Is there such a thing as a fixed constant?

[Honza]

Is anything consistently the same and fixed into immutability? Or is everything essentially mutable? Would those who practice self-realisation have found an immutable constant?

I'm not really sure that a fixed constant is possible - everything is change to some degree at least.

[Miss Hepburn]

I have, personally.
It helped to really 'get' ACIM, A Course in Miracles.

My words would be 'seeing things from God's Perspective'.
The Big Picture is constant to me...not the little waves on the ocean,
but
The Ocean. That is constant.

You do have the best questions, Honza, I like you.

[Honza]

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

You do have the best questions, Honza, I like you.

Thankyou Miss H. Too much time to think, too little to do......

[r6r6]

Time is constant..(>)

Motion is constant..~~~~

Frequency is constant..VVV

Angle is constant...V

Non-occupied space is a constant....

Occupied space is a constant....--------

Change is a constant...v^v^

r6

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Time is constant..(>)

Motion is constant..~~~~

Frequency is constant..VVV

Angle is constant...V

Non-occupied space is a constant....

Occupied space is a constant....--------

Change is a constant...v^v^

r6

Just about everything you mentioned is relative. Time, motion, frequency (is ration of time), angle, change (is motion).

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Honza

Is anything consistently the same and fixed into immutability? Or is everything essentially mutable? Would those who practice self-realisation have found an immutable constant?

I'm not really sure that a fixed constant is possible - everything is change to some degree at least.

I don't think self realisation is a constant, but I'll let the gurus try figure that one out, and just talk about relative things. Things are relative but relationship is constant, one might say. Like change is where things change relative to each other, but the overall relationship remains the same. I reason this by reducing the number of things to 2. In the relationship between two things, point A relates to point B in exactly the same way as point B relates to point A. That is a constant function regardless of any movement between them.

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by Gem

Just about everything you mentioned is relative. Time, motion, frequency (is ration of time), angle, change (is motion).

I agree/confirm/validate your above as being correct.

In the 60's or 70's we would say 'it' as in the Universe as IT, is all relative.

IT being more a noun-like.

IS being more verb-like i.e. change is a process.

thx Gem, you have good mind, for the most part.

r6

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by Gem

I reason this by reducing the number of things to 2. In the relationship between two things, point A relates to point B in exactly the same way as point B relates to point A. That is a constant function regardless of any movement between them.

Twoness is a constant of Universe, in so far as there is never less than,

1) observer,

2) observer,

3) line of relationship... ex visual( photons ),

4) background--- ex non-occupied space --- against, or within which, the observer, observed, line-of-relationship exist.

I agree with Gem, that relationship is a constant, but not for the same reasons. I think her reasoning is not valid.

That relationship is constant is true because of;

1) physical/energy ergo occupied space is cannot be created nor destroyed ergo eternally existent,

2) presuming the above is true, we have sub-catargory of twoness
...2a} that involves only non-occupied space background that embraces ....but does not contain our finite, occupied space UniVerse

3) our finite, occupied space Universe cannot have less than a fourness ergo twoness is inherent with fourness.

Let me give an example that goes beyond what we currently presume regarding Universe composed of fermions and bosons;

1) we presume the twoness of fermions and bosons exist eternally as occupied space Unvierse, however, because some 'heat death of Universe' scenarios state, that, our finite Universe will some day become only one very large and very flat, lowest frequency photon--- because of entropy ---then,

there would not exist fermions ergo no twoness as in the case of fermions and bosons.

I believe, that, gravity--- if not also dark energy ---is the odd-bird-out of the bosonic catagory, and even if the Universe becomes one very large and very flat( lowest frequency ) photon,

I believe gravity will exist. If true then we have a twoness at minimum even in the most entropic extremes of "heat death of Universe'.

In my scenario, I associate gravity with the the 31 great circles of the icosahedron and the icosahedron, as derived from the cubo-octahedron, comes in both a left and right-skew version ergo, 31 left-skew great circles and 31 right-skew great circles.

Here as follows is my iconic representation of the most extreme entropic 'heat death of Universe' scenario, wherein there is no less than three things that occupy space.

O|O or as OZO

1) left-skew set of 31 great circles of gravity,

2) flat photon set of lowest energy/frequency

3) right-skew set of 31 great circles of gravity,
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The reason I use a Z as one iconic representation of the flat photon is because, if we collapse the cubo-octahedron to one of its exotic configurations, it is 2-frequency triangle( see link )

And two of those 4 triangles we see in the 2-Fre. tet that is subdivided into four triangles--- in above link ---can have two of the outer triangles fold left and one of the outer triangles fold right, and the central triangle stays the same.

What this means to me is, that two of the triangles fold left into the set of left-skew set of 31 great circles of icosahedral gravity,

and,

one of those triangles folds right to mesh/bond with the right-skew 31 great circles of icosahedral gravity geodesic sphericals.

Ergo the iconic Z show/expresses the folding of outer triangle left and right.

And that leaves the central triangle--- flat photon ---that may also be viewed as tangent to both left and right sets of 31 great circles,

or those two sets overlap and contain that central triangle. I would need operational graphics to actually see various possible configurations.

So if any of my scenarios are correct, then we can see additional ways that there exist at a minimum two or more kinds of twoness and multiple relationships that compose our finite Universe, even at the most entropic scenario labeled as 'heat death of Universe'.

Also of note, we may say that, the cubo-octahedron has the 8 triangles, so even if the 2 sets of icosahedral great circles did not exist at heat death,

the cubo-octahedron as the flat photon is composed of 8 triangles.

12 vertexes,
24 lines-of-relationship,
8 triangles at minmum even at heat death would still remain, putting aside 31 great circles of icosahedron scenarios.

r6

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Twoness is a constant of Universe, in so far as there is never less than,

1) observer,

2) observer,

3) line of relationship... ex visual( photons ),

4) background--- ex non-occupied space --- against, or within which, the observer, observed, line-of-relationship exist.

I agree with Gem, that relationship is a constant, but not for the same reasons. I think her reasoning is not valid.

That relationship is constant is true because of;

1) physical/energy ergo occupied space is cannot be created nor destroyed ergo eternally existent,

2) presuming the above is true, we have sub-catargory of twoness
...2a} that involves only non-occupied space background that embraces ....but does not contain our finite, occupied space UniVerse

3) our finite, occupied space Universe cannot have less than a fourness ergo twoness is inherent with fourness.

Let me give an example that goes beyond what we currently presume regarding Universe composed of fermions and bosons;

1) we presume the twoness of fermions and bosons exist eternally as occupied space Unvierse, however, because some 'heat death of Universe' scenarios state, that, our finite Universe will some day become only one very large and very flat, lowest frequency photon--- because of entropy ---then,

there would not exist fermions ergo no twoness as in the case of fermions and bosons.

I believe, that, gravity--- if not also dark energy ---is the odd-bird-out of the bosonic catagory, and even if the Universe becomes one very large and very flat( lowest frequency ) photon,

I believe gravity will exist. If true then we have a twoness at minimum even in the most entropic extremes of "heat death of Universe'.

In my scenario, I associate gravity with the the 31 great circles of the icosahedron and the icosahedron, as derived from the cubo-octahedron, comes in both a left and right-skew version ergo, 31 left-skew great circles and 31 right-skew great circles.

Here as follows is my iconic representation of the most extreme entropic 'heat death of Universe' scenario, wherein there is no less than three things that occupy space.

O|O or as OZO

1) left-skew set of 31 great circles of gravity,

2) flat photon set of lowest energy/frequency

3) right-skew set of 31 great circles of gravity,
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The reason I use a Z as one iconic representation of the flat photon is because, if we collapse the cubo-octahedron to one of its exotic configurations, it is 2-frequency triangle( see link )

And two of those 4 triangles we see in the 2-Fre. tet that is subdivided into four triangles--- in above link ---can have two of the outer triangles fold left and one of the outer triangles fold right, and the central triangle stays the same.

What this means to me is, that two of the triangles fold left into the set of left-skew set of 31 great circles of icosahedral gravity,

and,

one of those triangles folds right to mesh/bond with the right-skew 31 great circles of icosahedral gravity geodesic sphericals.

Ergo the iconic Z show/expresses the folding of outer triangle left and right.

And that leaves the central triangle--- flat photon ---that may also be viewed as tangent to both left and right sets of 31 great circles,

or those two sets overlap and contain that central triangle. I would need operational graphics to actually see various possible configurations.

So if any of my scenarios are correct, then we can see additional ways that there exist at a minimum two or more kinds of twoness and multiple relationships that compose our finite Universe, even at the most entropic scenario labeled as 'heat death of Universe'.

Also of note, we may say that, the cubo-octahedron has the 8 triangles, so even if the 2 sets of icosahedral great circles did not exist at heat death,

the cubo-octahedron as the flat photon is composed of 8 triangles.

12 vertexes,
24 lines-of-relationship,
8 triangles at minmum even at heat death would still remain, putting aside 31 great circles of icosahedron scenarios.

r6

I suggest that space is 'created', not in the sense that it began, but in the sense that it is consequential. Physicists find that space is a discrete unit which is not divisible at the Plank scale (grainy space). If that is correct then the background you refer to is not singular, but unitary, so we can't just say 'oh there is space' and be done with it. What is its unitary form? This is well outside the box of size of distance and time.
There is no line of photons.

If we say the photon is the observer, from the photon's perspective it takes no time to travel between point a and point b. If it takes no time to travel, it is necessarily everywhere at once, and doesn't 'experience' distance at all. What kind of path is that?

[r6r6]

Gem--I suggest that space is 'created', not in the sense that it began, but in the sense that it is consequential.

Hi Gem, youur use of the word "consequential" makes me think of the word resultant i.e. they may be synonyms in this case.

Physicists find that space is a discrete unit which is not divisible at the Plank scale (grainy space).

I think your refering a specific kind of space or spacetime that is alledged to be gravitational spacetime. Proof of the quantum grainiest was tested via loop quantum gravities support team via the arrival of differrent frequencies of photons on Earth from a common source far away.

There theory said that, the grainy/quantum gravitation should cause some frequencies of radiation to arrive slight slower than others.

This was not the case, so it was back to the drawing board.

If that is correct then the background you refer to is not singular, but unitary, so we can't just say 'oh there is space' and be done with it. What is its unitary form? This is well outside the box of size of distance and time. There is no line of photons.

First off Gem, you have yet to really grasp this concept of non-occupied space, that Ive I have been trying to clearly lay out here at SF and other places for a few years now in various threads and always in my various versions of my cosmological heirarchy---- Ex Universe in a Nutshell--type threads.

The space your refering to is like the space between here and moon or between solar systems or between galaxies or between clusters of galaxies.

All of those spaces are occupied ergo whenever Ive used the terms occupied space those spaces are included. They are not truly non-occupied space. Feynman expressed this fact in one of the documentary vidieos made of him on PBS or Ameican Masters or something like that.

Those spaces you mention above and I clarify are filled with stuff, EMRadiation if not other fermionic matter also to whateve degree.

If we say the photon is the observer, from the photon's perspective it takes no time to travel between point a and point b. If it takes no time to travel, it is necessarily everywhere at once, and doesn't 'experience' distance at all. What kind of path is that?

This is differrent issue and not related to any ideas Ive ever stated that involve non-occupied space.

I will explain again, for you, the differrence between non-occupied space and occupied space, and where they exist. You will have to use some rational logical common sense to grasp the following.


If we live in a finite, occupied space UniVerse. Then what is outside of the finite, occupied space Universe, is macro-infinite, non-occupied space Universe.


1) "U"niverse = macro infinite non-occupied space and finite occupied space UniVerse and metaphysical-1 concepts ex concepts of God

2) UniVerse = finite occupied space Universe ergo fermions, bosons and odd-bird-out attractive gravity if not also odd-bird-out repulsive dark energy.

3) universe's = ideas allowing for iindividual-- tho not independant ---multiple local universes scenarios, that, are sum-totally connected by gravity as the above mentioned #2 Universe.

......this 3rd version also includes ideas of and individual person local sphere of influence as their own local universe.

Now, if you actually read any of the above,perhaps you can finally actually make the clear distinction betwee;

1) truly non-occupied space that embraces our finite UniVerse,

and

2) our finite occupied space UniVerse.


r6