What is gravity?

[Syn5]

What is gravity?

 

I may have the answer. I will try to explain using logic and thought experiments. Here goes nothing:

 

Think of language. Let's look at English, as it's the language we are using. I've found three particular sentences that have logic and are true, even when taken out of context. I came about them when I asked, where truth lie or lay? All the observer needs are the Laws of English. But this leads to a problem? A paradox? How can one understand language out of context? A lot of questions so here are the sentences and maybe answers:

 

In the past you will lay and lie. (revealed outcomes, whole of information.)

In the PRESENT you will lay OR lie. (converge. Visible and hidden information interact and you get reality)

In the future you will lay and lie. (unrevealed outcomes, whole of information hidden)

 

Let's observe and give meaning to the information provided by the sentences.

 

In = preposition

the/a = definite or indefinite article

SpaceTime = adjective

you = noun

will = auxiliary verb

lay = verb

and/or = conjunction

lie = verb

 

We know English is read left to right. Time travels forward. This fact means everything must be information. Visible and/or hidden. Our reality is playback of this information in an ordered fashion (forward in our universe). What do we know of playback? We observe it in the present keeping memory of what's already been observed and imagining what will be observed. Does the present exist? Yes and no. It's a sort of figment that observation makes as real as anything. This is why everything we observe is relative.

 

I believe the law of language, is the law of logic, is the law of nature. The ultimate law, constant in Spacetime. So let's apply the sentence law to our universe. Now let's logically answer, what is gravity?

 

Preposition = Position of observation

Definite and/or indefinite article = Nature of observation

Adjective = SpaceTime of observation

Noun = Event observed

Auxiliary verb = Probability of action/s observed

Verb = Observed action

Conjunction = Probability of state observed ( or = observable, and = unobservable)

Verb = Observed action

 

I believe it's the seemingly indestructible relation between all possible action, observed or not, that is the force of gravity.

 

It's an event's unobserved information that gives it mass. And it seems we have created language knowing this without knowing it.

 

Questions eagerly welcome. Let's test my ideas, my mind.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Syn5

[Bignose]

It's an event's unobserved information that gives it mass.

This really doesn't make a lot of sense to me. My bowling ball has the same mass whether I observe it striking (or splitting!) through the pins or not. I don't see how my watching (observing) the event of impact changes its mass.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Bignose

[Delta1212]

I have no idea what "In the past you will lay and lie" means, which seems to be a problem for your idea right off the bat.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Delta1212

[Strange]

All the observer needs are the Laws of English.

 

There are no "laws" of English. There are rules agreed by convention and usage. Which you seem to be largely unaware of.

 

In the past you will lay and lie.

 

"Will" is the present form of the verb and so this sentence is ungrammatical. Also, "lay" is a transitive verb (apart from a few specialised meanings where the object is implicit, such as "lay [eggs]") so the sentence is doubly ungrammatical.

 

So much for the "laws of English".

 

And what will you lay? A table, a bet, your wife? And do you mean lie as in lie down or lie as in not tell the truth? It is so ambiguous as to be meaningless. Not a great start.

 

 

In the PRESENT you will lay OR lie.

 

Still ungrammatical. And why have you switched from "and" to "or"?

 

 

SpaceTime = adjective

 

SpaceTime doesn't appear in your sentences, and it's a noun not an adjective; you wouldn't say, "that's a very spacetime dress you are wearing"

 

 

you = noun

 

Pronoun.

 

 

We know English is read left to right. Time travels forward. This fact means everything must be information.

 

Those three statements have no logical connection. There are languages that are read right to left, boustrophedon and top to bottom. That has not connection with the flow of time. And neither have any connection to the final (unsupported and probably false) assertion.

 

It gets increasingly incoherent after this, with your meaningless assignments of parts of speech to random concepts, so I gave up trying to make any sense of it.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Strange

[Syn5]

This really doesn't make a lot of sense to me. My bowling ball has the same mass whether I observe it striking (or splitting!) through the pins or not. I don't see my watching (observing) the event of impact changes its mass.

 

Something is always being observed in our universe, everything is the same at the Alpha and Omega. No difference but observation itself. So, if it's not observed does it exist? Yes and no. Our universe is probability simply because we are not able to observe everything at once. Theres always entropy from our position of observation. Everything and nothing can be described as/by information. Also the observed is the observer. A closed system when/where entropy can only rise. So if u zoom out on this closed system of rising entropy that has been going forever you will realize its a fractal. The smallest is the same as the largest and you can't zoom out or in. SpaceTime loses meaning.

 

 

I have no idea what "In the past you will lay and lie" means, which seems to be a problem for your idea right off the bat.

 

It's a sentence that states the grammatical logic, law, rules, of itself. Here language is a fractal of reality.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Syn5

[Strange]

It's a sentence that states the grammatical logic, law, rules, of itself.

 

No it doesn't.

 

Here language is a fractal of reality.

 

Another sentence that doesn't make sense. Substitute "fractal" for an equivalent noun or adjective and you can see why:

- Here language is a banana of reality.

- Here language is a red of reality.

[Bignose]

 

Something is always being observed in our universe, everything is the same at the Alpha and Omega. No difference but observation itself. So, if it's not observed does it exist? Yes and no. Our universe is probability simply because we are not able to observe everything at once. Theres always entropy from our position of observation. Everything and nothing can be described as/by information. Also the observed is the observer. A closed system when/where entropy can only rise. So if u zoom out on this closed system of rising entropy that has been going forever you will realize its a fractal. The smallest is the same as the largest and you can't zoom out or in. SpaceTime loses meaning.

 

I don't see how this answers my question about how my bowling ball's mass changes if I observe the event of it hitting the pins or not...

[Strange]

It's an event's unobserved information that gives it mass.

But

Something is always being observed in our universe

 

Therefore nothing has any mass.

 

I don't think this is going to work....

 

What is gravity?

 

I may have the answer.

 

What is wrong with the current answer, which seems a lot more practical and useful than yours?

[Syn5]

 

No it doesn't.

 

The fact that lie and lay cannot co-exist in present tense without talking on different meanings. But English "relative law" not "absolute law" states that lie and lay can be one and the same in past and future tense. As you said English has no law (paradox). Past and future, alpha and omega, all equal 1. 1 is the symbol for WHOLE. Thus Alpha cannot be whole without Omega, any perception otherwise is just that perception.

 

 

Another sentence that doesn't make sense. Substitute "fractal" for an equivalent noun or adjective and you can see why:

- Here language is a banana of reality.

- Here language is a red of reality.

 

 

Our reality is an observation of the fractal that is information determined by the SpaceTime of the observer.

[Strange]

The fact that lie and lay cannot co-exist in present tense without talking on different meanings.

 

Of course they can.

"I lay the table while you lie about your affair"

"I lie down while the chicken lays an egg"

And so on.

 

If you really think you can derive gravity from English grammar then feel free to go ahead and show how you can calculate the bending of light as it pass a massive object starting from "to be or not to be". I assume you can do that?

[Syn5]

But

 

Therefore nothing has any mass.

 

I don't think this is going to work....

 

What is wrong with the current answer, which seems a lot more practical and useful than yours?

 

Exactly. Mass is just an imagination that arises whenever information is observed. But because it arises from information it exists. Look at the way your own mind works. How does it produce thought? Nuero research may show our "conscious" comes from the "unconscious". Life is full of paradox.

 

Of course they can.

"I lay the table while you lie about your affair"

"I lie down while the chicken lays an egg"

And so on.

 

If you really think you can derive gravity from English grammar then feel free to go ahead and show how you can calculate the bending of light as it pass a massive object starting from "to be or not to be". I assume you can do that?

 

By changing the letters and order you have changed the information. Again my sentence expresses logical thought that seems to contradict on the surface without changing the information, the bits and sequence. So what changes the sentences meaning? The observer and the act of observation, reading of information in a sequence. But for the information to be read there needs to be Past, present, future. And who but the observer give everything dimension in spacetime.

 

My sentence describes how one object can be quantum using language. Yours is not quantum.

 

To be or not to be? Becomes irrelevant when talking about information that is so vast that it can't be put in context. It cannot be fully observed by anything we consider material ever. Event horizon. Everything becomes paradox and I'm trying to explain paradox.

 

This is why everything is made up of single basic block, the bit of information. Bit means smallest no need bring in additional material metaphors (numbers, quantity only makes sense if info is divided in the first place, observed, categorized). Yet what is the whole of information? Bits. What are bits? Part of the whole of information. This is why our words are so abstract to what we observe in the material. The material is only a slice, the finite, the present. But you can't escape the fact that to explain nothing you must think of lack of something. Reason the material seems to come from nothing.

 

One of the most important predictions I can make is, our minds are different worlds in the truest sense of the words. Universes within a universe within a universe. Fractal. Infinite. All just as real, existing hidden or unhidden from each other. So if the Universe and the Mind share striking similarities I'm not surprised, they do after all come from each other.

 

Reason I am using language is to show how a seemingly irrelevant subject is just as part of the fractal thus abides by the same law.

 

Everything observed is information. (sound scientific theories point to this)

Everything observed is in. (reality as observed is not a closed system, it's part of)

Everything observed is form. (reality has space, the space in spacetime)

Everything observed is mot. (reality has time, the time in spacetime, the method)

Everything observed is ion. (greek for "going", going from one thing to another, Alpha to Omega)

To lay is to lie everywhere but the present. In the present tense being still is a lie. Everything observed is mot. (latin for "move")

Coincidence? If reality is information then it seems to me everything is conserved. Bits of information cannot be destroyed.

I'm also sure the number 3 is very important.

DAY = 1 = night/day = start/end = alpha/omega = a cycle

Sleep = 1/3 = awareness is unawareness

Awake = 2/3 = awareness is not unawareness

also we easily understand 1/3, one third, but why is the decimal form infinite? Like pi for example. Something so easily grasped, observed, yet infinitely complex.

So, what came first sleep or awake, night or day? Alpha is Omega and when that happens, paradox.

Zeno's paradoxes are a set of philosophical problems generally thought to have been devised by Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea (ca. 490–430 BC) to support Parmenides's doctrine that contrary to the evidence of one's senses, the belief inplurality and change is mistaken, and in particular that motion is nothing but an illusion. It is usually assumed, based onPlato's Parmenides (128a–d), that Zeno took on the project of creating these paradoxes because other philosophers had created paradoxes against Parmenides's view. Thus Plato has Zeno say the purpose of the paradoxes "is to show that their hypothesis that existences are many, if properly followed up, leads to still more absurd results than the hypothesis that they are one." (Parmenides 128d). Plato has Socrates claim that Zeno and Parmenides were essentially arguing exactly the same point (Parmenides 128a–b).

Edited November 6, 2014 by Syn5

[Bignose]

Still no answer on how observing or not observing changes the mass of my ball.

 

Let me cut to the chase. You have a lot of scientific sort-of buzzwords thrown together there. Does it actually lead to any useful predictions? Something testable? Something I can measure at home?

 

Using the current theory of gravity, I can calculate how much force my foot will feel when I drop my bowling ball on it from waist high. Can your information, fractal, language actually quantitatively describe this? More than "it will hurt, a lot" can?

 

I mean, this is a science forum. I'm looking for actual useful predictions. Right now, the current understanding of gravity does this, very well. I wouldn't trust us to land a probe on Mars with fractal past, present, and future sentences. But I would with the current understanding of gravity; and we successfully do this fairly often really.

 

If your idea can't be turned into testable predictions, it isn't science, and it isn't very interesting for those of us who actually want to do something useful like use it to make predictions.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Bignose

[Syn5]

Still no answer on how observing or not observing changes the mass of my ball.

 

Let me cut to the chase. You have a lot of scientific sort-of buzzwords thrown together there. Does it actually lead to any useful predictions? Something testable? Something I can measure at home?

 

Using the current theory of gravity, I can calculate how much force my foot will feel when I drop my bowling ball on it from waist high. Can your information, fractal, language actually quantitatively describe this? More than "it will hurt, a lot" can?

 

I mean, this is a science forum. I'm looking for actual useful predictions. Right now, the current understanding of gravity does this, very well. I wouldn't trust us to land a probe on Mars with fractal past, present, and future sentences. But I would with the current understanding of gravity; and we successfully do this fairly often really.

 

If your idea can't be turned into testable predictions, it isn't science, and it isn't very interesting for those of us who actually want to do something useful like use it to make predictions.

 

 

Let me ask some question so that I can understand why I am wrong/not even understood from your vantage point.

 

Is science about how "bits, small or large bits the same" interact in our shared awareness? To exist is to be observable so the fact of an observable universe means it exists?

 

If before the Universe there was nothing, how was its creation observed? Does nothing = 0 or 1? How about everything, 0 or 1? Does science only study the measurable? Does science believe there is the unobservable? Can unobservable be measured? If it's not measurable does it exist?

Edited November 6, 2014 by Syn5

[Bignose]

Science is primarily about making accurate predictions. Those predictions are compared with measurements. The idea whose predictions that are closest to measurement is considered the best.

 

If something is immeasurable or unobservable, then you can't make.a prediction that agrees or disagrees with it. So, no, science is not very interested in the immeasurable. Because if you can't measure it, it might as well not be there. Because if it is immeasurable, it is exactly the same as not being there. And why believe something is there when there is no way of determining if something is there or not?

 

I hope this answers your questions a drives you to think how to turn your idea into predictions. Because, again, the current understanding of gravity makes predictions that agree very well with measurements. Unless your idea can do better, interest in your idea scientifically will be low.

[Syn5]

Okay, so science is not the study of truth or observable truth. It's the study of only the truths we can measure. Right? Is there a single truth, an absolute truth?

 

So if the idea, the perception of a mind exists, and the perception of things within a mind exist, then what is a mind? It must be observable or do we forget it because we think we can't measure it? Can we measure the mind by how it affects the material world? Who is the internal human monologue talking to? Why does it even talk at all? Why are some human internal monologues not even language?

 

When I asked how you think I meant it. I am an intuitive, I do not consciously think. Things just pop up out of nowhere and I get a deep feeling of intuition. My mind is non stop mind-pops (google it). In my mind also all senses are merged. When I hear a sound, my mind feels it, sees it, smells it, it has shape, position, mass, texture, etc. Way more properties than the material world. Thus for me how can I not put equal stock in that reality since it makes up my perception? Am I wrong or are you? If I am able to navigate the world without dying and manage to live a longer and happier life than you, am I right? Or is there no right or wrong because there is no one truth or is there a single truth? Why does the word "information" when broken down into its "root words" describe particles?

 

In =

Edited November 6, 2014 by Syn5

[arc]

Okay, so science is not the study of truth or observable truth. It's the study of only the truths we can measure. Right? Is there a single truth, an absolute truth?

 

So if the idea, the perception of a mind exists, and the perception of things within a mind exist, then what is a mind? It must be observable or do we forget it because we think we can't measure it? Can we measure the mind by how it affects the material world? Who is the internal human monologue talking to? Why does it even talk at all? Why are some human internal monologues not even language?

 

When I asked how you think I meant it. I am an intuitive, I do not consciously think. Things just pop up out of nowhere and I get a deep feeling of intuition. My mind is non stop mind-pops (google it). In my mind also all senses are merged. When I hear a sound, my mind feels it, sees it, smells it, it has shape, position, mass, texture, etc. Way more properties than the material world. Thus for me how can I not put equal stock in that reality since it makes up my perception? Am I wrong or are you? If I am able to navigate the world without dying and manage to live a longer and happier life than you, am I right? Or is there no right or wrong because there is no one truth or is there a single truth? Why does the word "information" when broken down into its "root words" describe particles?

 

In =

 

Wow . . . . Ok, I would like to suggest an experiment where we put Syn5 and Popcorn in a room together and see if they spontaneously combust.

[Syn5]

 

Wow . . . . Ok, I would like to suggest an experiment where we put Syn5 and Popcorn in a room together and see if they spontaneously combust.

 

The observable existence of Popcorn, the room, and me means we already "spontaneously combusted". Now the observer is either observing our continued combustion or reduction relative to the observers position in TimeSpace to the observed.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Syn5

[arc]

Perfect!

[Syn5]

Perfect!

 

No not yet.

 

For that reality to exist the observer must also be the observed. Now it's perfect.

 

Thus, something can be anything but nothing. And this is why entropy rises in isolated systems. Because the observed and observer are exchanging information. Simply by observing and being observed, by existing, the entropy rises. Why?

 

1=0.999...

 

A whole can be broken down infinitely into hidden information, and finitely into observable information, but it all is still just 1, whole. Why does 1 = 0.999...?

 

0 = illusion of nothing, cannot truly exist.

 

. = absolute division of 0 and everything that exists. Singularity. The closer you get the closer to the illusion of 0 but also to 1

 

999... = everything observable, an infinite number of 9's, each exactly the same as the last. Or are they? They are and aren't. Even though everything is made up of the same bits, 9's, but the position of the bit in the sequence of the whole changes everything for the observer, which is also always the observed.

 

I also predict all irrational numbers ultimately add up to 0.999... (all are odd) leaving only probability for all other numbers, some are even so will add up to 1, but 1=0.999... and 1 is odd. This is why reality is quantum and not at the same time. Our world is even, parity=0 (0 is an illusion). The hidden world is odd, parity=1. They interact because of the illusion of 0, everything is still parity 1, bits and no reason a bit cant interact with another bit but a lot of the interaction we will miss, hidden information.

 

The more complex the interaction between the observed and the observer, the higher the entropy, the more gravity. SpaceTime is a product of this.

 

Everything, material or not exists. Every thought, every irrational or rational concept, everything is part of the whole. The past and future are still, one single whole. We just happen to be observing the reading of the information, the present, which truly isn't a thing, its action, its motion, its space, its time, its everything observable.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Syn5

[Klaynos]

I have a few comments.

 

Science (modern physics which is the topic at play here) is the mathematical modeling of the universe and the testing of those models against the universe. Your idea if it was science should be able to derive the height of a geostationary orbit around earth.

 

Why should the universe obey the logic of a group of ape descendants on a little blue green planet around a rather average star?

[Syn5]

I have a few comments.

 

Science (modern physics which is the topic at play here) is the mathematical modeling of the universe and the testing of those models against the universe. Your idea if it was science should be able to derive the height of a geostationary orbit around earth.

 

Why should the universe obey the logic of a group of ape descendants on a little blue green planet around a rather average star?

 

 

Your comment would make sense if science and man could separate. We can't. The moment we created (raised entropy) science we were permanently linked together. Creator and creation. No matter how hard you try science will have its beginning in man. Thus science may never truly be separate from man or what created man. Science though is not observable by anything in the universe but us. Now if you can't separate how do you observe your creator? Interaction in this world is one way, observers give the observed meaning. The realest thing we can observe in our Universe is ourselves, not the physical, but the intangible being of man. Argue again that science is greater than the human mind. Both are intangible if that helps.

 

so,

 

Why should the universe obey the logic of science created by a group of ape descendants on a little blue green planet around a rather average star?

Edited November 6, 2014 by Syn5

[Strange]

Exactly. Mass is just an imagination that arises whenever information is observed.

But earlier, you said:

It's an event's unobserved information that gives it mass.

So it sounds like you don't even understand your own theory.

 

 

By changing the letters and order you have changed the information. Again my sentence expresses logical thought that seems to contradict on the surface without changing the information, the bits and sequence.

 

I have just provided example sentences which show that you claim "lie and lay can never appear in the same sentence" was wrong.

 

Your sentence is so ungrammatical and ambiguous that it is meaningless. To claim that a meaningless sentence expresses logical thought is clearly wrong.

 

As you can't use your "theory" to caclulate anything it is not a theory and apparently useless.

Is there a single truth, an absolute truth?

 

That is a question of philosophy that there doesn't appear to have a definite answer. Like most philosophical problems it goes away when you define what you mean by "truth". (In other words, philosophers just replace it with a different problem.)

 

 

I am an intuitive, I do not consciously think. Things just pop up out of nowhere and I get a deep feeling of intuition.

 

Perhaps that is why you can write a grammatically incorrect and meaningless sentence, but still think that it makes sense.

 

Perhaps you need to learn to harness this imaginative thought process by applying some critical thinking to the ideas that pop out of nowhere. Just because they pop up does not mean they are right, or even make sense.

 

You need to spend a bit of time analysing them and working out which, if any, have any validity or usefulness.

 

And then a bit more time in explaining them in terms others can understand. You mentioned context in the first post. One problem is the total lack of context (I assume it only exists in your won head). So I have no idea which of the many meanings of "lie" or "lay" you are using in your example sentence (nor why those verbs should be significant) and it is impossible to work it out from context (because ungrammatical and ambigiuous).

 

If you continue to splurge ideas here as soon as they pop up, you will continue to get a pretty negative response.

[Syn5]

"Exactly. Mass is just an imagination that arises whenever information is observed."

 

But earlier, you said:

 

"It's an event's unobserved information that gives it mass."

 

So it sounds like you don't even understand your own theory.

 

What happens when you observe information? Some always remain hidden. So to observe is to create the unobserved, vice-versa. Again everything is the same and different. The singularity is very real. That's just the rule, to observe is to complicate, to divide the whole and that is all the present is. The division of the whole causes everything.

 

I have just provided example sentences which show that you claim "lie and lay can never appear in the same sentence" was wrong.

 

Your sentence is so ungrammatical and ambiguous that it is meaningless. To claim that a meaningless sentence expresses logical thought is clearly wrong.

 

How is there no logic in the sentences? Maybe they had more entropy for you than me.

 

The sentences are rules of English grammar. Lay and lie in the present cannot mean the same thing. The words can mean the same anywhere else in Time. In past and future tense lay and lie can both mean to be still, no motion, in a certain location (well duh if no motion). So can you have no motion in the present, can you lay or is it lie? Did the people who invent the rule know it applied to matter?

 

Guess I'm trying to say that the inventors of language already understood the world when they came up with language by logically looking at the world and dividing the observed into a network of relating concepts, thoughts, what have you. From language came our reality, including science. And what is science measuring? The observers reality.

 

Also of note. Everything looks like a network. The mind, the internet, the universe, the body, etc etc. All look pretty much the same from the right observation points. So everything is connected.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Syn5

[Strange]

How is there no logic in the sentences?

 

Your first sentence was ungrammatical and ambiguous to the extent that it was impossible to understand it. Therefore it cannot be logical. It may mean something to you, but you have failed to express that.

 

 

The sentences are rules of English grammar.

 

No they aren't. They seem to be a confused mix of misunderstood grammar and the confusion of different homographs.

 

Lay and lie in the present cannot mean the same thing.

 

Now you might be beginning to make sense. You are saying that there are two different verbs, with the non-finite forms lie and lay. That is hardly news.

 

The words can mean the same anywhere else in Time

 

No they can't. The past tense of lie (in one sense) is lay. I assume this is the source of your confusion. However, there is no verb for which the past tense form is lie.

 

And, of course, as you have already said, they are different verbs with different meanings.

 

And, of course, English has no future tense.

 

So, again, wrong on multiple counts.

 

Did the people who invented the rule know it related to matter?

 

No one invented the rule and it doesn't relate to matter.

 

I have no idea why you think you can extrapolate from a couple of words which have overlapping forms in one very ordinary language to some meaningless ideas about gravity.

 

Try doing this in French or Japanese and your entire argument falls apart. Unless you are claiming that God spoke English (and not just English, but a specific dialect of modern English) when he created the universe.

 

And why those particular words? Why not compare still (not moving) and still (a vessel for making strong liquor) and prove that gravity is caused by people getting drunk and falling down.

 

Or maybe you could extrapolate from the fact that cleave means the opposite of cleave to some idea about the nature of matter and antimatter.

 

Those two ideas make exactly as much sense as yours. (If not more so.)

 

Or, just maybe, you could stop and think a bit more carefully about (a) the content of your ideas and (b) how you try and communicate them.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Strange

[Syn5]

 

And why those particular words? Why not compare still (not moving) and still (a vessel for making strong liquor) and prove that gravity is caused by people getting drunk and falling down.

 

Still (not moving) and still (vessel). A vessel, a container, a body, material, all are information and thus are still.

 

"A still is a still for the not still."

 

Solids are still compared to the liquid they may hold depending on the speed of observation.

 

Cleave (separate) and cleave (adhere). Lets say the group that invented the Old English word clēofan (separate) had synesthesia (neuroscience theories believe most creative personality types have synesthesia, also we all are born with synesthesia, sense as one undivided. Early man inventor of language may have been full synesthete). To them the word's shape, sound, feel, etc would have to match the concept trying to be conveyed. Let's assume the same for the Old English word clifian (adhere).

 

Now whats the best way to think of separate? By simultaneously thinking of adhere or other opposites. Add synesthesia and it's no wonder some words are auto-antonym.

 

When material reality came from a single point (big bang, what have you) everything material must be connected.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Syn5