A system conserve energy when it acts on the potentials of a single object and inverse direction between objects (+,-) -> (+,+) & (-,+) -> (-,-) which transforms into potentials -+> and --> for the system to create a higher existence. There is no answer that "this is only what exist" because things are that can't be explained by causality or words. Dual nature/potential of single objects are used in physics simulation and can used to classify systems into real ones and illusions (they exist too)
If we can define the elements of the system as being in relation to the act on potential of a single object, which we can, since the system's "act on it" qualifies the elements of the system,
then all elements can be treated in terms of interactions for the act on the potential of the object.
The energy is the state of stabilization, which includes any unstable parts, but we define that all unstable parts are either on their way to becoming stable or are stable or make-up what it means to be stable, such as being necessary for a system, etc.
I’m thinking, "for the system", the conservation is the first-order logic you elaborated on, where the potential is proportional for all elements of the system being in relation to the act on an object,
@rebokism if your saying that we came from nothingness then your wrong! that is a religious point of view! not a scientific one! we did not come from nothing. and anything that is not in are universe dose not exist are interact with anything! your blank page thing is wrong! if you were to do it the right way you would have to draw the circle follow the edges of the paper! not be in the middle! there is no empty space outside of the universe of any kind!
I'm not sure what the "blank page" is in reference to?
To help clarify, if in any of my diagrams/discussions I start out with a "blank page", it is to be understood that the blank page does not represent "nothing".
The best we can do is to start out with an absolute potential state, and all distinction/stabilization of the potential state are represented by interaction.
@crawlFace your video presuppositions which are arbitrary, unproven and therefore meaningless. your argument is dependent upon the false assumption that for us to conceptualize something, it must have some basis in reality.
Looking at this video again, I understand more things that I've worked on recently. I think this description of existence is the ultimate one, because there is no logic alternative, even the effects of a such definition is pretty extraordinary since it allows you to explain an observation by examining the interaction alone without knowing what is causing it.
Thank you. As you know from our extensive discussions, the point is not to predominantly theorize the case, but instead to recognize what is always the case no matter what we theorize.
To further elaborate the value of "opposite", we can think in terms of "charges" such as + and -
which works well with what we are discussing. In this case, saying "only half of the something" is like saying there was only + or only - charges from the start. But current descriptions are defining that there were actually both + and - charges at the start or early stages, etc.
"Emptiness itself does not include nothing", is a good point to make,
and it seems to all support that both + and - charges actually make-up the entire or complete value, as you have pointed out.
What is really startling is that if we accept that we live in the + value of it, then it starts to totally explain why we think of things in terms of there possibly being a state of oneness, or how we can describe us as being separate from things, and even explain what supports our ability to distinguish and experience things.
Because in actuality we are then naturally just “halves” of our entire or complete value, perhaps even just half of an absolute value.
Perhaps this is like a default engine for us that drives systems to continually develop an experiencing/identifying ability, because the more we experience and identify, the more we equal “both sides” (+/-) of ourselves?
Ah, this comment makes me see more clearly how the term "opposite" or "oppose" are applied to the idea.
My first consideration was just "things existing separately", but we seem to be able to further specify by describing "two opposite things", etc.
I easily agree that many ideas and descriptions for the term "nothing" are inaccurate and almost always misleading, even though I do understand what is trying to be represented in its misleading usage.
No doubt. I just don't see the support for "something from nothing". Even if there is a condition that can be fairly described/defined as "something coming from nothing", I would suggest there is a more effective way to do so.
As for infinite natures, we tend to focus on it in terms of the unbounded/unlimited value, etc, but as we continue to describe its fundamental relationships, we see support for an absolute behavior.
A system conserve energy when it acts on the potentials of a single object and inverse direction between objects (+,-) -> (+,+) & (-,+) -> (-,-) which transforms into potentials -+> and --> for the system to create a higher existence. There is no answer that "this is only what exist" because things are that can't be explained by causality or words. Dual nature/potential of single objects are used in physics simulation and can used to classify systems into real ones and illusions (they exist too)
bvssvni 11 months ago
@bvssvni
If we can define the elements of the system as being in relation to the act on potential of a single object, which we can, since the system's "act on it" qualifies the elements of the system,
then all elements can be treated in terms of interactions for the act on the potential of the object.
crawlFace 11 months ago
@crawlFace
The energy is the state of stabilization, which includes any unstable parts, but we define that all unstable parts are either on their way to becoming stable or are stable or make-up what it means to be stable, such as being necessary for a system, etc.
I’m thinking, "for the system", the conservation is the first-order logic you elaborated on, where the potential is proportional for all elements of the system being in relation to the act on an object,
crawlFace 11 months ago
@crawlFace
and the stabilization of the system can be expressed as a “position” representing the act, which includes the system and the object acted upon.
This position is the conservation, which is the potential and the interaction (or the energy of the interaction).
crawlFace 11 months ago
@rebokism if your saying that we came from nothingness then your wrong! that is a religious point of view! not a scientific one! we did not come from nothing. and anything that is not in are universe dose not exist are interact with anything! your blank page thing is wrong! if you were to do it the right way you would have to draw the circle follow the edges of the paper! not be in the middle! there is no empty space outside of the universe of any kind!
franktastikart 11 months ago
@franktastikart
I'm not sure what the "blank page" is in reference to?
To help clarify, if in any of my diagrams/discussions I start out with a "blank page", it is to be understood that the blank page does not represent "nothing".
The best we can do is to start out with an absolute potential state, and all distinction/stabilization of the potential state are represented by interaction.
crawlFace 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crawlFace your video presuppositions which are arbitrary, unproven and therefore meaningless. your argument is dependent upon the false assumption that for us to conceptualize something, it must have some basis in reality.
franktastikart 11 months ago
Looking at this video again, I understand more things that I've worked on recently. I think this description of existence is the ultimate one, because there is no logic alternative, even the effects of a such definition is pretty extraordinary since it allows you to explain an observation by examining the interaction alone without knowing what is causing it.
bvssvni 11 months ago
@bvssvni
Thank you. As you know from our extensive discussions, the point is not to predominantly theorize the case, but instead to recognize what is always the case no matter what we theorize.
crawlFace 11 months ago
Applause!
BBZZZZZ 11 months ago
@rebokism
To further elaborate the value of "opposite", we can think in terms of "charges" such as + and -
which works well with what we are discussing. In this case, saying "only half of the something" is like saying there was only + or only - charges from the start. But current descriptions are defining that there were actually both + and - charges at the start or early stages, etc.
"Emptiness itself does not include nothing", is a good point to make,
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
and it seems to all support that both + and - charges actually make-up the entire or complete value, as you have pointed out.
What is really startling is that if we accept that we live in the + value of it, then it starts to totally explain why we think of things in terms of there possibly being a state of oneness, or how we can describe us as being separate from things, and even explain what supports our ability to distinguish and experience things.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
Because in actuality we are then naturally just “halves” of our entire or complete value, perhaps even just half of an absolute value.
Perhaps this is like a default engine for us that drives systems to continually develop an experiencing/identifying ability, because the more we experience and identify, the more we equal “both sides” (+/-) of ourselves?
crawlFace 1 year ago
@rebokism
Ah, this comment makes me see more clearly how the term "opposite" or "oppose" are applied to the idea.
My first consideration was just "things existing separately", but we seem to be able to further specify by describing "two opposite things", etc.
I easily agree that many ideas and descriptions for the term "nothing" are inaccurate and almost always misleading, even though I do understand what is trying to be represented in its misleading usage.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@rebokism
Hey, that's a pretty fascinating description:
"Things that exist separately do so because they are nothing together."
Very fascinating indeed.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@rebokism
No doubt. I just don't see the support for "something from nothing". Even if there is a condition that can be fairly described/defined as "something coming from nothing", I would suggest there is a more effective way to do so.
As for infinite natures, we tend to focus on it in terms of the unbounded/unlimited value, etc, but as we continue to describe its fundamental relationships, we see support for an absolute behavior.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
Because of this support, I have to consider that absolute conditions are expressed infinitely!
Now I am not sure if it is more the case for it all universally, or if it is a condition for the relationship.
Universally would mean something like: absolute conditions are expressed infinitely as potential.
And condition of the relationship sort of emphasizes some difference/distinction between the potential and and infinite expressions.
I'm not sure, more work needs to be done.
crawlFace 1 year ago