|
Message Board>
Psychic circle
Jen
Guest
0 post
4-Sep-2007
9:46 AM
|
Take a look at the 'meet our psychic circle' page. Is your circle similar? do you have any stories to tell? Let us know.
Last Edited on 4-Sep-2007 9:48 AM
|
Arten
3 post s
10-Sep-2007
4:11 PM
|
Why the Circle? Because in both Maths and Metaphysics the Circle represents Everything and Nothing a Paradox that most people cannot get to grips with :))))))))) All Physical Models of the Cosmos are based on Maths it all started out from a Singularity which is represented mathematically by the number Zero. Everything is Nothing.
David A. Chalmers Physicist All around I see Nothing pretending to be Something,
Emptiness pretending to be Fullness.
Confucious Chinese Sage
|
Arten
4 post s
10-Sep-2007
4:14 PM
|
Some really good quotes for you to think over. The observer - which is pure consciousness - is permeating the whole universe and, here is the first bit which you might find a little hard to accept at first - the act of observation creates the object under observation. Wow this is a deep one, it implies
that if there were no observation there would be nothing to observe. Consciousness itself is creating the manifest universe.
Tycho Photiou The Void is absolute zero; chaos forming all possibilities. It is Absolute Consciousness; much more than even Universal Intelligence.
Mellen Benidict Thomas If you look at zero you see nothing;
but look through it and you will see the world.
Robert Kaplan Zero is the eternally existing nothing-ness that contains within it the potentiality of everything.
Kenneth Meadows Some scientists have proposed the idea that the universe is a quantum fluctuation of nothing. But what causes the nothing to undergo a quantum fluctuation?
Tycho Photiou I find it interesting that the number zero has no value and yet it is the most powerful of all numbers, and mathematics, as we know it, couldn't exist without it.
Tycho Photiou
|
Arten
5 post s
10-Sep-2007
4:17 PM
|
A circle represents a boundary (a point on a plane a fixed distance from a fixed point, the upper limit of a rotated vector)It only represents infinity when the movable point is zero, and the fixed point is negative Infinity is an upper limit, and zero a lower limit (scalars) Any number greater than zero divided by zero is infinity.
Zero is the eternally existing nothing-ness that contains within it the potentiality of everything.
Kenneth Meadows
|
Arten
6 post s
10-Sep-2007
4:22 PM
|
Ok, now for some simple maths that demonstrate my premise ;)
we all know that:
e^(i * pi) = -1
(if not, wiki it, it's Euler's identity) of course, that means,
e^(pi * i) = -1
which means,
(e^(pi * i))^2 = (-1)^2
which, of course, means,
e^(2 * pi * i) = 1
right?
(I derived that for all that don't know the mathematical reasoning it's true. It's simply a unit vector at theta equals 2*pi, which of course is simple 1.)
But, watch what happens when I take the ln of both sides:
ln(e^(2 * pi * i)) = ln(1)
which implies,
2 * pi * i = 0 !!!
dividing both sides by pi*i, this implies,
2 = 0 / (pi * i)
which means that,
2 = 0 !!!!
I find it interesting that the number zero has no value and yet it is the most powerful of all numbers, and mathematics, as we know it, couldn't exist without it.
Tycho Photiou
|
Arten
18 post s
19-Nov-2007
11:54 AM
|
Yes, it's my "nonexistence of infinity" argument once again. However, with a twist this time. I would ask that all responses be purely mathematical in nature so that we can get to the HEART of the issue here as quickly as possible. My proposition is that "infinite sets" do not exist. With the following proof:
a = {[0,.5]}
b = {[0, 1]}
c = {[0, 1.5]}
n= {1,2,3,...,n} , where n is any finite integer
| n | < | c | = | a | < | b | = | c | , (because of 1-1 mappings that exist)
thus,
| c | < | c |
=> | c U {1,2,3,...,n} | < | c U {1,2,3,...,n} |
=> | c | + |{1,2,3,...,n}| < | c | + |{1,2,3,...,n}|
=> |{1,2,3,...,n}| < |{1,2,3,...,n}|
=> n < n
this is the FIRST contradiction. The second contradiction is:
| n | < | c |
implies
n < c
which implies that all integers are bounded (a contradiction I will discuss below).
This is a contradiction. Now, let me make it clear, I am not challenging the definition of infinity as a process, as it SHOULD be. I am challenging the validity of assuming that the process does not NECESSARILY have a point of termination. Nor am I challenging the fact that, under some mathematical constructions, infinity is accepted as an axiom (such as ZFC). I am challenging the validity of the axiom, by showing that the existence of infinity leads to a contradiction. This proof clearly takes an "infinite set" and shows that it has properties which contradict those of all sets. Since one CANNOT identify a point at which a finite set becomes an infinite set, there is no point where the properties of sets may transition, thus the properties of all sets must be the same, no matter WHAT cardinality they may have. In other words, if infinite sets exist, then one may use infinite induction to show that infinite sets MUST have the same properties as finite sets. However, it was shown above that INFINITE sets do NOT have the same properties as finite sets. Namely, all infinite sets c have the property that | c | < | c |. Infinite sets cannot be regarded as being derived from finite things, in any way. All integers are finite, therefore, the SET of integers is finite. If the set of integers were infinite then there must exist some integer that is NOT finite. However, by infinite induction, one may prove that ALL integers possess the property of being finite:
If m is an integer and m is finite, then m+1 is finite.
Thus, by infinite induction, all integers are finite. Since the cardinality of a set is determined specifically by a 1-1 mapping with a subset of integer {1,2,3,...,n} an set with infinity cardinlity must have n. One cannot just change this definition when it suits one's purposes. In other words, one cannot say that, IF a set cannot be put into 1-1 correspondence with a bounded set of integers then it is infinite, because this definition assumes that the integers themselves are not bounded, and THAT is circular logic. Because, by assuming the integers NOT bounded, by the proof above we may show that EVERY integer IS bounded by | n | < | c |. This is a contradiction.
All of this clearly implies that infinity is not a valid mathematical concept, because it leads to a logical contradiction. Furthermore, because infinity is not a valid logical concept, infinity is not a valid concept, unless it can be shown to exist by direct evidence. No direct evidence for the existence of infinity can be given because we are finite. We are finite becase we live in a universe where logic rules infinite things do not exist logically. Therefore, infinity does not exist.
Physiguy
Took that from another board whic is what sparked my interest. Is anyone here qualified to comment. I am reading God and The New Physics by Paul Davies and he states in the very first chapter that infinity does exist but whether or not how universe is infinite, is an altogether different matter.
For almost twenty years I occupied my research time as a happy biological reductionist believing that my painstaiking research would eventually reveal ultimate truths. Then I began to read the new physics. The experience was shattering.As a biologist I had imagined the physcist to be cool, clear, unemotional men and women who looked down on nature from a clinical, detached viewpoint - people who reduced a sunset to wavelenghts and frequencies, and observers who shredded the complex of the universe into rigid and formal elements. My error was enourmous. I began to study the works of people with legendary names: Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger and Dirac. I found that here were not clinical and detached men, but poetic and religious ones who imagined such unfamiliar immensities as to make what I have referred to as the ‘paranormal’ almost pedestrian by comparison. K. Pedlar Mind over Matter
|
Powered by Tic Tac Websites
|
