Breaking free of delusion

[Pincho Paxton]

The first particles that create reality

But my question to you dear, is where did the first particle come from ?

How did it begin ?
What caused it to begin ?
Why did it begin ?

The first particles are zero, so they exist as zero, they create nothing. There is nothing that comes before nothing.

You said particle(s) , meaning in the plural.
I want to know where did the first particle (singular), come from ?


Ok....say that (what you said) the first particle(s), exist as zero & create nothing....
so nothing created nothing ?
and zero isn't really no thing (0) it is actually something ?

What IS ZERO besides a particle ? What IS a particle ???

HOW/WHY did something come from nothing ?

Or is everything nothing but appears to be something ?
WHY ?

There are infinite zero particles, because zero can be nothing infinitely. 0+0=0 infinitely. There is no beginning to...

0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0

The mistake is that you think that nothing cannot be made from something, but it can...

1 + -1 = 0

You get flat space.

1 is spherical.
-1 is a spherical hole.
0 = Flat space.

It's like building an Igloo. You start with flat Ice which is nothing. You build an igloo which is a convex dome. The hole in the ice is the opposite to the Igloo. So now you are an Eskimo, you look out.

Eskimo looks out...

1/ Flat Ice he sees nothing. (compared to the air you see something, but space is a big block)
2/ Igloo he sees a dome.
3/ The hole is barely visible.

Space is the flat ice. We see blackness. Our mind treats blackness as nothing. It treats the sun as a bright object. The sun is the Igloo, the dome, the sphere. The middle of the Galaxy is the Black Hole, the hole in the ice, we can barely see it.

We evolved to see convex curves. Hardly see holes. Not to see flat lines. Eyes cannot pick up flat line information, it is classed as nothing.

[Kunga]

There are infinite zero particles, because zero can be nothing infinitely. 0+0=0 infinitely. There is no beginning to...

0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0

The mistake is that you think that nothing cannot be made from something, but it can...

1 + -1 = 0

Ok...that makes sense...BUT...what came first ? Nothing or something ?
If nothing was first...how did something occur ?

[i don't have much time now to get into much here....but thank you for all your help in trying to explain....]

Also another quick question :

Is nothing something ?

[Pincho Paxton]

There are infinite zero particles, because zero can be nothing infinitely. 0+0=0 infinitely. There is no beginning to...

0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0

The mistake is that you think that nothing cannot be made from something, but it can...

1 + -1 = 0

Ok...that makes sense...BUT...what came first ? Nothing or something ?
If nothing was first...how did something occur ?

[i don't have much time now to get into much here....but thank you for all your help in trying to explain....]

Also another quick question :

Is nothing something ?

Nothing is made from two things. Nothing is just a word, and Humans invented it. We need a new word like...

Zero = Opposite Combiners

Then there is no problem that the Universe started from Opposite Combiners. What came first? The Opposite Combiners that create zero.

The problem is only in the English Language. The English language has many problems in it.

[Kunga]

What came first? The Opposite Combiners that create zero.

But where did they come from ?
Is there a first cause ?
If it is an infinite thing....then there couldn't be a first cause, right ?

Is there a name for this theory of the opposite combiners that create zero ?
According to this theory, there was never a (+) or (-) working alone.....the (possitvie & negative) were always one & the same...like the ying/yang symbol ?


OK. Please answer this question :

Why ? Why does the Universe exist ?

[Pincho Paxton]

What came first? The Opposite Combiners that create zero.

But where did they come from ?
Is there a first cause ?
If it is an infinite thing....then there couldn't be a first cause, right ?

Is there a name for this theory of the opposite combiners that create zero ?
According to this theory, there was never a (+) or (-) working alone.....the (possitvie & negative) were always one & the same...like the ying/yang symbol ?


OK. Please answer this question :

Why ? Why does the Universe exist ?

You just have to accept that nothing doesn't come from anywhere. Two particles create nothing, they don't need to come from anywhere.

You have to understand what the opposite to creation is. what shape is the opposite to creation?

If we go through shapes....

Could the universe be a cube? A cube has corners. if we go back to the ants they carry rocks at an equal distance it creates a circle. The ants would be genius if they created a square. So the Universe cannot use squares because it requires intelligence. You don't see square planets. The natural shape of none creation is the sphere.

So to figure out why the Universe exists you have to go through the shapes that the Universe can't use without a creator.

You end up with a spherical particle and a spherical hole. And from just that you get a fractal on none creation. The snowflake type fractal that can just happen on its own.

So it is from none creation that you get the shapes of the Universe.

[Kunga]

So it is from none creation that you get the shapes of the Universe.

If the Universe is infinite....does it have a shape ? Or do you mean things in the Universe ? Yes...they evolve for reasons
It still seems to have an intelligence of it's own....there is a reason for everything....why the shapes evolved as they did....colors...smells...tastes...but I suppose you can't credit evolution with thinking intelligence....even though it's structures arose with a purpose.....such as the shape of a flower to attract bee's, etc.

The snowflake type fractal that can just happen on its own.

I was reading about brewers yeast snowflakes....in beermaking....the yeast fed on sugar to grow [yeast being a living organism...a fungus].

You have to understand what the opposite to creation is. what shape is the opposite to creation?If we go through shapes....

I was Googling for geomentric shapes in nature....one thing led to another ...then I found this E8 [theory?]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-LC_l3g ... 089192BA52

Here it is explained a little [scroll down] :

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/107

You just have to accept that nothing doesn't come from anywhere. Two particles create nothing, they don't need to come from anywhere.

Ok...I've been doing a little reading this afternoon, and read this also somewhere [that the Universe just always existed,that there never was not nothing....]

It does make sense...because if there is nothing...nothing can't produce something.
But something can make nothing : 1 + -1 = 0

[Pincho Paxton]

The shapes of flowers are also fractals. If you have a hole, the petals are spiralling away from the hole. The shapes that survive best, are the ones that attract the bees best. So Cause and effect for flowers goes....

1/ Spiral out of a hole.
2/ Creates fractals.
3/ Bees choose their favourite fractals.
4/ The flowers shapes get stored in holes
5/ The other flowers don't get pollinated and become extinct.

So we live on an Earth that has evolved from fractals originally. Now those fractals have evolved to use seeds. The human fractal is close to a snowflake fractal, but the fractal has evolved to survive better.

Enlightenment should be that you can see the reality that happened before the evolution happened. So to break free of delusion you would have to notice that a Rose for example is a spiral away from a hole. That a human is a fractal that has evolved with Gravity flattening it out in places. But mainly that everything is really made up from sphere, and that sphere stack in certain ways...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissing_number_problem

The ways that particles stack create nature's shapes. Then evolution has changed those shapes.

[Kunga]

What was the first flower that evolved and why ?
Were pine trees the first trees ?

Just found this :

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/flower/about.html

http://forestry.about.com/cs/ancientfor ... o_tree.htm

[Pincho Paxton]

What was the first flower that evolved and why ?
Were pine trees the first trees ?

Just found this :

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/flower/about.html

http://forestry.about.com/cs/ancientfor ... o_tree.htm

If you consider alien planets then the first flowers, and trees will change for each planet. So the first flower doesn't really solve anything. Some questions I leave to computer programming. The events are too lucky in infinity to figure out. Like a human throwing a basketball 1 million times into a basket without missing once is easy in infinity years. Everything that can happen will happen in infinity.

[Kunga]

yes...it does sound very possible that life could of come from outside of the Earth... embedded in asteroids or meterorites....not to mension other alien possibiities...

i think i am finally following your logic somewhat Pincho. Your explaination of the sphere particles, and how humans are delusional because they are seeing things incorrectly, the impossibility of a sphere to pull, it can only push or bump . But how about when a sphere has gravity and it spins...wouldn't that be a pull force ?


_/\_




ok....another question :

Are all particles spherical ?

[deceit]

I find an odd paradox on this site, that enlightenment is about being free of delusion, yet the members seem to come across as delusional. Some talk about life as a dream state, and others feel that they can know all things by ignoring science, and living in an inner eye.

You just have to accept that nothing doesn't come from anywhere. Two particles create nothing, they don't need to come from anywhere....

As far as I know Science does not have an answer nor even a theoretical accurate proposition as to what create This Universe. How are you not sure that this Universe isn't cyclic and has already died a great many a deaths an rebirthed What happens if this Universe is just inside of other Transient Universes's inside the womb of our Mother inside a field mulitple Universes.

You must remember that This Universe is 13 Billion years old. You 20-100 years old. In Your life time you wouldn't even be able to count to 13 billion let alone comprehend all the events in the Cosmos at every point in time at every stage of the great and never ending Miracle that is Energy.

Remember as we apes talk, we must remember that Physics/Maths only Measures our environment that we perceive with our limited 5 senses. We try and Understand it using these concepts. Some of these concepts we appear to have Understood and are using it to our advantage. Yay for the iPod. But dont be mistaken that Science as a collective school rejects theories that may obliterate everything we've come to know as "Fact" which you base your theories on. The Universe is not human although we are definitely apart of it which means our grasp on it is as good as our Sanity.

How long is a piece of string one might say?

Hmm, what is the string were too long for us too see too measure? Unless you have access to the Universal Mind which through your astonishing observations seems evident you aren't even at scope with how much we dont Know.

My personal belief is unless you open your options to the endlessness of possibility you will never come close to the Truer answers you claim to know via some "delusional process".

Enlightenment is really about physics.

Can you understand the physics without understanding some science? If you don't understand the physics then you will make the mistake that you live in a dream world. Then you are delusional, and not enlightened.

You cannot be enlightened without understanding physics.

You cannot understand physics without behind Enlightened.

What are you on about, this is the dream world. We've dreamt for centuries. It's part of our Nature to Dream. To process information Dreaming in both sleeping and waking states. How do you think you came to dream up these hypotheses?

Meh I'm bored :)

[Pincho Paxton]

I find an odd paradox on this site, that enlightenment is about being free of delusion, yet the members seem to come across as delusional. Some talk about life as a dream state, and others feel that they can know all things by ignoring science, and living in an inner eye.

You just have to accept that nothing doesn't come from anywhere. Two particles create nothing, they don't need to come from anywhere....

As far as I know Science does not have an answer nor even a theoretical accurate proposition as to what create This Universe. How are you not sure that this Universe isn't cyclic and has already died a great many a deaths an rebirthed What happens if this Universe is just inside of other Transient Universes's inside the womb of our Mother inside a field mulitple Universes.

You must remember that This Universe is 13 Billion years old. You 20-100 years old. In Your life time you wouldn't even be able to count to 13 billion let alone comprehend all the events in the Cosmos at every point in time at every stage of the great and never ending Miracle that is Energy.

Remember as we apes talk, we must remember that Physics/Maths only Measures our environment that we perceive with our limited 5 senses. We try and Understand it using these concepts. Some of these concepts we appear to have Understood and are using it to our advantage. Yay for the iPod. But dont be mistaken that Science as a collective school rejects theories that may obliterate everything we've come to know as "Fact" which you base your theories on. The Universe is not human although we are definitely apart of it which means our grasp on it is as good as our Sanity.

How long is a piece of string one might say?

Hmm, what is the string were too long for us too see too measure? Unless you have access to the Universal Mind which through your astonishing observations seems evident you aren't even at scope with how much we dont Know.

My personal belief is unless you open your options to the endlessness of possibility you will never come close to the Truer answers you claim to know via some "delusional process".

Enlightenment is really about physics.

Can you understand the physics without understanding some science? If you don't understand the physics then you will make the mistake that you live in a dream world. Then you are delusional, and not enlightened.

You cannot be enlightened without understanding physics.

You cannot understand physics without behind Enlightened.

What are you on about, this is the dream world. We've dreamt for centuries. It's part of our Nature to Dream. To process information Dreaming in both sleeping and waking states. How do you think you came to dream up these hypotheses?

Meh I'm bored :)

Science doesn't have an answer because scientists follow trends. Newton started a trend, and science has stuck with it. I rejected all knowledge, and started everything from scratch. I ignored science, I ignored the dictionary, I ignored my senses, and I ignored my language, and I ignored my eyes, and I ignored my touch. I trusted my logic to solve how nothing can become something.

There is only one way to move a stationary object from nothing, that creates everything. And it is because there is only one way to do it, that makes my theory the correct answer to everything.

The only way to move a stationary object is to realise that science has forgot about scale. The universe cannot make any decisions, so atoms should not be all the same size. Scale is a decision, and to repeat the scale over, and over again means that something is happening to atoms to force them to be a single scale. Sand is also a closely matched scale, and we know that there are physics forcing that scale to happen, but those physics are also related to atoms again. So to move a stationary object from a standing start you need to inflate the particles around that object. Like balloons, you can inflate a bunch of balloons, and they will push against each other, and move each other from a standing start. So energy is inflation, and inflation is scale. If you keep inflating the balloons the pressure gets greater, and greater, and the balloons get crushed against each other. The loss of freedom that gradually happens means that atoms are now all going to end up the same size. The atoms have no freedom to scale anymore.

The inflation from a standing start creates movement, and limits scale eventually, so you get atoms all the same size.

It is the only way to move things from a standing start. It is the only way to create energy from nothing. So science doesn't need to argue my answer. It need to tell me that there is another way to move something from a standing start. Some idea that I haven't thought of.

Now you need to be intelligent to come up with an alternative form of movement. If you are stupid, you will say that particles could have a tiny engine inside them to move them along. OK, that is stupid because of the fact that the Universe cannot make decisions, and that an engine is made from so many parts that the repeating structure in all atoms would be impossible.

Most answers will be stupid. Inflation is scale, and the physics are very tiny steps. The size of an object is there to be seen. An apple has scale, an orange has scale, and an egg has scale, and we have scale. Nothing can make decisions in the Universe, so eggs are not a size based on a decision. It all comes down to atoms, and no decision can be made for the size of atoms. Scale is a major clue, but search for scale in science, and it is being ignored.

My theory is ignored because it is based on a new form of logic. Not maths, but the science of a none determined universe that has Cause, and effect from all none determined states. All none determined states based on scale, and based on a standing Universe of nothing. The origin of movement being the only way to move something from a standing start means that the first domino is fixed. The cause has only one domino. The effect has to be the next domino that inflation pushed the first object into movement. The second domino has no alternative either.

Soon you realise that all of the dominos have only one option. My theory is the only way to build the universe. There is no-one who is alive, or who has ever lived that is intelligent enough to even give me a response to my theory. All replies to my idea are pointless, and will seem to be stupid to me.

[Dan Rowden]

Given the last statement, I highly recommend that no-one reply to you at any time. I highly recommend it.

[Pincho Paxton]

Given the last statement, I highly recommend that no-one reply to you at any time. I highly recommend it.

I see that you are still nuts.. take another break.

[Dan Rowden]

Listen, fuckface, by your own words any reply to you will be stupid. Own up to the meaning of your rhetoric or shut up. Either that or I'll shut you up.

[Pincho Paxton]

Listen, fuckface, by your own words any reply to you will be stupid. Own up to the meaning of your rhetoric or shut up. Either that or I'll shut you up.

That's right, but your reply didn't suggest that. Your reply was an attack out of the blue, which is know as being nuts. people who attack for no reason = nuts.


Let's break it down...

Given the last statement, I highly recommend that no-one reply to you at any time. I highly recommend it.

It starts of with the correct terminology, that replying is pointless.. but then.. "at any time", which is incorrect, as I did point out that I was open to there being a reply based on a form of movement that I haven't thought of. Then the end "I highly recommend it." I a paranoia that something will go wrong in the future of all replies, and the paranoia means that I feel that something is about to go wrong, so it will go wrong, do not reply.

It is however your attack on me that led to the conclusion of your own paranoia. The truth is that an attack leads to the thread going wrong, and so your paranoia is self concluding.

I am a genius at psychology.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Pincho is right, it is probably best to just end the insults and explain rationally his issue.

Pincho you are like a 5 year old saying "I'm the best at this, I'm the smartest in the world, I'm a genius at this"
You are going to lead Dan to his death if you don't quit it, not to mention the end of this site, then who will you boast to?

I get that the name of the website confuses some people, but 'genius' is meaningless, you are basing it on your self centered perception.

Get over the idea and lie that you are the world's first or best at anything, you are just another bozo.

But that's fine, ok? If you were to admit that you're hiding/deflecting away from realizing this, then you can overcome that blemish.
Personally I have no extensive knowledge or great skill with any subject, it isn't worth crying over to admit you are just like anyone else, if you want to be 'intelligent' overcome your massive arrogance and stop defending your own egotistical attachment.

You keep talking about what 'insanity' is and you have a picture of Einstein. He said it was to repeat the same thing and expect different results, you have told us all 1000 times of your genius and your holes and fillers, have there been any different results?

Let me tell you, 'insanity' is really just egotistical attachment, which you constantly display.

[Dan Rowden]

Listen, fuckface, by your own words any reply to you will be stupid. Own up to the meaning of your rhetoric or shut up. Either that or I'll shut you up.

That's right, but your reply didn't suggest that. Your reply was an attack out of the blue, which is know as being nuts. people who attack for no reason = nuts.


Let's break it down...

Given the last statement, I highly recommend that no-one reply to you at any time. I highly recommend it.

It starts of with the correct terminology, that replying is pointless.. but then.. "at any time", which is incorrect, as I did point out that I was open to there being a reply based on a form of movement that I haven't thought of. Then the end "I highly recommend it." I a paranoia that something will go wrong in the future of all replies, and the paranoia means that I feel that something is about to go wrong, so it will go wrong, do not reply.

It is however your attack on me that led to the conclusion of your own paranoia. The truth is that an attack leads to the thread going wrong, and so your paranoia is self concluding.

I am a genius at psychology.

You are a loon. And you are banned. Goodbye.

[Dan Rowden]

Pincho is right, it is probably best to just end the insults and explain rationally his issue.

John, there's a kind of innocent stupidity that is deserving of endless tolerance and compassion. Pincho's stupidity, however, carries the extra burden of arrogance and flat out petulance. It's that sort of tedium that, moving forward, I'm not prepared to show much tolerance, for the sake of the board.

I've read much of Pincho's discussion history on various boards and there's no reaching him on any level. He's entirely in his own little world, and that's fine, but it has no place here.

[Kunga]

"The chief characteristic of a genius is independence of mind. This independence is attained through his having a clear and conscious grasp of the nature of Reality, which results in his mind being unmoved by the myths and fashions of his culture. Indeed, everything he thinks, says and does is performed with authority, a quality that arises when one's knowledge is permanent, complete, and beyond doubt."

David Quinn


Pincho has an INDEPENDANT mind, not dependent on what others think or say, not afraid to speak his own truth.
He speaks with AUTHORITY....for he understands what he is talking about, regardless if anyone else understands.

Instead of banning him, you could challenge him . He has been a gentleman & sincere in his presence here.

There are worse things to have aversions to.

[Dan Rowden]

Oh, pish posh. Pincho is an eccentric loon. His ideas are insane; they have neither philosophical merit or coherence nor scientific credibility because even though they deal with the empirical world, they lack even one epistemic feature that is necessary for such credibility. A litany of people on the Internet have noted these facts.

Instead of banning him, you could challenge him.

I'm sorry, are you blind? By his own words - and strategy, as it happens - what you intend cannot happen. The other reason it cannot is his notions have no substance. There's literally nothing but a story; how can you challenge a story?

Besides these facts, his whole mental paradigm has zero to do with enlightenment, which he does not comprehend to the slightest degree, mostly because he doesn't want to. There's a big world out there where he can pretend to be relevant. This isn't part of it.

Oh, and btw, if you feel Pincho is some sort of undiscovered genius, you can follow his antics here: http://greatestminds.freeforums.net

[Kunga]

Are you more concerned over what people would think of you if you began to understand his theories ?
I actually can see his logic, and he explains what he is talking about with examples that are simple & logical.

Talking about the herd mentality, people being afraid to detach from the group and think for themselves....having unconventional ideas, is to be ostracized ....well this is happening to Pincho, because he dares to throw all conventions and conventional logic to the wind......this is how creative genius minds work....despite Pincho from having a PhD in cosmology or physics, or in anything, I would give him a lot of credit for creating his own theories about the Universe, it shows he is seriously making an attempt to understand it in his own way....why use information passed down from others to understand the Universe ? What if everyone else is wrong ? Why believe what everyone else thinks ?

Have you actually read carefully what he says ? It's not hard to comprehend. The Universe can't make decisions. Everything is cause and effect :


"My theory is ignored because it is based on a new form of logic. Not maths, but the science of a none determined universe that has Cause, and effect from all none determined states. All none determined states based on scale, and based on a standing Universe of nothing. The origin of movement being the only way to move something from a standing start means that the first domino is fixed. The cause has only one domino. The effect has to be the next domino that inflation pushed the first object into movement. The second domino has no alternative either.

Soon you realise that all of the dominos have only one option."

[Pincho]

This sounds logical .

[Kunga]

There is nothing wrong with Pinchos mind. Did you see his artwork ? I'd like to see your artwork Dan :)

[Dan Rowden]

Are you more concerned over what people would think of you if you began to understand his theories ?

Haha. Don't be stupid.

I actually can see his logic, and he explains what he is talking about with examples that are simple & logical.

Oh, bullshit, Sandy, stop pretending.

Talking about the herd mentality, people being afraid to detach from the group and think for themselves....having unconventional ideas, is to be ostracized ....well this is happening to Pincho, because he dares to throw all conventions and conventional logic to the wind......this is how creative genius minds work....despite Pincho from having a PhD in cosmology or physics, or in anything, I would give him a lot of credit for creating his own theories about the Universe, it shows he is seriously making an attempt to understand it in his own way....why use information passed down from others to understand the Universe ? What if everyone else is wrong ? Why believe what everyone else thinks ?

You don't understand a single thing about him or why I and others reject his theses. Did you not understand what I said about his failed epistemology? Do you not realise that his "theories" fail at every level to be demonstrable? This is a man who invented - literally invented (i.e. made up) - a particle that is necessary for his story, one that cannot be shown to exist and will never be shown to exist and that he doesn't have the foggiest idea how to demonstrate - and then he names it after himself. No, there's nothing at all wrong with Pincho's mind.

Have you actually read carefully what he says ?

There's nothing there to think about.

It's not hard to comprehend. The Universe can't make decisions. Everything is cause and effect :

Really? Out of all his offerings you pick that to be representative of his worldview? Jesus. Of course that isn't hard to comprehend; it's also not in any way original or especially clever.

"My theory is ignored because it is based on a new form of logic. Not maths, but the science of a none determined universe that has Cause, and effect from all none determined states. All none determined states based on scale, and based on a standing Universe of nothing. The origin of movement being the only way to move something from a standing start means that the first domino is fixed. The cause has only one domino. The effect has to be the next domino that inflation pushed the first object into movement. The second domino has no alternative either.

Soon you realise that all of the dominos have only one option."

[Pincho]

This sounds logical .

Actually it's word salad, but look, you're welcome to the notion that there's nothing wrong with Pincho's mind just as he's welcome to the view that the dinosaurs died out because gravity changed. Go start a fan club.

[Jamesh]

Deceit: How are you not sure that this Universe isn't cyclic and has already died a great many a deaths an rebirthed

Where would it go to?

At the same time, as everything is in a constant state of movement and change, all content rebirths constantly with different form.