Duality.

Originally Posted by Gem

it's the listening side of discussion that doesn't interest you.

be good if you steer clear of this discussion since it disinterests you

Wow.

.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by rybo

Most believe limited free will is free of cause and effect and my statements were to state this is an error i.e. I believe humans metaphysical intentions, choices etc... are due to cause and effect.

I belive all consciouness is cause and effect

I don't really know... but if I roll one marble into another it alters their motion... and we call it cause and effect... good ol' F=ma

It's all within the realtionship, so either marble could be the cause and the other be effected, because there is only one force acting on both marbles.

Free will is a funny thing though... it doesn't alter the formula because the experiment has the same results despite anyone's preferences.

Even the famous split experiment, supposedly affected by observation, is consistant when observed, and no ammount of will power alters it.

that is what I have done with placing gravity into the a quasi-physical, buffer-zone between physical/energy and macro-micro infinite non-occupied space.

What we don't have, and what Penrose and others are looking for, is the link from gravity to our more medio-existence of atoms, molecules ergo consicousness of brain.

It appears that there is 'nothing between', but the relationship is between things

No things/no somethings non-occupied space

--above and below are tangent with no relationship---

Above and below are consistent with the indicator which is used to seperate the space above from the space below. That's a three part interaction. The 'above' space, the indicator and the 'below' space.

The dual relationship has no definable property, but it does have a subjective quality, which means 'two' isn't really applicable to duality.

gravity

of occupied space

---if gravity=quasi-physica, thenl there must be inbetween "relationship" to below-- imho

somethings/things =physical/enery of occupied space



Waves are gometric metaphysical patterns, just as triangle, square, plaid and spiral are. The physical medium is the water, atoms, particles, pop-sicle sticks.



I belive there is only haos because we do not see the underlying order of cause and effect determinism. This goes back the conscious with limited free will is and illusion, because we can not access gravitationally underlying order, and even if we could, there would never ever be enough technology to map of all the interrlatiosnhips. imho

Gravity is a mystery...

In ancient times chaos was discribed by Hessoid as a void... not as something chaotic... actually chaos meant the absence of chaotic and orderly structure.

In Choas theory, it says a very small change will perpetuate and become really large... and was called 'the butterfly effect', which could reflect on us humans in that what we choose might seem very small, but it can perpetuate huge consequences.

That's why I struggle to reconcile free will. This one chosen thing begets the consequence, which is isn't chosen.

There is not infinity of the quasi-physical/grtavity or physical/ernergy imho

There is a metaphysically mathematical expression of infinity by there is no infinity of numbers expressed via physical/energy medium. imho

There is macro-micro infinite non-occupied space, beyond our finite 01 and 02 Universe. imho

Yeah I have that book stached away somewhere and I read it/skimmed in when I first got it.

Finite

Yeah they so many pretty ones. I have another book around here with wonderful fractal graphics and I could have swore that I read in that bool, that, there are two primary kinds of fractals, finite and infinite.

I went back to find that reference a last year and could never ever find that quote.

I did an internet search at that time and could find no reference for that statement, so maybe Gem, if know or have link to such please share.

Thx for any help in that area and for you considerations of my comments as stated.

Rybo the Rybot

There is a good book called Chaos by James Gleik...

Infinity has a long history of expressions. Many mathematitions became obsessed with trying to quantify it, at best it is the dual comparison, which is why it gets lost in the sea of subjectivity... called Chaos, the void, space.

[r6r6]

Xan][color=Navy]hmmm... well, if it was important to me I might take you up on your offer.

Xan, sorry to hear you do not want to converse, or maybe its just you do not want to converse with me, tho you did respond to paticularly at least once, and perhaps indirectly with other comments.

Discussion is not my aim but simply self-expression and it's no problem for me that I seem to think differently from most people.

My conceren was not, that seeing differrently, more that, you were not seeing very little of the others comments as stated,--- in this case myself ---correctly as evidenced in your comments not reflecting accurately and in fact reflecting inaccurately others comments.

If you do not understand my concerns, then that would be more of your......

But "continue"? I've only made one response to you, Rybo.

That may very weel be true in this thread, so I'm not sure why I stated it that way. Sorry if your feelings are hurts but my other points still stand as stated.

It may be that you have addressed me in some other thread and I had that "continue" word in consideration storage facilities.

with metaphysical blessings
Xan

When you use the word metaphysical I have no idea what you mean.

I gone into to depth over the years, of explaing the definitions of "metaphysical" that I use.

I think it is fine if you want to have or minimmize any actual back and forth disscussion, but that should not dissuade others from having oppinions of your comments, as stated. imho

So, if you continue to make comments that incorrectly reflect my comments, I may have something to say in that matter. Why you would do such things, other than making some mistakes, makes no sense other than your tying evoke somekind of emotional response from others, than takes us away from viewpoints as stated.

That maybe ok, and benificial to the group, in some odd circumstances but generally I cannot see such skewed reflections of others comments as being helpful.

So, again it becomes a question of what is the point of skewing the reflection of someone elses comments inaccurrately. There is very few that I can see.

Rybo the Rybot

[r6r6]

Gem]I don't really know... but if I roll one marble into another it alters their motion... and we call it cause and effect... good ol' F=ma

In regards to consciousness and access to mind, and having a limited free will, I don't really know either, but I believe limited free will is the 2nd truly great illusion of our finite 01 and 02 Universe i.e. your "good ol' F=ma" is the underlying source of seemingly free will consicous choices.

It's all within the realtionship, so either marble could be the cause and the other be effected, because there is only one force acting on both marbles.

Well, gravity is not proven as being a force, but I belive it is. I dunno if gravity alone can be the only force acting upoon any fermionic or bosonic particle, as you comment appears to infer.

Free will is a funny thing though... it doesn't alter the formula because the experiment has the same results despite anyone's preferences.

Again, this would be because there is exists, imho, and underlying gravitational order to all phenomena including our seemingly limited, free will conscious choices.

Even the famous split experiment, supposedly affected by observation, is consistant when observed, and no ammount of will power alters it.

Underlying gravitational essence.

Above and below are consistent with the indicator which is used to seperate the space above from the space below. That's a three part interaction. The 'above' space, the indicator and the 'below' space.

The dotted line--- your "indicator" --- is representative of a metaphysical concept of seperation i.e. there is no sperator of non-occupied space( 00 ) fom gravitational space( 01 ). imho

So again, non-occupied space(00 ) is tangent to gravitational space( 01 ) and then gravitational space( 01 ) is a occupied space boundary/differrentiating space that seperartes physical/energy from the non-occupied space of nothingness.

The dual relationship has no definable property, but it does have a subjective quality, which means 'two' isn't really applicable to duality.

Gem, there are four fundamental kinds of twoness ergo duality, imho, and I can give you link to that later, however, I'm not sure how they wil related to you given caveat of "no defineable property".

I.e. your "definable property" is not well define to me yet.

Concave-convex line has one of those four dualities, that I orginally posted and is twoness as best as I can see. The line has two terminal end points ergo the line has those two additional aspect so a fourness, but I'm not sure that the latter twoness can dismiss the concave-convex twoness.

Gravity is a mystery...

There is at least one set of experimental like data--- regarding far away celestial objects ---that appear to make clear that gravity is a force.

There was one experiment in lab that show neutrons appearing to fall in a vacuum and pause at discrete levels ergo giving the impression of energetic quanta shell like in an electron as it gains or loses a photon(s).

Last I knew that experiment have never been verified/reproduced elsewhere.

In ancient times chaos was discribed by Hessoid as a void... not as something chaotic... actually chaos meant the absence of chaotic and orderly structure.

A true void is my metaphyiscal non-occupied space "00".

In Choas theory, it says a very small change will perpetuate and become really large... and was called 'the butterfly effect', which could reflect on us humans in that what we choose might seem very small, but it can perpetuate huge consequences.

Yeah Im well of aware of all of that, and I believe there exists ultra-complexity of underlying reltionships and inter-relationships that we will never access or map, that are the essential cause and affect order of our finite Universe.

That's why I struggle to reconcile free will. This one chosen thing begets the consequence, which is isn't chosen.

It is the 2nd, truly great illusion. imho

There is a good book called Chaos by James Gleik...
Infinity has a long history of expressions. Many mathematitions became obsessed with trying to quantify it, at best it is the dual comparison, which is why it gets lost in the sea of subjectivity... called Chaos, the void, space

Oops I was mistaken, as that is the book I have stashed away, and the other much newer one with all the nice graphics, and what I recall of a comments stating to primary kinds of fractal, infinite and finite.

I gave that book away, If i recall correctly.

Thx for considerations of my comments as stated.

Rybo the Rybot

[Xan]

When you use the word metaphysical I have no idea what you mean.

I know that, just as many of the terms and ideas you use have no meaning for me so I chose not to read your posts, except when my name popped up in one of them.

Gem's mission for listening is good, but it does take speaking one another's language at least a little.


bowing out
Xan

[Gem]

Originally Posted by rybo

In regards to consciousness and access to mind, and having a limited free will, I don't really know either, but I believe limited free will is the 2nd truly great illusion of our finite 01 and 02 Universe i.e. your "good ol' F=ma" is the underlying source of seemingly free will consicous choices.



Well, gravity is not proven as being a force, but I belive it is. I dunno if gravity alone can be the only force acting upoon any fermionic or bosonic particle, as you comment appears to infer.

I guess it is a force of sorts. It does effect all particles, even massless ones.

Again, this would be because there is exists, imho, and underlying gravitational order to all phenomena including our seemingly limited, free will conscious choices.

Underlying gravitational essence.

The dotted line--- your "indicator" --- is representative of a metaphysical concept of seperation i.e. there is no sperator of non-occupied space( 00 ) fom gravitational space( 01 ). imho

So again, non-occupied space(00 ) is tangent to gravitational space( 01 ) and then gravitational space( 01 ) is a occupied space boundary/differrentiating space that seperartes physical/energy from the non-occupied space of nothingness.

I'm really examining the way the mind creates the 'distinction between' which seperates space. The line is the 'between bit' separating 'space above' from 'space below'. In the mind then, the line occupies space because the distinction between above and below... creates a line. What would be the most prior here, the space or the line?

Gem, there are four fundamental kinds of twoness ergo duality, imho, and I can give you link to that later, however, I'm not sure how they wil related to you given caveat of "no defineable property".

I.e. your "definable property" is not well define to me yet.

When we have a two like above and below, we also have a third defined property, a line.

If you remove any one of these three, all definition is lost. My point is, a pure 'two' has no defining property.

Concave-convex line has one of those four dualities, that I orginally posted and is twoness as best as I can see. The line has two terminal end points ergo the line has those two additional aspect so a fourness, but I'm not sure that the latter twoness can dismiss the concave-convex twoness.

There is at least one set of experimental like data--- regarding far away celestial objects ---that appear to make clear that gravity is a force.

Gravity acts like force in some ways, it accellerates mass, but in other ways it is not a force, because it accellerates different masses at the same rate..

There was one experiment in lab that show neutrons appearing to fall in a vacuum and pause at discrete levels ergo giving the impression of energetic quanta shell like in an electron as it gains or loses a photon(s).

Last I knew that experiment have never been verified/reproduced elsewhere.

Well, to validate an experiement one should be able to repeat it.

A true void is my metaphyiscal non-occupied space "00".

Yeah Im well of aware of all of that, and I believe there exists ultra-complexity of underlying reltionships and inter-relationships that we will never access or map, that are the essential cause and affect order of our finite Universe.

It is the 2nd, truly great illusion. imho

Oops I was mistaken, as that is the book I have stashed away, and the other much newer one with all the nice graphics, and what I recall of a comments stating to primary kinds of fractal, infinite and finite.

I gave that book away, If i recall correctly.

Thx for considerations of my comments as stated.

Rybo the Rybot

The beautiful thing about fractals is their fractional dimensions. Not 2d or 3d... but some are like 2.345D

It just takes the term 'dimensional space' into new meanings.

[r6r6]

Xan] I know that, just as many of the terms and ideas you use have no meaning for me so I chose not to read your posts, except when my name popped up in one of them.

Xan, I've spent plenty time and effort over the years and in short time here on this forum to be clear, and clarify the word metaphysical.

I'm sorry, but I still have no idea what you mean with your use of that word.
And again, the word "continue" may have been in response to other emails responses from you directed at me in another thread.

I'm sure I've see you posting in some other threads I'm in and have posted in.

Other than the possibility of the word "continue" be incorrect, my comments in regards to your post(s) stand as stated.

Gem's mission for listening is good, but it does take speaking one another's language at least a little.
bowing out Xan

My words to you were all English, as best as I recall, and you say you have not and have not read any of my other emails, so you really have no idea what language or words I'm using, beyond the one email with your name in it.

I'm sorry Xan, but your logic in this latter regards appears to me be lacking, if non-existent.

Rybo the Rybot

[r6r6]

Gem]I guess it is a force of sorts. It does effect all particles, even massless ones.

Hi Gem, well that is still million dollar question in physics, to best of my knowledge and it may remain that way.

Here is link to cosmological data directly or indirectly infering/implying gravity as a force, and not just a metaphysical geometry pattern.

http://nobelprize.org/physics/laurea...discovery.html

I'm really examining the way the mind creates the 'distinction between' which seperates space. The line is the 'between bit' separating 'space above' from 'space below'. In the mind then, the line occupies space because the distinction between above and below... creates a line. What would be the most prior here, the space or the line?

I agree that it is the line that sperates space. My dotted line exists there, only to visually seperate the metaphysical concepts of mind/intellect from non-occupied and occupied space.

Metaphysical exists as inherent complement to physical and that is and eternaly duality. That is a twoness and still not sure why you stated twoness is not a duaity or duality is not twoness?

When we have a two like above and below, we also have a third defined property, a line.

A metaphysically conceptual line of mind/intellect not a line of occupied space.

Occupied space line comes into play between non-occupied space and 01/gravitational membrane.

If you remove any one of these three, all definition is lost. My point is, a pure 'two' has no defining property.

Oh ok this kinda of goes back to our your initial post and my reply of concave-convex as line with two aspects plus maybe two terminal end points characteristics also as aspects.

So lets say, this conceptual scenario is of a straight line, i.e. a line with not concavity-convexity. Now we have the line of occupied space( 01/02 ) and non-occupied space and that is a duality.

I still hope to post the four kinds of twoness later.

Gravity acts like force in some ways, it accellerates mass, but in other ways it is not a force, because it accellerates different masses at the same rate..

I dunno bout that. You probably have better understanding of our more macro physics than I.

Well, to validate an experiement one should be able to repeat it.

I think those dudes who did it did, can or could repeat it. I'm just not aware of any one else doing it and that is where the confirmation comes in. Like with those people who claims cold fusion. No one else can do it so how can the can claim it.

The beautiful thing about fractals is their fractional dimensions. Not 2d or 3d... but some are like 2.345D
It just takes the term 'dimensional space' into new meanings

.

I dunno. Guess it gets into what do we mean when using the word "dimension".

Typically/conventionally, "dimension" refers to space/spaciality/spatiality and specifically height, width and length with the mathematical representation of these 3 as XYZ and labeled cartesian math. If I recall correctly.

From you above, it appears to me, that your talking more about values assigned to a dimension, rather than an actuall dimension.

The 4th dimension begins as 'd' i.e. if XYZ is stated as a,b,c then d is the volumetric diagonal of a cube and this is why the early graphic/geometric visuals we see of the 4th dimension is a cube inside of cube connected by those 4 volumentric diagonals that become truncated by the inner cube.

The inner cube being the 4D cube curled inside the 3D.

Since then there have been other graphic/geometric visulizations of the 4D cube as being a cube that skew/off-set to the other cube at 45 degrees.

I'm not sure if one graphic/geometric is considered to be more accurrate than the other one.

Rybo the Rybot

[r6r6]

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/t...n-of-the-self2

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cliffo...r/message/1034

"If the self is an illusion, what is your position on free will?”

...."Free will is certainly a major component of the self illusion, but it is not synonymous. Both are illusions, but the self illusion extends beyond the issues of choice and culpability to other realms of human experience. From what I understand, I think you and I share the same basic position about the logical impossibility of free will.

... I also think that compatibilism (that determinism and free will can co-exist) is incoherent. We certainly have more choices today to do things that are not in accord with our biology, and it may be true that we should talk about free will in a meaningful way, as Dennett has argued, but that seems irrelevant to the central problem of positing an entity that can make choices independently of the multitude of factors that control a decision. To me, the problem of free will is a logical impasse – we cannot choose the factors that ultimately influence what we do and think.

...{ the essential "factors" are the ultra-complex network ultra-micro gravitational spacetime imho }...

.....That does not mean that we throw away the social, moral, and legal rulebooks, but we need to be vigilant about the way our attitudes about individuals will be challenged as we come to understand the factors (both material and psychological) that control our behaviors when it comes to attributing praise and blame. I believe this is somewhat akin to your position."

[r6r6]

rybo]{ angles /\/\/\ angels(?) ex mininal viewpoint is a least one angle }....

Angle is to angel as viewpoint is to consciousness?

Perhaps the two lines are like to wings on either side of the viewpoint and those two can oscillate between a very narrow set of degrees ex .000000001 to wide open as 180 degrees apart, to overly wide open as they approach 360 degrees of openess.

This 2D "V"iewpoint maybe akin to a 3D inside-outing Ex a 3D tetrahedron inside-outs but at the half-way position--- 180 degrees --- the 3D tetrahedron appears as a flat, i.e. 2D, subdivided triangle, then the nodal vertex passes on through to the other side as a reversed, inside-out tetrahedron.

Maybe this is differrence between negative - neutral - positive.

Spirituality = human intention to support integrity of self, others, and the ecological environment that sustains all Earthians.

Rybo the Rybot from the planet Rybon spreading the Rybonic Seed