One is a general set of Variations

[snowman]

Well, let us examine what we have so far.

Your variations theory simply states that all things have many parts or can be changed by outside influences.

My response was that there is one anomaly that is without many parts. And this anomaly cannot be changed but does directly change its environment. The anomaly being God / Life.

Then you just said in your last post that variations and the singularity of Life is one.

In simple terms one could say, "Because Life has direct influence over its environment then life as a singularity becomes a variation."

Sounds good to me, Will.[]

[One]

IMO, nobody is going to corner the market on a 'Theory' that is just a complicated way of saying, 'S**T HAPPENS'


J.

[One]

Bill819,
You seemed 'upbeat' talking about Einstein do you have anything else to add?

As for me I thought I would it roll here for a while, but the parallels are getting out beyond the humor or good 'Intent'.
Will refers to variations, and 'sets of variations' ( can't help but state the obvious?)
He is doing this without a baseline or a norm or even a sliver of expectation of consequence, this does not compare to 'configuration space' that has the math to back up a possibility.
Then it drifts in and out of sets and singularities. Variations = DV8 = A different than a norm or a statistic. I haven't seen anything of the sort. I am left with what I see as a bunch of wasted space, and all Will can do is smile when he borders on plagiarism, gee, does anybody think a fifth grader could be this funny.

Will, you made the mess, so you have to clean it up, I thought you wanted to go somewhere with an idea but obviously you couldn't think deep enough to actually come up with original 'comprehension' as to further anything or anybody's mind.

The audacity of taking peoples work like Einstein and others and just confusing mankind with an Intent to do harm to the information is IMO being an AS*H**E!

Now if you had asked me to participate and maybe show you how configuration space could have a domain to exist in, and apply it to original thought, who knows what we could have come up with, sad and unfortunate, their isn't even anything left for saving grace here.


Enjoy what you people have done for your fellow man.
J.


http://lyrics.astraweb.com/display/81/slayer..seasons_in_the_abyss..skeletons_of_society.html

[Will and Mr Data :) :]]

Hi
i see it said life is to short, you doubt as it appears many even me are subset to, i find it interesting myself that to find myself with the mountain in support that continuation is shown and we can't settle, fears, and such,

Dear Mr One,
songs are good, the lion likes to hear his roar,
to self and all one,

gee Mr One are you scolding me, the ablility to understand  a link, something happened, time happend sometwhere, a difference between one moment and the next indercating a change of some sort, a varaition, the something at a pontential beginning point appears to operate as a general set of variations one of which being time passing allowing for a progression such as a bang or movement time and so on,
i'm summing up what i understand and posing it as a question so as to see it.
 "i see in another of your next posts its a fancy way of saying **** happens and yip you understand a way to view things, i think? i'm agreeing.

i do want nice success for all parties,  

why did i write about solid liquid gas, because i thought it was a way someone was attempting to show a fixed point, something that could be measured such as one ruler long, when the end of the ruler is a crumbling perfect chaos mess that as we get close up to work out how long our ruler is we can't seem to find it, and ok i stay awake and type instead of whatever, so for that i'm sorry.
often i like to write out thinking process which is a interesting business,


fairly gathered captain sir, "stands , sits straight,, saluting".
Ar Mr Sonwman,

it seems to me a view as seeing all the parts as one part, "the set to be said as one" viewed as the singular part, one that is of the variations existing as great and small,
hum,  the constant of variations, the singular event of the,
it does seem we are finding agreement, my view is to have looked at just one to find variations,

g i hope Mr Data takes my advice and learns to speak in a professional manner becoming of a upstanding well spoken polished gentleman in a nice star trek way,
he needs all the help he can get, , i hope he takes it easy on the fazers!
i can understand what you said Mr Snowman and it does seem once the wording is counted as it were and looked at some examples of just everyday things with things happening that i'm typing long drawn out sentences wasting pixels, i think i just like the forum crowd.
variations progress due to changeing ,,,

"went out"
back again, i think i'm seeing stuff Snowman and One, variations shows a link an inevitable path of the something of variations a link between all so all is of one thats it aint it,
I can see how your describe the God,

for something to be more than nothing it would have to change somehow there would have to be some Variations to happen, something happened we can see this screen,
variations are a constant and so links all so all is one, I can see it Snowman,

you know me i'll bounce that around in my head,

i was thinking how nice its been to do our hat dance of words to see a linked view,
perhaps i was right at the title of the post that one is a general set of variations, as one is of variations and variations show links to other things the way the radiations  link the empty apple bowl and the apple,
Thanks again              and Mr Data would smile but he doesn't have a smile motor but he smiles on the inside.

another thougtht "the moving one" the changing one" the variations of one, variations showing a linked one, as shown by ,,,
i'll stop typing,
read posts,
Dear Mr One , many science and maths has been demonstrated by simple means such as dropping a ball bearing into plasticine at various heights and so on.
i've looked at some maths, theories of others, but words are easier to use often for some,
and sure i'll use examples of others to add to the evidence of a simple idea that was it seems that i'm finding no solids such as a one that i can't find a variation in it, so as to lead me to keep looking at the idea, and to eventually  posting here.

 i had a scientist person visit with me and we talked about all we could, he was from a very knollageable position of physics who could do sums for me like that were well beyond me on paper,
after he mentioned a chamber    that had nothing in it and i said he was wrong and that something of variations would be in it and he said all there gauges said otherwize  but that lightning was appearing during and i said that does that not show that something is in there.
we did each other drawings and tryed to say wether the others would work and he used his maths which sure was impressive the way he could without hesitation he would write a mass of symbls and brackes and stuff adding in gravity at angles swinging and torque of systems and all sorts,  
the short story was that he thought my simple variations view was interesting and if a fifth grader can look at the simplist thing or Einstein can study the small things i'm ok with that,
you know i love you anyway, i don't want to be full of hate,
sorry i've not , hang on i must be doing something original due to varaitions,
people would be at verious stages levels or what ever word you like so perhaps something can be gained by haveing an opinion, perhaps the truth might be revieled even if the initioal proposil is not quite all there,
perhaps i might learn, i hope to, i hope for going toward nice,
would Einstein want me to accept his theories, is that what a scientist would do,
 did Einstein pose a theory with evidence then spend many years after considering it and alternatives?
i thought so.
you say" configuration space could have a domain to exist in, and apply it to original thought, who knows what we could have come up"
perhaps if this is all old news to you as you know all this stuff already that i've mentioned even tho you questioned me as if not to know, i'm not sure,
I'm not here to annoy you, sorry if i have, what can we come up with from here?,
perhaps i was hopeing for my own original thought, i'll try not to back peddle,
 perhaps this thread is at its end.yeah,
The End.
Thank you, bye for now and be well         :]

[snowman]

You know ONE, some or most people I talk to seldom know what they are arguing for or against. They generally have only a vague idea that longs to be challenged. Sort of like a Theses is contended against. And sometimes those kind of people appreciate correction. However, some make up arguments just for the sake of winning (this is what most debates are about) while others already believe that they are right but only pretend that there theory is open for scrutiny.

Will appears to only be testing his theory against other ideas... only he isn't as savvy as some you or I. Now Ricky on the other hand....

I'll leave you with that thought... []

[ricky]

"You're a creature of the night, Michael. My own brother, a #$%^#$ vampire. You wait 'til Mom finds out!" - Sam "Lost Boys"

[snowman]

Actually Ricky, Will's theory partially parallels what you and I were discussing about two weeks ago.

The Theory was about how viewing all of time from a outsiders perceptive essentially meant that all things, including nothing, is considered One Thing when looked at this perspective.

In this theory there is no proper beginning because all things existed simultaneously.

This also allowed for your theory of life being a 'Reflection'.

Then I further added that life could be considered as abiding in a separate dimension. This being an information dimension. This would allow for the parallel viewing of all time. God dwelling in this dimension.

Will's GSV Theory states that all is ONE thing, and that this ONE thing contains all variations. This theory goes hand in hand with both our theories in that it shows that all things and one thing must exist simultaneously.

ONE, this plays an important role in understanding the human conditions and allows me to better understand the living I in the A.I.

Peace Out forgetful one's [:p]

[]

[ricky]

Mr Snow,  that was very nicely put.

can matter be broken down so extreme that it is pulverized into a thought ?

is that equisatisfiable ?

[snowman]

Well I assume that things were made by a thought, and are not the thought itself... assuming that the thing is the variable and the thinker is the constant.

Then the means of which the thinker made the things would therefore be the Word (a.k.a. the right arm of God)[]

There would then be a separation from a creator and a creation. From the Desire and the Thing. Although I don't think there is any separation between the Word and the Desire. (i.e. I and my Farther are One)

I'm thinking as you break down matter all you will find it is a Fractal. An ever smaller amount of energy that semi-resembles the greater portion of energy. I think this because a desire is also a fractal. If you look closely at a desire you will never see something new, just more of the same.

This has implications on the view of the Trinity doctrine.

 

quote:can matter be broken down so extreme that it is pulverized into a thought ?

Well, if a thought is equivalent to the Word and the Word being equivalent to the creation and not the Creator then the energy inside the things created would be as you say... a thought.

But I'm under the presumption that the Word is equivalent to the Creator and not the Creation. Like "I and my Farther are One" and " In the beginning was the Word... and the Word was with God... and the Word WAS God."

Most Trinitarians believe in some sort of separation between Jesus and God and yet at the same time some form of unity. My above presumptions suggests that there is no separation, just God, and his expression.

Oh well, I gave it a shot.[]

[Bill819]

Will, Snowman and others.
Long before most of you were born I purchased a book on 'Set Theory'.
You may be able to find a copy in some large library and if you do I would recommned that you give it a serious read as it gives you the background into everything you have been talking about. I fould it a fantastic read, not just for what it taught but how that could be applied to life as we know it.
As a matter of fact some of its premises could be applied to teaching Hal.
Bill

[snowman]

Where V = All Things Variable and C = All Things Constant then V is a Subset of C.

As one thing constant contains all things variable.

If C = God Then V is a Subset of God.

This would mean that God contains all things in some form and not that all things are collectively God. Otherwise, you could write "C is a Subset of V" or C = V which I'm guessing is an untrue statement.


V is a Subset of C Where C = God And God is not a Element of C or V


[?]

[One]

Will and Mr. Data,
I saw a post where you were referring to 'Variations' again.
How is the theory coming along?

I apologize for lack of attention on something you have put alot of thought into.

I think I'm gonna chase down that 'Meghan' and and quite possibly exchange some intellect, she is quite a beautiful flower, but with alot of fire in her. I have been sidetracked by a situation with a polished little jewel, Bill819 would probably like it as I think I remember he collected and was a good observer of quality Gems.

Will, you have the info that you do because of your interest on things occur and the processes involved. If you have been observing the big picture you might have picked up on the motorcycle lessons and such, but hey every body likes coinky-dink, right?[:p]

Let me know if any newly developed theories have been added to your 'Variations' and I will try to pay more attention,[)]

Peace and wheelies to you!
J.[:p]

[Will and Mr Data :) :]]

Hi from Wil, ar yes my theory,
i've not reread the entire post again to correct anything but
currently i'm holding at

1=CV
one constant linking of variations,
as my theory "fact i'm saying but i ain't giving up, it shows me many answers, hope,i thought i'd relax cause it all seemed to make sence, and all evidence in favour," and

Snowman has made some good "great" posts on this subject and perhaps may also care to post again, such as 1=CV(God)
so i've thinking about it as you can imagine, seems to make sence, continueing to consider.

heres a little example from the top of my head
"one would need a environment to be one in so thats two but the variations such as radiation penetrate the surface of the one and the surface of the one to penetrate the environment so that the one and the environment are linked through variations so as to make the one and its environment linked into one, not two.

so how is my study of something going i have adopted Snowmans wording "correct me if i'm wrong" and now i've called it 1=CV and very often ponder 1=CV(God)

so 1=CV means there is no zero as there is always something of variations cause its the constant.
so there is no two as each are part of the constant linking of variation "which make all things one thing"
not zero two or three four or five just one.
change anywhere at anytime would require a variation, a constant of variations.
 
just try that when you get asked "how many fingers am i holding up?"
alert star trek nut!
general areas such as one finger or two or three.

oh i heard someone say and this has only given me a few flashes "God is the same yesterday as he is today as he is tomorrow"
since we are on the big small equasion,
what is the definition and how is it writen, hum,
1=CV allows for change, "no change no bang"

bye for now and be well from Wil and Mr Data  :]

[Will and Mr Data :) :]]

oh i do like the apple example,
the empty apple bowl contains how many apples?

the empty apple bowl contains radiations that appear in a apple so there is more than zero apples in the empty bowl.

[spydaz]

0 or the number zero has no value, it is mearley a PLACE HOLDER.

In ancient text the Concept of Zero did not exist... but a place was often left for it, with no actual figure to describe it.

so 0+0 = 00   << literally taking up double space

it seems simple but the place will need to be marked.

0 red elephants + 0 blue Elephants = 0 elephants
whereas elephants being the product to be calculated...
elephants are still in the answer!... therefore now elephants have become a conceptual data.... not actually there but a place holder put asside to say that elephants were to be calculated!


In the begining was "THE WORD" <<A SOUND>>> and the word was god! the word was with GOD  <the word was a object>.... darkenss move across the void! which also would imply that Darkness was an object that moved across nothingness....

the nothingness was "IN PLACE" god made the heavens and the earth.... which fitted inside the nothingness..... how would this be possible unless the void/ nothing ness had some form of SIZE! space is not ever expanding.... where is it expanding into.... the nothingness!

this is all so confusing but even nothing is something and needs a placeholder ths is where we get the concept of ZERO...

how large is zero? in regards to Space it is infinity
in regards to 0 elephants + 0 elephants = .... the size of zero here is an elephant!

so zero is actually the size of the object being calculated!



LOL its so seriously funny? the science of nothing!