Jump to content

# UNIVERSAL THEORY

## Recommended Posts

Quite a lot of nonsensical word salad.

• Replies 121
• Created
• Last Reply

#### Popular Days

Universal T - If I were choosing examples I'd start with subject and object. Then there's good and evil, mind and matter, eternalism and presentism, res extensa and res cogitians, Something and Nothing and so forth.

Iow, I'd start somewhere prior to physics, then develop the idea to the point where it's possibel to make some predictions for physics. Without any predictions to test no physicist is going to be interested.

It seems to me that one prediction of your idea is that there is a state prior to the Something-Nothing duality. This would mean that a metaphysical theory ommitting this prior state cannot be completed. And lo and behold, this is the case, and it is even well known that it is the case. The intractability of the probem of consciousness suggests that mind and matter must be 'sublated' in the same way, this beiong the one idea that 'western' philosophers of mind tend to avoid like the plague.

Getting from metaphyscis to physics, however, is not so easy. You could argue that such a theory predicts that the world did not begin with Something or Nothing. As some physicists do dabble in metaphysics and are trying to show that the world does originate with one or the other, then the prediction of the theory is that they will fail. I suppose that's kinda getting close to a scientific prediction.

Anyway, although I don't agree with all your examples I do think you're on the right track to an important idea, one that would be necessary to any fundamental theory.

##### Share on other sites

a simple framework model of universal relativity and cordination curve

##### Share on other sites

@ Universal Theory - Thank you for your response to my post, in your post #25. I ask your indulgence while I respond in the Scottish vernacular. Och mon, yer haverin.

##### Share on other sites

Universal T - If I were choosing examples I'd start with subject and object. Then there's good and evil, mind and matter, eternalism and presentism, res extensa and res cogitians, Something and Nothing and so forth.

Iow, I'd start somewhere prior to physics, then develop the idea to the point where it's possibel to make some predictions for physics. Without any predictions to test no physicist is going to be interested.

It seems to me that one prediction of your idea is that there is a state prior to the Something-Nothing duality. This would mean that a metaphysical theory ommitting this prior state cannot be completed. And lo and behold, this is the case, and it is even well known that it is the case. The intractability of the probem of consciousness suggests that mind and matter must be 'sublated' in the same way, this beiong the one idea that 'western' philosophers of mind tend to avoid like the plague.

Getting from metaphyscis to physics, however, is not so easy. You could argue that such a theory predicts that the world did not begin with Something or Nothing. As some physicists do dabble in metaphysics and are trying to show that the world does originate with one or the other, then the prediction of the theory is that they will fail. I suppose that's kinda getting close to a scientific prediction.

Anyway, although I don't agree with all your examples I do think you're on the right track to an important idea, one that would be necessary to any fundamental theory.

thank you so much,dear for such a good push

##### Share on other sites

@ Universal Theory - Thank you for your response to my post, in your post #25. I ask your indulgence while I respond in the Scottish vernacular. Och mon, yer haverin.

i apologise for such a posting technical blunder.i was trying to post a chaotic framework curve that failed. but am working on the pdf. please am sorry

##### Share on other sites

Universal T - If I were choosing examples I'd start with subject and object. Then there's good and evil, mind and matter, eternalism and presentism, res extensa and res cogitians, Something and Nothing and so forth.

Iow, I'd start somewhere prior to physics, then develop the idea to the point where it's possibel to make some predictions for physics. Without any predictions to test no physicist is going to be interested.

It seems to me that one prediction of your idea is that there is a state prior to the Something-Nothing duality. This would mean that a metaphysical theory ommitting this prior state cannot be completed. And lo and behold, this is the case, and it is even well known that it is the case. The intractability of the probem of consciousness suggests that mind and matter must be 'sublated' in the same way, this beiong the one idea that 'western' philosophers of mind tend to avoid like the plague.

Getting from metaphyscis to physics, however, is not so easy. You could argue that such a theory predicts that the world did not begin with Something or Nothing. As some physicists do dabble in metaphysics and are trying to show that the world does originate with one or the other, then the prediction of the theory is that they will fail. I suppose that's kinda getting close to a scientific prediction.

Anyway, although I don't agree with all your examples I do think you're on the right track to an important idea, one that would be necessary to any fundamental theory.

UNIVERSAL THEORY OF EXISTENCE

Perhaps I should begin this discussion by first reflecting on the most popular ontological schools of the theory of existence as I came across them through my research. This necessitates that I make some comparisons and contrasts between them and univaso theory and perhaps confess a unique element of universal theory that make it a contender for the theory of everything.

Substance theory has almost been at the centre of ontological theorists that is conciderd in almost all the philosophical schools of existence. Though I can not defy the substance theory completely, I defy its application to some point of ontological consideration; the basic considerations being its relation ship between God, mind and objects and their significance to universal regulation.

I consider Descartes' meditations as a modern effort of explaining a given part of Muhammad's concept of opposite dimensionality to some considerable degree of reasoning but not theology or logic. In fact Descartes had done a good job of integrating theology into philosophy because by then, many people had been faced by a number of problems which could not be solved satisfactorily by theology alone with out reason - But Descartes' post modern era was to be based on logic.

To my understanding, I believe that the post modern requirement of logic in problem solving was the reason for phenomenologist like Edmund Husserl to disregard Descartes' four of the six meditation. To Edmund and his successors; reasoning with out decidability was insignificant in problem solving of the post modern era. Sure I agree with them to the degree of computer proof.

I disregard the monists completely – and I agree with dualists and pluralists to some reasonable degree – but I agree comprehensively with Muhammad's concept of opposite dimensionality due to his logical proof that is mathematically consistent. When applied to God as opposed to nature, this concept implies that God is limitless and dimensionless as opposed to nature which is limited and dimensional; and as such, God is not made up of any other substance but Him. Such that;

G (1/ (+.-(√G)) =G (infinity) = G

Where, G=God

"I know that my nature is weak and limited and that God's is limitless, incomprehensible, and infinite…" Descartes. "He is the beginning, and the end, and the visibility, and the invisibility, and up on everything he is the unlimited knower"57:3 Quran. There is no any other limit of beginning but HIM, there is not any other limit of end but HIM, there is not any other limit of knowledge but HIM, and there is not any other limitless but HIM. God is beyond all comprehension or equal to and does not resemble any of his creations in any way. "..He is God the only one, the self dependent and upon whom others depend, he begeteth not; nor was he begotten, and there is non like unto him"112 Quran.

When the concept of opposite dimensionality is applied to every thing, it implies that every thing is a function of both dual pair (symmetry) and twin pair (complementary) upon which their chaotic regulation is based. Such that; every thing is a reflection of a given potion of God's minds in a symmetrical group of dual pairs translated into a piece of real work called nature. And twin pair verses dual pair, it implies that every thing is all but just different aspects of the same thing divided into a hierarchy of complement pairs and symmetry pairs that is inversely proportional to their coordination and directly proportional to their relativity provided that God is not a thing. And among the pluralist, this is a logical proof of substance hierarchy. Such that;

1-(S/(1/(M.N(√N))=1

2-∂(S/ (1/ (M.N (√S)))) =1+or-1

Where; S=everything

m=faculty of God's minds responsible for nature

N=nature

REALITY VERSES FEASIBILITY

If I was to make brief definitions of existence to different classes of people, I would say that existence is the being/reality that is feasible and can persist with out this feasibility. To peter J, I would say that existence is a feasible reality/being, and to a mathematician I would say that existence =1, +or-1 or ∂ (1, 0).

In the beginning there was God. God made a piece of work. That work is an opposite group of isomorphic omniversal.

A thing is any work of feasible reality/being. GOD IS GOD…… God is not a thing because God is not a piece of work done or derived from any other form of existence that can be explained by human reason or mathematical logic. The whole nature is a system of chaotic things; that can only be attached to GOD as its creator, supreme regulator and sole determiner. And GOD can only prove this claim through the feasible testimonies that he confesses to testify and prove that he did this work and that indeed he is the one.

''And of everything have we created pairs…of opposite variability'' Quran 51:49…53:45.

"Something cannot come from nothing" Descartes. Although it is not my target to discuss nothingness verses somethingness here (as we shall be discussing it in detail through the topic of absolutism verses relativism), but I find it honest to recognize Descartes' effort in which he was trying to prove that the consciousness of GOD creates reality, and so something can not come out of nothing.

Consciousness is any type of work made by mind. This work comes in many forms, for example; imagining, observing, determining, sensing and detecting, recognizing, dreaming etc. the consciousness of God creates reality, and the consciousness of nature creates illusions. But when illusions intersect with reality they result into feasibity. Such that;

1- S/M.N (√S) =S=reality

2- S (M .N (√s)) =0= Illusions<br style="mso-special-character:line-break"> <br style="mso-special-character:line-break">

3-(A/(1/(R.L(√A))=1

4-∂ (A/ (1/ (R.L (√A)) =1, +or-1

Where; S=everything

m=faculty of God's minds responsible for nature

N=nature

A=feasibility

R=reality

L=illusions

OPPOSITE VARIABILITY AND THE CHAOTIC NATURE

Nature is a piece of work divided recursively and smoothly into conflicting pairs (opposite pair's variability) called duality and twinity. Duality is a function of symmetrical pair, while twinity is a function of complement pair. As a piece of work, this means that it was made/ created and the one who made it existed before it. He manipulates this work through miracles and predetermined natural laws that drive it towards a target destiny. Some of these laws are decidable while others are behavial. The decidable laws are aimed at controlling the chaotic physical regulation of this work (for example the universe) with in a mechanism that is inversely proportional to the coordination of its constituents and directly proportional to their relativity. And this is the foundation res extensa and res cogitan. "The cause of anything is dual in nature. Heraclitus the Greek philosopher taught that, the universe was a conflict of opposites controlled by what he called eternal justice and what we call karma. However when the pairs of opposites, the contradictory forces of nature are brought into reciprocal unity, equilibrium is established and unity prevails" sri upiano manglangit.

Such that;

The universe, over the inverse square of the universe bracket forces intersection energy, times the inverse square of universe bracket, forces intersection energy, intersection the inverse square of universe bracket forces intersection energy over universe equals one.

Or mathematically,

1)-((U/1)/((√U)F .E)((U ∩((√U)F .E) )(((√U)F .E)/U) ) )=1

2) -change((U/1)/((√U)F.E)((U ∩((√U)E.F) )(((√U)F .E)/U) ) )=1,+or-1

Where; U=universe

F=force

E=energy

While, the behavior laws are aimed at controlling the behavial responsiveness of the universe; so as it overcomes the challenges of its existence objectives and to control the chaos of different conflicting interests, challenges, threats and endowments of the constituents of this work. "This is the foundation of right and wrong, truth and false". Some thing is right if it helps us overcome the challenges we face to achieve our living objectives, otherwise it is wrong. The basic interest of all laws made whether natural, divine, constitutional, customary, traditional or international should be to serve the interest mentioned above. Otherwise, any law made; and it does not comply with the above mentioned fundamental objectives, it leads to imbalanced equity, injustice, and abnormal consciousness.

Such that;

Laws, over the inverse square of laws bracket challenges plus objectives, times the inverse square of laws bracket challenges plus objectives, intersection the inverse square of laws bracket challenges plus objectives over Laws equals one.

Or mathematically,

1)-((L/1)/((√L)C .O)((L ∩((√L)C .O) )(((√L)C .O)/L) ) )=1

2) -change((L/1)/((√L)C .O)((L ∩((√L)C .O) )(((√L)C .O)/L) ) )=1,+or-1

Where; L=Laws

C=challenges of life (chaotic challenges)

O=objectives of life (chaotic challenges)

Else; if the out put of this relativity and coordination is less or greater than one, then there is an abnormal universal relativity and coordination. And in cases of social science, this is abnormal social relativity and coordination.

Next: OPPOSITE VARIABILITY AND RES EXTENSA……….

##### Share on other sites

Universal - Because I have spent a lot of time on these issues I can see where you're coming from. But it is very unlikely that may people will. It all needs translating into a common language.

Believe it or not I can logically prove what Mohammed says about opposites. There are actually a few proofs. The most famous is the series of tetralemmas by which Nagarjuna reduces them all to absurdity in his Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way. There is an excellent book on this in English by Jay Garfield. Much simpler is 'The Sun of Wisdom' by Khempo Tsultrim Gymatso.

Buddhism's 'Middle Way' doctrine, and nondualism generally, states that the world is made out of contradictory and complementary pairs of conceptual opposites. If we interpret Mohammed as sharing this view then we get Sufism, whose exponents call themselves the 'true followers of Mohammed'.

Just shooting the breeze...

Edited by PeterJ
##### Share on other sites

I bet Einstein stole relativity from the Koran

##### Share on other sites

No you don't. Can we not be serious?

##### Share on other sites

True but do you see the point i'm trying to make?

##### Share on other sites

Hi Universal Theory

You say 'Allah says in the Qur'an that - ''and of everything have we created pairs…of opposite variability''.51:49…53:45'. These verses reveal the following facts about nature and everything in particular as explained below:'

These verses do not reveal anything. They make a claim that we can investigate and perhaps even verify, but they do not reveal the truth of it.

In general the way you present this idea does nothing to make any sense of it.

If you interpret the quotation to mean that the world is a unity for Islam, and that the Prophet endorsed a neutral metaphysical position, then I won't be arguing with you. But have some sympathy. Nobody is going to be able to make any sense of what you have said above.

Meh.

##### Share on other sites

dear peter. i hope this can make some good smile to phisics of today and tomorrow.tust have a look and have something to say.

UNIVERSAL THEORY2.pdf

##### Share on other sites

• 2 weeks later...

i regret some of the improper presentation that apeared in my previous work.iam realy sorry and i apologisefor that. this pdf contains some of the corrections of the previous work as well as the proof for the claims made .UNIVASO SCIENCE AND PversesNP PROOF.pdf

##### Share on other sites

• 2 weeks later...

I thank you and I thank all those who made to me some private linking about the new calculations of pendulum made by zeeper base on un disputable observational truth. I believe that the main purpose of this effort was to help out my mathematical calculations to demonstrate some sounding and testable predictions of natural deity based on physics but not just numerology. Let me just paraphrase one of the comments made, that; though there is un disputable evidence to prove that the calculations made provide a sounding predictions of P=NP for a token of research based on the singularity of symmetry breaking, but the way it was used to describe mass-energy equivalence contradicted with some of the fundamental concepts used to establish the evidence that claims the proof of P=NP.

After revising the contents from the links provided (about the true calculations of the pendulum) it washed out my ignorance about gravitational commutative parametrization up on which I was basing the dispute of E=MQ2 (as discussed in my previous papers about M=EX2 verses E=MQ2 and E=MC2) . I realized that there was un disputable proof of gravitation commutative parameterization as calculated by zeeper’s pendulum based on E=MQ2. With this commutation, the inverse square equilibrium framework of symmetry coordination and its reciprocal differentiation unity (regulation) as can be predicted by symmetry breaking entropy and singularity of univaso calculations is quite consistent with zeepers pendulum calculation proof. Observing this from the pendulum point of view was tricky and a bit hectic since the previous pendulum theory(up on which I my knowledge was based could not establish a mathematically consistent reconciliation between E=MQ 2 and the reciprocal unity of univaso calculations. But after zeeper's pendulum, the concept of E=MQ2 verses univaso calculations can be reconciled.
The concept is quite simple and amazing;

As noted earlier (through the paper of univaso science and another one of univaso science and the proof of P=NP), that the foundation and the formation of everything is opposite (symmetrical) in nature; and this symmetry is smoothly and recursively circulated through conflicting patterns. But when the equilibrium framework of this conflicting symmetry is established, reciprocal prevails and unity is realized.
This implies that For P=NP to prevail, the equilibrium framework of conflicting symmetry pairs must establish a polynomial reciprocal unity of (1), such that;
∂1= (1, +or – 1) = (1, 0).
a). Remember that, this reciprocal unity is directly proportional to the regulation of symmetry breaking frame work of variables in question. This implies that there must be an optimally polynomial combinatory framework of variables in question. Such that; (∂ (variableA))/(∂ (variable B)) =1.
b). and remember that, this reciprocal unity is inversely proportional to the coordination of symmetry breaking frame work of variables in question. This implies that there must be a commutative parameterization framework of variables in question.
Such that; if, (variable A) = (variable B . variable C), then; A/(B.C) = (B.C)/A =1 or if, A =B.C2 then; 〖B.C〗^2/A = (A/1)/((√A)B.C) =1
If we borrow the legacy of the above mentioned scenario to explain the mathematical accuracy of E=MQ2;
It would be that; (∂ ( E))/(∂ (mQ^2)) =1, And E = mQ^2 = (mQ^2)/E = (E/1)/((√E)M.Q) =1.

This scenario is quite consistent with the reciprocal equilibrium unity of gravitation from the univaso symmetry breaking point of view and zeepers pendulum that is directly proportion to the regulation of gravitational effect( as a pressure of electrical mass from its magnetic fields) and inversely proportional to its coordination.
this can as well be proved by both the reinman hypothesis and the birch and swinnerton dyer conjecture since the real part of energy is the potential energy (mass or specifically electrical mass) and the numerical (or what reinman called the imaginary part or illusion part) is the kinetic energy (quantum steps of conserving the potential energy) which is the velocity field as a function of gravitation.
In fact there are two types of symmetry breaking;
Explicit symmetry breaking.
Spontaneous symmetry breaking.

The e explicit symmetry breaking is a Hamiltonian path and is solved by the clique problem solution (as discussed from the paper of univaso science and the proof of P=NP). This provides a good framework of velocity field as a token of proof of E=MQ2 based on the nervier -stokes hypothesis

And the spontaneous symmetry breaking is a birch and swinnerton-dyer path and is solved by barch and swinnerton-dyer hypothesis proof (as also discussed from the paper of univaso science and the proof of P=NP).

Congratulations E=MQ2 – and thanks to UNIVASO science.

Wishing you a happy new year.

##### Share on other sites

True but do you see the point i'm trying to make?

Absolutely; everything “IS”. But due to the reference frame of different procedural step of its quantum being; “EVERYTHING WAS AND IT WILL BE”. And this “IS” relativity from univaso science point of view of res extensa verses res cogitan. For example; thunder and lightening are caused at the same time, but the difference in the procedural quantum steps of accessing there being as a function of the reference frame of the consciousness, subjects them to different times of effect, and this is E=MQ2.

Let me re-use the ordinary example illustrated from my previous work that can establish the equilibrium frame work between relativism, absolutism and E=MQ2 as a function of their reciprocal unity through oppositely conflicting variables (symmetry breaking) of univaso science.

From your life experience, you have been encountering a plenty of physical objects; say people, buildings, trees, rocks, water bodies etc. suppose you are asked to identify what you have seen say a tree, the fact is that you would have seen a mass of living plant called a tree, in luganda we call it omuti and in Arabic it is called shajarat, in Chinese prof. A pibernick can help or else I will tell you soon. But regardless of the name you would all have called what you saw, the fact is that you have all seen the same thing absolutely which is a mass of a living plant. That is true.

But suppose an expert in physics, chemistry or biology was the one to identify what he saw concerning the very same tree and he says that, I see energy as a function of different recurring square fields call them gravitational fields, velocity fields, magnetic fields, kinetic fields, bra…bra…..bra…..conserved smoothly and recursively into different quantum units of organs and then cells and then molecules and then atoms and then particles and then and then. ..! Would he be wrong? No, he would be true, especially depending on the accuracy of his presentation.

But what makes these two people of seemingly different answers to be both true, here is the core of the quantum steps of consciousness as a function of reference frame (relativity). The first person sees a mass of a living plant even with out recognizing how many procedural quantum steps by steps through which his consciousness or mind has undergone to establish an equilibrium framework between different forms of conserved energies (colors, light, substances, dimensions etc) at less than a blink of an eye up on which there reciprocal unity is the recognition of a mass of a living plant. The reference frame of this person is deductive and its consciousness speed is equivalent to the reciprocal equilibrium unity of E=MQ2. Further still, the approach of the second person does not mean that the speed of his consciousness is not equivalent to the reciprocal equilibrium framework of E=MQ2, but it is rather an inductive reference frame capable of identifying the quantum step by step procedures followed by his consciousness when it was establishing the reciprocal equilibrium unity of the framework that he perceived as a mass of a living plant.

The effect of the reciprocal unity and its equilibrium framework as a function of opposite(symmetrical) reference frames is at the centre of Einstein’s simultaneity hypothesis from the relativity theory point of view provided that time is just a numerical measure of change as a function of material existence through its units of procedural quantum steps.

Relativity is just a victim of time and symmetry breaking ignorance as a function of natural phenomenology through its procedural quantum steps of establishing the reciprocal framework of the oppositely conflicting variables of natural unity (simultaneity). This is established smoothly and recursively by univaso science as formulated by zaid sserubogo. After all, even the commutability of E=MC2 lies at the blessing of equilibrium unity framework of symmetry breaking from the oppositely two reference frames.

Think of a Turing machine as a model of predicting the reaction of consciousness based on procedural steps. A Turing machine is a model of predicting the reaction of a given machine (call it a computer) based on predetermined steps (call them programs) of data manipulation (call it data accessibility, data regulation, and data coordination). Binary system is a form of data that can be represented and manipulated by a Turing machine and in computer programming it is conventionally known as machine codes or raw data system or the basic language system.

Although the reaction of a Turing machine is based on manipulation of data through binary system, but the prediction of this reaction is based on the predetermined step by step procedures of the algorithm used to program it. So, while predicting the reaction of a Turing machine is the central point in its programming, but the algorithm used in such a program is the central requirement of determining the predictability of a Turing machine.

There are two requirements of determining the predictability of a Turing machine;

Resource requirements

Procedural requirements.

There are only two known resources that are required to complete a given pre - programmed prediction of Turing machine.

1a- Time resource

1b- Space resource

Procedural requirements are the central point in computer complexity. And it is a measure of the complexity degree of completing the processing cycles required to solve a given problem by a Turing machine and it is measured in time.

There are two types of such complexities;

The one which when given the algorithmic step by step procedures of a given program; the Turing machine reaches a certain point and automatically halts. The algorithm used in such a program is called decidable (by decidability we mean proving the answer by true/yes or false/no).

And the other one which when given the algorithm step by step procedures of a given program, the machine will never halt automatically. The algorithm used in such a program is called un decidable.

In computer complexity; the requirements of deciding a given problem falls into two categories of procedural complexity; one is call polynomial time procedure or specifically polynomial time, and another one is called exponential time time procedure or specifically polynomial time(but this is not so strict because though there is a strong argument to believe that sub exponential time is just the extra mile of polynomial time, but researchers have not concluded on this, so it still stands as another time dimension In computer complexity).

In the context of the opposite reference frame, we are dealing with solving as well as proving our solution in a given polynomial time procedure (hoping that you know the advantages of polynomial time procedures and why it is of such great importance to the complexity of existence or computer science community. We need to reconcile the process of our solution to the process of our verification such that there equilibrium framework is based on a polynomial reciprocal unity of 1/yes/true or 0/no/false.

The mechanism of establishing this is through commutative parametrization and combinatorial optimality of opposite pairs. Such that;

If; ((s/1)/(+ .-(√s) ))=1,

Then; ∂((s/1)/(+ .-(√s) ))=1,

Else; add 1

Or; subtract 1

End if

As we can see from the above illustration it only takes a procedural polynomial time of 1+ or -1 to administer the changes and reactions of texts made to and from our S variable framework, If this framework has been optimized with in an equilibrium framework of oppositely conflicting pairs (symmetry breaking) with in a reciprocal unity of 1. Such that 1, +or-1 = ∂(1, 0).

As a Turing machine, the mechanism of physical data manipulation by a given consciousness or mind and the predictability of physical data reaction by the mind is regulated and coordinated in the same way as that of a Turing machine, though the methods of accessing this data differs.

.'' The cause of every thing is smoothly and recursively reciprocal and opposite (symmetrical) in nature, this symmetry breaking is circulated through conflicting patterns that are directly proportional to their regulation and inversely proportional to their coordination; and when the equilibrium framework of the conflicting symmetry pairs is established, reciprocal prevails and unity is realized.''

Einstein never steal relativity from the Quran. The genius was ignorant of the claims made in Quran regarding the reciprocal equilibrium unity of oppositely conflicting variables as the foundation of natural phenomenology. In fact he was creative enough to demonstrate it through his simultaneity hypothesis as he had observed it and predicted it based on the opposite reference frames of his relativity theory point of view.

##### Share on other sites

Nonsensical word salad.

##### Share on other sites

univeral theory

Even though this isn't one of the science boards you are going to have to give some simple and basic information

((s/1)/(+ .-(√s) ))=1

which I see as an equation as follows

$\frac{\frac{s}{1}}{+.-(\sqrt{s})} = 1$

$\frac{s}{+.-(\sqrt{s})} = 1$ as by definition $\frac{s}{1} = s$

$s = +.-(\sqrt{s})$ ie multiply both sides by denominator

$\sqrt{s} = +.-$ ie divide both sides by $\sqrt{s}$

but all that gets us nowhere - because no one has a clue what +.- is meant to symbolize. Please elucidate - and please try to keep explanation in terms of currently understood symbols

##### Share on other sites

can you bet on this

OK, I will take the bet.

You said "Allah says in the Qur'an that and of everything have we created pairs…of opposite variability."

So, there must be a pair of creator Gods.

But that's at odds with the same dogma.

Which one are you wrong about?

Are there two Allahs or were you wrong about the pairings.

Now, to me that logical problem was obvious. To be strictly honest it made me smile a bit, rather than laugh out loud, but that's legitimat hyperbole.

##### Share on other sites

True but do you see the point i'm trying to make?

I apologise in advance if I appear like over using or miss using your comments and some of the quotations you use in reinforcing your point of view. In fact, am a fun of relativity theory as am a fun of the way you demonstrate your point of view. The underlying principles of your quotation have fertilized my work both in relative and absolute terms. Some where some how, you used a brilliant quotation from alvin toffler that “the illitrates of the 21st century will not be those who can not read and write,but those who can not learn, unlearn and the relearn”.

The gentle man un knowingly analyzed the process of knowledge acquiring cycle through establishing its reciprocal unity as based on the equilibrium framework of opposite variability (symmetrical). The concepts were quite simple to experiment –“learn, unlearn, then relearn and then observe what the ignorance of 21st century is”- excellent.

In respect of the argument with in; though only confined on the 21st century, but has been the cycle of processing knowledge since the down of human civilization. we learn new ideas as a positive dimensional framework of acquiring knowledge and unlearn some as a negative dimensional framework of learning. But we can only know whether the knowledge we acquire through this cycle is ignorance or civilization if the regulation and coordination of its equilibrium framework is reciprocal- and this has been the core of research and discoveries. Such that;

If; (knowledge/1/learn . unlearn(√knowledge) )=1

than; ∂(knowledge/1/learn . unlearn(√knowledge) )

Else; add, knowledge (learn)

Or; subtract knowledge (unlearn)

End if (relearn).

We learn, un learn and then relearn (which is equivalent to 1+ or – 1) of our knowledge and establishes a reciprocal unity of it through the equilibrium framework of its opposite cycling -and this is the foundation of everything (univaso science)

Plato’s universe though had a lot of short comings solved many problems of the time and this was the civilization of the time; but basing on it to solve problems in Newtonian age - it is ignorance and in Einstein age, Newtonian civilization; was, and its significances depends on the mercy of relativity theory. This is what the relativity of the reference frame of a given variable does on its absolutism. But in absolute terms; they are just different aspects of conserving knowledge as a function of their applicability due to the speed of consciousness which is equivalent to what Andy, calls the MQ2(hopping you know how knowledge is conserved through quantum units of mass in human brain and how its responsiveness depends on Planck constancy). In chaotic universe era or specifically in computer age, it is not logical at all to think of time as a variable of material impact as the synchronization of the clock in computer science does not at all depend on the differentiation of material data in question but only on the pre programmed procedures (algorithms) of processing that material data. Even still, the regulation and coordination of chaotic data depends on the responsiveness of the universal variable in question as a function of initial conditions verses final conditions or in particular symmetry coordination and regulation(since the initial conditions and final conditions are just two opposite frames(symmetry )in chaotic group).

Thus; ” The cause of every thing is smoothly and recursively reciprocal and opposite (symmetrical) in nature, this symmetry breaking is circulated through conflicting patterns that are directly proportional to their regulation and inversely proportional to their coordination; and when the equilibrium framework of the conflicting symmetry pairs is established, reciprocal prevails and unity is realized” zaid.

##### Share on other sites

I'm not competent to judge your theory but find it interesting that I've needed to refer to the Koran a few times in my work.

I believe there is a lot of information about ancient science in it if it can be sorted out.

##### Share on other sites

OK, I will take the bet.

You said "Allah says in the Qur'an that and of everything have we created pairs…of opposite variability."

So, there must be a pair of creator Gods.

But that's at odds with the same dogma.

Which one are you wrong about?

Are there two Allahs or were you wrong about the pairings.

Now, to me that logical problem was obvious. To be strictly honest it made me smile a bit, rather than laugh out loud, but that's legitimat hyperbole.

Please don’t bet now….no.no.no…just wait a while.

If iam the one to summarize your comment; I would say that it was misunderstanding - in philosophy, they would say that it was mis conceptualization – in physics, they would say that it was off target – to a mathematician, he would say that false attempt – to a computer it would deny that no – to a legal advocate he would say wrong idea, and in the declaration of human rights, it would be freedom of speech.

But regardless of the frame from which we coordinate our summaries in reference to the comments you made in relation to the concept of the univaso theory, we are all describing the same phenomena embedded with in the concept of your comments in reference to the theory. Such, that; any change in the concept you have, will lead to a proportionate change in the summeries we make in a pattern that is inversely proportional to the coordination of the concept of univaso theory and directly proportional to its regulation. Else add a concept to your understanding or subtract a concept from your understanding until the equilibrium framework of concept addition or subtraction (concept symmetry framework) is reciprocal with the general concept of the univaso theory. Isn’t it brother?

Dear brother;

With the help of the world with in your comments, we are trying to integrate the concept of univaso theory to your axiomatic understanding. The concept of the theory does not imply that there are two allahs, it only implies that there are two reference frames from which nature can be optimally unified. These frames are opposite and their unity is reciprocally symmetrical. Thus “The cause of every thing is smoothly and recursively reciprocal and opposite (symmetrical) in nature, this symmetry breaking is circulated through conflicting patterns that are directly proportional to their regulation and inversely proportional to their coordination; and when the equilibrium framework of the conflicting symmetry pairs is established, reciprocal prevails and unity is realized” zaid.

From this link http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=4364 the paper discusses the concept of feasible existence as a function of consciousness. Where the consciousness of ALLAH creates reality and the consciousness of nature creates illusions. And when these two opposite reference framework of consciousness intersect (universal consciousness symmetry framework), they provide for the foundation of our feasible existence. The feasible existence is nature is finite as opposed to GOD’s feasible existence which is infinite.

##### Share on other sites

Lots of words, but no real answer.

Are all things in pairs or not?

If the answer is yes then there are two Gods. If not then you (and the Koran) were wrong to assert that all things were paired.

It certainly has nothing to do with freedom of speech, and if it's an error then the error is on your part, not mine.

##### Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

×

• #### Activity

• Leaderboard
×
• Create New...

## Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.