There is an Absolute. A Pre-amble to the Ribbon Loop HYPOTHESIS

The Outerverse
The Outerverse | Source
A "knot" in the physical U, Imaged by CERN..perhaps?
A "knot" in the physical U, Imaged by CERN..perhaps?
Cats cradle, physical U..?
Cats cradle, physical U..?
Cradle of stars..
Cradle of stars..

Towards a new model for the Physical Universe

Absolutes as concepts are irrational, concepts are related to other concepts, it is a contradiction in terms to state that a concept could be absolute..But who said we have to use the word, absolute and relate it to concepts only?

OBJECTIVLY, there is ONE essentially rational, absolute, (from the latin root- ABSOLUTUS- unrelated) and it's called "The Physical Universe."

The Physical Universe is the only hypothetically 1 piece object which is an object "in itself." This fundamental yet still hypothetical entity, is based upon the objective definition of "object"- that which has shape- in relation to(against a background of) NOTHING. The P.U. is finite, bordered by itself, discrete- in other words. The motion of the P.U. is assumed, and it only changes location in relation to itself. this motion is ETERNAL and unstoppable.

Since The physical universe, or P.U. is 1 part, it is unbreakable, this is not to say that the subsidiary objects, manifestations of it(like us) existing in locations on it, cannot get further away and closer to each other, or lose their own shapes. There are limits to the extent for this one part objects configuration,, although we cannot measure objectively what those limits are, for we would need another physical universe to compare it by..and since that P.U. would be unrelated, it would be impossible to use it as a yardstick..

From this reasoning we must define "exist", far more rigorously than it has been defined before..

Exist: concept. Objects that are in physical relation to others or only themselves. Since our physical universe must exist in relation to US for us to understand and explain it at all. It must be FINITE, for an "infinite" object would be everywhere..to the point of static, nothing could conceivably change location within an infinite object...something would always be in the way.


Other physical universes, which may exist in relation to themselves and no other, may be drifting through us at this very second, but since they are not related to us, are discrete- are also "objects in themselves", we will never know this for sure. For all intents and purposes, they might as well not exist.


The "fallacy of the discrete", and the ruin of quantum physics.


Wiki: Discrete: unmatched, unrelated, separate..


Hypothetical objects, such as particles are but place-holders for imaginable, rational mediators for the consummated phenomena, we as scientists try to explain to a public tired of church dogma.

The term discrete only applies to the Universe, by definition, as it is 1 part, allowed to move at all, by the nothingness, the voids within and without.


How can something like a teeny tiny zero dimensional particle, can be said to be discrete, and ALSO, said to relate to another at all..If it is actually discrete? This is a contradiction in terms. The discrete particle of quantum is a dead duck, an OXYMORON.


Discrete to quantum is only discrete in CONCEPTUAL terms..not in PHYSICAL, real world, objective terms..

Quantum physics is like a form of psychological inertia, an inability to relate the whole to the particular, the Physical, finite universe-to the mediators for the phenomena we wish to explain in science. The proponents of discrete particles, cannot see the wood for the trees- in other words.


Recap


The Physical Universe is the only discrete object which exists. It is a single finite object configured as subsidiary, tangible atoms, magnetic "fields" and transient neutrons. The P.U. is continually changing configuration in relation to itself...or is in motion. This motion had no beginning and it will have no end.

Across the void is a veritable morass of criss-crossing, extended, generally intangible(perhaps best described as 2d objects), phenomena mediating forms, always ending up at tangible atoms.

Wherever the ropes,ribbons, the tangled phenomena mediating objects, go, so can atoms and the signals they relay travel, like beads on an abacus. For simplicity of visualization, imagine a two atom universe spinning like a bolas. The rope or ribbon in-between cannot help but be straight, carrying the signal-light along it. As well as mediating the linear up and down phenomena of gravity, it mediates the side to side, co-linear phenomena of inertia, which is the primary phenomena caused by the motion of this "Universal Object", or "outer-net"..


As the entire morass of extended phenomena mediating objects, atoms spin, wobble and pulse and orbit each other the connective "tissue" between them cannot help but be straight as well, with exceptions. Atoms, in Bill Gaedes rope hypothesis, for instance, can be thought of as consisting of an electron shell, and a proton quill..the shell is woven by gazillions of kilometers of extended object, forming a serpentine surface..From this surface project dandelion like projections of rope matter linking always to other atoms in straight lines, and loose loop matter, like the bust sections of a clock spring. These loose loop lengths emanating from atoms are commonly known as magnetic "lines" of "force".

To sum up: Starting not so much from an empirical position, but from a rigorous reasoning out of some essential terms. 1.Object..2 Existence.(or object and concept.)

Objects are "that which have shape"..or are finite,discrete, in relation to nothing.

Concepts are the changes in the shapes of objects, recalled by a sentient being.

Existence is a Concept, a claim of the perstance of object-hood.The only object that has never changed its essential shape, Is the universal object, the shape of which I will propose in a later essay

What is commonly meant by existence, is an object having a location in relation to other objects. This does not work when we contemplate the universal object. Lost in an endless sea of nothingness, the universe has no location..but yet, it is, it exists.

This "Object Universe" does not exist in relation to any other discrete-object universe. Now if you argue against any of the terms I have defined, "Object" for instance, and argue for it being infinite..we have a problem, for an infinite object is a monster, an essentially, undifferentiated, formless entity.

Nothingness, the void, allows us to change, or even perceive objects changes of location and form. After we reason out what we are looking for to study, I.E, this OBJECT universe..then we seek to understand the nature of Existence,or our "place" in this physical universe..Then and only then, perhaps, we can empiricize with clarity to our hearts content..and seek out new worlds, and discern the limits and "life" cycles of this "absolutus" this discrete object "in itself",that we are but locations upon..Understanding the Universe as an object may help us explain why stuff moves the way it does, giving a rational explanation for phenomena like "cosmic expansion"..and the phenomena of inertia..

Coming up in later essays, I will explain The Ribbon Loop HYPOTHESIS: a new, rational model for the physical universe, which is inspired by but not based upon Bill Gaedes Stellar work on the rope Hypothesis..


The Ribbon Loop HYPOTHESIS will aim to explain, broadly the "life cycle" of the Physical Universe.

Comments 11 comments

Jake Archer profile image

Jake Archer 2 years ago from Great Britain Author

Whoops, I've been away from Hubpages for a while, gotta catchup!


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 2 years ago from My Tree House

You cry foul on censorship, yet only post 2 of five of my comments. You address a comment that you did not allow, ignore the one you did, and now, two months later inform me that you will be changing the article.

I won't be posting any more comments in your Hubs. You'll have to continue to entertain yourself.


Jake Archer profile image

Jake Archer 2 years ago from Great Britain Author

Stay on topic Monkeymind..you are veering off into cultish psycologizing the opposition type behaviour.. I will alter the article in good time and your silly poetry will have nothing much to do with that. Keep comments on points!


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 2 years ago from My Tree House

I reallize that this is a pre-ramble to the Loop Hypothesis and so I am willing to help you work out the kinks in your loop. You are obviously confusing science with philosophy, hypothesis and theory, concepts and objects. One thing that would help you is to understand the difference between the 'science' of philosophy and the philosophy of science.

Central to your confusion lies in not scientifically defining your key terms or being able to distinuish between objecthood and existence.

You state:

"there are no absolutes"

Yet, you later say:

"there is ONE essentially rational, absolute, [snip] "The Physical Universe.""

Since you do not define what you mean by P.U. we must dervive from the context that you are referring to the single closed loop. However, this is not exactly clear and your definition for object:

""object"- that which has shape- in relation to(against a background of) NOTHING."

...combines the definition for object with the definition for shape. An object is an object if it has shape. That is the only intrinsic property common to all objects. You confuse objects with concepts and objecthood with existence and this can be seen also with your definition for exist:

"Exist: concept. Objects in relation to others or only themselves."

An object is an object if it has shape. That's all. A concept is a relation between objects (and sometimes other concepts). Something exists if it is an object with location in respect to all other objects, not to itself.

Further, you state:

"The term discrete only applies to the Universe, by definition, as it is 1 part, allowed to move at all, by the nothingness, the voids within and without."

and:

"The P.U. is finite, bordered, discrete- in other words."

But then you say:

"Other physical universes, which may exist in relation to themselves and no other, may be drifting through us at this very second, but since they are not related to us, are discrete- are also "objects in themselves", we will never know this for sure. For all intents and purposes, they might as well not exist."

This makes no sense at all! If a P.U. exists and is drifting through us, it does so in relation to us. If the P.U. is discrete and bordered, what is outside of the border? Other physical universes? If so, they clearly exist, as they have location with respect to this P.U. And if an object moves it can only do so with respect to other objects. This is the purpose of the thought experiment 'A single closed Looped Thread'; to show us that our Key Terms, such as location and motion

are meaningless at the micro level of the Loop.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 2 years ago from My Tree House

"I can imagine a single loop on a nothingness background,(and so can you) ergo, the loop hypo is rational..."

One can imagine just about anything, but that by itself doesn't constitute a hypothesis. The Rational Scientific Method requires three things for a hypothesis; a description, sculpture, mock-up, illustration or photograph is but one.

Please read up on the Rational Scientific Method before commenting further about who should be brushing up on what:

https://independent.academia.edu/MonkEMind/

Also, you really need to re-read my article and critique on Loop Hypothesis, because you miss the point entirely:

http://monkeyminds.hubpages.com/hub/The-Thread


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 2 years ago from My Tree House

You understand neither the Rational Scientific Method, the Rope Hypothesis or what I have written about the Loop Hypothesis.

The Rope Hypothesis, not the Loop Hypothesis is foundational to the Theory of Threads.

A theory of threads explains phenomena using the rope architecture. A single closed loop universe is impossible and doesn't qualify as an object by definition.

If you post my last comment and this one in its entirety, then I will continue to help you flesh out why your Loopy Hypothesis doesn't work as a hypothesis and can not ever be a theory.


Jake Archer profile image

Jake Archer 2 years ago from Great Britain Author

"There can never be a loop theory"...I think you need to brush up on the sci-method Monke...!The loop is an object that only needs describing, not explaining, it just IS. Now, what happens when the loop gets all tangled up..that is when the theory is required. But that is putting the cart before the horse somewhat..The natural phenomena that this theory(already started by Bill Gaede a while ago)..Is the large scale structure and behavior of the objects making up the Universe. Why objects act the way they do(planets orbiting stars, galaxies orbiting each other...why cosmic objects at the far reaches of our observations seem more "chaotic" than those relatively close to us...?


Jake Archer profile image

Jake Archer 2 years ago from Great Britain Author

I would add, that the Loop Hypothesis is foundational to the theory of threads, which Bill Gaede propounds. The Rope Hypothesis concerns itself with an object which composes the rope- the loop- there is no getting around that, Monke. I can imagine a single loop on a nothingness background,(and so can you) ergo, the loop hypo is rational...


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 2 years ago from My Tree House

Once again, you misrepresent or misread my comments. I said there can never be a Loop Theory.

Theories explain. One describes, or illustrates an object, one never explains an object. Therefore a single closed loop object can never be explained.

You probably will never have a rational hypothesis either. That remains to be seen. If you can define your key terms, illustrate your object and give a rational statement of the facts. You MAY have a theory.

Certainly your preamble leaves much to be desired (by way of critical reasoning). You don't understand the Rational Scientific Method, nor do you appear to understand the Rope Hypothesis.


Jake Archer profile image

Jake Archer 2 years ago from Great Britain Author

"There can never be a loop hypothesis"..Too late MonkE Mind...don't drink the whole pub dry...before I get there!


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 2 years ago from My Tree House

I'm really looking forward to your Hyperbole...er... hypothesis. Of course there can never be a Loop Theory.

Meanwhile, here's a little poem to help inspire you:

Don't show yourself a borish sort

Or beat your chest or toot your horn

The sound that others will hear's a mort

Announcing your demise ...such a sad report

Adjust yourself you foppish elf

Take off the showy periwig

Don't think too highly of yourself

Leave your sermons behind, you dig?

Don't preach your vainglorious homily here

Relax chill out and take a chill pill

Do a pub crawl and drink some pub beer

You're only a cow so stay clear of the steer

When you have no future You live in the past

Mind your own business and leave mine alone

It'll take more than a few sutures to sew up your ass

Let bygones be bygones you're way out of your class

You've come up short...you've more than met your match

Learn your lesson...that dog won't hunt

When you chased your tail you wretched wretch

Did you think that it'd be me that you'd catch?

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working