What is Real?

[Lloyd]

APM GLOSSARY
[Dave said I could quote from his book, so I'm starting with his glossary, which I've re-arranged in an order that may not be ideal.]

__Dimension - an expression of the character of a derived quantity in relation to fundamental quantities, without regard for its numerical value. In the APM the spherical constant of 4pi is also considered a dimension, along with mass, length, frequency, and charge [+ time?].
__Measurement - Determination of the magnitude of a quantity by comparison with a standard for that quantity. In the APM, a quantum measurement is also a dimension with a specific value: mass of the electron, Compton wavelength, etc.
__Unit – A specific combination of quantum measurements that yields a specific physical property: velocity, friction, magnetic field, potential, etc. Quantum units are also constants.
__Constant - A quantity assumed to have a fixed value in a specified mathematical context. Quantum measurements and quantum units are also constants. Constant of proportionality is a phrase that obfuscates the true nature of a constant.
__Mass – [Dimension] The quality that identifies inertia. [Measurement] The measurement of inertia. Mass is not equal to matter, mass is merely a dimension, or a measurement of that dimension.
__Length – [Dimension] The state, quality, or fact of being long. [Measurement] The measurement of the length dimension.
__Time – [Dimension] The dimension in which all references to intervals occur. [Measurement] The measurement of intervals.
__Frequency – [Dimension] The property or condition of occurring at regular intervals. [Measurement] The number of times a specified periodic phenomenon occurs within a specified interval.
__Charge – [Dimension] The intrinsic property of Aether, inherited by angular momentum, and responsible for all electric phenomena. [Measurement] The measure of the dimension of charge.

__Solid Angle -
__Steradian – A unit of measure equal to the solid angle subtended at the center of a sphere by an area on the surface of the sphere that is equal to the radius squared: The total solid angle of a sphere is 4pi steradians.
__Aether sphere -
__Aether unit – The primary unit of physical and non-physical existence equal to 16pi^2 times Coulomb’s constant.
__Angular Momentum -
__Elementary charge – The charge imparted by the Aether unit when an onn occupies one of the four Aether spin positions. The elementary charge has the same magnitude for all charged onta, but it can be negative or positive depending on which Aether sphere the onn occupies. Elementary charge has a solid angle of 1.
__Electric charge -
__Spherical charge – The geometry of elementary charge caused by the geometry of distributed frequency.
__Strong charge – The electromagnetic charge possessed by all onta and directly proportional to the mass of the onta.
__Conductance, Aether - A measure of the Aether’s ability to conduct electric charge.
__Loxodrome - The path on a sphere that maintains a fixed compass direction, shown on a sphere as a line crossing all meridians at the same angle.
__Double loxodrome – Similar to loxodrome except that it extends over the surface of two adjoining spheres.
__Double cardioid – A natural geometrical construct of space-resonance that is characterized as two parallel cardioids with opposite spin.

__Primary angular momentum – The most primary state of stable matter.
__Onn (Onta) – Neither a particle, nor a wave, but the state of stable matter which includes the electron, positron, proton, anti-proton, neutron, anti-neutron, and photon.
__Electron – A stable onn having the angular momentum equal to Planck’s constant.
__Positron – The anti-onn of the electron having positive charge and ½ spin.
__Proton – A stable onn having the angular momentum equal to and half spin.
__Anti-proton - The antiparticle of the proton.
__Neutron – An onn composed of a proton, captured electron, and captured stray angular momentum. The neutron has ½ spin.
__Neutrino (also anti-neutrino) – The quantity of stray angular momentum ejected from a neutron in a beta decay process. It is not a true onn.
__Photon – A quantum unit of expanding electron angular momentum with 1 spin.
__Light – A unit in the Aether Physics Model equal to the photon unit times the frequency of photon reproduction.

__Space-resonance – Referring to the product of three dimensions of length at 90 degrees from each other and two dimensions of distributed frequency.
__Space-time – Referring to the product of three dimensions of length at 90 degrees to each other and one dimension of linear time.
__Gforce – An enormous, all-pervading force that drives the physical Universe, equal to 1.21 x 10^44 newtons.
__G-factor -
__Reach – The constant of length per Aether mass coexisting with the Gforce acting through the gravitational constant.
__Stroke – The constant of length per Aether strong charge coexisting with the Gforce acting through the rmfd constant.
__Energy – A unit with the dimensions of mass times velocity squared. Energy is a unit for quantifying the amount of work performed by onta, but energy is not an object of itself.
__Tshankha – The electron quantum unit of energy.
__Friction, resistance – A unit in the Aether Physics Model equal to resistance times velocity.
__Weak interaction - A fundamental interaction between onta that is several orders of magnitude weaker than the electromagnetic interaction and is responsible for some particle decay, nuclear beta decay, and neutrino absorption and emission.
__Hutchison effect – The phenomen[on] produced when bombarding materials with microwaves and electrons at a specific combination of frequency and charge density. Effects witnessed are objects accelerating upward and the rearranging of molecular structure without affecting atomic structure. First reported by John Hutchison.

[Lloyd]

New Findings from APM
- Here's Dave's list of new findings in his Aether Physics Model.
___ Unified Force Theory - Unifies all fundamental forces
___ Geometrical Model of Space and Time – Space gets its curvature from time
___ Space-resonance is more fundamental than Space-time
___ Identification of Aether as rotating magnetic field
___ Evidence of God through analysis of Gforce and dimensions
___ Quantification of Consciousness
___ Identification of dark matter as primary angular momentum
___ Neutrino quantified as folding of Aether units in onta binding
___ Proton and Neutron fine structure constants quantified

___ ___ Corrections to Standard Model
___ Strong force carrier quantified as type of charge instead of gluon or pi meson
___ Weak nuclear “force carrier” quantified as proportion of elementary to strong charge
___ All charge is distributed, not single dimension (as observed by Charles Coulomb)
___ Precise definition of fine structure constants
___ Proton and Neutron angular momenta quantified
___ Special Relativity Theory not required
___ Energy and mass are not "things" and cannot be converted to each other
___ Subatomic “particles” identified as primary angular momentum
___ More precise definitions of dimensions and units
___ Photon quantified as a true quantum “particle” and capable of being modeled
___ Photons can be created from outside of space-time
___ Expanding Universe quantified as photon construction via law similar to Casimir effect
___ Casimir equation corrected
___ Corrected value of neutron g-factor
___ Corrected value of neutron magnetic moment
___ All energy has two phases, positive and negative

___ ___ New System of Quantum Units
___ Conductance is a constant of “free space” (Aether)
___ Rotating Magnetic Field is a unit
___ Photon is a unit
___ Light is a unit
___ Eddy current is a unit
___ Friction is a unit

[upriver]

Is space curved or flat???

Time curves space??????

[junglelord]

I believe the fundamental geometry of space and time is a spiral. Thats my story and I am sticking to it.

[Divinity]

Thank you Lloyd...very useful.

Yes, not easy to visualise an eternal three-dimensional spiral, with no edges, is it? LOL!

[junglelord]

Hi there Divinity. How is my wonderful friend?
The world line boundry does not mean a finite boundary, but you already knew that.

[Divinity]

Hi there Divinity. How is my wonderful friend?
The world line boundry does not mean a finite boundary, but you already knew that.

[altonhare]

Real: Exists

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =10&t=1171

[whitenightf3]

Reality 90 percent illusion 10 percent confusion.
Albert Einstein

[Plasmatic]

Reality 90 percent illusion 10 percent confusion.
Albert Einstein
Reality 90 percent illusion 10 percent confusion.
Albert Einstein

That sounds exactly like something the originator of Relativity would come up with. A perfect example of why physics is in the state its in.

[altonhare]

Reality 90 percent illusion 10 percent confusion.
Albert Einstein
Reality 90 percent illusion 10 percent confusion.
Albert Einstein

That sounds exactly like something the originator of Relativity would come up with. A perfect example of why physics is in the state its in.

Einstein was delusional.

Something either exists or it doesn't. It doesn't matter what you perceive or what you think about what you perceive. An object with location exists whether you ever perceive it or not.

http://www.youstupidrelativist.com

[Antone]

...Something either exists or it doesn't. It doesn't matter what you perceive or what you think about what you perceive. An object with location exists whether you ever perceive it or not.

The way I see it, it's not that relativism is stupid. It's just that most relativists try to define the obvious in a stupid way.

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. It is impossible to say when it is exactly 10 o'clock. We can't be absolutely certain that our time peice is absolutely accurate. In fact, we can be absolutely certain that it isn't. And even if it was absolute, we couldn't name the absolute instant when 10 o'clock occurred. The best we can manage is a close approximation.

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. If you disagree, then try to name one thing that isn't relative in some way--and I'll tell you how it is relative. Similarly, it is not possible to name something that is only relative, without being absolute in some way.

The way I see it, relative and absolute are two sides of the same coin. Either one is totally meaingless without the other. They are necessary in order to define one another.

[Plasmatic]

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.

This is a result of your ideas about what a definition is . Could you tell me what you think it means to define something? Also define absolute and relative to make sure we are on the same page. Impossible huh? so It isnt absolute that I say that i exist? Or that Im a male human? Or that i am not everything else that exist?

Similarly, it is not possible to name something that is only relative, without being absolute in some way.

This undoes your whole point. Its called the law of excluded middle.

The way I see it, relative and absolute are two sides of the same coin. Either one is totally meaingless without the other. They are necessary in order to define one another.

This is a favorite phrase of relativist. This is a false analogy and false alternative. The one side of the coin is what it is no matter what is on the other side becasue the coin exist with a specific identity ,it is NOT the side it isnt. Things are what they are because of identity . To be relative is not to be absolute. To indentify is to establish a context.

Nonexistence only has meaning because of existence. However one cannot say the opposite. If I say theres nothing in my pocket I dont mean theres an actual existent called nothing located in my pocket. "Nothing" only means the absense of something specific in a context of things that exist.[the coin as such] This is the axiom of existence.

It is impossible to say when it is exactly 10 o'clock.We can't be absolutely certain that our time peice is absolutely accurate. In fact, we can be absolutely certain that it isn't. And even if it was absolute, we couldn't name the absolute instant when 10 o'clock occurred

This statement reflects the heart of your confusion. ALL knowledge is contextual. When I tell you what time it is It is always in a specific context. I can be absolutely certain when my watch reads 10:00. However time is only a concept anyway.We make those standards.

http://www.quackgrass.com/time.html

[Antone]

This is a result of your ideas about what a definition is . Could you tell me what you think it means to define something? Also define absolute and relative to make sure we are on the same page. Impossible huh? so It isnt absolute that I say that i exist? Or that Im a male human? Or that i am not everything else that exist?

I disagree that it depends on the definition... I believe it is a basic characteristic of reality. Indeed, anything that has the ability to carry information of any type must exhibit this characteristic: of being most accurately defined by reciprocal aspects. 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]. In general, however, being absolute means that the [absolute thing] is infinitely precise; while being relative means that there is some measure of imprecision.

so It isnt absolute that I say that i exist? Or that Im a male humanThere are many ways in which it is not absolute to assert, "I exist." For starters, what does mean? Some people think of [themselves] in terms of their physical bodies. But then do we count the dead skin cells that are attached to our bodies? Is that dead material clinging to my skin really part of what is me. If my brain is transfered to another body, which person is me, the old body without my brain or the new body with my brain. 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.

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. But this is only an absolute statement because the statement iteself is so extremely vague. For as I think I've shown, it is very far from clear what it means to be or what it means to [exist].

The situation is not that different for . The first thing to notice is that this is not a physical object--but rather, it is a concept. It is absolutely true that this concept is true. But it is absolutely true only because each [human] is uniquely different; and each [male] is uniquely different. I don't look much at all like the people I work with. So the only reason I can say with relatively high certainty that "I am a male human" is because what it means to be [male] and [human] is such a vague thing. So in effect we are saying with absolute accuracy that I am something that is not absolutely accurate. As soon as you insist on defining a terms with absolute accuracy, it becomes impossible to determine if you are an instance of that term. This is necessarily the case--because to be infinitely accurate the defintion would have to be infintiely precise, which means it would probably take infinitely long to actually express. Since we live finite lives, we would be dead long before such a definition could be completely expressed--even if it were possible to express such a definition, which it is clearly not. Or it might be said to require us to have infinitely sensitive perceptions, which we don't have. However you want to say it, defining something in absolute terms would require infinite discernment--which is an impossibility for any physical object that is capable of measuring and discerning, etc.

Similarly, it is not possible to name something that is only relative, without being absolute in some way.
This undoes your whole point. Its called the law of excluded middle.

Not at all. What most people tend to forget is that the law of excluded middle says that something cannot be both [p] and [not p] in the same sense and at the same time.

My

is necessarily on my left side, unless I'm looking at my image in a mirror--in which case it's on my right side. Or in case I'm thinking from someone else's perspective--again, for them, [my left hand] is on the right side of my body--from their perspective. Thus, it is absolutely true that [my left hand] is on both the

side of my body--depending on the perspective. The only thing it CANNOT be is on both sides for a single perspective.

I belive the statements you presented above were both absolute and relative at the same time--as I illustrated. The reason this doesn't violate the [law of excluded middle] is because they were not absolute and relative in the same way; at the same time.

The way I see it, relative and absolute are two sides of the same coin. Either one is totally meaingless without the other. They are necessary in order to define one another.

This is a favorite phrase of relativist. This is a false analogy and false alternative. The one side of the coin is what it is no matter what is on the other side becasue the coin exist with a specific identity ,it is NOT the side it isnt. Things are what they are because of identity . To be relative is not to be absolute. To indentify is to establish a context.

This is both true and false.
a side of a coin is indeed whatever it is--irregardless of any other factors.

But to define a particular side of a coin we must name what it is with certain characteristics. For instance, we might name that side [heads] or [tails]. This characteristic, however, is not the same thing as the actual reality that is a particular side of a particular coin. [Heads] is a universal characteristic that can be shared by a great many coins--and thus has nothing to say about a specific coin. Similarly, it is a characteristic that is subject to change. If we put the coin in a coin stamp so that the heads is restamped with the tail imprint, then what was heads is now tails. This doesn't change which side it is in a physical sense--it only changes the name that we use to define that side. And the name, is a concept that applies to many coins, even though no two heads will look absolutely identical. Even if the differences are far too small to notice, there will be inevitable differences at the molecular and atomic levels. So the term [heads] does not actually refer to that absolue aspect of physical reality that is what it is. Instead, it refers to a conceptual aspect of reality that defines a great many uniquely different things all at the same time.

Another way we can define the specific side of a specific coin is to say that it is [up] or [down]. Again, this is a characteristic that is subject to change. But we can describe the state-of-affairs for a specific coin with absolute accuracy by using these two relative terms--by saying for instance that [heads is up]. Again, this phrase tells us almost nothing about the specific side of a specific coin--it is a phrase that applies equally to a vast number of coins. But using that relative phrases allows us to say something absolute about the specific side of the specific coin.

Once again, we have the absolute and the relative aspects working together in reciprocal ways.

Nonexistence only has meaning because of existence. However one cannot say the opposite. If I say theres nothing in my pocket I dont mean theres an actual existent called nothing located in my pocket. "Nothing" only means the absense of something specific in a context of things that exist.[the coin as such] This is the axiom of existence.

Interesting comments. First, this is only true from the perspective of physical existence. As a concept, "nothing" has just as much claim to being legitimate and independent as any other concept--including existence.

Now, in a physical sense, I mostly agree with the first part of your statement, but I disagree with the second part.

If all there was, was existence then everywhere, everything would be a solid mass. Physical objects have individual meaning only because of the absence of "stuff" that is between them. The letters in these words I'm typing only have meaning because of the white space between them. So existence is defined by nonexistence as well. They are not both defined in the same way by their opposite--but they are none-the-less both defined by it.

It is impossible to say when it is exactly 10 o'clock.We can't be absolutely certain that our time peice is absolutely accurate. In fact, we can be absolutely certain that it isn't. And even if it was absolute, we couldn't name the absolute instant when 10 o'clock occurred

ALL knowledge is contextual. When I tell you what time it is It is always in a specific context. ... .We make those standards.

Exactly my point. When you tell me what time it is, it is always from a given perspective. If you define [absolute accuracy] to be [any time that is within 5 minues of accurate time], then it is quite simple for you to accurately tell me what time it is. The accuracy of your statement, however, is based on the inaccuracy of your definition of accurate time.

I'm going to end this now, but I will try to post a previously written essay called The Broken Clock Analogy, which goes into what I've been saying in a more organized way.

[Antone]

For Plasmatic

The Broken Clock Analogy
Consider the following saying:

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

To most of us it seems pretty obvious that a working clock, even if it does not keep very accurate time, is still a lot more accurate than a broken clock with hands that don’t move at all. But ironically, this is only true when you look at the world in relative terms. In a strictly absolute world—one in which there is only [true] or [false] and nothing else is possible—saying, “Something is very close to being right,” is just another way of saying, “But it’s wrong.”

In such an absolute world, it is either [ten o’clock] or it is [not ten o’clock]. And the clock is either [accurate] or it is [not accurate]. There are no subtle distinctions between these two extremes. Thus, in the strictest absolute sense, it doesn't matter if the clock is [1/10, 000 of a second] off true time or [six hours] off true time. Neither time is [ten o’clock] so neither time is [absolutely accurate]. Furthermore, since there are only two choices—

or [wrong]—neither choice can be understood as being [more right] or [more wrong] than the other.

Ironically, when we understand truth in such a strict, absolute way, a broken clock is

more often than any working clock could ever be, even if the working clock keeps exceptionally good time. In fact, the better a clock keeps time the less often its will typically experience [absolutely accurate time].

For example, if the hands do not move at all, the clock experiences absolute accuracy once every 12 hours, as the correct time passes through the position of the clock’s hands. If the clock’s hands move exactly one hour every day, (meaning that it is a little better at keeping time) then the clock experiences moments of absolute accuracy approximately once every 12 1/2 hours. If the clock’s hands move 12 hours every day then the clock experiences absolute accuracy about once every 24 hours. And if the clock’s hands move 22 hours every day the clock experiences absolute accuracy about once every six days.

I won’t try to figure times for anything more accurate, but from what we’ve already looked at we can see a distinct pattern: the closer the clock comes to keeping [absolutely accurate time] the longer the [period of time between moments of absolute accuracy]. Or in other words, the more the clock becomes [relatively right] the less often it experiences being [absolutely right].

No matter where the hands have stopped, a broken clock experiences absolute accuracy twice a day, every day. These moments of accuracy may be infinitely short in duration, but they none the less occur twice each and every day. The only time a clock that is [slightly slow] or [slightly fast] is absolutely accurate is that [rare occasion when the hands pass through the correct time before once again being inaccurate on the opposite side], and since this is most likely to occur shortly after the clock has been reset, it stands to reason that the more accurately a clock keeps time the less often it will typically experience [absolutely accurate time].

The Compound Nature of Truth
The Analogy of the Broken Clock has two reciprocal aspects at work—the absolute nature of a given thing, and the relative nature of a given thing.

In this case, the reciprocal aspects are used to define the accuracy of a clock, but we can also use these same reciprocal aspects to define the truth of a statement, such as the following:

(AC) This clock keeps accurate time.

It is not possible to simply say that (AC) is either [true] or [false], for which of these values we assign to it is entirely determined by how we interpret the statement. If this statement is meant to reflect the following proposition:

(AAC) This clock keeps absolutely accurate time.

Then no matter what clock we’re talking about, the statement will invariably be [false].

Even the most accurate clock in the world is only capable of keeping time that is accurate to within certain parameters. It may only loose [1/1,000,000] of a second every 10 billion years, but that is not absolutely accurate—and so it is not accurate enough to make proposition (AAC) absolutely true. Thinking in the strictest absolute terms makes the [idea of an accurate clock] entirely meaningless—no such thing can physically exist, and so by extension, proposition (AAC) is necessarily trivial because it will always be false about every possible clock.

We can use the same basic logic to deduce that virtually any statement about any physical object will always be less than absolutely true.

We encounter a similar (if reciprocal) problem when we think in strictly relative terms—and this is true regardless of whether or not we restrict our answer to bi-valent values. For example, if we insist on a [true] or [false] answer, then the proposition:

(RAC) This clock keeps relatively accurate time.

Is true for every clock, since even [a clock with hands that don’t move] occasionally reflects the correct time—and thus expresses some relative degree of accuracy. In fact, there is at least one sense in which it can be understood to be more accurate than a working clock. For any given clock scenario, there is at least some sense in which the clock can be said to keep some [relative degree of accurate time]. And so, once again, our answer becomes trivial. It will invariably be [true], in some possible sense, for every clock we encounter.

Turning it into a Question: One possible way of trying to work around this problem is to turn (AAC) and (RAC) into a relative question, such as:

(QAC) How accurately does this clock keep time?

Now we can give a relatively accurate answer for each specific clock we encounter. For instance we might say, “clock [x] is accurate to within 1.341 second per week,” or “clock [y] is accurate to within 1 minute and seven seconds every ten years.”

The problem with this strategy is that we haven’t actually solved anything—we’ve simply delayed the resolution by moving the problem to a new location. Instead of making a [determination of truth] about a [statement], we’re making a [statement] about which a [determination of truth needs to be made]. So once again, we’re faced with virtually the same problem as before. If we think in strictly absolute terms, the answer to (QAC) will always be [false], since the answer can no more be absolutely accurate than a [clock can be absolutely accurate]. And, if we think in strictly relative terms, the answer will always be [false], since every answer will have at least some small amount of truth, no matter how far it is from being [absolutely true].

We can try to hide this recursive problem in successive layers of camouflage, but these vicious circles will never lead us away from the original problem regardless of whether we think in [absolute] or [relative] terms; or how deeply we bury it in successive layers.

Harnessing the Vicious Circles of Reality
Fortunately, the DS theory allows us to rise out of this quagmire by using each reciprocal property to define the other.

For example, when a stranger asks, “what time is it?” I might reply, “It is exactly twelve o’clock.” Intuitively, I know that (in the strictest sense) it is not possible for my answer to be [absolutely true]. But I know that in all probability my watch is keeping reasonably accurate time—because I know that I have not forgotten to wind it.

Given this assumption, I might ask myself the relative question, “How accurately is my watch keeping time.” My answer, of course, will only be relatively accurate—but it will be close enough for practical purposes, for I know my watch is typically accurate to within approximately [30 seconds per month]. Since I’ve recently adjusted the time (using a more accurate clock), I have every reason to assume that, at the very worst, my watch is (in a strictly absolute sense) accurate to within less than 45 seconds of true-time; and since it takes me less than [15 seconds] to say, “It is exactly twelve o’clock” I can assume (with a very high degree of confidence) that my [statement about the time] is [accurate to within 60 seconds].

Now, I have a quantifiable way of defining the precise nature of my statement. Since there are 1440 minutes in a 24 hour period, and the watch is apparently accurate to within one of those minutes, I can say that the watch has an error potential of less than [1 in 1440]. If I convert this error potential to the decimal [.0006944], then let [0.000…] stand for absolute accuracy and [1.000…] stand for absolute inaccuracy, then I can say that [.0006944] stands for the approximate value of my watch’s relative accuracy. And clearly, my watch is much, much closer to being [absolutely accurate] than it is to being [absolutely inaccurate].

Thus, (without being trivial) I have a way to evaluate in a relatively-absolute sense the truth of the statement, “It is exactly twelve o’clock.” And I can honestly say that the statement is [absolutely true], because I have (in essence) redefined [what it means to be absolute] in a distinctly [relative] way.

Using the [relative aspect] to define the [absolute aspect] in this way is a tremendous advantage because:
1. It allows us to break the chain of triviality that is necessarily inevitable in all [strictly relative] or [strictly absolute] patterns of thinking, and
2. Because it produces a reasonably accurate way to assign weighted, relative values to the various factors that we must use to make our decisions.

---------------------------
Plasmatic, I believe that the above explains why the human mind has a strong tendency to processess information in paired reciprocal ways. The conscious and subconscious. The rational and irrational. The emotional and logical. However you want to divide it--they are reciprocal "types of mind" that are equipped best for precieving reality from a particular perspective.

When one of these paired "types of mind" are NOT functioning properly you tend to get a person who doesn't process information correctly and is either "retarded" or "crazy" etc. Both sides of each type of thinking is absolutely necessary for the most effective thinking to occur--precisely because the very nature of reality is necessarily defined by reciprocal aspects that require reciprocal types of thinking for optimum processing and understanding.