I'll probably wait until the hereafter.

I don't have that kind of patience James ...

She ain't kiddin' either...

Does it have anything to do with zero?

Kurt Godel, I think disproved it... right abra?

Ok... it was driven me nuts... so...

Copied and pasted...a summary...

Sorry for my intermittent postings. The next few weeks will probably be worse still.

This has all been very interesting.

JB I will see is I can find a copy of The Holographic Universe somewhere, but usually only have 15 to 30 minute breaks in which to read (for fun) so it may take me a while. I’m pretty slow when it comes to the hard stuff, I have to look everything up. Doubtless my notes will be as long as the book.

Creative sorry I didn’t eat the cookies – tequila is not meant to be shared with cookies.
But I did build a sand castle, the one in the corner in the shape of a pail.

Wouldee, I don’t kick sand or throw anything, except what is meant to be thrown, well ok I have been known to douse a friend with my water, but only when they deserved it – and NEVER my tequila or sand.

Thanks Abra for your comments – HI ARTGURL always nice to see your smile.




As has been stated here, so often, we tend to believe in things “until we don’t”. We believe the sun will shine from the day time sky and the moon will dominate the deep blue night.

JB- If the masses believe that there will always be those of lesser and greater influence, both in riches and power, in the scheme of things, could that reinforces the continuance of the manifestation of the poor, the wretched and the meek?

The story of your Ex could be consistent with other ideas as well. I stated earlier a theory by Carl Jung, that refers to a multitude of personas within the “collective unconscious”.

Perhaps it’s the “persona” that lends to the ‘attitude’ that leads a person to become what others “see” and is not a true representation of manifestation at all.

Or maybe the manifestation, created by so many, is an illusion so well reinforced, that a single individual can never manifest above or beyond it. ARE WE, the reason there are poor, wretched, helpless and meek individuals?

Yet another idea considers a study that was undertaken years ago. Are the more intelligent of our society the most successful? It seems the answer is no. But you see in the study success was rated by money, power, and visibility. If these things don’t matter to the individual, their IQ will not help them “succeed” or achieve it.

Those who feed the poor, clothe the wretched and comfort the meek, are the unknowns and often they have the highest IQ. Why would anyone suggest that “success” in any form is a measure of ones intelligence, ability or value to others in this world?

Sadly, why would anyone feel the need to follow such a suggestion? But both are true, they happen – is THAT a manipulation of a manifestation in others?

Perhaps that should be a philosophical discussion for another thread, but I will be unavailable for a while.



Let us hope that if such a thing becomes reality, it is not taught to those who believe the biblical book of Revelations is at hand, or those whose definition of success is money and power especially if they also believe that there must always people of "lesser" influence in this world.!

Well, yes, as a matter of fact it does. But it has more to do with the formal definition of the number One, (which is actually currently defined on zero in set theory).

There is an error in the logic that Georg Cantor used there, as well in other places. But it goes much deeper than that, it wasn't just Cantor's fault, there were other mistakes made prior to his work, and he was working within the confines of those errors.



Yes Godel proved that our current mathematical formalism is necessarily incomplete. And the basis of the proof lies in self-referenced systems. Our current modern mathematical formalism is a self-referenced axiomatic system.

There are many things related to this problem of self-reference which I cover in some detail. And these self-referenced ideas relate directly to the formal definition of the number One.

I actually solve the problem and redefine the number one property. This doesn’t have much affect on everyday calculations at all. That’s because we never really used the pure abstract definition of the number One anyway. We always used our intuitive notion of the number One (which is correct by the way).

However, the formal mathematical definition of the number One does not match our intuitive understanding of it. It is in fact, an incorrect concept. It may see trivial, but it’s not. It has far-reaching consequences that mostly have to do with a better understanding of zero (which is also formally incorrect), as well as some very profound implications associated with the concept of infinity and a rather abstract area of mathematics known as Group Theory.

Once, the definitions have been correct Godel’s proof will no longer apply to the new mathematical formalism.

In other words, Godel’s proof will still be valid, it just won’t be applicable to the new mathematical formalism because the new formalism will no longer be a self-referenced system which is the crux of Godel’s proof.

By the way, there’s no need to worry about having to relearn mathematics. Most practical mathematics won’t change one iota. The changes will affect things in higher-level mathematics used in things like quantum mechanics and string theory and things like that.

Algebra will still work and most of geometry and trig. And while calculus will be viewed a bit differently from the way it is now, it will still produce the same results in most practical applications. The only time it will produce different results is in cases where zero and infinity are critical. Because both of them are extremely dependent on the formal definition of the number One.

There’s also a nice little surprise in there concerning irrational numbers, but you’ll have to wait for the book for that.

If I don’t write it someone else will eventually. It’s inevitable. But if I don’t write it now it may be a long time before someone else figures it out. No one is actually working this. At least not that I know of. I stumbled upon it whilst doing some work in General Relativity. I ran into a vortex problem that lead me to a man named Ernest Mach, who led me to Kurt Godel, who led me to Georg Cantor, and that led me to the realization that mathematics is all screwed up.

Fortunately I know how to fix it. But I think I’m the only person on the planet who knows this. And I’m taking my last breaths here so I don’t know whether I’ll ever print the information or just talk about it.

what about three and five and the spiral?

are they just observable anomalies?

this mathematical sequence always intriques me.

it is in nature unlike a straight line.

which maybe neccesitates the need to define folding time.

it is well beyond me to get locked into such a premise, but I find it fascinating, nonetheless.

Abra, i suspect you are the only onethat might apprehend my muse.

That would be my drift. 01010101101000110101110101110

101101010000011010111011101010101101101101
10110101011010101000101001101\
1010001101

I would like to read it when you are done. And I am terrible at math.. but I think there is a better system out there somewhere.

I can't see how zero can even be a number. It is nothing. It is infinity. It is balance. It is the line crossed between something and nothing. It is a boundary. But I can't see it as a number or a negative number.

JB

I understand what you are saying Wouldee. Thats cool. There are mathematical mysteries in this universe. Such as Pi.

Yep. I think it all boils down to zero and one.

Existence or non-existence.

To be or not to be.

That is the question.

But nothing cannot exist therefore, zero cannot exist.

There is only the one.

one.

Hey that sounds like pantheism.

The closest thing i have seen to a logical explanation of 'God' is Spinoza's Ethics... but this refutes a personality which is commonly atributed to 'God'...

But, as Abra may point out...

It is inductive logic... completely self-contained, and therefore inherently flawed... according to Godel...