# How to make 0 of 1

After making a few comments on two quotes from Chaitin’s Meta Math!, I will offer everyone looking for simple, unifying ideas a way to make 1 and 0 natural numbers in the sense of being exact images of the most basic physical event there is.

After all, math deals with the world of ideas, which transcends

the real world. And for “God” you can understand the laws of the universe,

as Einstein did, or the entire world, as Spinoza did, that doesn’t change the

message.

To say math deals with something that trancends the real world is prone to be misunderstood if not specifying what exactly is required for something to be ”real”. One can easily read that “ideas” are not real, and then argue that the neural activity related to thinking is indeed real. It is also problematic to assume there is some interface which has reality on one side and ideas on the other. As far as I can see, that leaves us with the tedious old dispute about “media” and “ether” and how separate entities communicate and so on and so forth. It’s a dead end. Further, to separate the physical world/universe from their alleged laws makes for more problems, especially if the Godlike laws are supposed not to change the message. I will hold that the fundamental laws are descriptions of indisputable, physical events which are in and of themselves very simple. What we conventionally think of as “laws” are rather consistency in relative effects. I will also hold that the message is the messenger, just as I believe that Jesus Christ is God.

I am always searching for simple, unifying ideas, rather than

glorying intellectually in “polytheistic” subjects like biology, in which there

is a rich tapestry of extremely complicated facts that resists being reduced

to a few simple ideas.

I share this preference for absolute simplicity. Reason is that I believe the Singularity of Einstein’s GR is definitely real. If so, it makes no sense at all to philosophize about the Singularity in terms of complexity and a plurality of concepts like zero point, universal string, infinite density, boundary, heat etc. Rather one should make an effort to condense all these concepts into that which can generate and rule them all. That is to figure out which concepts are pointing to the same “unknown”. By doing so, I have come to the conclusion that there is ultimately just two qualities of reality; one is extension and the other relaxation. If you really want to simplify the fundamental state of affairs, getting rid of contraction and gravity helps a lot. This is not a new idea since already Ezekiel in his vision kept repeating that: And each went straight forward; wherever the spirit was about to go, they would go, without turning as they went.… Whenever they moved, they moved in any of their four directions without turning as they moved.…

Now, Ezekiel said a lot of thing which I do not understand correctly, not yet, but one thing we definitely agree on is this: … for the spirit of the living beings was in the wheels.… Indeed it is, and I can tell you why this is so. And you will definitely not believe one single word of it.

To generate one 2D surface of space, we need one axis of rotation. That axis is an imaginary straight line written as I or 1. At this moment, there is no zero because the sphere equator has not yet extended from rotation. We might say that there is an invisible space, or potential space, waiting to be spaced out by fundamental force of rotation. So the shape of things to come rests in the momentarily undetectable sphere which is in equilibrium and thus void of energy.

Now, if we let this 1 rotate, there is likely to emerge an equatorial bulge. This horizontal bulge is the emergence of space extension. It is the emergence of zero as comprising “everything”, because empirical reality is all of these momentary extensions. If there ever was a perfect sphere, we would not be able to detect it. This act of disappearing by means of geometry is the cause of quantization and the dreaded “gaps” in physical reality.

Since a quantum of action, which is Singularity, is finite, there can be no horizontal extension without a proportional compression of its vertical axis. So as empirical reality extends as a circular horizon, at its center there is the compression of 1 axis. In this way the 1 axis is continuously translated into a circular horizon. This is how electricity is perpendicular to magnetism, and so kinetic energy grows perpendicular to the growth of potential energy.

But to keep it simple, there is just the fact that if rotation flattens a sphere out into a disc, there will be compression at the disc center. Perhaps a better way to say is that tension is greater at the perimeter of the disc. Whichever way we phrase it, 2D extension is not forever. Flat is as far as it gets. Then what? Now we have translated the axis I into a much wider surface perimeter, symbolized by the all encompassing circle O. Reality is but an ocean of such momentary extensions, but it is not static. It breathes and has a lot of spirit, right?

Well, lets have a phase/face inversion so that potential energy (compression) is released, bidirectional and perpendicular to the extended horizon. What is likely to happen is that space seems to “shrink” and there is empirical “contraction”. But to invoke “gravity” is a big mistake. Perhaps the biggest of mistakes. There is no force which “pulls” space out of sight. Instead we have built up energy potential which has to be released. Otherwise we need some influx of force to keep the unit flat. As we know pretty well, the flow of reality seems to prefer a spherical shape, and now you can figure out why. That is because axial compression, enforced by fundamental force of rotation, has a limit to how compressed 1 can be. The poles/ends of the axis can meet at the very center of the fully extended space/horizon, but compression cannot pass through compression. Instead I suggest the poles will “bounce” off each other, and as they do, they will take the horizon with them.

From that “bounce”, the all encompassing O of space will gradually shrink and be quantized. So in this way, zero translates to an increasing axis I. The trick here is to realize that 1 is never to be detected as empirical reality. The 1 is of a sphere, not a prolate ellipsoid. In a physical sense, there is nothing >1.

The God I have found is of this invisible 1. And as explicitly stated in Genesis, creation grows by cutting itself down, not in 2, but in another 1. This is how one quanta breaks down to numerous quanta, and they all spin. Mathematicians like Tarski and Banach has shown how to make a sun by cutting up a pea and rotating the pieces. Math is just as real as the world of ideas. Reality cannot trancend itself, and it cannot fool itself.

What is NOT real is the “You” who is believed to read this post. Self-reference of human mind is the fool. Were was “You” at the moment of Singularity? What was there to eventually generate this “You” of “Yours”? Nah, forget it. “You” will never know it. In fact, you can never know it. Why? Because, if the above is actually true, IT is what knows “you”. “You” are IT, appearing and responding to context as “You”. 1 when invisible. 0 when obvious. Oscillations….lots of them….billions, and the relative image of stable matters which is an effect of them being so many. As the beginning (and end), the many are but 1, and The One is a moment of perfect equilibrium and universal unity. Force of rotation makes The One a black hole sun, a sun disc…The Only Son. So God anoints Himself, smears Himself out, into the presence of Light. Booom, Big Bang….Fiat Lux. Light is a wobbling Zero, coming from and going back to the invisible One.
Ultimately, This is of course the same body as That.
Reality hides by being Everything.
Jesus Christ hides by being God.
Light hides by being quantized.
Space hides….in time.

Nonsense…..

# Meta math of Something

I found a book by Gregory Chaitin called Meta Math: the quest for Omega. I haven’t read it yet. Just had a glance at the overall picture. It lured my mind back to the case of singularity, which I have been fortunate enough to forget about for the past weeks. So per usual it had me repeating my simple mantra once more. Same message as always, albeit in a seemingly new package. I will post this now and hopefully forget it again. All the hours and effort I’ve dedicated to communicating this one simple idea has so far been a total waste of time. Sure I’ve been intellectually occupied and energized by it, but playing around intellectually also should lead to utility for all. Not only entertainment for me.

Before my rambling, I’d like to comment on a quote from Chaitin’s book:

Because in order to be able to fool yourself into thinking that you

have solved a really fundamental problem, you have to shut your eyes and

focus on only one tiny little aspect of the problem. Okay, for a while you

can do that, you can and should make progress that way. But after the brief

elation of “victory”, you, or other people who come after you, begin to realize

that the problem that you solved was only a toy version of the real problem,

one that leaves out significant aspects of the problem, aspects of the problem

that in fact you had to ignore in order to be able to get anywhere

• There is no separate “me” that has a “self” which to fool. Misconception from self-reference rules the game. No matter how much Gödel “You” have studied. “You” will never get it right, because “You” are the very incompleteness of the system. Without a functional reference point, not being the system itself, the system cannot be completely described.
• Fundamentally, there is no problem to solve. What seems a problem arises from the fact that the previous point is actually true. Not realizing/accepting that a relative perspective is required for any observation, that causes problems. Not realizing/accepting that if a singularity, an initial state of the universe cannot be understood in relative/observational terms, that causes problems.
• Saying one solution is of a “toy” problem, while other solutions are of “real” problems is relevant if, and only if, you know exactly what discriminates one from the other. What if the “real” problems all have relative solutions, and the “toy” problem has but one absolute solution? What if the “Toy” is always one and the same, while “reality” is never the same?
• What if “ignoring” relative aspects is not bad at all in studying a possibly absolute aspect? In fact, how could it otherwise be possible to understand 1 absoulte truth if you didn’t eliminate relative variables. What Chaitin calls “ignorance” is instead the controlling of variables in a certain thought experiment.

This is what I’d like to figure out:

Assume a quantum of action as such Assume it can be imagined as the most fundamental form of sphere Assume this spherical quantum of action has the intrinsic quality of rotation Let this quantum of rotational action be the one and only force there is.

Assume the geometry of sphere to be a momentary state Assume that, at this particular moment, the quantum of action is, at least theoretically, in perfect equilibrium, similar to a Planckian Grey Body average. Assume a physical body in perfect equilibrium to be energetically dead, and therefore impossible to detect/measure. Ergo, a grey body as such cannot be dimensioned and is thus immesurable and nondimensional. Define this sphere moment as the moment of 0 measurable quantity as well as 0 measurable quality. Let this particular moment be the true and factual number 0. That is, the grey body as such is the fact of Something, but impossible to detect/measure as a certain, empirical fact definable as being a particular object (wave, particle, quark, gluon, spinor, foam, tensor etc). It is not Nothing, but it is not a Thing. It is, in relation to externals, Something empirically invisible. We can perhaps term it “Background” or “Grid” or “Hidden Variable”.

Let the force of rotation, which is the fundamental action and thus not caused by some other action, cause itself to change its geometry. Assume rotation of the sphere form have its axis of rotation being compressed, and thus to decrease in “length” from the momentary value of 0. Assume rotation of the sphere form have its equator, perpendicular to its axis, being extended, and thus to increase in circumference from the momentary value of 0. Imagine the gray, spherical equilibrium, by means of its own rotational force/action, to gradually reform itself to increasingly flatter ellipsoid, and to do so up to the critical instance when axis is maximally compressed and circumference is maximally extended. Assume the value of vertical compression to be gravitational potential as “magnetism”. Assume the value of horizontal extension to be kinetic energy as “electricity/charge”. Define this disc moment as the moment of 1 measurable quantity as well as 2 measurable qualities. Assume these 2 qualities of compression/extension corresponds to the concepts of time/space as well as position/velocity.
Let the moment of maximum extension/compression equal the concept of zero entropy, as the opposite moment of perfect equilibrium. Imagine the opposite to a mathematical 0 is the 1 quantity of +1-1 qualities. Imagine grey randomness reforming itself to black/white order of duality. Imagine equilibrium enforcing itself to become zero entropy. Imagine force to cause energy, in and of itself. Imagine rotation to cause electromagnetism.

So, can such a Something be figured out mathematically? I don’t know. It seems we need to reconsider the ontology of numbers, and most of all the numbers 0 and 1. I suspect these symbolic representations of physical reality must be properly physicalized. Perhaps our quest for the math of reality must be complemented with a quest for the physics of math?

I suggest the number 0 represents a symmetric equilibrium in the shape of sphere. Being equilibrium, it cannot be interacted with. It neither reflects, nor does it absorb. It is not likely to transmit either. I suspect that any thing contacting the 0 sphere becomes it, instantly. I suggest that, enforced by rotation, the 0 sphere generates a gradual emergence of quantity, a continuous increase of empirical reality in the shape of “space”. That is, the equatorial bulge, which gradually becomes the perimeter of a flat disc, is the very essence of empirical reality as it emerges, seemingly “out of nothing”. That “nothing” is nothing but its momentary state and trait of spherical equilibrium. This continuous increase of somethings horizontal perimeter is the emergence of an increasingly wider and flatter quantity of 1. This variable quantity of the (empirical) 1 comes with a proportional increase of two seemingly opposite qualities, because just as the perimeter charge is tensed out by force of rotation, so is the axis of rotation compressed. So in this scenario, magnetism is gravitational potential which increases in the exact amount that kinetic charge increases. Thus, electromagnetism is not a fundamental force, but an inevitable effect caused by the fundamental force of rotation. Not being a mathematician, far from it, I allow myself to be stupid enough to suggest; There are no natural numbers except for 0 and 1. 0 is a spherical equilibrium as a special case in a sequence/oscillation that is a constant flux. Most likely, the only true 0 as of a perfectly symmetric quantum of action is only possible/factual at a universal state of singularity, and only so at a particular instance and not as a stable state. Similar to the clock on the wall never “being” 0 or 12 (or any other number of times), but just an empirical manifestation of certain moments. The actual ticking of “time” is probably related to the instances of phase inversions, so reality might “tick” at each “time” the extension of “space” reaches its maximum length/circumference. If so, time increases as space increases, and it does so in continuous fashion. So if we choose to set time 0 along the equator of spherical equilibrium, then increase of time equals increase of space as the equator is tensed out by rotational force. Then time stops at the moment our quantum of action is maximally extended horizontally as well as maximally compressed vertically. Then the poles (both ends of axis) goes “Tick”, and gravitational potential is released bidirectionally. As the unit is thus relaxed, the amount of energy built up from projection of space/horizon will be conjected back towards 0. This is the phase of propotional reversal of spacetime. I suspect the clock of reality says very little of this, because this is how it is quantized as to (almost) disappear. The fully conjected unit is at its lowest energy state and will be hard to even detect. I think this might be what we think of as “Neutrinos”. They don’t travel at all. They are already everywhere. Flickering moments, close to equilibrium.

So how can this explain, for instance, the notion of complexity? Well, imagine a universal singularity to be a definite limit to what is otherwise a true Nothing-ness. Apart from Nothing-ness, there is only the universal singularity. This singularity, as pictured above, is never a stable state. Reason is fundamental force of rotation and how that enforces the singularity/quantum to reform spherical equilibrium into a 2D disc of electro/magnetism and back to spherical equilibrium. This sequence is likely to render the singularity a wobbling instability which, after certain moments/times of phase inversions, causes the unit to break in 2. NOTE: This is not 2 as we conventionally treat the quantity of 2. Keep in mind that before the breaking of unit into units, the notion of 1 is not applicable. To define singularity as the quantity 1, we must have a reference quantity that is not-1, e.g 0, .5, 2 etc. There is no such reference external to a universal singularity. It is more truthlike to say “0<1>0” breaks into “0<1>0<1>0” or “0+1-1” breaks into “0+1-10+1-1”. The latter seems nonsensical of course, but then having 0 generate +1-1 all by itself also seems nonsensical.

From this moment and onwards, the motion of a unit (now a units) is dependent on context. This increases the complexity of the now system of units. Now what was absolute singularity can be understood as relative duality/parity. Let these 2 units break into 4, and there is increase in restrictions of motion. So while each following breaking of units allow for increased complexity in how they can oscillate in various patterns, it also means that each and every one unit is dependent on an increasing amount of other units. Since laws of conservation naturally follows the suggested scenario, we can also be sure no single unit can ever have escape velocity enough the separate from its origin. This is good, because it keeps reality in place and makes the infamous heat-death impossible. It allows for a lot of ideas that basically makes sense of what seems a mystery. Local? Yes! Nonlocal? Yes! Empirical? Yes! Hidden? Yes! Irreversible? Yes! Reversible? Yes!

Simple as it seems, how could we entertain our intellectual desire for complex problems to solve? You know, intelligence can never accept what might be objectively simple and absolute. Intelligence generates questions, not answers. Answers are for religion, right? So being a schmuck with numbers and equations, I offer anyone interested to flesh out in detail the numbers corresponding to one single sequence of the imagined motion of singularity. How to do it is up to anyone’s preference. I can only suggest some crude pointers from my layman’s perspective.

Here’s an example to play around with. This complex image is not following the agreed upon rules of course. It assumes a base value that, instead of an infinitely small point, is regarded as an actual point/force/quanta which is irreducilble and thus the physical limit of spatial size. It assumes reality can disappear as “space”, not because of size but as an effect of geometry. That is, if reality at hand is a perfect sphere, then it is in a state of equilibrium, and if so it is undetectable. No matter its assumed size or the nature of measuring device, a state of equilibrium does not interact with external context because it is energetically dead. Another way is to say; a sphere cannot be detected “in” empirical space because it has no spatial extension. Only as force of rotation causes the equator – Its Own Equator – to bulge, and the axis – Its Own Axis – to compress does the unit have the property of spatial extension. Nota bene; with the quality of horizontal extension (space) comes, perpendicular to the equatorial horizon, an equal amount of axial compression (times).
I didn’t add the following phase of conjection because it’s the same but in reverse. Just let the disc rotate as before and the compression at center will now increase vertical values bidirectionally from -.5-.5 to 00, and by that horizontal values uniformly from +.25+.25+.25+.25 to 0000.
To avoid a static oscillation and allow for the unit to break, we must add knowledge of hydrodynamics and how the inevitable wobble/instability of a rotating point of gas/liquid plays out. That’s way beyond me, but other will know for sure. I know they do because there are tons of papers about it.
That will probably show the cause of positive and negative curvature of space. My assumption is that projective space is positive as the sphere is flattened out, and that conjective space is negative as the gravitational potential at the axis is released.
Just feeding the crazy minds here.
Don’t believe a word of it.
You want reality as it really is?
Practice mindfulness, relentlessly, and you will eventually learn that there was nothing hidden ever. When reality hides, it does so by being Everything LOL…..

Have a wonderful weekend!

EDIT/ADD-IT: When saying the system needs a functional reference point in order to describe itself, I am not saying there actually is such a reference point. There is not. Not in the universe as described here. My image denies the existence of separation as well as of many universes. There is One Universe and This is It.
Never the less, human mind function seems able to describe reality to a very large extent. In fact, all the way from the current state of affairs and back to the so called Planck Epoch, but beyond that it seems unable to “get it”. Religion solves that by saying “God”, while the scientific solution is to say “There will forever be new questions to deal with”. Same same but opposite. None carries explanatory power.
The cool thing with human mind is the ability to operate/compute/respond as if it was indeed a functional reference point. It reasons and acts as if there was a “me” that “had” a mind of my own, able to look at reality. This as if- perspective is what makes intelligence possible. Without it, there is just the One Reality thinking, knowing, questioning, experiencing and ignoring all by itself. These internal activities/events occur in the momentary forms of “humans” and “brains”. But there is only One which has “humans” and “brains”, and that is the One Reality. It has multiples of itself, and the many combine in various patterns with various functions.
So singularity is a point without reference, while duality/parity is a point referring to itself in the form of another point. Complexity is a point referring to a multitude of itself in the form of numerous points. No matter how many billions of points made, the broken singularity is bound to self-reference. Only in the special case of being non-relative (call it Initial/Final state if you will), is the universe non-referential and absolute.
So to say, as I previously did, that there is no reference point (meaning a human observer) to describe reality is also not true. The truth is rather this; there is nothing but reference points. Any instance/unit of existence is defined in reference to all the others. To believe the aggregates of points/quanta called “humans” are somehow able to stand separate from this “quantum foam” and describe it “objectively” is nonsensical beyond belief. Of course we can’t do that!
But that is not to say it can’t be done. It is done. It’s happening right here, right now.
It’s just not me writing and you reading.
It is One Reality, able to write and read all of itself.

Cool isn’t it?

# Whos idea is it anyway?

Is any of the stuff I write here “my” ideas? Is it like I’m sitting on my own thinking of this and that and – Boom – I have some sort of insight or brilliant idea I feel compelled to share with everyone? Not really. In fact, not at all.

What happens is that sometimes I finally get what others have been trying to tell me. I rarely find anything new or original in my thinking. It is just repeating what has been consistently repeated for ages. It is my voice for sure, but the song remains the same.
Here’s an example:

I keep pointing to the fundamental unit of reality as being an oscillation, a gradual shape shifting, between two extreme states which are the inversion points of the process. One extreme is an energetic equilibrium in the shape of a sphere. This state is empty of all characteristics and measurable values. Being void of energy, it can never be detected and empirically verified. The reason for this is built on well established math and physics. I am not just making this up because it sounds cool, or that I want to keep some aspect of reality hidden or mystified. It is just so that an object which does not expand, nor contract will not communicate with its outside world. It does not reflect anything and does not absorb anything. In this sense, it is completely silent to others. The other extreme state is a flat, circular disc with tension at its perimeter horizon and compression at its center. This disc state is the opposite to the sphere, because here we have maximum energy and very definite values of extension as well as compression. So if the sphere equlibrium can be seen as “grey”, the disc is “black/white”. I will also hold that what causes the sphere to become a disc is rotation, and that rotation is the one and only force there is.
In short, the force of rotation creates energy by having a fundamental unit of reality oscillate between states of sphere and disc.

I suggest the above is a pretty accurate picture of what basic assumption a Theory of Everything and a Grand Unification Theory must be built upon. It has nothing to do with religion or any esoteric doctrine. It’s just what comes to mind when connecting a few physical, mathematical and logical dots. I didn’t make those dots. Others did, and they keep generating such dots. Lots of ’em.

Ok, so that’s what the scientific community will eventually end up in telling us. Of course, they’re already saying this, over and over again. It’s just that they refuse to listen to their own announcements. They seem ignorant of themselves. Weird isn’t it?

This is where the more “spiritual” approach can be of help. Here is what Zen Master AMA Samy has to say about the fundamental nature of reality:

Reality is both is and is-not; it is personal and transpersonal; it is not-one and not-two. This not-one and not-two applies in a particular way to the relationship between the Self and the Ego-self. Madhyamika logic extends this not-one, not-two further: Everything is suchness; Everything is not suchness. Everything is both suchness and not suchness; and, Everything is neither suchness, nor not suchness. Ultimate reality both include and are beyond all such terms. It is mystry, unknowing.

Thou Master seems to speak about the human problem of  relating subjective self experience (Ego-self) with its more objective, fundamental nature (Self), we are both saying exactly the same thing. That would come as no surprise to anyone who assumes humans to be just as natural as everything else in existence. If we are of this world, and not some supernatural aliens from elsewhere unknown, then what is true of fundamental physics must also be true of you and me.

So if we compare Master’s and my statements we can see that:
Sphere = is-not, transpersonal, not-two, Self, not-suchness, beyond terms and unknowable.
Disc = is, personal, not-one, Ego-self, suchness, definable and exclusive.

What I would like to add is this – since the unknowable Self, beyond all terms is the same reality that is definable and knowable, is being such as this or that, the unknown cannot remain hidden from the known. I offer you an ultimate reality which hides its original face by showing it as Everything that is. That’s the tricky part I guess.

Human mind is stuck in disc-mode where all aspects of reality is analysed and understood in terms of this or that. To even think of reality at all, human intellect is forced to assume visible is incompatible with invisible. Human mind is robbed of its wonderful ability to reason if not allowed to define reality in various terms. Reality must be local or nonlocal, finite or infinite, electric or magnetic, time or space, knowable or unknowable etc, or else we can’t even talk about it, right?

So have I by this made some genious breakthrough in how to approach the above? Does the idea of “visible” and “invisible” being just momentary states of the same thing make me a stellar philosopher? Of course not! There is no special prize or credentials to get from saying this. It is old fucking news.

For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
Luke 8:17

The last quote is for most people just religious bullshit that we better educate away. For others it is a mysterious prophesy of sorts, something that ordinary people like you and me can never fully understand. It’s for the scholars to figure out. Well, 2000 years have gone and they still seem to argue about it.

To me, reality is both disputable and indisputable as well as neither disputable, nor indisputable. Below is a crude image of the process I try to describe. So you see, “grey” is not in-between “black” and “white” as we conventionally believe. Instead, “grey” is a momentary state/phase at which it is impossible to distinguish “black” from “white”, and “black/white” is a momentary state/phase at which it is impossible to distinguish “grey” other than as “an average value” of black and white combined. Since you cannot apply proper math and physics on the grey aspect, the original face of unity, science is bound to remain within the realm of duality, statistical probabilities and “dark matter”. Since religion is aimed at the immesurable and all pervading grey-ness, it will occupy the seemingly opposite realm of the invisible unknown mystery.

As for me, I oscillate wildly between being the voice of existence itself, and just another crackpot Mr. Know-It-All who believes him-self to have something important to tell the world. How special is that, considering the same goes for you, your neighbour, your neighbours dog and the cypress in the garden?
Every thing is like that.
Everything is that

# This is not a Black Body

Today I will try to show you why a Black Body is not a Black Body, and how the unknowable can be known if we know what makes knowledge possible at all. I have had this invisible image in my mind for a few years now, but still I have not been able to share it with someone. This should be understood as “not able to commute that which enables a receiver to respond in such a way that a co-responding happens”. It is obvious that an invisible image is impossible in itself, let alone to communicate. It has to be so. My effort is to trigger a constructive response in you. Not shove my response down your throat. This is very difficult, because anything I say or show will by default be reconstructed according to your existing cognitive structures. It has to be so. But knowing how communication is bidirectional can be of some help.

The image has, to me, opened the floodgates to numerous Aha-moments. It still does. It is a game changer with profound consequences, that is, if you want it to be that. If you do not want it to be of any significance to you, it won’t be. Then it is just someone’s private speculations. Well, it IS someone’s private speculations no doubt, but not necessarily just so. It might also be valuable. It might also be complete/incomplete nonsense.
Ultimately, it is what it is. It is an event of co-responding.

Trying to avoid my usual rambling all over Everything, this will be an introductory post, an initial conditioning of you, so what follows has at least a slight possibility of being understood correctly. Only then can there be an accurate response to what I actually suggest, and not to what you have me suggesting. Only then can it be rightfully buffed or nerfed.

Let’s begin with the scope of this image. It answers none of your questions, except for one; What Is This? By “this” I do not mean any of the following:
God, reality, entanglement, entropy, particles, consciousness, mathematics, religion, free will, continuum, theory, mind, matter, energy, consciousness, purpose, intention, relativity, QM, essence, ether, gravity, true, good, impossible, probable, measurable, important or consciousness.
By “this” I mean: FUNDAMENTAL.
The reason I suggest the fundamental to be of highest priority is this – if we get it somewhat wrong, everything that follows will be somewhat skewed and out of focus. Not “wrong”, but not “right” either. If that is a problem is up to that response of yours. I just want to know Everything for no particular reason at all…it seems.

Using the concept of Black Body (BB) is bound to cause multiple misconceptions, because you know already what a Black Body is, and that is not what I suggest here. That means most readers will stop reading here. Before leaving, some friendly soul might suggest references and further studies so I can educate myself properly. And by that, our paths diverge. I can see for myself that my image is not of a Kirchhoff Black Body. The main reason for this is that my image does not include absorption of any kind, nor anything like emission. Since perfect absorption and zero emission is the very definition of a blackbody, this is obviously something else. There is no need to state the obvious over and over again. Sharing your opinion that the image is confusing and contradicting adds nothing but informational noise. I know it is confusing and full of contradictions. I wrote the damn thing. I have pictured it for soon to be 5 years. If you know it, you also know why it is confusing and paradoxical to an observer. You don’t reject QM out of the box, just because it is confusing, do you? You don’t accuse Zen for being full of paradoxes, do you? Objecting to my use of “Black Body” and “blackbody” without explicitly spelling out why I do that and how they relate to each other in this context, that is just interference and I’ll put you in the penalty box until you stop such nonsense. Unless you actively refuse to know, you know perfectly well what I mean. If not perfectly, well enough goes a long way.

But I reluctantly use the term Black Body anyway, because if I don’t use a conventional label, that is what is wrong and what makes everyone run away screaming “Pseudo-scientific crackpottery”. So I say “Black Body”, thinking it is the closest any concept I know of comes to what I’m suggesting.

I did, and I came up with Nothing.

Then of course there is the Gatekeepers of Credibility who will respond per usual:
You must include relevant equations, a list of references and vectors, scales, philosophical background, elementary charge, the number 137, set-theory, topology and algebra and whatever (we decide) is required for communicating anything at all of significance.
Sorry, can’t help them. If I could, these Gatekeepers would join the following category.

Then the impatient ones who wants all their favourite questions answered promptly, or the image explains nothing at all to them. They want more than just an alphabet. They want you to read for them. You are supposed to read their favourite story, over and over again.
But consciousness is primary and is not of a Black Body
But there must be spacetime inherent in the image and it’s not
But existence is mathematical and cannot be based on geometry
But existence is based on geometry and cannot be based on a nondimensional point
But this has to be observable or it is supernatural metaphysics
But God is not reducible to a scientific concept
But Science is not reducible to an unknowable Genesis
But a Black Body is just a useful concept
But a layperson cannot possibly understand this without extensive education and years of diligent practice.
Sorry, can’t help them. If I could, it would be to help them strengthen their arguments in favour of their current story.

But nevertheless,  there is a faint hope of someone who is not only guided by convention and a priori assumptions of what is possible, true, desirable, correct, allowed and appropriate. Someone who was not dead set on reframing this image to fit his own theory/model.  If that one person looks at the image, reads the few words attached and makes a little effort to let the input stand for itself, if only for 10 minutes, then s/he might just come up with some relevant questions, and not just the predictable ones stated above. S/he might be curious….doubting…wondering…
How does that move?
How did that get there?
What enforces that?
Why is that not a Black Hole?
Why is that unknowable?

The last one I can suggest an answer to right now. It is unknowable because there is no knower relative to it. It is more fundamental than epistemology and ontology combined. In those domains, the questions are usually based on the a priori assumption that there is an existing relation knower-known. Then we start elaborating on that relation.
Who knows who, are both observers and observed, are they one or two, how does information flow from one to the other and in-between, are they discrete or continuous, local or nonlocal etc.. You can spend a lifes worth of asking the above without knowing for sure. But there’s wealth of relatively correct answers to pic from and they keep coming. Already the old Greeks knew. Everyone knows, but no one seems to know why.

If you look really closely at the/my Black Body, you might realize that there is no possible relation presented. This unity is not of relativity. It is the epitome of the Absolute. Before your pre-conception of the term “absolute” shuts down all your cognitive functions and crystallize it into a solid wall of rejection, please take a few minutes and check the source. Absolute refers to that which is away from+loosening.  From that root of perfect unity, it has grown branches of meaning that are like the origin, but only relatively so. Can you spot the potential problem with this? To me, it is obvious. If we start to wobble in relation to the absolute, we are immediately lost and separated from its very nature. So much that it can suddenly mean the opposite to itself, as in “make separate”. This brings immense confusion to all our thinking about fundamentals. To make it sensible and useful, we must hold on to the most basic and concrete definition and meaning it can possibly have. That would be; “not lost” or perhaps “conserved”. Then we can use relative as its extreme opposite, as in “coming and going” or perhaps “progressive”.

The careful reader can easily spot an inconsistency, and it is a tricky one. How can that which is, by its most fundamental definition, absolute also be relative? This is a very good objection to what I have just said. I would be a fool to suggest that the ultimate cause of all existing effects is (a) absolute, and thus (b) empty of relations. That would be saying General Relativity is totally wrong and a theory of Nothing at all. It is to negate what is obvious in our everyday experience. Since that would be stupidity per excellence, I will not suggest that.

The reason my image of this Black Body is empty of relations is that the image is incomplete. Not only incomplete, but also fundamentally wrong as it stands right now. What makes it wrong is that the most vital aspect is missing. Unless I add the missing property, the unit is indeed absolute and non-relative, just like I said it is. But it will not remain so for very long. That which is absolute will only last a moment, or perhaps 3 moments. I’ll leave that to those who know math and physics. Read that again before you start arguing. Absolute is not of a stable state, let alone a particular “thing/object”. Not in my image. No way. I claim it to be a momentary configuration that, in a very specific way, makes the existence of relatives and relations impossible. It is a momentary state of a unit that can be of numerous momentary states as defined by an existing observer. The only one of these possible states that an observer cannot observe is likely to be the state of absolute-ness. Why this is so will become less of a mystery when we have graced the Black Body with its most prominent attribute. I said it is incomplete, but that needs a slight revision. It is incomplete if understood from the context of its effects. That context is to no surprise the current universe of measurable relatives. This image is of that which potentially enforces it to be what it is. QM and GR deals with the numerous effects. My image is not that. It is not of an initial condition, but of an eternal conditioner of conditioning. Can you possibly recognize the significant differences between condition – conditioning – conditioner? Try object – observation – observer….

As for now, all we know is that whatever is pictured here, it is not of observable qualities.
If we wish, we can therefore label it “supernatural”, “hidden” or “that which cannot be known”. I suggest we avoid all such definitions because they hi-jack our imagination and steals away from us any degrees of intellectual freedom.
If supernatural, scientific mind shuts down.
If hidden, we must invent that which hides it. Please, don’t do it. You will end up with a cover, a bulk, a boundary and a double cover. Before you can say “Duality”, game is over.
If “That which cannot be known”, there is the obvious risk of abandoning the whole issue. Of course, we are not able to let go of the fundamental question, but if we dodge the question of why an absolute state is unknowable, we begin to generate objects that have the property of being invisible, ethereal or omnipresent.
A spacetime grid or a universal background or …gravity…

Ok, now you are free to do what you are forced to do:

– A double cover is a …formalism…necessary…understand…Nobel Prize…
– Your use of the word “observer” is …Copenhagen interpretation….uncertainty….nonsense.
– A singularity is by definition _insert your preferred definition_
– What do you mean by…duality…intellectual….body….ontology…obviously you’re wrong.
– Absolute can be defined as …without a conscious witness….just so you know!
– In string theory, dimensions are ….which contradicts…because
– Contrary to what you imply here, General Relativity is not …
– Already the old Greeks knew that …fundamentals must…because…
– I get the impression you believe …which is wrong…because..
– Just because you consider…doesn’t mean…because…
– My God you’re full of your own garbage aren’t you.

Yes of course, definitely; it is, it does, it means, it should, it must, I will, I am, I can’t, there is, there was, he said, you are, you can and no one should, just as everyone is required to.

Now, does a dog have Buddha nature, or can we for once respond according to what actually is?

# Micro Macro time tubes

There’s a saying that “As above, so below”, and I suppose it points to the possibility of everything being oscillations between what seems to be opposites. If not that, it points to whatever you prefer to look at. My preference is to look at all of reality as equally real, and what is realized “above” should be realized “below”. But the concepts of “above” and “below” are easily interpreted as “high” and “low” as well as “good” and “bad”, and before we know it, we have made “equality” become “opposition”. This is how minds intelligence operates by default. It cannot tolerate equality and unity because that makes distinction and definition almost impossible. If intelligence can’t tell This from That, it stalls and feels stupid.
What an epic fail that is for the mind which tries to figure out the inner workings of nature.
With forced distinctions, mind runs in circles while believing linear progress is made.

Anyhow, I’d like to revise the old saying a bit by suggesting “As within, so without”. We might also say “As timed, so spaced” or “As potential, so realized”. The point is supposed to be that our measurements of empirical reality are spatial extensions of the potential reality we fail to measure. And if so, the notion of “failure” is itself a failure, becuse it obscures the fact that whatever is “real” must initially have been realized from that which is not yet real, but only potentially so.

C’mon guys…reality is not likely to take off as a ready made, out of a real box “thing” that simply is there.
It is naive to assume the initial state to be an initial thing. And if thing-ness is not in place to begin with, objectivity or thingy-ness is an emergent property of latent potential. And if there is a latent potential, it means that it won’t go away or is completely replaced by what is realized from it.

I’m loosing track as always…
Mind is too extensive.
Too far out.

This is a picture of how within shows up as without as micro evolves to macro. Size is relative while operation is absolute. The cool image is from Wikipedia on microtubule and the doodle is out of my mind. I have not tried to draw a microtubule myself, but only to suggest the image of it can be seen as corresponding to my idea of the fundamental units/unities of potential/reality. I’m sure my image is inherently useless and irrelevant when it comes to any degree of complexity, and a living organism is as complex as it gets. I know nothing of biological complexity, believe me.
The take away message is not about microtubules but of time as the potential background of real, empirical space.

Red is from perimeter of surface ex-tension.
Blue is from original/origo pole tension.

Tension —> Ex-Tension
In Time —> Spaced Out
Black Pole —> White Hole

And since oscillation is the law:
Time <—> SpaceTime <—> Space <—> SpaceTime <—> Time —> ad infinitum

# Playing monopoly

Image a complex plane of XYZ and let Y be a value of potential extension, meaning exactly what it says “out of tension”, which is of equal magnitude on both sides of Y=0.
Apply a limit of real space at 1/4 on both sides of X,Z=0 and consider the inside of those 1/4 as a nonlocal wormhole.
Set the value of Y at .12 on both ends as +.12 and -.12.
Let all of Y be a nonlocal, vertical tensor which we might call “polarity”. Do not assign any quantity of “length” to it. It is just potential length, not real length as “space”.
The total value of Y potential is then .12, .12, .03, .03 = .30. If we make the mistake of assuming the negative values being “less than zero”, then the total value of Y is of course 0.
Now think of this .30 as the value which will translate to a 2D-surface extension around Y axis.
The area of that surface would be .54772255 to the power of 2. Let those 2 powers be the +.12+.03 = +.15 and -.12-.03= -.15.
So what is the radius and the circumference of such a surface based on Y=.3?
If we go easy on the fractions, consider this unit to be very close to a unit, and not fractions of a unity, we get radius .4 and circumference 2.6.
Now let’s keep the unit united so that we don’t break it just by convention. If we add the radius and circumference values into the one value of the one potential, we get .4+2.6 = 3.
Aint’t that neat?

We have just found ourselves a way to make 3 out of 1.
Time translated to space.

If we do not correct for the space limit at 1/4, we might believe that reality can be fully described as 4/4. That the extensions is all there is and that reality is 1 whole detectable and “real” image.
It is not so.

The 1 dimension of “time” is on the imaginary Y-axis, and there the center of rotation is not rotation itself, or we would assign another center around which it rotated. The thing with the Y-axis is that it does not rotate at all. It is vertical/linear tension/stretching, and since it does not rotate, it has no currency to it. It is a monopole, residing in one single and nonlocal “potential” place. It is spaced out only when extending as a 2D-surface. It is a unity of two phases/faces.

The dimensionality/measurability of reality is 1 time extended by tension into 3 space.
Reality is not space and time. It is the oscillations of discrete unities which are the cause of both.
Non-communicating when extended as discrete surfaces.
Entangeled when fully polarized.
Quantization is when they pass the .03 limit of rotation and “hides” in the linear network of entangeled relations. We cannot detect the communication itself, only the many speakers.

The messengers is the message.
The actors is the action.

Forget the math. I just pretend to know anything about it. It is all wrong.
If you start with 2 opposites, you have 2 halves in one initial state, right?
If you break the 1, you have +.5-.5 and +.5-.5, right?
So by this break, you will get a parity of +1-1, right?
That’s a transverse wave….believe it or not.
2 discrete surfaces…quantized…appearing at crest, and then…poof, gone.
And again….twisting in a helical pattern when their values are measured.
So what is 1 anyway?

Every thing in empirical reality begins at .03 or at 1/4 if you wich, or .03×4= .12 or .12+.03= .15.
Quarternions I guess…
The many ways of expressing and calculation this reality comes from not knowing what it is.
Our tools of investigation are based on the detectable 3/4. We use them to make the 1/4 be the same as the 3/4, and we come up .03 short of the solution. So we generate multiples of solutions, and all fall in the same spot. They seem to superimpose and stack infinitely, without raising our understanding at all.

Reality as we know it is not fractions of one thing. It is an ocean of numerous ones which are parity and triplets of a two-face duality, united in one single Eigenstate. An Eigenstate which broke itself into an Unsererstate. No reference broken into self-reference.
Math as we have it cannot count to this peculiar 1. It believes 1 to be the basic integer, generating the others. It is not. There is no basic integer, because the fundamental base is half empty of quantity.
That empty half holds the Quality of Mechanics, and quality cannot be detected itself. Only that which express a quantity of the quality can be measured.
Surface is the quantity of tension, and as tension increase, surface decrease.
The pole elongates its potential value while decreasing its real value of space extension.
Decreasing value of real space is equal to time reversal.
But there exists no “time” as we know it. That’s just a relative measure of change.
Universal time is to be found among the internal affairs of the singularity. It is of how pole translates to surface and vice versa.

If we stop extending the Y-axis, as if it represented spatial extension, we might progress a bit faster. The Y-axis never leaves the real plane. The spike of the Dirac equation is the zero entropy oscillation which is half lost beyond the limit at .03, or where ever you choose to set that limit. The spike imagined to push the Y+ to infinity is in, or outside…or perhaps inside, the extension of the real plane. It is what generates all the real values. The infinity of it is that it is a fundamental pulse that never stops. As momentum is conserved, once it takes of, it cannot be exhausted or die a fictional “heat death”. Such nonsense defies all sensible logic.

Where was I?
Oh, playing momopoly I was.
Well then, I just won.

# The bending of Euclid

This is a picture of my vision regarding…a lot of things. I Believe it relates to continuity vs. quantization and “entanglement” and the complex image of 3D space. We can probably squeeze out a notion of time too. It is importand to note that a static image of that which is never still can be very misleading. Reality oscillates and waves. It is never ever stable, straight or circular.
To have Euclide’s line being a closed surface perimeter is how I replace “infinity” with “finiteness”.
Eternal are the oscillations, but what oscillates need not be infinite in extension. It can only extend to the limit of its action potential. That action potential is on the Y-axis of rotation/spin and it has no spatial extension for as long as it remains there, but it never does except for in our hypothetical theories. In reality it appears as quantized space units which pops in and out of sight. The extensions do not extend “into” space, but they are space. They might be understood as the flat spatial extensions of vertical time contractions. But I would be careful with saying that there is “contraction” at all. I suggest “relaxation” being a better concept to work with. The basic unit need not “contract” in order to “pull” back its extension. All it has to do is being finite, and the surface will inverse naturally after reaching its potential limit of action. Then the tension/stretching of its pole value will increase as the perimeter decreases. The weird thing is that the tensor value will not increase as an effective value of extended space. The extension value will decrease without some corresponding tensor increasing in real “length”.
That’s why bosons can be in superposition, but … that is probably only in theory and a way to make sense of data. I suggest the superposition is continously realized as definite position, and that this position, as a particular placement in relative space, is only momentary. That would be a consequence from fundamental oscillation. That might also explain why we only get either “position” or “velocity” when measuring the little 1’s. They are both, but never simultaneously. But being both, one value must always translate to the other. On the other hand, if the above is true, I guess “velocity” is equal to surface perimeter and “position” is the corresponding potential of the invisible Y-axis. Position could be everywhere since the Y-potential is definitely non-local. It localizes itself as it translates into a surface.
Easy cheese, and the holes are not in it. It is the cheese that comes out of the holes.
My question is concerning the mechanics of this unit and exactly how it manages to oscillate as to both “break” and then “re-assemble” its fractions. I think hydrodynamics have it, but I’m unfamiliar with that.
A finite volume (tricky concept here since 1/2 of the unit has zero volume in space) of viscoelastic spin must “flatten out” perpendicular to axis of rotation (magnetism and electricity being in 90 degree relation), and this should be without the pole axis ever having any spatial extension itself.
Rather than a spheroid, ovoid or ellipse, the basic unit would be in the shape of an annulus where the inner and other areas translate each other. The inner area would be the “White hole” out of which “space” emerges as a 2D-disc, and then immediately it is the “Black hole” into which “space” dis-appears.
Reality is neither This, nor That. It is not discrete or continous, not QM or GR.
It oscillates, and C is as slow as it gets. Anything slower that C is in a theory of relative values, and dang me if that is not Everything we are and Everything else in empirical reality.
Bummer….