What is the most fundamental?

[Willamena]

What is the most fundamental aspect of existence, if not a central god or system of gods?

Truth.

I believe it's the relationships required for forming information. Whatever those relationships are... is what I believe is the most fundamental aspect of existence.

Whatever those relationships are, if they're true, then truth wins.

 

[Bobbyh]

Well sure in that sense asymmetry is fundamental. Now what?

Well, to appreciate this notion (before we get to the juice of origins and objectivity) it might be beneficial to glance at the scope of its implications. (this might get wordy, I'm sorry)

Forget about asymmetry for a bit. I theorize that there's a fundamental aspect of reality. Before I am aware of any notion of asymmetry I begin my search in something of nature. Evolution to start.

What is Evolution? Two things form a new thing. That's pretty much it. (Obviously there's more involved, but at the core...)

Evolution is not limited to Biology alone, all information evolves from relationships. The new information, the new baby, the new species, the new technology, it all is constantly "evolving" from predecessors.

Okay so Evolution of life or (more familiar) animals kinda fits this paradigm, and the definition could go for just information in general as well. But what about actual details within biological evolution?

We have cells and inside them DNA. DNA is replicated and new cells are built from the combined information or relationships of the parent cell. This is an expression of relationships forming new information.

DNA is comprised of chains of molecules. Together they form new information. Molecules are formed of atoms, etc etc. Not exactly ground breaking but illustrating the consistency of relationships forming new information.

So lets look at Evolution from a different angle, because every angle of everything should express the same notion very clearly.

So far we've looked at a temporal perspective, or a "time"centered relationship, like how things change over time. But there's also a spatial relationship of how things are arranged in space (we really shouldn't separate the two, but...)

Space itself has been measured (or so I've read) as having a specific viscosity and frequency at which it vibrates. It's measured in quaternions in the Wave Theory of Matter.

I don't wanna get to deep into it, you can look up these things, but a quaternion is a rotational coordinate that can express 90 degree transitions over time forming 180 transitions that equate to a frequency or cycle of spatial relation.

The key is that fundamental space as we know it is interpreted in 180 degree transitions. A "180 degrees" is metaphorically equal to inversion. It's an inverse of the original vector or facing direction.

Inversion was the first thing we discussed with the words like Uncertain or Impermanence. Can you see how the concept of 180 degrees (or fundamental space) is the same expression as what we've claimed to be fundamental?

There's more... but this is a lot to digest I think. So I'll break for any questions or comments so far.

 

[Bobbyh]

...continuing.

We briefly glanced at aspects of life transforming, and how we can measure space.

What about configurations of space? In the same manner of relationships forming new information, spatial occupancy is grown into. Observing the golden ratio or fractals can speak a lot to this pattern of organizing structures by following suit and expressing the same metaphor of "asymmetry and expansion", or "relationships and forming new information".

Lets talk about fractals for a second. A fractal is a self similarity. It's a repetition of self. The branching and replication of rivers, canals, trees, tissue, rock formation, galactic formation, dark matter(unexplained gravity) etc... is structured fractals. In fact the number system itself is a fractal of self similar repeating variables.

So everything of material is expressing this notion in structure. But what about something that's real and not physical (or not physical seeming), like minds and our consciousnesses.

Our very own egos and centers of self... function by, and express the same thing.

To acknowledge what is around us we receive input first. We reflect on this input (tons of input), and we then output our reactions onto the world surrounding us.

Its a feedback loop. It's recursion. It's an expression of "recursive-inverse-deduction". (I made up the term but the words have meaning)

We can interpret and define "Asymmetry", as "Recursive-Inverse-Deduction" to gain a deeper understanding of the expression. We can come to this legitimately by acknowledging the consistency of the theory so far.

Recursive means to repeatedly express self similarity. Inverse means to express an opposite. Deduction means to express an increase in accuracy, or removal of inequalities, or to find a more general commonality, like a middle ground between recursion and inversion.

So I theorize that "Fragility and Uncertainty", "Asymmetry", "Impermanence", "Experience", or "the Stuff" can be interpreted as expressions of three elements working together to form a single pseudo fundamental aspect. 1 Recursion, 2 Inversion, and 3 Deduction.

Through this lens, I believe an objective origin of existence can be reasoned, tested, and proven.

I'll continue in a bit...

 

[Bobbyh]

continuing... (also there's a lot I'm thinking but not writing cause it's just too much text, so I'm sorry if I skip thoughts or my if words/sentences don't align well)

We could continue to analyze any observation and correlate the same expression at the centers of each and every thing, or at least it seems to be the case.

So what is it? Why is this behavior or expression fundamental? We've gone over how its fundamental to forming information and how relationships themselves are information and it goes on forever... it seems.

So lets stop thinking about real things or observable things. Just for humoring me at the least, consider if, "everything came from nothing". This asks for all sorts of misconceptions to be formed, but what if this...

Nothingness as it can best be visualized is in itself a "para-consistent" concept. We can't refer to "Nothing" as having any identity. So lets not. Let's define it as, "Objectivity". And let's reason why.

Objectivity is Certainty, and Permanence. It is the truly the only "non-Subjective" expression in existence.

For fun though, let's analyze the concept of nothingness to interpret it deeper.

Imagine there isn't "anything". Just imagine as best as you can. Nothing (we're treating like a thing to discuss it), nothing has no comparable relationships. There is NO "thing" to compare differences with for forming new information.

Except TWO things. What it is, and what it isn't. "Nothing" Deduces information by Recursively-Inverting.

If we would have had more "faith" in simple math, rather than our egotistical assumptions we maybe would have realized this easier. After all, when we divide by zero, it appears that we get infinity.

What this implies is that...

...We are of nothing at the center. Each and every thing is of nothing technically, or objectivity. But that notion is infinitely complex (not to be confused with "not comprehensible") and "nothing" is the pole at which we begin and end. This "pole" is within a truly infinite space and time and beyond, where boundaries are only a matter of "adjacency" in relation to each subjective "centrality". And not just centrality of you or me or space or time, but of any and all perspectives of information and relationships.

How cool is that? We can totally understand what existence is. Every thing is unique and of infinite potential, all thanks to the comprehension of nothing.

I'm done. ;p

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But this is only true superficially and not an actual property of the two halves. It's impossible for any two things to be the same thing.

Objects can be identical but separate. I'm still not getting your basic point.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Good mornin Spiny.

Good morning mud!

 

[Bunyip]

Well sure. According to cosmologists the total energy of the universe is zero. We and all existence are differentiations between states that equal to nothing.

 

[Bobbyh]

Objects can be identical but separate. I'm still not getting your basic point.

The point of that statement is to describe a boundary of reality. Exact duplication of information is fiction. Every single perspective is of it's own perspective.

I tried to express illegitimacy of duplication existing. It doesn't exist. It's a linguistic misinterpretation. Only replication can exist. If two entities were to have the exact same properties, they would essentially be the same one thing, rather than two separate things. And even if there's infinite "duplications" of a thing, there's no coherence of relationship, no differences to deduce, and no information will form of it.

 

[Bobbyh]

Well sure. According to cosmologists the total energy of the universe is zero. We and all existence are differentiations between states that equal to nothing.

I'm trying to spread this reasoning, it seems legit and a potential sign of humanity awakening a bit more. But I also have to play video games and go to bed.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's a linguistic misinterpretation.

So we define existence by the way we label it?

Could you say in a nutshell what your thesis is? Clearly and simply?

 

[Bunyip]

The point of that statement is to describe a boundary of reality. Exact duplication of information is fiction. Every single perspective is of it's own perspective.

I tried to express illegitimacy of duplication existing. It doesn't exist. It's a linguistic misinterpretation. Only replication can exist. If two entities were to have the exact same properties, they would essentially be the same one thing, rather than two separate things. And even if there's infinite "duplications" of a thing, there's no coherence of relationship, no differences to deduce, and no information will form of it.

No, that doesn't work - you could make a 1:1 scale model of the Death Star from identical lego blocks. The amount of information possible by simply duplicating and structuring the sake element would be infinite.

 

[Bobbyh]

So we define existence by the way we label it?

Could you say in a nutshell what your thesis is? Clearly and simply?

I can try...

We, existences' entirety, are and is a single infinite expression of repeatedly inverted relativity, which originated from nothingness.

 

[Bobbyh]

No, that doesn't work - you could make a 1:1 scale model of the Death Star from identical lego blocks. The amount of information possible by simply duplicating and structuring the sake element would be infinite.

I'm not following.

If you make a scale model, its still not the original, they are different things. But each and every thing is of infinite information, yes, as there are infinite relationships to be subject to.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm not following.

If you make a scale model, its still not the original, they are different things. But each and every thing is of infinite information, yes, as there are infinite relationships to be subject to.

Well yes a scale model and the original are different things - it was an analogy Bob.

 

[Bobbyh]

Well yes a scale model and the original are different things - it was an analogy Bob.

I guess I misunderstand the point though sorry lol.

I think we are discussing what it means if I describe the impossibility of duplication, and that to interpret that concept more accurately we need to understand that replication is the only thing that can occur.

That there's a subtle difference in two meanings of duplication and replication. A copy of something is still a copy not the original, you can't remake the original because its presence in time. Where if I "cloned" something it would exist in a different space and time coordinate than whatever information Im attempting to clone, and they would always be separate things. So duplication is misleading, replication is more accurate.

Anyways I don't think this sub-topic changes anything about the overall assessment, its just more clarification of things that could probably be clarified forever depending on how deep into it we want to go.

I just hope that this is all generally comprehensible for people.

 

[Bobbyh]

So we define existence by the way we label it?

Could you say in a nutshell what your thesis is? Clearly and simply?

Also.. mathematically for like an "E=mc2" equation we could say a few different things maybe...

(f)|0|= [0=0║0≠0]

or...

|0| = ±∞

We could illustrate it maybe as something like this image below... but this is just my interpretation, I don't know formally what would make the most sense, I'm just a regular guy not a formal scholar.
But what we'd really need is something that incorporates relativity and stuff as well, not just a description of the dynamic of infinite information. We'd need to formulate the link to how this concept gets us to here and now from nothing exactly. And exactly where and when we are in an infinite sea of nothingness, is maybe above my computational skill set. But I think it could be done with effort.