are no gaps in the universe. Any movement of a substance will impinge on another substance at their surface. Therefore motion is transmitted by changes in geometry at the surfaces of substances.

##

Kevin has some ideas and I tend to agree with him that memory is not contained in the substance of the brain - and I think it might well be contained in a region around the body which is in motion (vibrating). However, that is just conjecture - we are a long way from proving such a thing, either by logic or by observation.

That vibration must occur in 'space', which is required to be filled with a substance (aether) - because the universe occupies all volume. Aether is defined as a universal substance from which everything is comprised - at this stage the definition is a bit vague because we haven't discovered all of its properties yet. I propose it fills all space and is divided from itself by surfaces in a geometric fashion - and the equilibrium geometry is the vector equilibrium (a geometry to fill 3D space with the highest stability and symmetry, discovered by Buckminster Fuller). It appears to have the property of tension and elasticity - and it seems that its properties change along its internal surfaces.

At this stage we can't really define 'consciousness', and what does 'field' mean in that context? What does 'memory' mean? We don't have clear definitions so we can't use logic and arrive at clear solutions.

Einstein used this kind of fuzzy definition for his idea about 'field', which creates a logical fallacy. The 'field' according to Einstein was a concept, and it did not point at some substance - and yet when combined with another concept called 'space-time' suddenly it occupied a volume. This is contradicted by logical exclusion .. something is either A or 'not A' .. you can't have it both ways. Concepts do not occupy a volume, and this is what is wrong with Relativity Theory - it is founded on a logical fallacy, it is not a physical theory.

We can toss around ideas - but unless they have concrete definitions we can't do logic and we can't prove or disprove them. What I have presented is information about the actual structure of the universe - not a theory about the structure of the universe.

Regarding Grey's observation about the 'appearance' of physicality, using pure logic we can prove that is quite correct. What we call 'matter' is in fact a collection of geometry, it is a three dimensional image created by the aether.

To prove that however takes a little more time. However, when we use the word 'physical' we must refer to volume - that is the definition. We cannot step outside of the universe and look in, so we must use the definitions that exist inside the universe - and we define the universe as something that occupies a volume and physically exists. While matter only appears to occupy a volume, the volume must be occupied by some substance - which can only be aether.

Therefore the universe most certainly physically exists - because that is how we define it - perhaps we may need to refine our definition to be more precise in future. At the moment we define 'physical' as something that occupies a volume. As we peer into the atom we find a lot of 'space' but we know that must also be occupied, because the universe exists totally and occupies ALL volume - including those areas which look 'empty'. Certainly 'matter' isn't there, but as I suggested, it can be proved using pure logic that matter is simply a concept - it is the intersection of surfaces.
AmagnonX
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2015 9:09 am

Re: I. What they wont tell you - What does 'physical' mean?

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Tue Jan 17, 2017 5:53 am

1 (Fact): The universe fills all volume. (definition)
It is a fact that that is a definition. It is a supposition that the universe fills all volume.

2 (Fact): The collection of all substances is defined as the physical universe. (definition)
If something is defined, then by definition, it is a definition.

3 (Fact): Every volume is occupied by substance. (definition)
This implies that 'volume' and 'substance' are two different enitities.

4 (Fact): No volume exists which contains 'nothing'. (exclusion)
Again you imply that the volume is separate from the substance. (something defined as) Substance, has (something defined as) volume.

Concept, definition. A concept is defined as anything that is not a substance.
'Substance' is also a definition, i.e thing has to have certain properties to be a substance.

& cetera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u8AgUXPpLM
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: I. What they wont tell you - What does 'physical' mean?

Unread postby AmagnonX » Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:07 am

Grey Cloud wrote:
1 (Fact): The universe fills all volume. (definition)
It is a fact that that is a definition. It is a supposition that the universe fills all volume.


Nothing here is supposition - If we define the universe as the thing that fills all volume - then whatever it is that fills a volume is by definition .. the universe. If we suddenly discover new volume - then by definition it is part of the universe. It doesn't matter if we understand what it is, we can still define it precisely.

Perhaps you are concerned that we willy nilly define things and expect them to obey our definition? But, we are not altering the universe by defining it, instead we are defining the word 'universe'. It doesn't matter if we understand the physical universe. It fills all volume, because that's what we have defined the word 'universe' to mean. There is no volume that is not filled by the universe .. because that would violate our definition.

Once words have exact meanings - then we can use them as perfectly as we can use mathematics.

1+1=2 because of the definitions - if we change the definitions, then the statement is no longer true. When we have precise definitions, then we can use words to make statements just like 1+1=2 and know they are correct.

Grey Cloud wrote:
2 (Fact): The collection of all substances is defined as the physical universe. (definition)
If something is defined, then by definition, it is a definition.


I'm not sure what your comment means here? This is a definition, it is necessary to precisely define the universe as the sum of all substances. Then we know something very precise about the physical universe - it fills all volume. Anything that doesn't fill a volume is excluded from the physical universe - it is something else (a concept).

Grey Cloud wrote:
3 (Fact): Every volume is occupied by substance. (definition)
This implies that 'volume' and 'substance' are two different enitities.


Yes, 'volume' is a concept - it is the idea of space, but it does not occupy space. A substance occupies space, and it is not a concept.

Grey Cloud wrote:
4 (Fact): No volume exists which contains 'nothing'. (exclusion)
Again you imply that the volume is separate from the substance. (something defined as) Substance, has (something defined as) volume.


Substance doesn't 'have' volume, it occupies volume. A 'cubic meter' can be defined without respect to any substance, it is an idea - it is entirely different to a cubic meter of concrete. Unless we specify a volume of s substance, then we are talking about concepts. The same is true for mass for example - which is heavier, 5 tonnes, or a kilogram of potatoes? 'Five tonnes' doesn't weigh anything beause it's an idea - but the potatoes have mass.

Grey Cloud wrote:
Concept, definition. A concept is defined as anything that is not a substance.
'Substance' is also a definition, i.e thing has to have certain properties to be a substance.
[/quote]

We defined a substance as something that occupies a volume. Our initial definition did not require properties, therefore might have properties, or they might not. Substances only have properties if we define them as having properties, we can define things as we wish.

We could make a definition "All substances are green" - then gold, which is not green is not defined as a substance. We do not have to conform to anyone elses definitions - in fact if we do so, then we introduce ambiguity and confusion. Therefore we must exclude all other definitions - if we fail to exclude them, then people will start to interpret words like 'substance' according to their own rules, and they will automatically violate the logic.

Logic is a collection of statements that have never been violated. A=A (identity or definition), A is not 'not A' (contradiction), A is either A or 'not A' (exclusion).

Either the universe follows these rules, or it is a magical universe and reason is a waste of our time. Our experience is that the universe does obey these laws, and has never violated them - until such a time as it does violate one of these rules it is rational to assume that it will not.
AmagnonX
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2015 9:09 am

Re: I. What they wont tell you - What does 'physical' mean?

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:04 am

[Fact] a unicorn is a creature found in folk-lore resembling a horse with a single horn extending form its forehead. (definition). This is an accurate definition but it does not make unicorns real, true, have substance or occupy volume.

And you may want to look at Aristotle's original of the A cannot be non-A thing. It was slightly more accurate than your version.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: I. What they wont tell you - What does 'physical' mean?

Unread postby AmagnonX » Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:14 am

Grey Cloud - perhaps you think we are trying to alter the universe to fit definitions, but that's not the case.

Take the following as an example of making that logical error.

1 Only substances occupy a volume. (definition)
2 All substances have properties. (definition)

One of the statements must be an observation, not a definition. The use of the words 'only' and 'all' is problematic - it states a certain knowledge of all substances. Either of them alone is fine, but putting them together implies we know that everything that occupies a volume has properties. While we have observed that everything that occupies a volume has properties - that is empirical evidence, and things might exist which we have not yet encountered.

The correct set of statements goes like this.

1 (Fact) Only substances occupy a volume. (definition)
2 (Fact) Substances have properties. (observation)
3 (Induction) All substances have properties. (possible fallacy)

That is not a really strong argument because it relies on induction.

This is similar to my argument that the change of properties at the surface of substances might be the root cause of motion. While all observed substances obey the rule - we don't know if ALL substances have a change of properties at the surface - we also don't know if that might cause motion or not.
AmagnonX
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2015 9:09 am

Re: I. What they wont tell you - What does 'physical' mean?

Unread postby AmagnonX » Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:26 am

Grey Cloud wrote:[Fact] a unicorn is a creature found in folk-lore resembling a horse with a single horn extending form its forehead. (definition). This is an accurate definition but it does not make unicorns real, true, have substance or occupy volume.

And you may want to look at Aristotle's original of the A cannot be non-A thing. It was slightly more accurate than your version.


Definitions don't effect reality - they effect words. If I say the universe occupies all volume, I am not proposing a change to physical reality - I am creating a precise definition for the word "universe".

If I stated 'unicorn' occupies all volume, then 'unicorn' would be the sum of all substances. This is just using the word 'unicorn' instead of 'universe' - it alters nothing except the definition of the word. In that case however, 'unicorn' would also be real and occupy a volume. Definitions apply to the logical framework that you are using. As I said, you cannot create a logical process by using the general definitions of word - that will always be wrong, because general purpose words are poorly defined and ambiguous.

As for the three laws, what I included is accurate, Law of Identity (A=A), Contradiction (A is not 'not A') and Exclusion (A is either A or 'not A'). You'll find its the standard way of writing them.
AmagnonX
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2015 9:09 am

Re: I. What they wont tell you - What does 'physical' mean?

Unread postby kevin » Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:45 am

AmagnonX,
IMHO Universe is a perfectly packed super conductive solid, it is Omni present everywhere.
The packing creates planes upon the geometric faces of the packing.

We are by products of one of these planes, all We consider as substance is simply a consequence of memory upon that plane created by consciousness that flows along all of the planes.

Thus within and without You is multiple dimensions of alternate planes, each with it's own unique memory.
To universe a diamond is akin to atmosphere, not a solid in any shape or form.

I write this within My own unique field of consciousness that enables Me to SWITCH about the planes My memory, to type and in turn displace at rest memories within the planets memory.

Rupert Sheldrake is trying to describe this with His morphogenic field theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4bgv6u2w60
Kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: I. What they wont tell you - What does 'physical' mean?

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:26 pm

Definitions don't effect (sic) reality
Yes they do. They do not affect Reality. Your view of reality is influneced by your convictions that there is a 'physical', your senses are reliable witnesses, that formal logic is a useful tool for exploring 'reality', etc.
There is a huge body of psychological literature on the subject of varying perceptions of reality. There is also a huge body of metaphysical literature from, e.g., India, China and Greece on Reality. The latter body is in general agreement with Kevin.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: I. What they wont tell you - What does 'physical' mean?

Unread postby AmagnonX » Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:26 pm

Grey Cloud wrote:
Definitions don't effect (sic) reality
Yes they do. They do not affect Reality. Your view of reality is influneced by your convictions that there is a 'physical', your senses are reliable witnesses, that formal logic is a useful tool for exploring 'reality', etc.
There is a huge body of psychological literature on the subject of varying perceptions of reality. There is also a huge body of metaphysical literature from, e.g., India, China and Greece on Reality. The latter body is in general agreement with Kevin.


Ah I see, yes - I reject magic because it is a contradiction of logic. If the laws of logic can be broken, then thinking is no longer a useful pursuit. When magic is invoked, then things can be whatever we want them to be - because we are in the realm of the imagination which is not constrained by logic.

Out of interest, do you recognize that there are things that exist outside of the mind? Or is it your opinion that everything exists inside the mind?
AmagnonX
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2015 9:09 am

Re: I. What they wont tell you - What does 'physical' mean?

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:33 am

So much for logic. I mention metaphysics and you reply with ramblings about magic.
Were Parmenides (the so-called father of modern logic) and Plato magicians? Have you ever read anything by either of them?
I could name several Indian writers but the subject is obviously outside your comfort zone so you probably wouldn't know them.

You might also want to read up on what magic actually is, rather than rely on the modern populist view.

Have you ever read anything by quantum physicists?

Define 'mind' and I will gladly address your questions.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: I. What they wont tell you - What does 'physical' mean?

Unread postby AmagnonX » Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:58 am

kevin wrote:AmagnonX,
IMHO Universe is a perfectly packed super conductive solid, it is Omni present everywhere.
The packing creates planes upon the geometric faces of the packing.

We are by products of one of these planes, all We consider as substance is simply a consequence of memory upon that plane created by consciousness that flows along all of the planes.

Thus within and without You is multiple dimensions of alternate planes, each with it's own unique memory.
To universe a diamond is akin to atmosphere, not a solid in any shape or form.

I write this within My own unique field of consciousness that enables Me to SWITCH about the planes My memory, to type and in turn displace at rest memories within the planets memory.

Rupert Sheldrake is trying to describe this with His morphogenic field theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4bgv6u2w60
Kevin


The description derived from logic agrees with your general description - because we see similar phenomena in every direction, then the simplest explanation is that the universe is filled with a single fundamental material. The universal material has always been called aether, so that is a reasonable name for it.

The description that is provided by logic requires a universe entirely comprised of material divided by surfaces - which matches your general description. As for being a superconductor .. thats difficult to justify, because we can measure distances smaller than electrons - and the structure of the aether is finer than that. I would be interested to hear any arguments that support that the aether is a superconductor - because the vacuum (pure aether) is often used an an insulating barrier.

Therefore it seems unlikely that it is a conductor of electricity in a conventional sense - however charged particles certainly move around in the aether. When they flow along lines of magnetic flux, electric currents flow without apparent loss - so it could perhaps be considered a 'super conductor' in that sense.

A far as what we consider substance, logic (and experiments) indicate that matter is comprised of surfaces. The substance of the aether permeates all materials evenly - so a diamond, or our body, or air is all comprised of the same material with the same density, it is just arranged differently.

Because the universe must logically be comprised only of substances divided by surfaces, then every kind of phenomena must be derived from them. All kinds of information is captured in surfaces - all of our writing can be transferred onto surfaces, images like photo's or movies, and even sounds and music can be stored on surfaces (discs, and records). Therefore, 'memory' which is defined as stored information, is easily explained as a derivative of surfaces. As for consciousness, it is also easily explained as an emergent phenomena caused by the motion of surfaces (or planes if you prefer).

I discussed Einsteins problem with an ambiguous definition of 'field' so I will provide an alternative definition. The most useful definition I have devised is ; "A 'field' is a volume of substances in motion." When you consider a living body, it must be surrounded by moving aether as a consequence of the electrical and thermal activity in the body - therefore this region is a field, and it contains information. I have no use for religious words like 'soul' or 'spirit' - but if there is such a thing, then it would be that field. The root cause of consciousness is as yet undefined, but this complex field might play a role.

The rest of the ideas, such as other dimensions, consciousness flowing along planes, and switching and so forth - seems to be a marketing scam, pure appeal to emotions, specifically the canard called 'spirituality'. This is a common tactic of people who want to convert small amounts of knowledge into large amounts of money.

I trust the information coming from my senses more than I trust the information coming from someone elses imagination.
AmagnonX
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2015 9:09 am

Next

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests