Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

panta rhei · Oct 20, 2004, 08:33 pm

Greetings. I'm posting the following link to another board to save a buncha' space on this one.
The discussion involves my theoretical method of numerical-equivalence containment (which I feel can be applied to variations of Set Theory).
As the discussion evolved,so too did my realization that my theory is really more about all real numbers.
Without further ado...
http://www.apologetics.com/ubb/ultimatebb....4/t/000231.html

rcne · Oct 21, 2004, 09:14 am

0=(0)={(0})=[{(0)}]=()={()}=[{()}]. I see your point but, isn't that just stating equivalence?

Your ordering of the set theory is just n-1 isn't It?

Well maybe I'm off an a tangent, but I don't see the newness of it.

Technosoul · Oct 22, 2004, 01:34 pm

The interesting thing I can add about this is this observation.

(1) We have the "law of relativity" which would suggest that 1 is 1 relative to the fact that of 0. One is such because otherwise you have nothing at all. And also one is relative to the potential of two. Because two is two relative to the fact you all ready have one instead of nothing.

Now if you have "o" as the orgin of "everything" then what could contain it? It would seem that nothingness would be unending and infinate. (hope I am spelling okay for you wiz kids?)

That container would be some sort of a "mind". Somehow thoughts would occur out of nothing and they would formulate in a circular pattern around their still "0" center. However the thoughts would be number one relative to the inner void.

Now - if you follow me on this - outside the case of consciousness you could have "space" (aka nothingness) with seems unlimited. That space however provides individualism for density objects - for if you had total density you could not see things as things. Solid everythingness would be total blindness of all perception (like holding our hands in front of our eyes such that we leave no space between the seer and the seen.

Thus, 0 becomes known as 0 after it is contained (by the One) -
So if consciousness became the 1 and first creative thought then it could say "I am that I am" because it has only 0 (zero) to use as a comparitive for being 1.

However the theory might be backwards, because the case for somehthing is always nothing as represented by the space around it. The container is thus 0 which contains something that would contain also an inner 0. If you follow that perception or theory? Such as in the wheel theory where motion spins around a center of relative stillness. You got 0 at the center of the wheel of motion and also beyond the outer rim of the wheel as a "surrounding nothingness".

Make any sense to you?

Technosoul.

Oct 20, 2004, 08:33 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
panta rhei perpetuator Location: Somerset, Ohio Posts: 8	Greetings. I'm posting the following link to another board to save a buncha' space on this one. The discussion involves my theoretical method of numerical-equivalence containment (which I feel can be applied to variations of Set Theory). As the discussion evolved,so too did my realization that my theory is really more about all real numbers. Without further ado... http://www.apologetics.com/ubb/ultimatebb....4/t/000231.html *meden agan*

Oct 21, 2004, 09:14 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
rcne Moderator/nobody Posts: 1,566	0=(0)={(0})=[{(0)}]=()={()}=[{()}]. I see your point but, isn't that just stating equivalence? Your ordering of the set theory is just n-1 isn't It? Well maybe I'm off an a tangent, but I don't see the newness of it. Live Long and Prosper (Genetics and Capitalism)

Oct 22, 2004, 01:34 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	The interesting thing I can add about this is this observation. (1) We have the "law of relativity" which would suggest that 1 is 1 relative to the fact that of 0. One is such because otherwise you have nothing at all. And also one is relative to the potential of two. Because two is two relative to the fact you all ready have one instead of nothing. Now if you have "o" as the orgin of "everything" then what could contain it? It would seem that nothingness would be unending and infinate. (hope I am spelling okay for you wiz kids?) That container would be some sort of a "mind". Somehow thoughts would occur out of nothing and they would formulate in a circular pattern around their still "0" center. However the thoughts would be number one relative to the inner void. Now - if you follow me on this - outside the case of consciousness you could have "space" (aka nothingness) with seems unlimited. That space however provides individualism for density objects - for if you had total density you could not see things as things. Solid everythingness would be total blindness of all perception (like holding our hands in front of our eyes such that we leave no space between the seer and the seen. Thus, 0 becomes known as 0 after it is contained (by the One) - So if consciousness became the 1 and first creative thought then it could say "I am that I am" because it has only 0 (zero) to use as a comparitive for being 1. However the theory might be backwards, because the case for somehthing is always nothing as represented by the space around it. The container is thus 0 which contains something that would contain also an inner 0. If you follow that perception or theory? Such as in the wheel theory where motion spins around a center of relative stillness. You got 0 at the center of the wheel of motion and also beyond the outer rim of the wheel as a "surrounding nothingness". Make any sense to you? Technosoul.