What is Real?

[Plasmatic]

Altone,I have a general policy of refusing to continue a debate with someone who questions the absolutism of existence particularly their own.[solpsist etc.]. When i point to a tree and someone says "prove to me that it exist" the only thing to do is walk away because exitence is axiomatic.However Il answer you in a little bit. For now ill simply point out that cogito ergo sum is invalid because one can not "think if one does not "exist" first of all. This is the primacy of existence ,the first axiom. This is the meaning of the reversal of this statement in my tag quote."I am ,therefore Ill think" I exist ,I have identity, and consciousness.

[Antone]

Altone,I have a general policy of refusing to continue a debate with someone who questions the absolutism of existence particularly their own.[solpsist etc.]. When i point to a tree and someone says "prove to me that it exist" the only thing to do is walk away because exitence is axiomatic. However Il answer you in a little bit. For now ill simply point out that cogito ergo sum is invalid because one can not "think if one does not "exist" first of all. This is the primacy of existence ,the first axiom. This is the meaning of the reversal of this statement in my tag quote."I am ,therefore Ill think" I exist ,I have identity, and consciousness.

Well then, according to your own policy you should have no problem continuing to talk to me about this topic.

Everything you've said here agrees completely with me and what I have said. If you don't understand why, then try rereading what I wrote without your preconceived notions about what I'm going to say.

I have repeatedly said that what exists is exactly what exists. The problem is that that is about all you can say with absolute accuracy and certainty about it.

x = x

the problem is that this tells you nothing about [x].

To say something non-circular (and thus more meaningful) about [x], we have to speak about characteristics that are decidedly [not x]. For instance:

x = [y + z]

The right side of the equation is relative... because neither [y], [z] nor [+] are [x]. And even when you put them all together they still aren't [x]... they explain what it means to be [x]... buty they are not themselves [x].

A 'real' world example...

2 = 1 + 1

Clearly [2] is not the exact same thing as [1 + 1] because [2] is a single symbol, while [1 + 1] is three symbols.

One way to understand this equation is to imagine that it expresses a specific reality. Say the [2 apples sitting on my desk]. Now we can understand this physical reality in two distinctly different and reciprocal ways.
(1) we can think of it as two individual apples/elements... {A1, A2}
(2) we can think of it as a single collection difined as all the apples on my desk...
{x:x is all the apples on my desk}.

These are two incompatible ways of understanding the exact same physical reality. The reality doesn't change just because we can understand it in two different ways. So it continues to be exactly what it is. But the fact that we can understand it in two different ways makes it relative.

And these are different ways of understanding because they have uniquely different and incompatible characteristics. For example, we know that these two perspectives are distinctly different because although the set {x:x is all the apples on my desk} may refer to [2 apples] at the moment, if I eat one of those apples, the set {x:x is all the apples on my desk} will now refer to only [1 apple]. By contrast, if I eat one of the {A1, A2} I have changed the set that I have. I now define reality by the set {A1}.

In other words, eating one of the apples did not change the name of one of the sets... but it did change the other set. Thus, they cannot be exactly the same set--because they do not have the same charateristics.

Another way they are distinctly different is that the set {A1, A2} deals with a plurality of concepts, (i.e. [A1] and [A2]--while {x:x is all the apples on my desk} deals with a singular concept. The two concepts in {A1, A2} are parts of the whole concept that is {x:x is all the apples on my desk}.

Once again, they are distinctly different in nature. (Yes, I'm aware this isn't traditional set theory, here--this is moy own personal version of set theory... )

Anyway, the reason the above is important is because we can create a rule that I like to call the axiom of functional equivalence. Basically it says that the inverse of an inverse is functionally equivalent to what you started with.

For example:

[1/2 x 2 /1 ] = 1/1/2 x 1/2/1

1/2 times [2] equals [1] over 1/2 times [1] 2/1.

The reason this inversion works is because [1/2] and [2/1] are reciprocal . So when we invert these reciprocals we are inverting inverse aspects. And we get something that is equivalent to what we started with.

In the equation [2 = 1 + 1], we again have two inverse aspects.
The first aspect is number (of numbers) ... The left side has [one number] and the right side has [two numbers]
The second aspect is sign... the left side has [no sign] and the right side [has a sign].

Because these are two reciprocals, when we inverse them both we CAN get something that is functionally equivalent.
This is analogous to using a double negative in English. [Something that is NOTnot] is equivalent to [something that is]. Or subtracting a negative. [2 - (-1)] is the same as [2 + 1]. In essence, when we invert an inverse--what we are doing is looking at a mirror image in a mirror. The

is on the

, but if you look at that [mirror image] in a mirror it will be back on the

.

Obviously, the equivalence also depends on other specifics as well. It can't be just any two random reciprocals. It has to be reciprocals that are related in just the right way. But I belive that every equivalency necessarily can be defined by two reciprocal, reciprocals. And because we can invert these reciprocals to produce a different perspective (i.e. a functional equivalency it is necessarily the case that every equivalency is necessarily relative--because it can be defined in more than one way, depending on which perspective we chose.

Again, this doesn't affect what reality is. It is only the functionally equivalent conceputthat we use to define that reality that is relative in this sense.

There is another way that reality is relative. And that is in the sense that it is infinitely precise. We do not have the perceptual fauculties to perceive exactly what reality is... and if we did, we could not express that infinitely precise reality with absolute accuracy. So by necessity, the best we can do is approximate that absolute physical reality with a relative conceptual approximation.

Again, we see that there are two reciprocal ways that something can be relative...

But again... none of this suggests that reality isn't exactly what it is.

[Plasmatic]

Plasmatic wrote:
Altone,I have a general policy of refusing to continue a debate with someone who solpsist etc.]. When i point to a tree and someone says "prove to me that it exist" the only thing to do is walk away because exitence is axiomatic. However Il answer you in a little bit. For now ill simply point out that cogito ergo sum is invalid because one can not "think if one does not "exist" first of all. This is the primacy of existence ,the first axiom. This is the meaning of the reversal of this statement in my tag quote."I am ,therefore Ill think" I exist ,I have identity, and consciousness.

Well then, according to your own policy you should have no problem continuing to talk to me about this topic.

Everything you've said here agrees completely with me and what I have said. If you don't understand why, then try rereading what I wrote without your preconceived notions about what I'm going to say.

Antone,not only have you "question[ed] the absolutism of existence particularly [your] own. You have contradicted yourself repeatedly.


First lets get the "question[ed] the absolutism of existence particularly [your] own out of the way;
You cliam that :

There are many ways in which it is not absolute to assert, "I exist."..

Similarly we can ask what it means to exist and get answers that are just as complicated and paradoxical. For instance, how do we know that we really exist--instead of simply being some figment of imagination in someone else's dream. There would be no way for us to tell if that were truely the case. So even the "fact" that we exist is not absolutely certain.

The worst part is you have stated;

it is very far from clear what it means to be or what it means to [exist].

Yet you use the word exist repeatedly to make definate assertions,which you then proceed to contradict.

There are many ways in which it is not absolute to assert, "I exist."

For instance, how do we know that we really exist--instead of simply being some figment of imagination in someone else's dream. There would be no way for us to tell if that were truely the case. So even the "fact" that we exist is not absolutely certain.

contrasted with;

Certainly there is something about the statement, "I exist." that seems more certain than anything else we could possibly say. "I think, therefore I am." The fact that I can contemplate these thoughts clearly indicates that there has to be something which is doing the contemplating. So even if I am just an electrical blip in a compture, I exist.

I have repeatedly said that what exists is exactly what exists..

Yes, something either exists or it doesn't...

Clearly my "notions" are derived from what you have actually said. Now perhaps you may have been referring to my statement about "your idea of what a defintion is"[even though I asked you specifically]

Defining something means to say what it is...

In set terminologyt, we have [elements] and we have [sets]. A [set] is defined by the [elements that it contains]. But the [elements that can go into a set] are also defined by the [set]. This is a reciprocal definitional structure that defines reality. Which way we choose to define that reality depends on whether we wish to approach reality by the [perspective of the set] or the [perspective of the element]...

Defining what it means to be [absolute] and [relative] is a much more difficult project. It's one of those, "I know it when I see it" sorts of things. This is largely because both of these terms are also defined by reciprocal aspects, so that if you define something as [absolute by one perspective] it is also necessarily [relative by another perspective]...

Yes, something either exists or it doesn't... but the irony is that it is always impossible to define what that something is with absolute precision...

Thus, while what is--is never relative. What we percieve always is. How we describe what is--is always relative. And how we define what is relative is always relative.

This is precisley what I was reffering to about your "ideas about what a definition is".

Ill post why these things along with the many example you give on this "reciprocal" ideas are invalid soon.

[altonhare]

The right side of the equation is relative... because neither [y], [z] nor [+] are [x]. And even when you put them all together they still aren't [x]... they explain what it means to be [x]... buty they are not themselves [x].

-Antone

The main problem that I notice is that you do not distinguish between objects and relationships among objects (concepts). The right side of the equation is not "relative". It is a specific relationship between the objects (or between relationships among objects) referred to by the symbols y and z. X could represent the spatial arrangement of the head and body of a lion while y and z are the spatial arrangements of the head and body respectively. There is no reason to call this "relative". This equation expresses that X is a specific relationship between y and z. The same as H2O is a specific set of internal spatial arrangements of H and O atoms. The atoms are objects, their spatial arrangement is a concept, a relationship among the atoms.

Clearly [2] is not the exact same thing as [1 + 1] because [2] is a single symbol, while [1 + 1] is three symbols.

-Antone

Same thing here, we have to keep in mind what these symbols actually refer to. 1 is a concept as well as 2 and +. "1" expresses the concept that some object X is at least a distance D away from any other object or from any object in the set A. 2 expresses the concept that 2 objects Y and Z are within a distance D of each other while no other objects in the set A are within some distance of Y or Z. The "+" symbol expresses that one or more objects specified by the symbol before it (like a 1) moves within a specific distance D of one or more objects specified by the symbol after the + (perhaps another 1). The "=" symbol means that the moving is done and all the object(s) specified by the symbols around the + are now within a distance D of each other.

1+1=2 means that an object a distance D from any object in the set A and another object a distance D from any other object move toward each other until they are within the distance D of that object. Perhaps an H atom is 1 away from another H atom and then they are within some distance 1/x away. This collection of two objects we may now refer to as dihydrogen, a concept defined as a specific spatial relationship between two H atoms, specifically that they are less than or equal to their original distance divided by some criteria x. These definitions (H atom, dihydrogen) are not relative, they are specific. To measure the distance between the H atoms we will have to determine it relative to some reference standard, but the definitions themselves are not relative at all.

Now we can understand this physical reality in two distinctly different and reciprocal ways.
(1) we can think of it as two individual apples/elements... {A1, A2}
(2) we can think of it as a single collection difined as all the apples on my desk...
{x:x is all the apples on my desk}.

-Altone

You must distinguish between 1, the individual apples as objects, and 2, a concept defined in terms of a relationship between the two apples. These are not "reciprocal". "2" is actually defined in terms of "1". Objects are primaries, we define concepts in terms of objects. There is no reason for anything to be "relative".

These are two incompatible ways of understanding the exact same physical reality. The reality doesn't change just because we can understand it in two different ways. So it continues to be exactly what it is. But the fact that we can understand it in two different ways makes it relative.

-Altone

Incorrect. They are not incompatible in the slightest. The second is conceptual and refers to the objects named in the first. The second is defined in terms of the first. The second definition is meaningless without the first! They are inextricably linked.

Technically the second definition is a relationship between EVERY apple, i.e. every apple in the universe. This is because you defined "a single collection" as all the apples on your desk. So if any apple in the universe comes within some preset distance of your desk it becomes part of the set "a single collection". This concept "collection" is not incompatible with the object "apple", it *requires* the object apple to have any meaning whatsoever.

And these are different ways of understanding because they have uniquely different and incompatible characteristics. For example, we know that these two perspectives are distinctly different because although the set {x:x is all the apples on my desk} may refer to [2 apples] at the moment, if I eat one of those apples, the set {x:x is all the apples on my desk} will now refer to only [1 apple]. By contrast, if I eat one of the {A1, A2} I have changed the set that I have. I now define reality by the set {A1}.

-Altone

You should read this thread for an extensive discussion on existence and identification:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... &sk=t&sd=a

In any event, this is fundamentally incorrect. When you eat the apple you no longer identify that particular arrangement of atoms/matter/whatever as an apple. A1 no longer exists, you have destroyed the relationship between the apple's constituents that you previously identified as "apple". You now identify those constituents as something else, like stomach sludge or something. All the apples on your desk (concept) now has one apple (object). Nothing is relative here. You define your objects (apples) and define your criteria for a relationship among those objects and refer to any set of objects that meets those criteria by a name such as "all the apples on my desk".

In other words, eating one of the apples did not change the name of one of the sets... but it did change the other set. Thus, they cannot be exactly the same set--because they do not have the same charateristics.

-Altone

Your error in reasoning stems from your insistence that the two sets are distinct and separate, when they are inextricably linked. You cannot define the concept "all the apples on my desk" without first defining the object "apple". The first is not really a "set" so much as you are just pointing to two objects and calling them apples (essentially defining apple). If one gets eaten it doesn't change what an apple is! It changes the number of apples that meet the criteria defined by the concept "all the apples on my desk".

There is another way that reality is relative. And that is in the sense that it is infinitely precise. We do not have the perceptual fauculties to perceive exactly what reality is... and if we did, we could not express that infinitely precise reality with absolute accuracy. So by necessity, the best we can do is approximate that absolute physical reality with a relative conceptual approximation.

-Antone

Nature doesn't know what "precision" is. Nature is not "infinitely precise". Only humans think in terms of precision.

I agree that in *measurement* we must make approximations and that we can only *measure* relative to something else. Every measurement has a "standard reference". But measurement has nothing to do with *explaining* Nature. We can explain nature without anything being "relative". Modern science is obsessed with mathematics i.e. measurement rather than physically explaining what happened. This is why the "relative" mindset has sunk in so strongly. People equate math, measurement, and observation with science.

[altonhare]

Seeing is believeing.

-Junglelord

Structure and function cannot be separated.

-Junglelord

The relationship of structure to function is the key to true knowledge of any subject.

-Junglelord

We obviously need to re-introduce the concept of a universal aether back into a potential theory of everything. There is no other possible direction. Is there?

-Junglelord

These five platonic solids equate with the five medieval elements: earth (cube), water (icosahedron), air (octahedron), fire (tetrahedron), and aether (dodecahedron).

-Junglelord

So can you show me (so I can SEE) how the aether's structure (dodecahedron) justifies its function.

... Our entire existance is due to the relationships of PHI, Pi, e and Platonic Solids.

-Junglelord

... is a physical system that is founded on PHI, Pi, e. Sacred Geometry of Platonic Solids is a direct evolution of these foundations. All patterns of nature are dependent on ...

-Junglelord

There are No straight lines in nature.

-Junglelord

How can solids with straight lines have significance in nature with "no straight lines"?

[junglelord]

Those who can transcend playing just music lessons... create art.

Those who can't create, but only copy lessons... teach how to play music.

Those who can't play or teach.... listen to music.

And those who can't play, teach or have no #%?$ idea what they're listening to, become critics.

I remember a quote though I don't remember who said it, but it always stuck with me, and that is, "I've never seen a monument (or a statue) of a critic".

[Plasmatic]

Those who can play... play.

Those who can't play... teach.

Tell that to Dan Gable!

[junglelord]

All the worlds a stage and we are merely jazz players.
Everyones a critic.


Science devoid of Art is dead.
Science guided by Art is alive.

[Antone]

Hi Plasmatic,

You claim that :
There are many ways in which it is not absolute to assert, "I exist."..

Similarly we can ask what it means to exist and get answers that are just as complicated and paradoxical. For instance, how do we know that we really exist--instead of simply being some figment of imagination in someone else's dream. There would be no way for us to tell if that were truly the case. So even the "fact" that we exist is not absolutely certain.

It shouldn’t be that difficult to understand that if there are different perspectives—as I’ve argued--there might be one sense in which it is absolutely certain that I exist—and another sense in which the nature of existence is too vague to be absolutely certain that it is true. This is my position. So your complaint that this is what I do is a bit weak.

The worst part is you have stated;
it is very far from clear what it means to be or what it means to [exist].

It is unclear because there is more than one sense—or more than one way in which the word can be used. Depending on which sense you intended, existence could be absolutely certain/precise, etc or not that certain/precise at all. Which is exactly what should be expected given my other premises.

Yet you use the word exist repeatedly to make definite assertions, which you then proceed to contradict.
There are many ways in which it is not absolute to assert, "I exist."

For instance, how do we know that we really exist--instead of simply being some figment of imagination in someone else's dream. There would be no way for us to tell if that were truely the case. So even the "fact" that we exist is not absolutely certain.

contrasted with;
Certainly there is something about the statement, "I exist." that seems more certain than anything else we could possibly say. "I think, therefore I am." The fact that I can contemplate these thoughts clearly indicates that there has to be something which is doing the contemplating. So even if I am just an electrical blip in a computer, I exist.

In other words, there is some sense in which the statement seem very certain—even if not absolutely so. Contrasted to other senses in which the statement was somewhat less certain---although still highly probable. There is no contradiction at all, if you read what I actually said.

Another problem with your criticism is that it seems to assume that something cannot be both absolute and relative at the same time. But that is the whole premise of my argument. So again, your criticism is very weak—based only on what you have said so far.

For example, consider the side of a box. This side has an exact measurement, and so the [measurement of the side] is exactly what it is. But no [taken measurement], however accurate, can ever state with absolute accuracy what that [actual measurement] is—so any [taken measurement] that we give to express the [actual measurement of the side] is necessarily relative. This is not a contradiction, because the [actual measurement] and the [name we give to our conceptualization of the measurement] are not the same things at all. Yet I could have used the term [measurement] for both.

There is a similar dialethic nature to the term “I exist”. So when I make a statement, it can be true about one aspect and false about the other. This is not a contradiction, because although both aspects go by the same name they are not actually the same thing.

I have repeatedly said that what exists is exactly what exists..

Yes, something either exists or it doesn't...

And you’re point would be?

I think the measurement example demonstrates how [something being what it is] does not mean that it can’t also be relative in some way—even with respect to the same characteristic.

Yes, something either exists or it doesn't... but the irony is that it is always impossible to define what that something is with absolute precision...

You have a minor point here… I should have said: Yes, something either exists in a given sense or it doesn't... but the irony is that for that given sense/perspective it is always impossible to define what that something is with absolute precision...

Thus, while what is for a given sense--is never relative. What we percieve about that sense always is. How we describe what is about that sense -is always relative.

Consider again my example of :

X = Y + Z

[Y + Z] is relative with respect to [X] because it is different with respect to certain characteristics. Such as (1) number of variables and (2) whether or not there’s a plus sign.

From the perspective of [X], [X] is exactly what it is and [Y + Z] is only a relative approximation of that…
but from the perspective of [Y + Z], [Y + Z] is exactly what it is and [X] is only a relative approximation of that.

[altonhare]

Antone, again I think this can be resolved by distinguishing between an object and a concept.

A rock is not relative. You point at a rock and say "rock". Objects are distinct from concepts in that they do not have opposites. Concepts have opposites. Up only has meaning relative to down, big only has meaning relative to small, and hard only has meaning relative to soft. However rock is not the opposite of "no rock". We do not say a rock is a rock relative to no rocks. Objects are not relative.

[altonhare]

When I read your words here, my knowingness tells me they are true but I do understand how others would have difficulty forming the pictures in their minds. I wonder how we get around this?

-Divinity

I agree that words are often inadequate. You alluded to the answer to this problem, however. A picture is worth a thousand words, as they say. The language of physics and existence is not words and most definitely is not equations, it's visualization. The best way to show me what you mean is to show me a picture/movie. That's why Bill Gaede's videos are so valuable, he illustrates the theory with pictures instead of just words. You can *see* how it works and then the words make sense. If you have not yet watched the videos, I encourage you to:

Light:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NB5vg7woM

The H Atom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE11_E-rdE

Magnetism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8

Gravitation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvWeYJg9Oxs

This is how we get past the "word barrier". We transfer the picture(s) in our mind(s) to paper or a screen and show it to another person.

In an infinite and eternal universe, there was no beginning and there will be no end and there are no edges.

-Divinity

This is the kind of universe I hypothesize. There is no creation and no destruction. There is no boundary. Space has no boundary, it's not an object.

I would also like to point out that thread/chain theory provides plausible mechanisms for things like telepathy and "ghosts" (events happening with no visible entities). As I went over in my exist thread it is entirely possible and plausible for objects to influence us physically without transferring "electromagnetic radiation".

[Birkeland]

<3 you Birkeland. In a manly, admiration and respect sort of way.

Thank you for your kind words and - the context taken into consideration - your illuminating contribution to this forum.

[Antone]

Hi Plasmatic,
First, let me say that I’ve refined my definition of what I think it means to be absolute and relative.

1. Absolute things are exemplified by only a single instance.
2. Relative things are exemplified by multiple instances.

Notice that using this definition, any number that is rounded off is a relative number because it is only one possible way of stating the exactly precise number.

Antone, again I think this can be resolved by distinguishing between an object and a concept.

Yes, in part, that is exactly my point. We must carefully distinguish between a concept (or entity) and an object. This, however, is not something that is optional for two reasons:

1. An object and an entity are opposites in some ways. Thus, talking about one is distinctly different form talking about the other. Many paradoxes occur precisely because this is what has happened.
2. Objects have no meaning without concepts.

What is a [sunset]? It is part of reality, but it is not a physical thing at all.

First, one person can look towards the sun and see it while someone on the other side of the world doesn’t. Even if they both see it, it will look different, because of their different perspectives. That makes it relative—because there are multiple instances which are different.

Secondly, there is no hard and fast boundary between what is and what isn’t a sunset. So the definition of a sunset is relative, because there are a great many precise moments that have equal claim to being the beginning or end of any given sunset.

Thirdly, the sunset is part of the cycle of the whole day. We separate it from the rest because there are certain characteristics which allow us to distinguish it from the rest of the day—but that distinction is arbitrary and conceptual in nature.

My body is a little different, but not much. Each person who looks at me sees something different. And I, being inside my body see and feel something different from them. Further more, my body is constantly changing, as I mentioned before. Cells are being born and dying—and the molecules and atoms themselves are in constant motion and change. Like the sun set, then, I am not a singular thing—but rather I am a process that is constantly in motion. And as such, there is no single permutation of my parts that defines what is me. In an absolute sense, any given permutation defines what I am at a particular instant in time. But the infant that was me 48 yeas ago is very different from what I am now, and hopefully the dying me at some point in the future will be very different from the me of the present.

Furthermore, it is arbitrary whether we think of my body as a single object, or as a collection of parts. I have hands, legs, eyes, hairs… and all sorts of other distinctly unique parts—some of which have very vague boundaries which define when they are a part of me and when they have ceased to be a part of me—as in when a hair falls out. And those parts have smaller parts—my hands have fingers, thumb, palm, etc. and those parts have parts.

You might argue that the difference is that those parts are connected… but when you get down to even smaller parts, the molecules and atoms that make up my parts are singular objects that in a sense are no more connected than say my body and a drop of water that is not my body but happens to be on my arm. And according to the traditional model of the atom, there is much more empty space in an atom than there is actual physical matter… so again we see that subatomic particles are (in a sense) individual objects—according to that model.

The point is that at every one of these levels, what is and is not an object is defined by a concept. In every case, the objects in question have parts and the parts join together to make up a larger physical object.

When starting from my body, there’s no significant difference when we go the other direction, into larger and larger groupings. My family is a physical object, just as much as my body is. We generally don’t think of it that way, because of the space that is between them—but it’s no different than looking at a gravel driveway and calling it a physical object.

Thus, every physical object is necessarily defined by relative concepts--even that rock you mention. The rock changes more slowly, but small parts of it are wearing off all the time—and fissures are developing inside the rock. The rock may not actually split apart for a million years, but that fissure inside it is in the process of happening. And the atoms are moving inside it, just as they are moving inside me. These same distinctions may be more subtle, but they still apply to the stone.

Something that may not be as obvious is that every relative concept is also defined by things that are absolute. Consider, for instance the grayscale. The term gray is a relative term because there are infinitely many [shades of gray] which are distinctly different instances of what it means to be gray. Thus, there is a sense in which the term [gray] is relative. There is also a sense in which [gray] is absolute, because all those [shades of gray] is exactly what it means to be gray—thus gray is absolute because it is exactly what it is.

In order to define the physical grayscale, which contains all the [shades of gray], we must employ two concepts that are absolute in nature. [Absolute white] and [absolute black]. These are concepts that do not actually exist in physical reality—they are only ideas.

We commonly call a piece of paper white—but it isn’t [absolute white]. Look at the briteness rating on a pack of paper, and you’ll notice that even the whitest papers are only about 94 brite. Similarly, even the darkest night has a little bit of light in it. We might call that darkness black, but most of the time it really isn’t. Even in the darkest cavern, the radiation of our bodies (or the rocks themselves) produces some infinitesimally small amount of light. And if you had a sensitive enough meter that could capture that radiation for long enough, you could probably get an image.

The point is that [absolute white] and [absolute black] are concepts that do not exist in physical reality—but they are necessary to define the full range of the grayscale. Otherwise, there would always be that [shade of gray] that was just a tiny bit lighter or darker than the one before it. Like the concept of infinity, [Absolute white] is the infinitely dark shade of gray that exists just beyond the actual physical boundary of the grayscale.

Now, the advantage of using these absolute concepts to define [shades of gray] is that every shade of gray can now be named by saying how much of each absolute concept it contains. So [50% white] is the [shade of gray] that is exactly in the middle of the gray scale. [10% white]—which is also [90% black] is that very light shade of gray that sits at exactly [.1 unit of the grayscale] from absolute white.

Again, by combining the absolute and relative aspects we define things in a way that lets us deal with things in the most accurate way possible. Thus, it is the most accurate possible definition.

By contrast, when we totally remove concepts from our understanding of what something is—then it still is exactly what it is, but there isn’t anything to distinguish it from the totality of the universe. Just as I am a part of the physical object that is my family, my family is a part of a community, that community is part of all humanity. Humanity is a part of all the primates. The primates are a part of mammals, mammals are a part of all life, life is a part of all matter. And matter is a part of what it means to exist. Thus, without concepts all existence is the same singular thing.

This singular thing is exactly what it is—but without concepts there is absolutely no way to give any meaning to it. It is like the equation [X = X]. Necessarily true, but without any conceptual meaning.

[Divinity]

This is the kind of universe I hypothesize. There is no creation and no destruction. There is no boundary. Space has no boundary, it's not an object.

I would also like to point out that thread/chain theory provides plausible mechanisms for things like telepathy and "ghosts" (events happening with no visible entities). As I went over in my exist thread it is entirely possible and plausible for objects to influence us physically without transferring "electromagnetic radiation".

I am glad we are visualising the same thing but how did you come to that conclusion considering it isn't 'logical' and you can't prove it? If it's not an object, how do you define it?

Thanks.

[Plasmatic]

I am glad we are visualising the same thing but how did you come to that conclusion considering it isn't 'logical' and you can't prove it? If it's not an object, how do you define it?

Without adding to Altons assertions,as all observations of dynamic relationships amongst objects are conceptualized,one describes the most essential charachteristics of the particular percieved instance. Spin is not an object but I can demonstrate it by controlling the relational interaction of objects.