Where is consciousness in physics?

[Zayl]

I'll try again to write the essence in a short way. Please ask if you got any further questions about it. If it really is a simple law or pattern describing everything in the universe, it should exist. It is because anything which doesnt exist cannot explain something which does exist (consciousness and physics does exist). So since confinement exist and it is a general property in all of our conscious experiences, it seems like it is the only existing candidate which can possibly be this mentioned and existing fundamental building block. If we attempt to explain physics in terms of this general property in consciousness it successfully does so in the most simple and logical way and from the logic of the model follows a simple solution to the measurement problem and the hard problem of consciousness.

I can't understand this. What is consciousness? What is it's role in nature, what does it do in nature? What is it in comparison to other things, like mass or time or space? If you can answer these questions, then you have an answer to the hard problem of consciousness. Otherwise you don't.

I do not see an answer to these questions, only some vagarities about confining things.

Well that is the essence, the basics of it. Or the logic of why it is reasonable to claim that physics should be understandable in terms of entities confining other entities. In order to see the modeling of reality itself I can only refer you to the article itself. I am currently trying to publish an new article containing many of these ideas, since they are necessary to understand the new ones as well. The journal said it will take 3 months to evaluate it. So I am worried that if I write the summary here it will be very similar to the article I am trying to publish in the new journal.

Still if you read closely it is possible to identify a solution to the measurement problem, hard problem of consciousness and physics in that article. It is a vast topic to explain the universe in terms of one model so some reading is necessary, and explaining it all in this forum would be difficult as well.

Here is the article: http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInfor ... erID=64011

The first chapters are about introducing confinement of confinements and why it is logical to generalize it. The chapters 2x are about developing the properties of this model by generalizing it into quantum mechanics (all the fundamental properties of quantum mechanics can be modeled by this simple concept of entities confining other entities). How the model accommodates cause and effect is deduced by how quantum mechanics predicts change and how change occurs in our consciousness. Chapters 3x are about modeling physics itself as entities confining other entities.

R6--Your given entities are not entities. These are processes/adjectives or principles/concepts associated with occupied space { fermions, bosons, gravity and dark energy }. Occupied space is what, runs, flys, entangles, interferes, impinges on other occupied space entities.

Zayle---
In my article I have shown how it is possible that space can be understood as entities.

Your still confused and not yet shown ability to differrentiate non-occupied space from occupied space. This the top of the cosmic heirarchy.

I think Greta explained it in the post above that space occupied or not contains some similar properties. These are properties not accommodated by gravity. This is why gravity fundamentally does not explain space.

The properties of space is that before you can reach one position you have to reach those in between. Gravity is just a disturbance which creates directional bias in this already defined space. This directional bias is what perhaps you would call it; an adjective. Yet it is a real occurrence, disturbance caused by properties which you admit to not understand. Saying that confinement is an adjective is a contradiction, since for example the fact that my consciousness is confined to experience my thoughts and not yours is more than an adjective, it is a state of existence.

If there exists a single simple cosmic law, it would involve Fullers term, syntropy ie anti-entropy.

I am not familiar with this concept but if you would like to explain it I would be happy to learn it.

So far I'm the only one, not you, who has mentioned the property of space via space-time and that property is conventionally accepted as gravity. I've also included dark energy into that property category and Ive shown specifics geometric explanations of how they function with our observed reality as observed time ergo sine-wave-like frequencies as physical/energy, that occupies space and has shape.

You've not really offered much of anything of significance/relevance, that I can see, beyond the word confinement and containment being associated with consciousness. Ive given so much more in all those aspects and more.

I have shown how only one static frame of reference is possible in chapter 3.3. Then gravity can be understood as directional bias. These are big claims, but nothing new, it should even be common sense by now. Perhaps there is a reason why scientists fail to unify GR with quantum mechanics? It could be because they are using models which are fundamentally wrong, but works while predicting the universe in non fundamental ways.

I have already referred you to many chapters that I cannot explain here better than I have explained in the article. These chapters are no longer than a page or two. If you claim that you have given more in those aspects it shows that you did not read them and I suggest that you do so before you try to discuss them further. I would suggest chapters 3.1 and 3.4-3.6. Also 3.3 if you want to discuss space time further.

No they do not. Superpositions are cosmic principles { metaphysical-1 } that complement occupied space processes of quantum entities ( finite shape }. A woven wire fence contains/confines pigs/hogs. Milk carton contains/confines milk. Etc...so and so on.

How do you know? I think the strange properties of quantum mechanics and not the least entanglement implies that ontology occurs in non-local ways. Also my model of entities confining other entities which is a simple model, general model, existing model models a solution to the measurement problem in a logical way. This is shown in chapter 3.10.

Shape is has an effect. Areodynamics is based on shape. Lee Smolin thought we would quantify gravity geometrically by 2015. Did not happen yet. Gravity contains/confines Universe of occupied space as a single, integral whole.

However identifying the fundamental properties of space which gives rise of these properties that you mentioned is surely constructive. This is what I have done in terms of entities confining other entities.

Ive repeated for you a few times now, that, conventionaly accepted property of space-time is gravity and it has a corresponding shape, both static and dynamic. imo. All occupied space has shape. The first atomic clock was tetrahedral in shape of relationships between four atoms.

I still don't see why aerodynamics and that the atomic clock consisted of four atoms proves why modeling space as the minimum possible volume benefits science.

[Rr6]

There are many theoretical ideas out there ex;

..."The amplituhedron, or a similar geometric object, could help by removing two deeply rooted principles of physics: locality and unitarity."......

and most that do not involve space are metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/conceptual mathematical. Geometry is a subset of mathematics, that, is 2D area and 3D volume.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20130917 ... m-physics/

...."The revelation that particle interactions, the most basic events in nature, may be consequences of geometry significantly advances a decades-long effort to reformulate quantum field theory, the body of laws describing elementary particles and their interactions. Interactions that were previously calculated with mathematical formulas thousands of terms long can now be described by computing the volume of the corresponding jewel-like “amplituhedron,” which yields an equivalent one-term expression.

“The degree of efficiency is mind-boggling,” said Jacob Bourjaily, a theoretical physicist at Harvard University and one of the researchers who developed the new idea. “You can easily do, on paper, computations that were infeasible even with a computer before.”"...........

The exception to my 2D area and 3D volumetric givens of an occupied space, is my quasi-2D four level lines, that, are closer to being purely abstract numerical pattern rather than a geometric enclosure.

My initial four level line is indeed that, however, geometric analogy can be applied and that is what my hexagonal radii are expressions of.

THen I take the foul level/line and turn it inside-out, and the original sine-wave-like pattern is gone, yet the sequence of numbers are still there. Now a new sine-wave-like pattern appears and I assign that to the body of a torus, that,is a inversion resultant from is surface bound arcs of gravity ( ) and dark energy )(

In my 2nd envisioning of the four level/line pattern of sequential numbers/nodes, I make the decision to induce enclosure that is torus-like shape.

As to whether prime numbers or the quasi-randomness have a significant role, I cannot yet say. The prime numbers on the top line area semi-periodic ordered set from 5 to 23 or as twins from

1---5-7, 11-13, 17-19----23

Then, that initial, seeming order of prime numbers, falls apart at number 25.

I'm always considering what if any this can mean, if anything. The three twin sets is 3 or 6 so hexagonal related/
Overall if we include #1 then 8 primes initially exist in order, except 2 and 3.

I associate #8 with biological life.

r6

[Zayl]

There are many theoretical ideas out there ex;

..."The amplituhedron, or a similar geometric object, could help by removing two deeply rooted principles of physics: locality and unitarity."......

and most that do not involve space are metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/conceptual mathematical. Geometry is a subset of mathematics, that, is 2D area and 3D volume.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20130917 ... m-physics/

...."The revelation that particle interactions, the most basic events in nature, may be consequences of geometry significantly advances a decades-long effort to reformulate quantum field theory, the body of laws describing elementary particles and their interactions. Interactions that were previously calculated with mathematical formulas thousands of terms long can now be described by computing the volume of the corresponding jewel-like “amplituhedron,” which yields an equivalent one-term expression.

“The degree of efficiency is mind-boggling,” said Jacob Bourjaily, a theoretical physicist at Harvard University and one of the researchers who developed the new idea. “You can easily do, on paper, computations that were infeasible even with a computer before.”"...........

The exception to my 2D area and 3D volumetric givens of an occupied space, is my quasi-2D four level lines, that, are closer to being purely abstract numerical pattern rather than a geometric enclosure.

My initial four level line is indeed that, however, geometric analogy can be applied and that is what my hexagonal radii are expressions of.

THen I take the foul level/line and turn it inside-out, and the original sine-wave-like pattern is gone, yet the sequence of numbers are still there. Now a new sine-wave-like pattern appears and I assign that to the body of a torus, that,is a inversion resultant from is surface bound arcs of gravity ( ) and dark energy )(

In my 2nd envisioning of the four level/line pattern of sequential numbers/nodes, I make the decision to induce enclosure that is torus-like shape.

As to whether prime numbers or the quasi-randomness have a significant role, I cannot yet say. The prime numbers on the top line area semi-periodic ordered set from 5 to 23 or as twins from

1---5-7, 11-13, 17-19----23

Then, that initial, seeming order of prime numbers, falls apart at number 25.

I'm always considering what if any this can mean, if anything. The three twin sets is 3 or 6 so hexagonal related/
Overall if we include #1 then 8 primes initially exist in order, except 2 and 3.

I associate #8 with biological life.

r6

So by identifying that this amplituhedron is a general property in quantum interactions and that it simplifies calculations it is proposed to be fundamental? That does not show why finding the smallest volume of space is beneficial.

It is however just an example of the logic which I am using myself to describe reality even more fundamentally. Entities confining other entities does not contradict that amplituhedron plays a role in quantum interactions.

[Mgrinder]

I can't understand this. What is consciousness? What is it's role in nature, what does it do in nature? What is it in comparison to other things, like mass or time or space? If you can answer these questions, then you have an answer to the hard problem of consciousness. Otherwise you don't.

I do not see an answer to these questions, only some vagarities about confining things.

Well that is the essence, the basics of it. Or the logic of why it is reasonable to claim that physics should be understandable in terms of entities confining other entities. In order to see the modeling of reality itself I can only refer you to the article itself. I am currently trying to publish an new article containing many of these ideas, since they are necessary to understand the new ones as well. The journal said it will take 3 months to evaluate it. So I am worried that if I write the summary here it will be very similar to the article I am trying to publish in the new journal.

I find it very hard to read the article, it seems like a vague postmodern essay, without clear argument or definitions of what "confinement" means.

If you can't phrase your solution to the hard problem simply and concisely, then I think it's fair to say you don't have one.

For instance, my proposed solution to the hard problem of consciousness is that consciousness is a calculation mechanism used by all particles as they change state. Basically, the proposal is that as all fundamental particles, or groups of bound particles, change state, they must first "calculate" what to do next. This calculation is a conscious experience involving qualia. This is happening everywhere, all the time. We humans experience our particular conscious thoughts because there are molecular interactions in our brains that reference past states, which contain information about sense data from the organism, a sense of self, and memories. Nowhere else are past states referenced in matter.

Anyways, more details can be found in my essay, if interested.

My point is that you must be able to give a concise definition like I can. Even if I am wrong, at least I can give an answer. My proposal answers the hard problem in a "functional" sense, by saying what consciousness is for, it gives it a role in nature. The other necessary way to answer the hard problem, I think, is to answer it in a "comparison" sense. that is, identify what consciousness is compared to other things, like mass, space and time. From my proposed "functional" answer, one can reason that calcualtions involving consciousness must take no time and no energy, making them "immaterial" calculations, whatever that means. Basically, this more or less proposes consciousness is part of the laws of nature, or rather, we measure the action of consciousness and chalk it up to a law of nature.

I don't see you giving an answer in the "functional" sense, or the "comparison" sense. I don't see anything.

[Zayl]

(Nested quote removed.)


Well that is the essence, the basics of it. Or the logic of why it is reasonable to claim that physics should be understandable in terms of entities confining other entities. In order to see the modeling of reality itself I can only refer you to the article itself. I am currently trying to publish an new article containing many of these ideas, since they are necessary to understand the new ones as well. The journal said it will take 3 months to evaluate it. So I am worried that if I write the summary here it will be very similar to the article I am trying to publish in the new journal.

I find it very hard to read the article, it seems like a vague postmodern essay, without clear argument or definitions of what "confinement" means.

If you can't phrase your solution to the hard problem simply and concisely, then I think it's fair to say you don't have one.

For instance, my proposed solution to the hard problem of consciousness is that consciousness is a calculation mechanism used by all particles as they change state. Basically, the proposal is that as all fundamental particles, or groups of bound particles, change state, they must first "calculate" what to do next. This calculation is a conscious experience involving qualia. This is happening everywhere, all the time. We humans experience our particular conscious thoughts because there are molecular interactions in our brains that reference past states, which contain information about sense data from the organism, a sense of self, and memories. Nowhere else are past states referenced in matter.

Anyways, more details can be found in my essay, if interested.

My point is that you must be able to give a concise definition like I can. Even if I am wrong, at least I can give an answer. My proposal answers the hard problem in a "functional" sense, by saying what consciousness is for, it gives it a role in nature. The other necessary way to answer the hard problem, I think, is to answer it in a "comparison" sense. that is, identify what consciousness is compared to other things, like mass, space and time. From my proposed "functional" answer, one can reason that calcualtions involving consciousness must take no time and no energy, making them "immaterial" calculations, whatever that means. Basically, this more or less proposes consciousness is part of the laws of nature, or rather, we measure the action of consciousness and chalk it up to a law of nature.

I don't see you giving an answer in the "functional" sense, or the "comparison" sense. I don't see anything.

In a previous post on this forum another person called it vague as well. I really don't see why. To me it is very clear.

If confinement of confinement models everything in physics, and physics determines qualia, then structures of confinement is the only thing which determines qualia.

I use several arguments to back up this claim. Among other things this:

It seems that there is a limit to how many layers of containment which we can observe. Perhaps when the layer of confinement becomes too small or deep, perceptions of confinements become replaced with the perceptions of sensations such as for example colors.

So this is quoted from my article. So qualia occurs when we cannot observe the structures of confinement due to being too deep. For example sight perception obviously involves confinement which we are not aware of. That is because we can distinguish between positions, but we are not aware of or experience the confinements which accounts for confining one position from another in the sense perception of sight.

This can be consistent with your explanation, since in a deep layer the confinements change fast or "calculate" as you call it that we don't have time to experience the confinements, but how they change.

[Atreyu]

"Consciousness" is missing in physics because it lies outside of its domain. The study of consciousness is part of the study of psychology, and physics is simply not psychology.

So it properly should be "missing". Why would you think otherwise?

Because what you are talking about is labels. Physics is a label and so is psychology. We can describe almost everything in terms of physics, but why not psychology? Well perhaps we can describe a lot of it still. We can understand almost all the conscious experiences can be understood as caused by patterns in the brain. This calls for the hard problem of consciousness. Also we have the fact that we cannot understand the very conscious experience itself cannot be explained by physics. Why is that?

Hogwash. Conscious experience cannot be understood merely by "patterns in the brain", hence this post.

The reason is obvious, and is just what I said. The study of, and even the mere observation of, conscious experience is properly within the realm of psychology, not physics. Physics does not, and can not, study "conscious experience".

If we define the concept of fundamental as follows: For example, what is more fundamental a bottle or the molecules constituting it? It is the molecules because molecules explain bottles but bottles do not explain molecules.

We can say the same about consciousness and physics. Which is more fundamental? It is consciousness because my article shows that consciousness can explain physics while physics cannot explain consciousness.

Of course consciousness is more fundamental. And that is the same as saying that psychology is more fundamental than physics....

[Rr6]

Zayl---I think Greta explained it in the post above that space occupied or not contains some similar properties. These are properties not accommodated by gravity. This is why gravity fundamentally does not explain space.

XYZ explains space. Gravity, if not also dark energy are the property's of space-time. Your reading more into my comments than Ive stated.

Gravity is just a disturbance which creates directional bias in this already defined space.

Space - Time - Space toroidal vectors interfere with each other ergo our observed reality at medio-macro scales of existence

Saying that confinement is an adjective is a contradiction, since for example the fact that my consciousness is confined to experience my thoughts and not yours is more than an adjective, it is a state of existence.

I have no recollection of your claims I state confinement is an adjective. I think your confused.

I am not familiar with this concept but if you would like to explain it I would be happy to learn it.

Syntropy = anti-entropy i.e. the opposite of entropy is syntropy. Maintaining order even as the finite, occupied space Universe accelearates towards heat death.

Heat death is the end of one cycle and beginning of another. Eternally recycling, regenerative, self-looping Universe.

You've not really offered much of anything in thes posts of yours of significance/relevance, that I can see, beyond the word confinement and containment being associated with consciousness. Ive given so much more in all those aspects and more. imho

I still don't see why aerodynamics and that the atomic clock consisted of four atoms proves why modeling space as the minimum possible volume benefits science.

The show how shape of occupied space is relevant. You dont seem to understand that or want to consider shape of occupied space.

Zayle, you really offer very little of substance in these posts that I can find of much significance. Ive addressed you confinement/containment in much detail, and it just goes in on ear and out the other for most part.

When geometry is used to quantify particles or make predictions I will have more to offer you. Until then there have been three other recent posts with links to theories that involve geometry. My explorations are numerical patterns geometrically expressed and applied to all particles of Universe in a wholistic manner, with the 87 great circles of 4-fold and 5-fold polyhedra assigned to specific particles.

This above is basis of my geometric standard model for all observed particles--- aka observed time/reality/frequency --- gravity and dark energy.

Good luck to your endeavors and hope, that, in future you can add some actual meat to your confinement/containment words.
r6

[Zayl]

(Nested quote removed.)


Because what you are talking about is labels. Physics is a label and so is psychology. We can describe almost everything in terms of physics, but why not psychology? Well perhaps we can describe a lot of it still. We can understand almost all the conscious experiences can be understood as caused by patterns in the brain. This calls for the hard problem of consciousness. Also we have the fact that we cannot understand the very conscious experience itself cannot be explained by physics. Why is that?

Hogwash. Conscious experience cannot be understood merely by "patterns in the brain", hence this post.

The reason is obvious, and is just what I said. The study of, and even the mere observation of, conscious experience is properly within the realm of psychology, not physics. Physics does not, and can not, study "conscious experience".

If we define the concept of fundamental as follows: For example, what is more fundamental a bottle or the molecules constituting it? It is the molecules because molecules explain bottles but bottles do not explain molecules.

We can say the same about consciousness and physics. Which is more fundamental? It is consciousness because my article shows that consciousness can explain physics while physics cannot explain consciousness.

Of course consciousness is more fundamental. And that is the same as saying that psychology is more fundamental than physics....

You have 1200 posts on a philosophy forum and cannot distinguish between psychology and conscious experience. Do you know what the hard problem of consciousness is?

Where did I say that consciousness can be explained in terms of physics? What I said is that consciosuness and physics can be understood in terms of entities confining other entities.

Do you believe that psychology and physics describe the same, or two different parts of reality? If you believe the latter you contradict yourself by saying that "consciousness" (<-- if you allow me to correct your mistake) is more fundamental.

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_chalmer ... sciousness?

Zayl---I think Greta explained it in the post above that space occupied or not contains some similar properties. These are properties not accommodated by gravity. This is why gravity fundamentally does not explain space.

XYZ explains space. Gravity, if not also dark energy are the property's of space-time. Your reading more into my comments than Ive stated.

Gravity is just a disturbance which creates directional bias in this already defined space.

Space - Time - Space toroidal vectors interfere with each other ergo our observed reality at medio-macro scales of existence

Saying that confinement is an adjective is a contradiction, since for example the fact that my consciousness is confined to experience my thoughts and not yours is more than an adjective, it is a state of existence.

I have no recollection of your claims I state confinement is an adjective. I think your confused.

I am not familiar with this concept but if you would like to explain it I would be happy to learn it.

Syntropy = anti-entropy i.e. the opposite of entropy is syntropy. Maintaining order even as the finite, occupied space Universe accelearates towards heat death.

Heat death is the end of one cycle and beginning of another. Eternally recycling, regenerative, self-looping Universe.

You've not really offered much of anything in thes posts of yours of significance/relevance, that I can see, beyond the word confinement and containment being associated with consciousness. Ive given so much more in all those aspects and more. imho

I still don't see why aerodynamics and that the atomic clock consisted of four atoms proves why modeling space as the minimum possible volume benefits science.

The show how shape of occupied space is relevant. You dont seem to understand that or want to consider shape of occupied space.

Zayle, you really offer very little of substance in these posts that I can find of much significance. Ive addressed you confinement/containment in much detail, and it just goes in on ear and out the other for most part.

When geometry is used to quantify particles or make predictions I will have more to offer you. Until then there have been three other recent posts with links to theories that involve geometry. My explorations are numerical patterns geometrically expressed and applied to all particles of Universe in a wholistic manner, with the 87 great circles of 4-fold and 5-fold polyhedra assigned to specific particles.

This above is basis of my geometric standard model for all observed particles--- aka observed time/reality/frequency --- gravity and dark energy.

Good luck to your endeavors and hope, that, in future you can add some actual meat to your confinement/containment words.
r6

So far I have clearly stated in many posts that I am reluctant to provide with detailed summaries, because I am afraid that it can ruin my attempt to publish my new article which is under consideration in a journal.

This is why I have referred you to relevant chapters in my already existing article. You are purposely ignoring it in order to support your false claims that I haven't provided anything, where in reality I have modeled all the laws of physics to mathematical detail.

So far your posts indicate that you are looking for mathematical patterns without understanding the true essence of science. I think murray gell-mann who discovered quarks at least scratches the surface of it in his ted talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/murray_gell_m ... anguage=en

[Rr6]

[quote="ZaylSo far your posts indicate that you are looking for mathematical patterns without understanding the true essence of science. I think murray gell-mann who discovered quarks at least scratches the surface of it in his ted talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/murray_gell_m ... #91;/quote]

I disagree, and Gell-Manns vidieo only reinforces my simple toroidal-like givens for Space - Time - Space are not only simple, elegant, beautiful, wholistic but also appear as being based on rational, logical common sense.

(>^v<)(>v^<) bisection of torus, fundamental to every particle of Universe--- except perhaps gravity and dark energy --wherein;

Space ( ) is the outer, positive shaped, gravity surface arcs,

Observed time as sine-wave frequency ^v is two distinct inversion trajectories. One from outer surface of torus and one from inner surface

Space )( is the inner, negative shaped, dark energy surface arcs

This above is derived from and even more simple sequential set of numbers on four lines/levels.

..1.......5..7.....11...13..........17..19........23...25...

0..........6...........12.................18................24..........
......3.........9...............15.....................21........

....2..4......8.10.........14....16...........20..22.........


( ** ) complex consciousness-- and certainly simple consciousness ---is irrelevant to randomness and/or uncertainty.

Conscious mind is uncertain, Space - Time - Space is sequential, diametric and a coherentlly wholistic.

\**/ woman

*Y* man

\Y/ = birds eye view of 3D tetrahedon { minimal defined volume ) or as tetrahedron half-way inside-out ergo a 2D subdivided triangle.

The 3-fold symmetry of tetrahedron produces 6 great circles ergo OO OO OO or as tubes tori;
.....(( )) (( ))...(( )) (( ))....(( )) (( ))....

(( )) (( )) i.e,two great circles/tori is representative of one quark.

(( ))(( ))..(( )) (( )) = two quarks as meson via 4 great circles/tubes of cubo-octahedron

(( )) (( ))...(( )) (( ))....(( )) (( )) = 3 quarks as hadron { heavy fermion }

This just touches on understanding the basics/fundamentals of Universe. imho

Syntropy = integration ergo contraction phenomena of gravity integrates as coherent whole i.e. unified, finite, occupied space Uni-Verse. imho

r6

-- Updated June 4th, 2016, 8:36 am to add the following --

Rr6---2^2 = 4 and the tetrahedron has 4 vertexes/nodes and 4 faces/hedra/planes.
Consider the tri-rectangula i.e. XYZ tri-90-degree tetrahedron, as produced from the truncation { slicing off a corner } of a cube/hexa{6}hedron. This above is a most simplistic way to envision time/frequency as an integral whole having specific shape and volume.

The tetrahedron as frequency wave \/\/\--see link as follows
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergeti ... f3826.html

The link as follows goes off on a tangent to this above using tri-rectangular tetrahedron to find masses of electrons and neutrinos.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/05/susy- ... s-for.html

r6

-- Updated June 4th, 2016, 9:30 am to add the following --

I've heard said that space is ultimately data compression on a massive scale: http://nautil.us/issue/32/space/lets-rethink-space

In the link above offerd by Greta, we find the image regarding network of energy relationships-- by Markopoulou --where each is connected to each other. Ive spoken to this before specifically regarding the 66 lines-of-relationship found with 12 vertexes/nodes of the 4 fold cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron and the5-fold icosa{20}hedron.

Here is link to Markopoulous reference image I think it is a 14 simplex.

http://static.nautil.us/8105_247d87b085 ... 1a9f54.png

The 12 vertexes nodes is called and 11 simplex and cannot post the image I found cause it is at Wiki.

The 66 appears on the irrational side of Pi^3. 3rd powering is cubing aka triangulating.

Pi^3 = 31.00 62 7 66 80 29 98 20 175476315067101

We can associate Pi with conventional set of two or great circles of torus, that, are perpendicular to each other i.e. at 90 degrees to each other. In my Space - Time - Space scenarios I envision 6 primary, abstract great circles of torus, other than the above two conventional great circles of torus.

Top, outer, inside Time, inside Time, inner and bottom of torus

...........top............
outer....T-T.......inner
.........bottom.............

The 5-fold icosahedron has primary set of 31 great circles. Humans have 31 bilateral spinal nerves ergo 62.

00 as abstract, mathematical holders, makes a clear distinctive separation existent between rational 31 left of decimal point and random irrational counting numbers beginning at 62 to right of decimal point.

62-- being twice 32 ---on right serves to reiterate or verify rational conclusion of 31
...31 twice is 62....

66 lines-of-relationship exist between 12 vertexes of icosa{20}hedron and VE/cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron.....
...i.e. n^2 minus n, divided by 2 = 66 see link
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergeti ... b2701.html


..1........5..7.........11...13...........17....19..........23...25...........29...31....outer positive gravity


0............6..............12.................18.................24.................30........inside peak of Time
.......3...........9..................15.................21..................27.................inside trough of Time


....2...4.......8...10...........14...16...........20...22...........26....28.............inner negative dark energy

[Zayl]

This just touches on understanding the basics/fundamentals of Universe. imho

Well my theory more than touches it, it is the very fundamentals of the universe. I have shown how the mathematical properties in relativity, classical mechanics and quantum mechanics follow from the definition of the model and how it accommodates the most basic event. So I don't understand why you expect me to try to understand all these things you write when you haven't even downloaded my article.

It is obvious that one can identify mathematical structures in how particles align to each other. I suppose that you have identified some of those patterns? I don't even know what the sequence of numbers represent a sequence of in physics.

[Rr6]

What I posted touches on it. There is much more. You don't seem to understand the difference between some fundamentals and more complex and in depth scenarios.

Well my theory more than touches it, it is the very fundamentals of the universe. I have shown how the mathematical properties in relativity, classical mechanics and quantum mechanics follow from the definition of the model and how it accommodates the most basic event. So I don't understand why you expect me to try to understand all these things you write when you haven't even downloaded my article.

It is obvious that one can identify mathematical structures in how particles align to each other. I suppose that you have identified some of those patterns? I don't even know what the sequence of numbers represent a sequence of in physics.

I'm putting what I believe are the fundamentals of space-time. The numerically sequential patterns are what led me to the torus idea.

Numbers are associated with the energy networks Greta linked too and many other cosmic scenarios. My turning inside-out of the my original numerical sine-wave like frequency, can be likened to concepts of turning metaphysical-1 concept inside-out to arrive at four levels/lines as a torus like shape of Space - Time - Space that actually exists as occupied space.

You need to begin with the cosmic trinity ergo cosmic set of wholeness, then perhaps you can begin to grasp some simple fundamentals of space-time Ive put forward. Many have a mental block--- via ego ---to anything Ive stated.

Search for truth often times does not trump search for truth. imho

r6

[Zayl]

What I posted touches on it. There is much more. You don't seem to understand the difference between some fundamentals and more complex and in depth scenarios.

Well my theory more than touches it, it is the very fundamentals of the universe. I have shown how the mathematical properties in relativity, classical mechanics and quantum mechanics follow from the definition of the model and how it accommodates the most basic event. So I don't understand why you expect me to try to understand all these things you write when you haven't even downloaded my article.

It is obvious that one can identify mathematical structures in how particles align to each other. I suppose that you have identified some of those patterns? I don't even know what the sequence of numbers represent a sequence of in physics.

I'm putting what I believe are the fundamentals of space-time. The numerically sequential patterns are what led me to the torus idea.

Numbers are associated with the energy networks Greta linked too and many other cosmic scenarios. My turning inside-out of the my original numerical sine-wave like frequency, can be likened to concepts of turning metaphysical-1 concept inside-out to arrive at four levels/lines as a torus like shape of Space - Time - Space that actually exists as occupied space.

You need to begin with the cosmic trinity ergo cosmic set of wholeness, then perhaps you can begin to grasp some simple fundamentals of space-time Ive put forward. Many have a mental block--- via ego ---to anything Ive stated.

Search for truth often times does not trump search for truth. imho

r6

Anything which is informative involves the concept of fundamental. For example symmetry is about identifying fundamental concepts as similarities. This is what Gell-mann explained in his video. Anything which is informative can be understood based on symmetry as it is defined in relation to physics. If you think that more complex scenarios is not based on generalizing fundamental concepts then it is clearly you who is confused about the difference. I believe that this is why you fail to see that identifying minimum volumes in itself does not satisfy the criteria to be beneficial.

Less fundamental concepts result in more complexity and more fundamental concepts results in more simplicity. This is why gell mann refers to simple solutions as beauty.

Since my models are simple and fundamental, they have the property of what Gell-mann refers to as beauty. It has this property in a stronger sense than any other theory out there.

[Rr6]

Again, you need to begin with my Cosmic Trinity, if not my whole cosmic heiarchy that says more about fundamentals of Universe, is concise yet comprehensive manner.

The 'Cosmic Trinity' I've laid out is rational, logical, common sense, that, none have invalidated or added too.

1} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept,
-----------------line-of-demarcation-------------------------

2} macro-infinite, non-occupied space exists beyond the following,

3} finite, occupied space Universe aka Uni-Verse

"G"od = "U"niverse is most all inclusive ergo most comprehensive and wholistic set. None have rationally invalidated these concepts as defined, nor have any ever acknowledged their validity. What are they afraid of?

God = Universe aka Uni-Verse. None have ever rationally invalidated these concepts as defined, nor have any ever acknowledged their validity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

____ = minimal set of two terminal points

2^4 = 4 and the tetra{4}hedron has 4 vertexes/nodes/points

2^4 = 4 and the tetra[4}hedron has 4 triangles

The XYZ tri-90-degree tetrahedron is abstract of time as a definitive, and nearly minimal volume. An all 60 degree tetrahedron is more minimal in respect to volume.

XYZ tet.png (31.21 KiB) Viewed 3674 times

The tetrahedron unfolds as a wave ergo a frequency \/\/\ and is the abstract, metaphysical-1 representation of observed time, that we do associate with observe reality as physical/energy as fermions { matter } and bosons { force }.

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergeti ... f3826.html

\Y/ is representative of woman and man as birds-eye-view of 3D, tetrahedron defining volumetric space and can also be viewed as a tetrahedron, that is half-way turned inside out as a subdivided 2D triangle. See link
http://trinity2011.blogspot.com/2011/03 ... ement.html

Greta posted link to site that has graphic of an 'energy network' and I have 11 simple version of that here below.

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... php?id=187

These on-local networks-- lines-of-relationship and terminal nodes/points ----are purported to not occupy space yet their referred to as an energy network of relationships ergo occupied space see link to 66 lines-of-relationship via 12 terminal nodes/points.

Physical/energy occupies space so it is contradictory to say that energy network does not occupy space.

Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts--- non-local networks? ---do not occupy space.

Positive shaped gravity ( ) occupies space, even tho I refer to it as quasi-energy, or quasi-reality etc.....

Negative shaped dark energy )( occupies space.

Space ( )

Time >^v<

Space )(

Simple concepts, with simple gaphics, yet concise with comprehensive explanations and definition.

r6

[Atreyu]

Do you believe that psychology and physics describe the same, or two different parts of reality? If you believe the latter you contradict yourself by saying that "consciousness" (<-- if you allow me to correct your mistake) is more fundamental.

I meant that the study of consciousness is more fundamental to our understanding of the Universe than physics. Understanding consciousness is much more important to acquiring a more objective understanding of the Universe than is understanding modern quantum theory.

[Zayl]

Again, you need to begin with my Cosmic Trinity, if not my whole cosmic heiarchy that says more about fundamentals of Universe, is concise yet comprehensive manner.

The 'Cosmic Trinity' I've laid out is rational, logical, common sense, that, none have invalidated or added too.

1} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept,
-----------------line-of-demarcation-------------------------

2} macro-infinite, non-occupied space exists beyond the following,

3} finite, occupied space Universe aka Uni-Verse

"G"od = "U"niverse is most all inclusive ergo most comprehensive and wholistic set. None have rationally invalidated these concepts as defined, nor have any ever acknowledged their validity. What are they afraid of?

God = Universe aka Uni-Verse. None have ever rationally invalidated these concepts as defined, nor have any ever acknowledged their validity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

____ = minimal set of two terminal points

2^4 = 4 and the tetra{4}hedron has 4 vertexes/nodes/points

2^4 = 4 and the tetra[4}hedron has 4 triangles

The XYZ tri-90-degree tetrahedron is abstract of time as a definitive, and nearly minimal volume. An all 60 degree tetrahedron is more minimal in respect to volume.

XYZ tet.png

The tetrahedron unfolds as a wave ergo a frequency \/\/\ and is the abstract, metaphysical-1 representation of observed time, that we do associate with observe reality as physical/energy as fermions { matter } and bosons { force }.

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergeti ... f3826.html

\Y/ is representative of woman and man as birds-eye-view of 3D, tetrahedron defining volumetric space and can also be viewed as a tetrahedron, that is half-way turned inside out as a subdivided 2D triangle. See link
http://trinity2011.blogspot.com/2011/03 ... ement.html

Greta posted link to site that has graphic of an 'energy network' and I have 11 simple version of that here below.

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... php?id=187

These on-local networks-- lines-of-relationship and terminal nodes/points ----are purported to not occupy space yet their referred to as an energy network of relationships ergo occupied space see link to 66 lines-of-relationship via 12 terminal nodes/points.

Physical/energy occupies space so it is contradictory to say that energy network does not occupy space.

Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts--- non-local networks? ---do not occupy space.

Positive shaped gravity ( ) occupies space, even tho I refer to it as quasi-energy, or quasi-reality etc.....

Negative shaped dark energy )( occupies space.

Space ( )

Time >^v<

Space )(

Simple concepts, with simple gaphics, yet concise with comprehensive explanations and definition.

r6

Like I have said before, it is obvious that how particles/energy orients in space is non-complex enough to be identified as mathematical shapes/patterns. Pointing this out is nothing more than common sense. Perhaps you are trying to say that you have identified some of these patterns by studying the random occurrence of prime numbers or some numerical sequences? If so I would say that it is interesting. However it is nothing groundbreaking nor does it determine something more fundamental unless you can point out what the fundamental properties are.

I think your qualitative interpretations are baseless. Let us look at your claims point for point.

1} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept,
-----------------line-of-demarcation-------------------------

1. Saying that metaphysical/intellect is seperate from physics is baseless. Pointing out that it is not refutable is pointless because nothing can be proven. Logic however indicates that physics and "metaphysics" is the same.

2} macro-infinite, non-occupied space exists beyond the following,

2. Where did infinite come from? How do you know that space is infinite? Again this assumption is baseless.

3} finite, occupied space Universe aka Uni-Verse

Are you trying to point out that occupied space is just one single unity by saying highlighting the word "Uni"? In physics different particles are understood as occupying just small portions of space between each other.

"G"od = "U"niverse is most all inclusive ergo most comprehensive and wholistic set. None have rationally invalidated these concepts as defined, nor have any ever acknowledged their validity. What are they afraid of?

God = Universe aka Uni-Verse. None have ever rationally invalidated these concepts as defined, nor have any ever acknowledged their validity.

Are you trying to say that God is just the physical universe and its processes, or do you put anything more than that into what you label as "God"?

Nobody can prove that the Bible is wrong either even if it is clearly a book of fairytales. So even if you cannot disprove the Bible doesn't mean you should believe that for example Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth. So coming with the "you cannot disprove" argument is completely irrelevant.

I would conclude the following:

Your qualitative interpretations are not the real reality, just models. At the same time you seem eager to overinterpret these concepts, overgeneralize and treat them as if they explain everything. Yet you haven't really done anything new besides from overgeneralizing. When you mention these concepts, you have to acknowledge that you don't really know what you are talking about, unless you can explain what causes all the properties of space and time. Particles are models, space is a model and time is a model. It is not the real reality but how your consciousness interprets it and associates its properties into something which can predict reality, whatever reality is. For example energy seems to not be an existing substance which you seem to imply by saying "negatively shaped dark energy". Energy doesn't seem to be an amount of entities, it is just a number which is conserved since kinetic energy equals to potential energy during particle interactions. This has more to do with the directionally symmetric properties of space. In the end of the video linked below the person says that every theory which has presented energy as some sort of substance has epically failed.