Pattern Intergrity = Soul{?}

[andrewcellini]

Well Andrew, lets begin with how you define soul. Then lets compare your definition with a few differrent dictionarys. Then lets compare those with others definition of soul.

 

Then maybe, just maybe, you can begin to grasp the tinest bit of why I equate soul with biolgoical,as a rational, logical and common sense conclusion. So show us some beef/content of what exactly you believe soul is. I wont hold my breath in anticiepation.

 

i understand that definitions can change, i think this is a pointless endeavor and here's why:

 

as there is no evidence for what is commonly referred as a soul, the supernatural spiritual kind, this is merely just redefining something such that we can say it exists. there's no point and it offers no use for science as the terms necessary to describe phenomena relating to what is commonly attributed to the soul such as awareness, will etc (and what you are also referring to the soul such as protons etc) either already exist or will exist and soul will probably not be one of the terms.

 

i urge you to reread your posts as they are riddled with not only incoherent analyses of roots of words and their relationships to words you've made up such as "U"niverse > Universe > universe{s} > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse

 

but also more recently numerology.

 

there isn't very much that is rational about your posts

Edited March 13, 2015 by andrewcellini

[Strange]

 

If you dont know what proton means the you need to learn how to use a dictionary, or ask me what I mean by using that word.

 

Sames goes for the word soul and the question mark in brackets. All English.

 

Yes, the words are English. The words have meaning. The collection of words doesn't:

"Proton/soul{?} = 3 quarks = OO OO OO = 2160 degrees of stable variation"

 

So you are saying "A proten divided by a soul equals three quarks which also equals an expression of surprise or delight (oo oo oo) which also equals three stable rotations of a circle."

 

Sorry, that makes zero sense.

In what way can you equate a "soul" with a subatomic particle?

What evidence do you have that a soul exists?

What does "oo oo oo" mmean?

Why the random use of colour?

Where does 2160 degrees come from?

What does "stable variation" mean? (I know the two words mean something but the combination doesn't. You might as well say "implicit fruitbat" or "colourless blue")

 

And how about just explaining the whole thing in proper English instead of some cryptic code. I assume the reason for posting this is to communicate your ideas, in which case you should be pleased that people are asking for clarification. Why get angry when people ask you to explain yourself? Is it because you can't explain it because you know it doesn't make sense?

 

Or maybe you think you must be very intelligent because no one else can understand what you write.

 

Space( 31 ) Time( 24 ) Mind/Intellect( 12 ) Biological( 8 ) Spin( 6 ) IS( 2 ) and these all combine as our observed reality.

 

Where do the numbers in brackets come from? And what is their significance?

 

Time(17) flies(3) like(986) an(32) arrow(12). Fruit(16) flies(17) like(21) a(27) banana(64).

[cixe]

 

Yes, the words are English. The words have meaning. The collection of words doesn't:

"Proton/soul{?} = 3 quarks = OO OO OO = 2160 degrees of stable variation"

 

So you are saying "A proten divided by a soul equals three quarks which also equals an expression of surprise or delight (oo oo oo) which also equals three stable rotations of a circle."

 

Sorry, that makes zero sense.

In what way can you equate a "soul" with a subatomic particle?

What evidence do you have that a soul exists?

What does "oo oo oo" mmean?

Why the random use of colour?

Where does 2160 degrees come from?

What does "stable variation" mean? (I know the two words mean something but the combination doesn't. You might as well say "implicit fruitbat" or "colourless blue")

 

And how about just explaining the whole thing in proper English instead of some cryptic code. I assume the reason for posting this is to communicate your ideas, in which case you should be pleased that people are asking for clarification. Why get angry when people ask you to explain yourself? Is it because you can't explain it because you know it doesn't make sense?

 

Or maybe you think you must be very intelligent because no one else can understand what you write.

 

Where do the numbers in brackets come from? And what is their significance?

 

Time(17) flies(3) like(986) an(32) arrow(12). Fruit(16) flies(17) like(21) a(27) banana(64).

 

Yes the collection of words have meaning that you and other have a ego based mental block too understanding them.

 

Now read my text/lips, you need to go back to the beginning, just like most everybody else, because nowhere have I stated what suggest "proton divided by soul" and in fact, I was very clear from the begining in stating that, I believe biological and soul are synonyms, or should be and express that very clearly with a diagonal hash/mark between them.

 

So again go back to the beginning, wherein I'm very clearly euqating pattern integrity with biological/soul and the possibility--- ergo the quetion mark in brackets{ ? } ---of a proton as pattern integrity to be also consider as some degree of being a soul, ergo another case of being a synonum i.e. proton/soul{ ? }.

 

Now for you know full well how well I how I was using the hash/mark as a synonm and not as division symbol in some forumlaeic equation, so stop please stop fieging ignorance. Sad :--( lack of intelletutal integrity. imho.

 

So sorry you make zero sense as much or more than I don. imho

 

I have somebody else to reply to, so, if you want to go back to the beginning and start with the first words{s} you can not understand, I will assist. I can not spend all day going through your long list of questions that require much more indepth explanaion, that, I dont believe you have the least sincerity of heart, in actually understanding where I'm coming from i.e. I believe that you believe it is all nonsenese, trying to meet a long list questions of the more obscure stuff in my posts is a waste of bandwidtih.

 

r6/cixe ---this is a synoym Strange, so please to not try to skew my signing off as a division symbol---Sad :--( lack of intellectual integrity Sad :--(

i understand that definitions can change, i think this is a pointless endeavor and here's why:

 

as there is no evidence for what is commonly referred as a soul, the supernatural spiritual kind, this is merely just redefining something such that we can say it exists. there's no point and it offers no use for science as the terms necessary to describe phenomena relating to what is commonly attributed to the soul such as awareness, will etc (and what you are also referring to the soul such as protons etc) either already exist or will exist and soul will probably not be one of the terms.

 

i urge you to reread your posts as they are riddled with not only incoherent analyses of roots of words and their relationships to words you've made up such as "U"niverse > Universe > universe{s} > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse

 

but also more recently numerology.

 

there isn't very much that is rational about your posts

 

 

I dont think you have a wholistic understanding of how new words, dictionaries,various types of dictionaries and definitions not only may change, but more importantly, what is morel likely, is that the words evolve i.e. new definitions are added/adopted to them. Soul has many variations of definitions associated with it and perhaps more than any other word in many differrent dictionaries.

 

It is very clear to me, that humans associate a soul with human, if not also other animals i.e. people ask whether other biologicals have a soul. My conclusion, is tat, biological/soul is the most complex pattern integrity--- barring ideas of two or more humans i.e. Earth full of humans, galxey, Universe etc... ----but now I repeat myself because you and others have such a ego based mental block to anything Ive stated. Sad :--( lack of intellectual integrity. imho

 

There is a point to my associating biological with soul as synonyms--- biological/soul ---. Both are pattern integrities, ergo my attempts to see a further inclusive expansion of the word soul as any{?} pattern integrity--- that occurs naturally i.e . not human made ex automobile. ergo my inclusion of the word reincarnation at some time in and eternally existent Universe.

 

I urge you to start at the beginning, and if you find a word or any set thereof, that you have difficulty getting your seemingly very narrow mind around, please feel free to ask.

 

Universe is a word in many dictionaries and not a "made up" word as you falsely accuse me of. So please do continue to make false insinuations of my comments as stated.

 

Now as to variation of the word Universe as "U"niverse, I think this is just another place where you maintain a very limiting/narrow mind-set. If you or others actually choose to understand what I mean by "U"niverse or any other words or words conected by texticon, then you and or they can ask. This is simple.

 

I think what is happening, is that some here feel that they are know-it-all types, ergo, if a person states something they do not understand, then it is a word salad of giberrish. Now that may be true in some cases, but not in my mind i.e. I can find your pages of true gibberrish or even type true giberish to give you example for relativety, but again, this trajectory you and others have introduced to this thread is a waste of bandwidth, and a sad lack of intellectual integrity. imho.

 

 

As for numerology, I think your mind is once again very narrow and lacks more wholistic understanding of what eactly numerology means or can mean. Conventional/classical numerology gives a qualitative meaning to a number and yes in this thread I did that to some degree by associating a number with some aspect of Universe and I have approached these associations from a rational, logical and common sense study of the numbers and their sets associated with very specific set of geometrical patterns---- 5 regular/symmetrical polyhedra ---that, are eternal metaphysical-1, absolute truths, that, exist everywhere and everywhen, irrespective of any alledged Multiverses or Omniverses, or parrallel universe's or bubble universe's etc.............

 

In general, I have only rarely added numbers together to arrive at some qualitative meaning, to associate with Universe or any of its parts. What I did with my Space{ 31 } etc...addition to 83 and then powering^ was a playful step further into the world of that which is consider to be the more classical-like numerology. Get over it,as it is not a serious claim, only my far reaching exploration into the world of numbers and number sets that may be associated to Universe and geometry in complementary ways, that you, I or anyone else does not yet understand.

 

If you could step outside of your narrow mind set, then you would find many scientists have many questions regarding the root nature of our finite, occupied space Universe. There exists those scientists types who believe Unierse is an illusion and all that really exists in mathematical/numerical probablities.

 

So, where was I.. Oh yeah, biological/soul is 75% water and water{ H2O } has my intuited number 8 association in the eletron shell count. I love it, irrespective of whether others can get beyond there narrow mind-set of exploration of extremely complex and extremmely mysterious Universe.

 

I would hope, that those with intellectual integrity could allow a degree of tolerance intellectual tolerance to recognise my rational, loigcal and common sense endeavors to discover what, why, how etc....Universe operates, beginning at a philosophical level or in this specific case, philosophy thread.

 

r6/cixe

 

And how about just explaining the whole thing in proper English instead of some cryptic code. I assume the reason for posting this is to communicate your ideas, in which case you should be pleased that people are asking for clarification. Why get angry when people ask you to explain yourself? Is it because you can't explain it because you know it doesn't make sense?

 

 

Strange, you need to begin at the beginning. Simple. 2ndly it is not all improper English or all cyrptic code as you woul infer the whole of my post is. Sad :--( lack of intellectual integrity. imho

 

If you find an }improper English" that you cannot get your mind around, I can assist you, hopefully. If you find a a "cryptic code" that your mind cannot grasp I can assist you.

 

Because you claim I'm angry does does not make your statement truth. This is another place of a Sad ;--( lack of moral integrity that happening in this thread.

 

It is obvious from you above, that, you seemingly cannot find a single word or set of words that make sense in anything Ive stated. Now that is another false insinuation. Sad :--( lack of moral integrity IMHo

 

cixe/r6--- is a synonym not a division of one identity by another. :--(

 

Now if and when you find a numerical formula, or process in my comments,--- not any or litte to none so far ---- that, uses a hash/slash mark, then chances are, that a division process is what is meant. You can ask, but it seems pretyy obvious, to me, that you lack sincerity of heart, in regards to anything Ive stated. :--(

 

 

My guess, Strange, is that you either need to get on my cosmic bus, with some decency and respect towards me, or go some place else.

 

I'm philosophizing--- based on my years of explorations to find any deeper nature to the operations of finite, occupied space, Universe --on what may or may not be ways of to refine, and/or redefine, and /or rexamine how, we view the environment that embraces each of us. imho

 

cixe/r6

 

Where do the numbers in brackets come from? And what is their significance?

 

Time(17) flies(3) like(986) an(32) arrow(12). Fruit(16) flies(17) like(21) a(27) banana(64).

 

Strange, you being fecious or whatever disrepectful quality is a appropriate for you above. Sad :--( lack of moral and intellectual integrity. imho.

 

Also see how you insinuate that every word or set thereof is meangingless gibberish and or word salad, and then you skip over what is well established facts, proper English and links to relevant and information and go straight to the most obscure comments by me. In a way, you indirectly insinuate that you do grasp all Ive stated--- tho you do not acknowledge any of such ---and instead go those comments by me, that do requie much more indepth explanation in order to understand how I got to those specific sets numerical associations to some aspect of our fintie, occupied space, Universe.

 

I personally think you lack some basic and simple respect, decency associated with moral and intellectual integrity and the evidence is obvious to those who value truth. imho

 

Space{ 31 } requires you to understand what space is, and specifically how I define it. I think you lack the intellectual and moral integrity to venture in that direction, however, I'm always open to people being able to change in the here and now.

 

However, Strange, the main gist of this thread was in regards to biological{ 8 }. That biological{ 8 } just happen to be the longer string of words{ # } I arrived at a few months back. In recent post I posted what I believe is significant relevancy to my intuitive association of biological/soul with #8.

 

I even a gave a link to the 6 electrons of oxygen plus 2 of hydrogen as H2O aka water. You missed the gist of biological/soul being 80% or so water ergo biological/soul{ 8 }. Now that is only one rational, logical, and common sense association biological with #8.

 

The others were, and still are, mostly intuitive, and revolve around number sets associated with fundamental polyhedra.

 

r6/cixe

 

So

Edited March 13, 2015 by cixe

[andrewcellini]

Now as to variation of the word Universe as "U"niverse, I think this is just another place where you maintain a very limiting/narrow mind-set. If you or others actually choose to understand what I mean by "U"niverse or any other words or words conected by texticon, then you and or they can ask. This is simple.

 

I think what is happening, is that some here feel that they are know-it-all types, ergo, if a person states something they do not understand, then it is a word salad of giberrish. Now that may be true in some cases, but not in my mind i.e. I can find your pages of true gibberrish or even type true giberish to give you example for relativety, but again, this trajectory you and others have introduced to this thread is a waste of bandwidth, and a sad lack of intellectual integrity. imho.

 

 

As for numerology, I think your mind is once again very narrow and lacks more wholistic understanding of what eactly numerology means or can mean. Conventional/classical numerology gives a qualitative meaning to a number and yes in this thread I did that to some degree by associating a number with some aspect of Universe and I have approached these associations from a rational, logical and common sense study of the numbers and their sets associated with very specific set of geometrical patterns---- 5 regular/symmetrical polyhedra ---that, are eternal metaphysical-1, absolute truths, that, exist everywhere and everywhen, irrespective of any alledged Multiverses or Omniverses, or parrallel universe's or bubble universe's etc.............

 

In general, I have only rarely added numbers together to arrive at some qualitative meaning, to associate with Universe or any of its parts. What I did with my Space{ 31 } etc...addition to 83 and then powering^ was a playful step further into the world of that which is consider to be the more classical-like numerology. Get over it,as it is not a serious claim, only my far reaching exploration into the world of numbers and number sets that may be associated to Universe and geometry in complementary ways, that you, I or anyone else does not yet understand.

 

If you could step outside of your narrow mind set, then you would find many scientists have many questions regarding the root nature of our finite, occupied space Universe. There exists those scientists types who believe Unierse is an illusion and all that really exists in mathematical/numerical probablities.

 

there's no one claiming that you made up the word universe, but your descent into "u"niverse "i"verse and the like are ill defined in your own post and indeed are incoherent. if you want to explain the meaning of it because I have no idea what is it to represent.

 

you are arbitrarily taking dimensionless numbers to be special and then associating them with words that may or may not even be related. there is essentially no use to it.

[Phi for All]

Time(17) flies(3) like(986) an(32) arrow(12). Fruit(16) flies(17) like(21) a(27) banana(64).

 

You just said the secret word....

[Strange]

 

Space{ 31 } requires you to understand what space is, and specifically how I define it.

 

Instead of using so many words to throw insults around, you could have simply explained what the "31" means. As you can't be bothered to explain it, I can't be bothered to take it seriously either.

[cixe]

there's no one claiming that you made up the word universe, but your descent into "u"niverse "i"verse and the like are ill defined in your own post and indeed are incoherent. if you want to explain the meaning of it because I have no idea what is it to represent.

 

you are arbitrarily taking dimensionless numbers to be special and then associating them with words that may or may not even be related. there is essentially no use to it.

 

Andrew you need to move along and place you golden attention somewhere useful as you not offering significantly helpful information, and you have no questions for what many imply their clueless to all of my words, and you have not began at the begining and approach the first set of words/word, that, you dot not understand.

 

Your wasting bandwidth the above, whereas I been giving signficcantly relevant information and facts to this thread, that, others just ignore and continually keep inferring how clueless they are to anything Ive stated. Sad :--( lack of intellectual integrity. imho Thx for your attempts to be helpful, with a few relevant questions.

 

cixe/r6

 

Instead of using so many words to throw insults around, you could have simply explained what the "31" means. As you can't be bothered to explain it, I can't be bothered to take it seriously either.

 

 

Huh, your got to be pulling our leg Strange. After all the word salads, and gibberish implications, that, all here clueless,, to anything Ive stated, you go to the bottom of the very last post, instead of beginning at the beginnning. If you want to have a wholistic understanding of where I'm coming from, you need to start at the beginning and approach me with the first word of seeminly all of them, that cannot understand. Sad :--( lack of of moral and intellectual integrity. imho.

 

If you want to understand my wholistic assesment of why associated the number 31, with space, then you and I have to come to and common agreement as to the defifnition of space, at or alt least the one I use. Only then can we get into my use of 31 with space.

 

PLease share when you can actually approach me with what I have suggested to you and others here, at least once if not many times now.

 

To get beyond the narrow mind-set amongest the few of rudely interrupted in most of these posts, is going to take some sincerity of heart and desire to have much more wholistic approach to all that may be involved in understanding the underlying nature of our finite, occupied space, Universe. imo. Thx

 

Now where was I before being interrrupted many posts back..." Oh yeah, biological/soul as pattern integrity is 75% or more water{ H2O }.

 

H2O = 6 electrons of the oxygen shell covalenced with 2 electrons of hydrogen ergo one sifnificant case study of biological/soul{ 8 }. imho

 

r6/cixe

Edited March 13, 2015 by cixe

[Phi for All]

Your wasting bandwidth the above, whereas I been giving signficcan information and facts that others just ignore and keep inferring how clueless they are to anything Ive stated. Sad :--( lack of intellectual integrity. imho

 

...

 

Now where was I before being interrrupted many posts back..." Oh yeah, biological/soul as pattern integrity is 75% or more water{ H2O }.

 

You can parade your Dunning-Kruger mental misfires around all you want, and the folks here are going to try to patiently explain where you have gone wrong, but you can't keep insulting people personally and stay here. We attack ideas here, not people. And we attack ideas to make them better, stronger, more trustworthy. I don't think you understand that any better than you do science.

[Strange]

 

If you want to understand my wholistic assesment of why associated the number 31, with space, then you and I have to come to and common agreement as to the defifnition of space, at or alt least the one I use. Only then can we get into my use of 31 with space.

 

So you are not prepared to explain it?

[cixe]

 

So you are not prepared to explain it?

 

Strange, Ive been prepared for some years now. You are the one who is not prepared. Sad :--( And you have no intention of doing any proper preparation, because you lack sincerity of heart, moral integrity and intellectual integrity, in my regards. Sad :--(

 

Ive offered to prepare you and you refuse to be amenable to my suggestions, references, facts, speculations, ponderings, explorations etc....Sad :--(.

 

cixe/r6

[andrewcellini]

 

Andrew you need to...

i need to clearly understand what you're trying to say.

 

so you're neither going to confirm or deny that you are arbitrarily assigning numbers to words, or that you're just stringing together ideas which you may or may not even understand?

 

i'm not being trying to be personally mean towards you when i examine your idea and show you things that are ill defined by you, or things which probably are incoherent. i'm trying to clearly understand what you mean. for all i know, you are tossing numbers and words around meaninglessly.

 

at the very least try to form a stronger informal argument than what is contained in your op; it's clearly not a complete explanation if no one (so far) can understand what you're trying to say.

[cixe]

i need to clearly understand what you're trying to say.

it's clearly not a complete explanation if no one (so far) can understand what you're trying to say.

 

Ive already pointed you to the begining and that is where you need to go, or just keep on going someplace else where your golden attention is helpful.

 

If no one can understand any word{s} then they can ask. How many times are you and others going to yank my chain uneccesarily? Give it break dude. Thx to move along somewhere else where you can be of help to someone as your of no help to me and offer only the tinest shred of sincertity of heart, moral integrity and intellectual integrity in my regards.

 

Thx, r6/cixe

 

[Strange]

If no one can understand any word{s} then they can ask.

 

I have asked, and rather than an explanation, I get insults.

 

So, where does the number 31 come from and what is its relationship to space?

[andrewcellini]

If no one can understand any word{s} then they can ask. How many times are you and others going to yank my chain uneccesarily?

if you didn't have anyone "yanking your chain," you would probably not think twice about the validity of your ideas. at the very least i hope to provide you with some doubt as to help you strengthen not only your current ideas but any future ones.

 

how many times do you expect someone to read it before they understand it? i'm not going to reread ad nauseum something which hasn't made sense two times now. all of the entities you have presented seem to be unrelated except when you have explicitly and arbitrarily defined them as "souls." if this isn't the case then feel free to expand on it.

 

likewise if your numbers have some actual meaning it would be helpful for you to explain.

Edited March 13, 2015 by andrewcellini

[cixe]

 

I have asked, and rather than an explanation, I get insults.

 

So, where does the number 31 come from and what is its relationship to space?

 

And Ive replied many times to you. My intention is not to insult you, only to give you feedback as to how I feel your attitude appears to me.

 

Unhelpful, and lacking........etc...

 

Like Andrew, you have no sincerity of heart or desire so please move along to somewhere that you golden attention has something helpful, relevant and of sinificant further my thoughts regarding pattern integrity = soul{?}. Thx.

 

cixe/r6---Strange, the slahs/hash mark is not being used as division of cixe by r6, I know you have difficulty understanding the differrence of texticons, words, numbers etc...,have many diffferrent meanings and uses, but sincerity of heart, integrity of mind and moral judgement will help along the way. imho.

if you didn't have anyone "yanking your chain," you would probably not think twice about the validity of your ideas. at the very least i hope to provide you with some doubt as to help you strengthen not only your current ideas but any future ones.

 

how many times do you expect someone to read it before they understand it? i'm not going to reread ad nauseum something which hasn't made sense two times now. all of the entities you have presented seem to be unrelated except when you have explicitly and arbitrarily defined them as "souls." if this isn't the case then feel free to expand on it.

 

likewise if your numbers have some actual meaning it would be helpful for you to explain.

 

Now where was I before being constantly and rudely interrupted by you....Oh yeah, the link I gave, shows, that, H2O{ water } has 6 electrons in the oxygen shell that are shared with 2 hydrogen electrons ergo 8 electrons in that shell.

 

Humans are 75%, or more, water{ H2O }, ergo biological/soul{ 8 }....I love it when the cosmos lays one on me like that. Very cool! imho

 

r6/cixe---the hash/slash mark is not a division symbol for r6 and cixe. I know this is difficult for some here to grasp, but texticons, words, numbers etc can have many differrent uses, meaning etc depending on the context where there used.

 

My experience here tells me that many of you need learn how to use and then actually practice using a dictionary. imho. Thx.

[Strange]

 

And Ive replied many times to you. My intention is not to insult you, only to give you feedback as to how I feel your attitude appears to me.

 

Unhelpful, and lacking........etc...

 

Like Andrew, you have no sincerity of heart or desire so please move along to somewhere that you golden attention has something helpful, relevant and of sinificant further my thoughts regarding pattern integrity = soul{?}. Thx.

 

cixe/r6---Strange, the slahs/hash mark is not being used as division of cixe by r6, I know you have difficulty understanding the differrence of texticons, words, numbers etc...,have many diffferrent meanings and uses, but sincerity of heart, integrity of mind and moral judgement will help along the way. imho.

 

Now where was I before being constantly and rudely interrupted by you....Oh yeah, the link I gave, shows, that, H2O{ water } has 6 electrons in the oxygen shell that are shared with 2 hydrogen electrons ergo 8 electrons in that shell.

 

Humans are 75%, or more, water{ H2O }, ergo biological/soul{ 8 }....I love it when the cosmos lays one on me like that. Very cool! imho

 

Still no explanation of "31" ...

[sunshaker]

 

Still no explanation of "31" ...

I think I understand where cixe is coming from, also everybody elses confusion, it can be hard to understand others thoughts and methods/shorthand without proper explanations,

 

cixe:

The brackets are my texticonic expression for associating great circles( 25 ) and( 31 ) great tubes (( 25 )) and (( 31 )) and specicficall the primary set of 25 great cirlces--- or in my scenario tubes ---of the 4-fold cubo-octa{8}hedron aka Vector Equlibrium and the primary set 31 great circles/tubes of the 5-fold icosa(20)hedron. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85818-43-sine-wave-unification-of-universe-inside-outing/

I agree with Phi for alls quote "We attack ideas here, not people. And we attack ideas to make them better, stronger, more trustworthy".

This makes us try harder to form our ideas so others may understand, and allow us to take these ideas to the next level.

 

I enjoy your threads cixes/6's(and those of a few others who have now sadly been banned), but it seems you have to learn to take time to explain to others what they do not understand about your ideas, then you can move on. I agree sometimes it is hard to take ideas that we understand in our own heads and put them to words others can understand.

Patience and time and questioning from others helps in the long run TO SOLIDIFY these ideas we have, and turn them into a model all can understand(whether they are agreed with or not) it can be frustrating but no malice is meant .

Edited March 14, 2015 by sunshaker

[cixe]

I think I understand where cixe is coming from, also everybody elses confusion, it can be hard to understand others thoughts and methods/shorthand without proper explanations,

I agree with Phi for alls quote "We attack ideas here, not people. And we attack ideas to make them better, stronger, more trustworthy".

This makes us try harder to form our ideas so others may understand, and allow us to take these ideas to the next level.

 

I enjoy your threads cixes/6's(and those of a few others who have now sadly been banned), but it seems you have to learn to take time to explain to others what they do not understand about your ideas, then you can move on. I agree sometimes it is hard to take ideas that we understand in our own heads and put them to words others can understand.

Patience and time and questioning from others helps in the long run TO SOLIDIFY these ideas we have, and turn them into a model all can understand(whether they are agreed with or not) it can be frustrating but no malice is meant .

 

Ive always been availble with patience, to explain and/or elaborate, what I mean, and have done so repeatedly in this thread. So your statement, in those regards, is moot.

 

In regards to Stranges request, Ive repeatedly given him the pathway of understand where I'm coming from with 31, via;

 

1) a common agreement or acknowledgement of and understanding of how space is defined by me,

 

2) go back to the beginning of a thread, that, is referred to as word aslad, gibberrish that no one can understand, and start with the first word(s), or set in sequence, thereof, that, he cannot understand, and i will assist hm.

 

I have offered these pathways repeatedly--- you may have missed those ---to others, and Strange is the one who lacks patience and sincerity-of-heart to understand anything ive stated, or the pathways that lead to these considerationns of futher explanantion. imho

 

He is the one who lacks patience, and sincerity of heart.

 

Thx Sunshaker for what appears to be a somone reasonable moderation of the circumstances we find ourselves in.

 

r6/cixe---the slash/hash mark is not a division symbol, in cixe/r6 is meant as symbol for synonym. Ex and/or is and/or has been commonly used by humans for many years in such manner. I know this is difficult for some around here to understand, but, texticons, words, numbers can have differrent meanings and uses depending on the contex/content of where and how their used.

Edited March 14, 2015 by cixe

[John Cuthber]

The problem is not that it "is difficult for some around here to understand".

The problem is that you made no attempt to explain it.

Why not try again, starting from the beginning with stuff that is known- for example we probably accept that the proton is made from three quarks so when you say

"Proton/soul{?} = 3 quarks = OO OO OO = 2160 degrees of stable variation"

we know that you are wrong.

"Proton/soul{?} = 3 quarks "

Is almost certainly wrong

simply because "Proton = 3 quarks"

is (in a sense) right

Unless that bit about the soul i.e. "/soul{?}" makes no difference then

"Proton/soul{?}" can't equal "Proton"

 

because they are plainly different.

If the "/soul{?}" bit makes no difference then it's pointless.

So we can all plainly see that your writing is either pointless or wrong.

 

that's why we call it word salad.

[cixe]

The problem is not that it "is difficult for some around here to understand".

The problem is that you made no attempt to explain it.

Why not try again, starting from the beginning with stuff that is known- for example we probably accept that the proton is made from three quarks so when you say

"Proton/soul{?} = 3 quarks = OO OO OO = 2160 degrees of stable variation"

we know that you are wrong.

"Proton/soul{?} = 3 quarks "

Is almost certainly wrong

simply because "Proton = 3 quarks"

is (in a sense) right

Unless that bit about the soul i.e. "/soul{?}" makes no difference then

"Proton/soul{?}" can't equal "Proton"

 

because they are plainly different.

If the "/soul{?}" bit makes no difference then it's pointless.

So we can all plainly see that your writing is either pointless or wrong.

 

that's why we call it word salad.

 

Dear John, yes the problem is that many here have difficulty in understanding andything Ive stated, and if you dont understand that, then you need to go back to beginning and read the replies. imho

 

Dear John, Pattern Integrity = Soul is the first line of text and I know that is difficult sentence for some around here however, when asked about word pattern--- maybe also integrity{ I forget now } ---I gave definitive expalnations and dictionary definitions. No one replied oh ok thanks for the explanation{s}. Cixe, now I understand.

 

Yes, I regret not putting a { ? } after the word soul but I did do that in thread topic. Get over it already as I questioned the validity of the statement from the get go.

 

Previously I always reference these two as synomym biological = soul ergo biological/soul is the 2nd line of text and I know some around here have difficulty understanding that, If you or others still cannot understand that, then you/they can ask. I think the problem is that some know-it-alls feel, that, if they have to ask, then it must be gibbrerish word salad, or that, maybe their not a know-it-all, after-all.

 

Recently, and for no apparrent reason, I had equated soul with any pattern integrity, that re-incarnates itself is 3rd line of text and I know that is difficult for some around here to understand, so, ask and or use check a dictionary for some or every word.

 

I then stated, that, a fermionic proton is the most stable pattern integrity of Universe, that, humans know to exist and, I presume, that, all protons are identical. Just as I presume all other fermionic particle identities are identical to another with the same indentity is the 5th line of text and I know that is difficult for some around here to understand. Ditto all of my above except no one directed any queries specifically to this line{s} of text ergo I did not go into specificic explanations, etc.......

 

Then we get into the 92 atomic elements plus the transuranics, of which many or most have slight variations as isotopes of themselves-- is the 6th line of text--- or as others have called it, word salad, gibberish, cant understand it -----ditto my latter above.

Then we get into a number of differrent kins of viruses, that have either RNA or DNA but never both within, their protein shells--- is the 7th line of text ----ditto my above.

 

After posting that, I realized that, for a human to ever be reincarnated exactly, then that may only happen in a eternally existent Universe--- is the 8th line of text ---ditto my above.

 

Dear John, H,mm it also just crossed my mind that clones, similar to identical twins, may be the closet we come to humans being identical, like two protons being identical--- is the 9th line of text ---ditto my above.

So, I may have stuck my foot in mouth, or we may say that, we have differrent degrees of soul--- is my 9th line of text --ditto my above.

 

"U"niverse > Universe > universe{s} > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse-- is my 10th line of text and there was a comment, that suggested that these words are made-up words. I corrected Andrew that Universe is not a made-up word. He denies his incorrect claims.

 

As to the other words that are altered ex "U"niverse, no one asked what was meant nor asked what the whole line was meant to be representative of. I know it is difficult for some around here to step outside of there very narrow mind-set{ ?armpit? }, however, I think it is not a big leap of mind-set to extrapolate from a capital Universe to a small universe{s} plurality. Anyway no one has directed any queries specifically at those words, or the texticons, that are suggested as word salad, gibberish, not understandable.

 

Human > bacteria > virus{ twilight-zone } > chemicals > atomics > sub-atomic{ time/charge{? } > gravity{ gravitational space{ twilight-zone }-- is the 11th or so line of text and there is so more of those not-understandable texticons that could be interpreted as mathematical meanging that humans are greater than bacteria in some way or another. etc...for the other words and > texticons, that, no one has directed any specific queries.

Proton/soul{?} = 3 quarks = OO OO OO = 2160 degrees of stable variation--- is 12th or so line of text ---and I was asked specificall about this line-of-text, however, the querie was mixed in with a long seemingly peppered list, that, I tried to respond/reply to. Sorry If I was preoccupied being defensive to all the other rude interruptions.

 

Since the latter above was specificy quiered, I will do a seperated reply window for that one. Thx for your concern John and moderation suggestions. I hope this above helps to alleviate some of non-sense replies by others here and clarifies for you that section of my intial post.

 

As always if not, then please address specific word{s} comments you do not understand. Thx

 

r6/cixe

"Proton/soul{?} = 3 quarks = OO OO OO = 2160 degrees of stable variation"

we know that you are wrong.

"Proton/soul{?} = 3 quarks "

Is almost certainly wrong

simply because "Proton = 3 quarks"

is (in a sense) right

Unless that bit about the soul i.e. "/soul{?}" makes no difference then

"Proton/soul{?}" can't equal "Proton"

 

because they are plainly different.

If the "/soul{?}" bit makes no difference then it's pointless.

So we can all plainly see that your writing is either pointless or wrong.

 

that's why we call it word salad.

 

So here, as follows below, is the one line of text, that, according to John has caused so many to incorrectly generalise the whole of my initial post with the labled word salad, gibberish, not-understandble, instead of just directing their attention to this single lien of text. Is it wonder why I feel some others have a sad ;--( lack of moral integrity in regards to my initial posting--- not any knowns according to some others Sad :--( --- and other back-n-forths that was more of the same from them?

 

Proton/soul{?} = 3 quarks = OO OO OO = 2160 degrees of stable variation

 

Yes your are correct, and Andrew was incorrect, because, when I stated proton is 3 quarks is true and not as suggest only partially true. So get over it Jphn, and Andrew. Sad :--( lack of intellectual integrity imho i.e. if you or others want to add in specifics that further elaborate to the many possible specific attributes of a proton, then do please do.

 

To suggest I dont know that that I dont know that two kinds of quarks-- as Andrew appeared to do ---is just non-sense. The evidence is in the line of above where I specifically gave 3 sets of two circles, ergo each set of two associates with one quark and two of those sets are identical ergo they as same kind of quark and the other set is differrent in that is embolden and the embolden aspect was to show that, that one quark is difffernt than the other two in proton, and in neutron.

 

Proton/soul{ ? } goes back to the thread topic and beginning of this thread involve pattern integrity.

 

Now if others believe, that, a proton does not have or is not, a pattern integrity, then please state so. None here have done that and here is why;

 

1) they claim the do not know what a pattern integrity is,

 

2) or they know what a pattern integrity is and it is a fair assemssment on my part to make that association.

 

As stated from the beginning, that, a have for some years not, equated soul with biological( pattern integrity ) as biological/soul. This is not difficult concept to understand{ imho } irresepective if others agree with my association.

 

So, Andrew goes on to state, that there is no evidence for the existence of soul, as commonly defined. Well John-Andrew-others, I look at definitions of soul in dictionaries, and hardly--- accept as my biological/soul ---see a commonly agreed upon definition and those that are there do not seem clear, or at minimum left open to so many interpetations, that, I long ago, tried to narrow the field of ambiguity, by simply doing the biological/soul synonym association.

 

So John, proton/soul{ ? } is questioning, whether it is fairly reasonable assessment, to set outside of the biological parameters, to have soul be assciated with the most stable fermionic particle of Universe? If your answer is no, then fine. Move along and we see if others have oppinion on that specific.

 

You like to say pointless as a dig-in of disrespect. There is a point to my considerations whether you understand/comprehend, agree-disagree, etc.............and that point is what I state above. I'm not proposing a change to rocket science in this philosphy thread, only a question of identifying soul as a biological and the possibility of as a any pattern integrity, that, reincarnates itself.

 

I chose the proton specifically because of its seemingly eternal natural stability, tho we speculate it has finite limit of natural stability.

 

Ok that covers you. As for Stranges peppered list of queston, and the specifics to how-why etc....of 6 circles there equaling 2160 degrees, I will have to find his original post with that question, or, just initiate a post to address that query of his. Thx agin for attempts to ask for clarification of why{ ? }, how{ ? } I came to make some of my statements-quieries etc.....

 

cixe/r6

[cixe]

you said "Proton/soul{?} = 3 quarks = OO OO OO = 2160 degrees of stable variation"

-equate this with some pretty pairs of colored O's

-equate this with "2160 degrees of stable variation," which is ill defined. degrees of variations in what? what does it mean? how do you measure 2160 of them?

 

Sorry if I recalled this as being from Strange, I went back to find this amongest a flurry of replies to me at that time, from diffferrent individuals and my ability to respond in timely manner to each and every query has also been limited by my unfamiliarity with this specific forum format, i.e. there exists many differrent possible formatting circumstances with one type of forum app, and then there is many differrent type's of forum apps.

 

Andrew, I will attempt to address your questions above. Conceptually speaking, when using a mathematically geometric system, that is based on 360 degrees as unity, a/the circle = unity = 360 degrees. See, that, some surveying transits are based on 360 degrees. See, that, some protracters used in grade school or junior high are 360 degrees etc.....

 

I have 6 circles ergo 6 * 360 = 2160 ergo I equate 2160 degrees with a proton. I also equate the same with a neutron. This is where my use of the word variation comes into play, and yes, I could have explained better the first time around, but hey, is there any humans that have not typed something and upon a 2nd look, realize that, they could have stated it better?

 

By using the word variation, I was meaning to include any hadron in that catagory ex neutron that also is composed of 3 quarks, albeit the relationship between the kinds of quark is reversed. So my point was and still is, that even that is some kind of variation of the 6 circles, that, is responsible for the 3 quarks, and for the natural stability of the proton( pattern integrity } vs the much less stable neutron{ patten integrity }

 

Before explaining how there can be variations of each circle, I would first reconfirm, that, there are distinct 3 sets of two circles ergo one set of two circles = 1 quark. 3 sets of 2 circles = 3 quarks. It seems fairly obvious and simple to me i.e. not that difficult to ascertain that aspect of diffferrenation of quarks, and specifically 3 sets, in of my line of text. imho

 

And again, I was very clear in making one set of 2 circles{ 1 quark } differrent from the other two sets of circles{ 2 quarks }, by placing the one set of 2 in bold{ OO }. By putting that set of 2 circles in bold, I felt, that, I as making the minimal amount of variation to the texticons used to represent circles.

 

Ok, now we delve deeper into the idea of variation for a single circle, before going into variation possiiblities of 2 circles, or a specific set of 3 sets of circles relationship to each other. This all can get fairly complicated so I initially only chose to begin with the simplest concept, and if others want clarification--- simply address specific comment and ask ----I can do what Ive done here above and more as follows.

 

Conceptually speaking, we envision our 360 degree circles as perfect flat plane, however, we can take any circle-- or fixed length piece of string-like material ---constructed of any flexible material/medium and give it negative saddle-shape curvature or other variations of curvature that I dont know the name of cylindrical quanzet-hut, etc.....I dunno.

 

So we can have a specific variation of one circle and it goes with 2nd circle of some variation or another and that specific pattern set--- whatever it may be ---is equal to 1 quark. Simple, not difficult, or so it seems to me. Of course the ultra-micro or micro-level scales existence is the devil-is-in-the-details, of which I have no specific variations, beyond the more generalized I just gave above.

 

Next we 18 kinds/types of quark, and 18 kinds of anti-quark. With proton and neutron were only dealing with two kinds of quark.

 

With mesons{ OO OO }--- those strange, fermioinic force/boson particles ---were dealing also with anti-quarks, however, were still only dealing with 2 circles as 1 quark irrespective of its type/kind of quark.

 

So, next we can get into variation between only two quarks( OO OO }, or 3 quarks{ OO OO OO } and in doing so, we now get into specific variations for all 36 quarks, and/or anti-quarks relate/associate to each other as any one of the fermions, or mesons of consideration.

 

This requires the reader with a sincerity-of-heart, toi consider the 6 great circles of the 3-fold, tetra{4}hedron, and/or, the 6 great circles of the 4-fold cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron. See graphic A in the above 6 great circles hyper-link .

 

The variation here involves, taking the already given above variation of the individual circles, scenario, and integrate that with how these 6 conceptually static 6 great circle planes positioning to each other. So were talking, at minimum, two primary kinds of variation.

 

1) variation of the indvidual circle,

 

2) variation of two circles relationshie/association, or orientation/position to each other, and/or,

 

3) variation of two sets of two circles to any other set of two or more circles, depending on the specific particle{ pattern integrity } of consideration.

 

r6/cixe

Edited March 14, 2015 by cixe

[Acme]

...

 

This requires the reader with a sincerity-of-heart, toi consider the 6 great circles of the 3-fold, tetra{4}hedron, and/or, the 6 great circles of the 4-fold cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron. See graphic A in the above 6 great circles hyper-link .

...r6/cixe

While Fuller was handy at geometry and drafting, the conclusions he drew on the meaning of the drawings mark him out as a crank. Despite advisement from his co-author Applewhite to lay off the obtuse language and zig-zaggy reference style in SYNERGETICS: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking, Fuller insisted on the word salad approach. Word salad is as word salad does.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

And again, I was very clear in making one set of 2 circles{ 1 quark } differrent from the other

 

You may have made it clear that they were different , but you didn't even suggest that they were quarks.

When lots of people say that you are not explaining things clearly, it is silly to say that you are.

[cixe]

You may have made it clear that they were different , but you didn't even suggest that they were quarks.

When lots of people say that you are not explaining things clearly, it is silly to say that you are.

 

Dear John, as I stated previosuly, and you may have ignored, initially, I chose the most simple expression for the topic of conversation--- pattern integrity as proton/soul{ ? } = 3 quarks = 2160 degrees OO OO OO ---as more would be much more complicated to explain, ergo I left that open for any of sincere heart i.e. desire to understand more, to ask for clarification, and then we could potentially open the portals of pondering/thought, to even much more complex configurations, that, perhaps, even the best mathematician on Earth could not winnow-ou, from micro-quantum scales of existence, what-is-what, how and why etc......via 3 sets of 2 great circle associations

 

There is even more to this proton = 3 quarks scenario that is to me has more tantalizingly curious associations, however, I believe few here have the sincerity-of-heart and/or desire to delve deeper--- or afraid of getting their chain yanked ---into what I believe,makes this scenario appear to me, to be an appropriate approach to knowing more about quarks and their inter-associations with each othe, and other particles. I dunno.

 

I am curiou enough, and naive enough, to not be afraid to be ridiculed and thwarted by the likes of some here, or other groups, where there is very narrow limits on what can be posted/expressed. imho.

 

To not attempt to understand the underlying nature of Universe is shortsided. imho

 

cixe/r6

Edited March 14, 2015 by cixe

[John Cuthber]

I think Phi pretty much nailed it.

You can parade your Dunning-Kruger mental misfires around all you want, and the folks here are going to try to patiently explain where you have gone wrong, but you can't keep insulting people personally and stay here. We attack ideas here, not people. And we attack ideas to make them better, stronger, more trustworthy. I don't think you understand that any better than you do science.

Also

http://news.rutgers.edu/feature/letting-go-soul/20150310#.VQSwpY6sWSr

Edited March 14, 2015 by John Cuthber