On Jan 8, 1:01 pm, "John Mikes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> JM: does anything like 'completion' make sense in speaking about an
> unlimited totality? Furthermore: are 'copies' considerable substantial
> items, or simply our figment of looking from different angles into
> different angles - at the same item?
> 1. If there is  -a- 'nothingness' does it multiply when we in our
> human logic detect "it" again?
> 2. Do we assign qualia to nothingness? of course not.
> -  I am inclined to sort nothingness with infinity: we can talk about
> it but have no (human) reason-based meaning - understanding - about
> its essence. Georg Cantor tried it for the "infinity" - what
> I still consider a mathematical game of details - not the end.

I haven't had a chance to explore RS's book yet, but I can share the
simple way that I unite nothing and infinity in my own book which is I
suppose is fundamentally about nothing and everything.

There is a real existing "nothing" and there is a concept nonexistence
and they should never be confused. The real nothing is common,
"nothing in the refrigerator", a white canvas, empty space (the ideal
or direction toward i.e., expansion). The real nothing is simply
balance, uniformity, perfect symmetry. It isn't a cancellation of
properties or existence, it is a unification or synthesis into a
single form, which we see as nothing. Cook everything in the frig
together and you end up with one thing with far fewer properties. That
property-less "one" in mathematics is zero. In a simple examination of
zero it appears to contain all other numbers, as x + -x equals zero.
However, zero mathematically refers to "no things" or cancellation,
and so we say the sum of all reals is indefinite. However, as I
explain in my book there are two mathematical systems not one. It is
all or nothing. Zero can either represents no things, or zero
represents all things. If zero is all things, zero becomes infinite,
and as a result all numbers become infinite. +1 becomes all numbers
except -1 is excluded, etc etc. Suddenly instead of counting things,
numbers represents fragments of the everything of zero. The radical
consequence of this is that the value or content of numbers decreases
rather than increases. Five is a larger infinity than four, since more
has been removed, it is a smaller fragment of the whole of a zero
everything. 5 billion is a much smaller value and as we count into
greater numerals our value or content is decreasing and even
converging toward an infinitely small value. What we are doing is
fragmenting zero, we are slicing it up into parts, and since our
numerical value is converging rather than diverging we can recognize a
smallest number, positive infinity, an exact division or fragmentation
made of zero, which in this system is an actual value, no less
definite and completed than the whole of zero, and so this infinity
not merely a never ending or unlimited process. I call this number
Proto, and the negative Elea. So where we are used to not having a
mathematical value to represent everything, and used to being caught
up in incomprehensible indefinite infinities, in this math the overall
infinity of mathematical values is bounded by extremes. There is an
all positive half, an all negative half, and the whole of zero. In the
same way there exists infinite fractions between zero and one, this
math system is infinite yet bounded by extremes, and note there is no
nothing in this system, or rather nothing and everything are the same

My cosmological application of this system is that Proto, I claim, is
the infinitely dense (all positive) and infinitely small singularity
in our past, the extreme of all positive, and the pendulum swung all
the way to one side. (In this second system there cannot be a value
smaller than half of the whole, yet that smallest value is still
infinite). The zero of this math, or Omega, is the singularity of
empty space toward which our universe is currently accelerating
towards. It is the largest value in nature, and why the universe
expands and ultimate ends as a perfectly flat space extending
infinitely in all directions (perfect symmetry).

The most dramatic consequence of all this being the realization that
our universe is not simply becoming disordered, our universe is not
dying, rather time evolves away from one kind of order (the ultimate
grouping of all positive apart from all negative, with each having
high symmetry internally while relative to zero they are perfect
asymmetry) and time evolves towards a whole other kind of order
(unity, balance, perfect symmetry) which is actually the infinite
whole, a quantum superposition of all universes, matter and antimatter
worlds, antimatter worlds being those that travel from negative Elea
to zero.

So as to why we exist rather than nothing at all, the answer is that
nothing still exists. What we think of as nothing is really
everything, and zero is the native state of being, as non-being or
nonexistence cannot "be" (Parmenides). It simply is. We are inside the
real nothing, inside zero. Ordinary math is based upon the order of
the past, the distinction and form that results of slicing zero up,
with Proto claiming to be the great 1, the beginning, everything that
matters, more than zero. This second system, which I call symmetry
math, is certainly less functional in our everyday lives, but it is
less of an abstraction of true reality, and applies much more
effectively to cosmology, the study of the whole.

Gevin Giorbran
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to