Systemic Integrity of Four-ness

Author: ebuc

Posts

Total: 11
Topic's author
#1
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
I could start with more cosmic considerations, however, more people will be able to relate these chromosomes and brain.

Woman >{ X x - X y } < Man.....Systemic integrity as four-ness: ..." Each brain hemisphere (parts of the cerebrum) has four sections, called lobes: frontal, parietal, temporal and occipital. Each lobe controls specific functions."....

Bilateral fourness .....> > > >|< < < <........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now the most wholistically cosmic.  The 4-fold cubo-octahedron aka Vector Equilibrium Fuller believed was the closet we would ever get to knowing God ---as perfect balance/equilibrium--- and that specifically was the 24 chords of the VE balanced to its 24 radii, when constructed from four hexagonal planes of paper etc. See graphic B in link.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The other place the VE is cosmic is its relationship to the minimal, 3D volumetric polyhedron of Universe, the tetrahedron, in that, the aforementioned four hexagonal planes in 60 degree orientation are congruent with the four surface openings/planes of the tetrahedron.  See this link to graphic of what calls the process of tetrahedron going to zero volume.  I can give link to detailed explanation in Synergetics upon request.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This next part is how is some of the info on how I derived the Quantum Space-time Torus/Tori

0............................6................................12......................................18.etc
....1..................5p.......7p.................11p........13p....................17p.........etc.
.........2p........4...................8......10........................14...........16................etc
...............3p...........................9....................................15........................etc

If I can recall them in even more complex inside-outed pattern there even more lucky for me ex

......1.......................5p......7p......................11p...........13p.............................17p....
-
-
0...................................6.....................................12..................................................18
..................3p................................9................................................15...................
-
-
............2p..........4.......................8........10.................................14...........16...........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here is some explanation for this 2D lattice pattern above.

The 18 nodal event  --153 lines-of-relationship { 18^2 - 18, divided by 2 } --- Quantum Space-time Torus has four, overlapping, nucleated hexagons.  The reason for significance of 18 nodal events, is that, if the gravition-darkEon { minimal quantum of Universe }  is composed of 14 nodal events { 91 lines-of-relationship }, then,

we see that when derived from the 2D, four horizontal lines lattice, that, each curve around to meet themselves --as four circles in same plane (  ((  o  ))  ) -----, then top line peak of internal sine-wave, the 18 and initial zero { 0 } are the the two outer most end points, ergo the first place of connection as one nodal point { 18/0 }, that,

is the first initial Quantum Space-time Torus  --3D geodesics imagined as I have not the graphic ability---   that is inclusive of the quantum of the graviton-darkEon quanta { 10^ -36 }.  It is for this reason, that I do not believe the graviton-darkEon { minimal space and time } can never be isolated out winnowed out in of itself.

Lee Smolin ---Loop Quantum Theory fame---  states that it would take an particle accelerator the size of our solar system to harness enough power to pop-out a graviton from space and time. at those tiny ultra-micro scales of existence. Ten to the negative thirty six { 10^ -36 }


#2
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Is four better than three?

I kinda like four more.

I am just not sure if in debates, should I use bunch of arguments, or only four main arguments.

Eh, sometimes I use just one.

Debating is hard, and unless you sit down and write a bunch of arguments and examples, it is better to use just one argument if you are debating for fun.

When I have like 5 to 10 active debates, I really prefer using just 1 main argument, or a short list of arguments. I cant really be writing 30,000 characters for 5 rounds, because that takes a really long time and debating becomes nothing more but who brings up more points in those 30,000 characters.

But anyway, back to you.

You use a lot of words that are uncommon. I have to say I need a constant look at dictionary to understand what you are saying, and I am not even exaggerating it.

I guess there is that moment when person learns so much new words that others no longer understand him.

Well, you are at that point. Not sure if good or bad.
#3
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
Odd or even.


Though I suppose that 1 becomes 2 becomes 4 etc.

Things don't begin at 1.5.

Though 3 becomes 6 etc.

So evenness always prevails in an expansive system.


In a contracting system, 1 - .5 - .25 - .175 etc.

Or 10 - 5 - 2.5 -1.75 etc

Are these fractional parts odd or even?


Of course this only represents 2 dimensional activity.

3 dimensions is a different kettle of fish.

Though if a 3D system expands in all directions we initially arrive at seven-ness.

Or oneness I suppose

Nonetheless, can we ever achieve zero-ness?


Random thoughts on a wet Tuesday morning.

Inspired by EbuccubE.
Topic's author
#4
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Nonetheless, can we ever achieve zero-ness?
Yes, through mathematics, i.e. access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts.

 Humans have access to this Meta-space to higher degree that all other animals. Animals have access to complex consciousness, however, humans have a synergetically complex resultant, via, their access to complex consciousness, that,  makes their generalization abilities unique among  animals.

..."Whole Numbers
....The set of whole numbers is identical to the set of natural numbers, with the exception that it includes a 0 as an extra number......

...It’s important to note that 0 (Zero) isn’t a Natural Number. The set of whole numbers is {0, 1, 2, 3, … ∞} and the set of natural numbers or counting numbers is {1, 2, 3, … ∞}. Therefore, it is clear that 0 is not a counting number but is a whole number. very counting starts with the number 1 and not 0 and hence, 0 shall not be included in the counting numbers. "....

Arabic numeral system may have came to use zero because of the abacus.  Ex when using an abacus, once the first column of shells/beads is full the,, the beads are slid back to bottom --ergo non-counting, and 2nd column of shells/beads are begun counting.

Some of the oldest abacus's every discovered have 13 columns. That is trillions.

So zero etymology is ...' naught, zephir { Medieval Latin zephirum }, Arabic sifr "cipher," translation of Sanskrit sunya-m "empty place, '....

Zed, this vid makes clear, that,  if you want to understand powering  of numbers --ex 10^ -36---  then we run into some controversy of definition regarding powering of the  of zero { 0 }. Watch this relatively short vid by Kahn Institute, to see that even mathematicians are of two minds about power of zero

So Zed, if you watch this vid, then please share of which mathematical mind do you chose to define the power of zero.

0^ 0 = zero to power of zero.

Topic's author
#5
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
Human unique-ness. Ive given this example many times.

Only humans have the unique ability to conceptulize their self ---ego/i { identity }--- as God.  Ex, a human can conceptualize a finite occupied space Universe, and conceptually place themself outside of that Universe, as if God, looking back in on the finite Universe, as if holding the whole Universe in their hands.

Conceptualizing is also called imagination. Take a straight line ------------------- or as ______________, and imagined it curve around to meet itself, as if a circle. O

..." Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." ...Einstein { ? }

...' my education has been one of the biggest impediments to my learning... '  ?

... ' The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education. '....Albert Einstein

Four corners of Earth stems from Biblical saying that involved a flat plane Earth.
Topic's author
#6
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4

440.12 ..." The sense-coordinating brain of each and every human ,like sound or light, has a limit speed of apprehending. There is no instant cerebral cognition. These apprehension lags automatically impose off-center human cognition, which occasions the sense of time in a timeless eternity. The sense of time occasions the conception of life and serial experience. The inherently invisible vector equilibrium self-starters life and ever regenerates life. "...

#7
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
Yep for sure, we can conceptualise zero.

And therefore intellectually regard zero as a finite number.

But aren't fractions of 1,  just concepts that represent infinitely smaller quantities of 1.

I'm not sure that one can ever conceptualise the point at which 1 becomes 0.....Or 0 becomes 1.

Or should we just intellectually regard this as a universally creative law.
Topic's author
#8
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Yep for sure, we can conceptualise zero.
And therefore intellectually regard zero as a finite number.
I duno about finite number because there may exist agreement of definition there, as was the case in the vid I posted whether  0 ^0 powering is zero or one. And Kahn institute did not offer a conclusion either way.

Consider this Zed. Romans used roman numerials, that were great for counting sheep, and no good for any higher mathematics. So here we find great example of non-counting number 0 vs counting 1 sheep.   Sheep hearder is out of business if they have no sheep.

If they have sheep, then their in business and count their sheep accordingly. The only way they would need a zero was if they needed to send business sheet accounting to their account and then they would need a zero to for the specialized { narrow minded } math using accountant to grasp the idea of no sheep via a numerical 0. 

..." The number zero did not originally have its own Roman numeral, but the word nulla (the Latin word meaning "none") was used by medieval scholars to represent 0. Dionysius Exiguus was known to use nulla alongside Roman numerals in 525. "...

We have occupied space can count as one catagory, and we have truly non-occupied space we can count as another catagory ergo two primary catagories of generalised concept of Space.  A third primary catagory is Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts. Ergo my Cosmic Trinary Set/Outline book { yet to be formalized or published }.

But aren't fractions of 1,  just concepts that represent infinitely smaller quantities of 1.
Only if you add in the concept of eternally { eternal time/occupied space }  writing out a set of fractions on paper, Earth, moon or wherever.  Good luck with reaching eternity in your lifetime. :--) Buzz Light Years motto makes has no logical common sense critical thinking ..to infinity { space } and beyond....and that complements eternal time.  Occupied space and time eternally complement each other..  a 1:1 ratio.

I'm not sure that one can ever conceptualise the point at which 1 becomes 0.....Or 0 becomes 1.

Or should we just intellectually regard this as a universally creative law.
Cosmically physical laws are concepts that involve physics of what is observed. Ex 1st of thermodynamics first agreed upon in late 1800's because of observations. .....naught is created nor destroyed only transformed... ergo eternally existent occupied space.

This above laws and principles is subtle and overlapping, differrence of how i define them.

Cosmic principles --includes geometric patterns } are differrent in that that are more indirectly derived from what is observed or is possible via geometry.  Ex there can only exist five regular/symmetrical and convex polyhedra of Unvierse.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...' Cosmological Principle:

...Observations to date support the idea that the Universe is both isotropicand homogeneous. Both facts are linked to what is called the cosmologicalprinciple.

....The cosmological principle derives from the Copernican Principle buthas no foundation in any particular physical model or theory, i.e. it cannot be `proved' in a mathematical sense. However, it has been supported bynumerous observations of our Universe and has great weight from purelyempirical grounds. '......

Topic's author
#9
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
Oh yeah, I just remmebered the four primary kinds { catagories } of Spirit.

Spirit-1 Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts ego/i ( * i * ) ---meta is greek for beyond---

---conceptual line-of-demarcation----

Spirit-2 physical reality aka observed { quantised } time aka energy ergo fermionic matter and bosonic forces, all associated with sine-wave pattern / \ / \ / or as ^v^v^v

Spirit-3 { non-quantised } Gravitational { meta-physical } space  (   ) as positive geodesic (  )  curvature (  ), of Quantum Space-time Tori

Spirit-4  { non-quantised } Dark Energy { meta-physical } space  )( as negative gedoesic )( curvature )( of Quantum Space-time Tori

None ever have and none ever will find logical, common sense critical thinking invalidation of these four catagories.
#10
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
It did occur to me though, that we apply physical laws to physical properties.

So we can only apply said laws to physical matter.

Therefore "nulla" will not necessarily be subject to physical laws.

Sort of another aspect of a GOD analogy I suppose, whereby something is outside of the physical realm.

Something being nothing in this case, rather than a magical bloke.

Because magical blokes would inevitably be subject to the laws of physics.


So GOD was nothing but something became of nothing.

Mathematically 0 to 1.

Or 1 to 0 the point at which maths and physics becomes finite, and the point at which physical laws become irrelevant. 
Topic's author
#11
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
It did occur to me though, that we apply physical laws to physical properties.

Yeah, that seems correct. At least that is what we observe with physical reality fermions and bosons. Biologic life { syntropy } is temporary divergence from  2nd law of entropy.

So we can only apply said laws to physical matter.
I remind you again,

1} the partilces ofFermionic matter and,

2} the particles of bosonic forces ex the photon,, the weak force { W+, W - and Zo  1983 }, strong nuclear force { mesons 1947  }  and strong sub-nuclear force { gluons 1979  }  all quantised observed

Therefore "nulla" will not necessarily be subject to physical laws.
Nulla = zero ziphras > cipher etc or nothing in mathematics, and is not a physical fermion or boson. It is mathematical accounting.

zero = no fermons and no bosons detected. 

Sort of another aspect of a GOD analogy I suppose, whereby something is outside of the physical realm.
Without your inability to clearl define, with logical common sense critical thinking what this God analogy is specifically,  there can be no disscussion.

Something being nothing in this case, rather than a magical bloke.
Fermionic matter and bosoic forces have been directly observed aka qauntised.

Non-quantised Gravity { mass-attraction/contraction of space  } is pressumed to exist as is non-quantised Dark Energy { space expansion }via indirect evidence.
Define something as clearly have for many years.

Because magical blokes would inevitably be subject to the laws of physics.
What  appears as magic is humans unique ability to generalise concepts ex a human conceptualizes a finite Universe, and conceptually places them outside of finite Universe, as if they are this conceptually finite  God, looking back in  on Universe and holding the whole Universe in their conceptual hands. 

So GOD was nothing but something became of nothing.
There exists no occupied space creator God.  At best we can equate God to finite, occupied space Universe. My mother rasied me to believe God was everything and by thing I translate that nowdays to occupied space.

Mathematically 0 to 1.
Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego/i ...( * i * )....

Or 1 to 0 the point at which maths and physics becomes finite, and the point at which physical laws become irrelevant. 

Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego/i  are beyond/meta, the finite occupied space Univerese, and beyond truly macro-infinite non-occupied space.

With abacus, the column for zeros still have their beads there, Naught is lost or created only transformed or in case of abacus, changed/relocated to another position.

If you want to play Meta-space mind/intellect/conceptual mind games with 0 and 1 representing this that or none of this or that,  then Ive made clear over the years the logical common sense critical thinking pathway to do that on the most cosmic scale.  Lets see if it falls on deaf ears once agin.

Space:

1}  and here we will use math symbol  ....0..... instead of my typical way of using word ....space...... as the macro-infinite and truly non-occupied space, that, embraces/surrounds the following,

2} and here I will use the math symbol ...1....  instead of my typical .....@.... to represent our finite, occupied space Universe.

Yes, simple >>     .......0...........1...........0..............   << Simple to grasp, yes? No?

Yes simple >>  [email protected]........... <<Simple, yes? No?

Ive presented this many times and my guess is, that  most 10 year olds can grasp this simlpicity with a minimal amount of explanation of the terms. Yet, Ive yet to find any person on on the internet who acknowledges obvious logical common sense critical thinking, except for they may put a thumbs raised symbol.

Maybe once replied makes sense. I think their Meta-space ego/i is the biggest issue with most humans, when it comes to logical common sense critical thinking, and this is most likely to their precondition ideas of existence.

Read the table of contents below for my proposed Cosmic Trinary Set/Outline

 01} Eternally existent, Spirit-1, Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego/i

---------------conceptual line-of.demarcation----------------

02} Eternally existent, macro-infinite and truly non-occupied space,

03}  Eternally existent, Spirit-2, 3 and 4, , finite, occupied space Universe { @ }

........Spirit-2 is fermionic matter and bosonic forces,

...........Spirit-3 is  Gravity (   ) ---positve geodesic curvature in Quantum Space-time Torus/Tori

...........Spirit-4 is Dark Energy )(  ----i.e. negative geodesic curvature in Quantum Space-time Torus/tori-----   .......(> * <) i  (> * <).......

> < = invaginations for outer and inner surface of nodal events that resultin physical reality aka energy aka observed { quantised } time

* * = bilateral biological resultant of physical realtiy with woman being most complex resultant

i = access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts --note, the ego/i is outside of so as to represent beyond/Meta the Quantum Space-time Torus/Tori

(  ) = Gravity  graviton/darkEon are two sides of the same coin and is specific to outer 5 nodal events

)( = Dark Energy graviton-darkEon are two sides of the same torus and is specific to inner 4 nodal events

note:  sine-wave pattern of nodal events /\/\  inside the tube and also define the graviton-darkEon with their 5 nodal events.

The existence of the graviton-darkEon as 14 nodal events becomes complicated, as it will never be isolated out from a Quantum Space-time Torus composed of 18 nodal events. Or so I speculate