What is "miraculous"?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It seems to me all you guys are at the edge of the known universe in your modeling much as the guys in 1200AD were. What's the difference between your stuff and their stuff way back other than what TVF notes in another thread?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Can't necessarily speak for the dudes or dudets of 1200 AD, but my model seeks to explain your thoughts. No model can be complete without this explaination. I submit that all thoughts have geometric form, and all these concepts vary depending on the shape of those geometric forms. The form of a cat is different than the form of a dog. The form of red is different from the form green. Pain and pleasure are two different forms. Once again - The difference is noted by the shape of the geometric form.

Commonality of form - All geometric forms are common to one (existence), and nothing (Non-Existence). Thier composition is the same ..... one nothing. This goes to say that one is the Existence of nothing, while nothing is the Non-Existence of one. This is a perfect symbiotic relationship that cannot be undone by any means whatsoever.

All forms may share the same form - I.E A cat with a mouse in it's mouth. This is two forms sharing a single concept. The expression of the thought is the shape of the form. A cat with a mouse in it's mouth is one shape, one thought, one form.

I could go on, but needless to say the difference from other models is quite stark. Most will take a physical train to explaining thier Existence, while mine is a purely conceptual enterprise that explains that you are {The Reality Of Non-Existence}





In our universe - there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of.

<i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />That's ... nice. But the question "what does 'matter is logic' mean?" remains unanswered.

===

[Skarp] "He doesn't need to spell it out for you ... Does he?"

Yes. Assuming that your goal in posting here is to communicate.

HINT - Unless you and EBTX and North and (maybe a few others?) start posting in english, we will continue to not communicate.

LB
____________________________________________________________________

what i was trying to say, in the collisions forum is this,in order for a collision to occur with a reverse action(sound)there must a point at which something is solid enough or is able to cause a reverse of the energy applied and that this sound is instantaneous,true? for eg. a puck hitting the post gives a ring.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Skarp</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It seems to me all you guys are at the edge of the known universe in your modeling much as the guys in 1200AD were. What's the difference between your stuff and their stuff way back other than what TVF notes in another thread?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Can't necessarily speak for the dudes or dudets of 1200 AD, but my model seeks to explain your thoughts. No model can be complete without this explaination. I submit that all thoughts have geometric form, and all these concepts vary depending on the shape of those geometric forms. The form of a cat is different than the form of a dog. The form of red is different from the form green.
_____________________________________________________________________

how is colour a form? describe colours FUNDAMENTAL(geometric) form.

---

Pain and pleasure are two different forms. Once again - The difference is noted by the shape of the geometric form.
_____________________________________________________________________
Commonality of form - All geometric forms are common to one (existence), and nothing (Non-Existence).

---

really!! show in more depth their commonality.

_____________________________________________________________________


Thier composition is the same ..... one nothing. This goes to say that one is the Existence of nothing, while nothing is the Non-Existence of one. This is a perfect symbiotic relationship that cannot be undone by any means whatsoever.

---

define existence and then define non-existence.

_____________________________________________________________________

All forms may share the same form - I.E A cat with a mouse in it's mouth. This is two forms sharing a single concept. The expression of the thought is the shape of the form. A cat with a mouse in it's mouth is one shape, one thought, one form.

I could go on, but needless to say the difference from other models is quite stark. Most will take a physical train to explaining thier Existence, while mine is a purely conceptual enterprise that explains that you are {The Reality Of Non-Existence}

In our universe - there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

---

then what is the essence of concept,other than life? or if no life,where does "concept" come from?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">define existence and then define non-existence.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You obviously have a different idea for the word primary in this particular sense. Surely one will be sufficient.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes, one to start.

What I mean is that I see just these things with which to make the universe in 3-D ...

Identity ... in geometry this could be represented by a point or as a spherical field with a point center. (And probably a layout grid to cover placement problems when dealing with infinities)

Motion relative to other such units ...
Toward-Away or Laterally

Intrinsic changes ...
Expand-contract or rotate.

I see nothing else in existence that is "irreducible" (given three dimensions). Mass or energy for instance is not an irreducible primary. If you said it was ... it would have to be by fiat since it must have a geometric basis or you're just identifying rather than explaining. I would have to be really, really stumped for an explanation to allow "mass" into my model as an irreducible element.

Some or all the above ingredients that I think must be used to construct the universe must exist in anyone else's model as well (if they propose a 3-D model). But I don't know of any other "required commonalities". Hence, I refer to them as "irreducible" for want of a better term. Maybe I should just say "primaries" ;o)

In Tom's model, there is no intrinsic "Expand-Contract" parameter or "Rotation" in the sense of irreducible. There is only "Identity" as a point ... and Motion (toward-away, laterally) because he has no fields which require expand-contract, rotate as irreducible. And he has the "quasi-collision" parameter to facilitate interactions between MIs.

I do not think he has sufficient elements to build the universe. He will necessarily strain to obtain charge from point movements whereas a field element allows one to use "expand-contract" to cover that aspect.

---

PS. There are also a few "logical elements" that are rules of action and which constrain "form". But there are only a few I know of. Something like the laws of thermodynamics. These aren't forms but are rules about what forms can do or be. I don't think Tom's model has such elements beyond "3-D common sense" ... so his model will also break (at the parity concept if nowhere else).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Yes, one to start.

What I mean is that I see just these things with which to make the universe in 3-D ...

Identity ... in geometry this could be represented by a point or as a spherical field with a point center. (And probably a layout grid to cover placement problems when dealing with infinities)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Points in geometry are like a dollar for a two dollar whore. They are just used to get to the meat of the matter. Points really have nothing to do with 3D, but I get your point.

Identity to me is form in 3D (a real looker), or is that hooker?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">a spherical field with a point center?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I'm having a hard time picturing this. Does this field have form?
The layout grid I could accept providing it is infinitely partitioned, thereby reduced to nothing at all, and hence ... playing a passive role.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Mass or energy for instance is not an irreducible primary.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> I was under the impression that mass was irreducible by your account. What then is fundamental in your model?