The Unknowables

Unknowable

For the first time in the history of this blog I am going to introduce the Unknowables:

  1. The Unknowables are Unknowables because they are unknowable.

  2. The Unknowables are so obvious that nobody notices them.

  3. The Unknowables have nothing to hide that may attract attention.

  4. The Unknowables have no hidden mysteries.

  5. The Unknowables never clamor to be recognized as Unknowables.

  6. The Unknowables have no permanent self that can be captured and bottled up.

  7. An Unknowable may use a temporary facade for the time being.

  8. Without Unknowables we are left with a Tautological Universe.

  9. One may become suspicious of an Unknowable when one finds “it”  adhering to:

Discussions and what needs to be avoided

The 12 Aspects of Mindfulness

.

This is a working document about Unknowables. It may grow as more properties of Unknowables are discovered.

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • MarkNR  On November 5, 2013 at 10:22 PM

    I cannot allow myself to believe in unknowables. It would be as though I was losing hope.

  • 2ndxmr  On November 6, 2013 at 12:09 AM

    The Unknowables have no permanent self that can be captured and bottled up.

    A pity. There could be a good market for canned Unknowable. Right up there with canned air, only with an added zest of inspiration.

    • vinaire  On November 6, 2013 at 4:45 AM

      Well, they can have self. Only it keeps on changing.

  • vinaire  On November 6, 2013 at 4:37 AM

    Is there absolute?

  • vinaire  On November 6, 2013 at 4:41 AM

    The speed of light appears to be an absolute. Is it really an absolute?

    • 2ndxmr  On November 6, 2013 at 9:10 PM

      I think the fundamental absolute of this universe will come down to a cyclic action which has a period indicated by the Planck constant, Planck second and Planck length.

      That cycle is the heartbeat of the universe.

      • vinaire  On November 6, 2013 at 9:14 PM

        That sounds pretty good. I see space and time to be aspects of motion. What would be Planck Unit for motion?

      • Chris Thompson  On November 6, 2013 at 9:49 PM

        2x: That cycle is the heartbeat of the universe.

        Chris: It makes sense to me that there would be a basic heartbeat, rhythm, vibration, wavelength to things and underpinning that, a consistent explanation. It would be so fun to be around to see that explained.

        • MarkNR  On November 7, 2013 at 7:48 AM

          The “stable Datum” of the universe.
          To me, the whole of physics research and discovery is finding out “What were they thinking at the time.”

      • vinaire  On November 6, 2013 at 10:01 PM

        How does Planck’s length compare with atomic dimensions?

      • vinaire  On November 7, 2013 at 5:40 PM

        Well that cycle is the frequency that we also associate with EM waves. And there is a whole spectrum of those frequencies.

  • vinaire  On November 6, 2013 at 5:45 AM

    “We have been taught that the true length of a moving body is “the distance between simultaneous positions of its end points” – a very good definition, but impossible of application for the reason that we cannot determine the simultaneous positions of any two points in the universe. Simultaneity is a meaningless term so long as the absolute velocity of the observer and the absolute velocity of the object being measured are unknown. We may know the relative velocity between them, but that is not sufficient. The two may be relatively at rest – but for all we know the entire universe may be speeding through space at thousands of miles a second in either one direction or another.” – William F. Hudgings

    The limitation comes from the fact that our awareness is dependent on the speed of light. Let’s imagine a rod, a light-second long, moving toward the observer [at the speed of light]. The observer cannot become aware of both the ends of the rod simultaneously. Therefore, he cannot determine the true length of the rod as being a light-second long.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 6, 2013 at 9:11 AM

      Vin: Therefore, he cannot determine the true length of the rod as being a light-second long.

      Chris: Then there is a process going on which we abstract as a light-second of duration and of length? This is the language I am now comfortable with.

  • vinaire  On November 6, 2013 at 5:50 AM

    Is the awareness dependent on location in space, and on absolute velocity of that location in space?

    What else is awareness dependent upon?

    • Chris Thompson  On November 6, 2013 at 9:14 AM

      “Is the awareness dependent on location in space, and on absolute velocity of that location in space?”

      Interesting question. The awareness seems to hold its relative position in space, relative to its abstraction of the processes creating its surroundings.

  • vinaire  On November 6, 2013 at 6:09 AM

    We assume our awareness to be absolute. Is that assumption true?

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 6, 2013 at 9:32 AM

      And how is this awareness parsed up? My body is aware of many processes which only seem to float to a conscious level when on alarm such as when I am hungry or need to evacuate my bowel… And my conscious awareness seems to be serial in nature as I do not seem able to multi task.

      • vinaire  On November 6, 2013 at 1:49 PM

        Seems like your better half has been telling you that!

        • Chris Thompson  On November 6, 2013 at 4:34 PM

          LOL! Quite an assumption! Seriously, I really can only think about one thing at once. I can only watch one thing at once and I can only listen to one thing at once… I am pretty sure I am right about this. Yes, I switch from one to another pretty quickly but still serial and not parallel. Do you suppose that my observation is correct? Are others this way? I am always hearing people talk about how they can multitask. But I do not.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 6, 2013 at 4:39 PM

          Here’s an example. I decide to type “Here’s an example” and send out that signal packet and fingers begin to type and once they do I listen to a bar of the guitar rag that is playing on my computer, but I do not initiate a new phrase of typing until I stop listening to the music. I am really curious if I am right about this and also if I am then

        • Chris Thompson  On November 6, 2013 at 4:40 PM

          . . . if I am then am I looking at a mechanical characteristic which can tie into more understandings about the nature of my consciousness, awareness, etc.,.

        • vinaire  On November 6, 2013 at 6:09 PM

          Can you drive and talk at the same time?

        • Chris Thompson  On November 6, 2013 at 7:27 PM

          This is what I am talking about. No, not at the same time. I definitely sense multi-plexing (switching) going on. Do I drive and alternately talk at the same time? Yes. Do I walk and chew gum? No. haha

        • MarkNR  On November 7, 2013 at 7:54 AM

          I do think we build mental machines that can operate while we simultaneously do other things.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 7, 2013 at 9:39 AM

          Yes, this is how I explain the apparency that I can both chew gum and walk. There is plenty of time left over after slow moving humanity has used what it needs.

        • vinaire  On November 6, 2013 at 7:30 PM

          It would be interesting to watch you walking and chewing gum alternately.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 6, 2013 at 7:35 PM

          I’m not saying I cannot spin several plates on sticks “at the same time.” I’m saying that I don’t do each thing at precisely the same time and you know from our looks at “one second of time” that there is plenty of time to do lots of things alternately. This is the premise of the computer router (switch.)

        • vinaire  On November 6, 2013 at 7:38 PM

          If it gives you any consolation, I am the same way. Women seems to be wired differently. My wife makes sure that I don’t talk while driving.

  • vinaire  On November 6, 2013 at 6:20 AM

    Space and Time are aspects of Motion. The Theory of Relativity shows us that if Motion, such as, the speed of light, is considered to be absolute, then Space and Time cannot be absolute in themselves.

    But, then, can Motion be considered to be an absolute in itself?

    .

  • vinaire  On November 6, 2013 at 6:22 AM

    Are we dealing with “relative absolutes” here? Hahaha!

    .

  • vinaire  On November 6, 2013 at 6:26 AM

    It is true that knowledge expands as we move forward from one stable datum to a deeper stable datum. Each perception of “absolute” is like a stable datum. Is there an absolute of absolutes?

    How deep does it go?

    We are back looking at the proverbial rabbit hole.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 6, 2013 at 6:31 AM

    How many degrees of “absolutes” are there?

    .

  • vinaire  On November 6, 2013 at 8:00 AM

    “We may see two events occur at the same insatant, but that does not prove that they actually occurred simultaneously. Before we could compute the exact time of the occurrence of either of the events we must know the direction in which, and the velocity at which the universe as a whole is moving, together with any and all velocities of the observer at the moment. This knowledge we do not possess. Until the absolute velocity of bodies can be deteremined the question of simultaneity must remain unresolved ” – William F. Hudgings

  • vinaire  On November 6, 2013 at 8:36 AM

    Awareness of force enters with change of velocity or acceleration. But this happens only when there is also inertia (resistance to mtion).

    If there is no resistance to change in velocity, then it would not be possible to detect the acceleration either.

    It seems that the source of detection or awareness is resistance.

  • vinaire  On November 6, 2013 at 8:54 AM

    What we feel is force. Force is made up of mass and acceleration.

    (1) If there is no mass then no acceleration would be felt.
    (2) If there is no acceleration then no mass would be felt.
    (3) Mass is inertia or resistance to motion.
    (4) Therefore, if there is no resistance then no motion would be detected.
    (5) If motion is detected then there is resistance.

    .

  • Chris Thompson  On November 6, 2013 at 5:29 PM

    9. The Unknowables live in the Tautological Universe (TU).

    • vinaire  On November 6, 2013 at 6:21 PM

      We don’t know where Unknowables live. But we can say, “Without Unknowables we are left with a Tautological Universe.”

      That’s a good one. I shall add it to the post. 🙂

    • Maria  On November 12, 2013 at 11:40 PM

      What do Unknowables look like Chris? I want to be sure I don’t miss them if I happen to encounter them. I am pretty sure I am living in a Tautological Universe so I feel confident I should see some of these UKs. LOL!

      Good list Vinnie! 🙂

      • vinaire  On November 13, 2013 at 6:11 AM

        Maria, the Unknowables recognize you as an unknowable, and you are welcome with open arms among the unknowables.

      • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2013 at 4:35 PM

        Hi Maria! Glad you asked. The Unknowables is a very exclusive group that no one can join and of which everyone is an unknowing member! You will never see an unknowable as we are everywhere! To find out that you are already a member you need to be invited by someone who is not a member which is no one!

  • Chris Thompson  On November 6, 2013 at 7:27 PM

    LOL!

  • vinaire  On November 6, 2013 at 9:26 PM

    Euclidean geometry gives us the distance between two points in space as; d = √(x^2 + y^2 + z^2). However, theory of relativity requires a correction as follows: d = √(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 – t^2), where t is time.

    It seems that the greater is the distance, the larger would be the correction.

  • vinaire  On November 6, 2013 at 10:06 PM

    It seems that the velocity of light appears to be constant in all frames of references regardless of the relative motion because light has no mass or inertia. Relativity seems to come into play with the presence of mass and inertia.

    I need to look into this more.

    • Chris Thompson  On November 6, 2013 at 10:23 PM

      Light as packages of photons which travel from a source point across vast distances so that the photon which was emanated from a star far away is the same photon which arrives in our eyes is hard for me to imagine. That EMF disturbs space in such a way for the wave of space to arrive at a far destination somehow seems more probable form for the energy to take. And yet, we may find out one day that we have not laid out this argument very well.

      • vinaire  On November 7, 2013 at 6:38 AM

        Photons seem to manifest themselves at higher EM frequencies, and with this the process of discretization starts. With discretization comes mass and inertia, no matter how small, as well as relativity.

        This is just a conjecture and needs to be confirmed.

        • MarkNR  On November 7, 2013 at 6:58 AM

          If light is composed of photons, whether particles or packets of energy, and has no mass, how can it physically push objects in space. It seems to me that the difference in mass and energy is not a solid line. As a child, I thought of energy only as the movement of something. Objects, particles. It seems to me now that energy can exist on its own, with no ‘thing’ whatsoever. Can a vibration exist with nothing vibrating? Could energy be basically an intention. Could the basis of string theory be that it is actually packets of space that are vibrating, rather than little objects. Non Newtonian thinking can raise concepts that are difficult to get your head around.
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On November 7, 2013 at 9:35 AM

          AND we have to work the wave collapsing into this somewhere. 2X? Rafael? This is why I like 2X’s extrapolation of ideas from his knowledge of physics. He pushes envelopes and I have been thinking that these models are lacking, not completely lacking, just lacking and need a further injection of genius.

        • vinaire  On November 7, 2013 at 1:23 PM

          KHTK Axiom #7 states that intertia and mass goes hand in hand with the degree of discretization. At high energies (frequencies) the descretization of light as photons seems to be there to a marked degree. Thus, it has to be accompanied with some elementary form of mass. So high energy light can push objects in space.

          At low energies (frequencies) this discretization is apparently not there, and therefore, there is no inertia or mass either.

          This is an area of interest to me. Currently I am reading EINSTEIN, His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson. Let me see what I can get out from it.

          .

        • MarkNR  On November 7, 2013 at 5:51 PM

          As you may have gathered, I am not a mathematician or a physics major. Electrical engineering 30 yrs ago was mostly basic algebra. Most of my comments are about concepts and the whys of nature. One thing I don’t have a problem with is thinking in non-Newtonian concepts. Newtonian: Atomic particles are made up of many sub-atomic particles which are spinning, vibrating, waving at a speed, some harmonic of light. When the particle is broken, the smaller particles go flying off at speed, thereby releasing energy. Non-Newtonian: Sub-atomic particles are intentions which follow existing postulates, having no physical existence other than the idea of it’s creator. The states and properties of these particles follow given rules. These rules are set, but do not have to follow logical thought. The trick would be to figure out the underlying ‘why’ behind each rule. The rest should fall into place. This would actually fall under the field of thought and philosophy. What were they thinking when they made this rule, that rule?

        • MarkNR  On November 7, 2013 at 5:57 PM

          Is there an exact point, energy, vibration, intensity etc. at which EM radiation will gain the apparency of some mass?

        • Chris Thompson  On November 7, 2013 at 8:09 PM

          We’re working on that Mark! LOL

        • MarkNR  On November 8, 2013 at 12:43 AM

          Also, lower freq. of EM waves can be bent, blocked and curved by magnetic fields. Light (higher frequencies) do not respond to magnetic fields. At even higher freqs. even mass has little effect on direction. Such as lenses, reflectors. X-ray and gamma wave detectors have slight angle reflectors to concentrate the radiation. At what freq. (wavelength) does EM stop responding to magnetic fields?
          Mark

        • vinaire  On November 7, 2013 at 7:44 PM

          Mark said, “Sub-atomic particles are intentions which follow existing postulates, having no physical existence other than the idea of it’s creator.”

          .

          I would like to clarify the concept of CREATOR here. This concept can be used as a thought stopper. By assigning a phenomenon to a creator, a full examination of that phenomenon is prevented.

          So, there are ideas. The apparency is that human beings create ideas. But can a human being itself be a phenomenon that is not quite understood in a complete sense?

          How does creation occur?

          These are some very fundamental questions.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 7, 2013 at 8:21 PM

          Yup these are good ones. Basic.

        • MarkNR  On November 8, 2013 at 12:56 AM

          The physical rules and laws determine the ‘how’. There is no ‘why’ without intent, and intent implies a consciousness. I lean toward there being a why.

        • vinaire  On November 7, 2013 at 7:54 PM

          Mark asked, “Is there an exact point, energy, vibration, intensity etc. at which EM radiation will gain the apparency of some mass?”

          .

          My conjecture is that increased frequency of electromagnetic radiation results in descretization as photons, and any discretization is accompanied by mass. This may be off the wall, but I am reading up on this area to see what I can find.

  • MarkNR  On November 8, 2013 at 12:50 AM

    By ‘discretization’ do you mean that photons separate into their component parts which have new and additional properties to the original particle/wave?
    Mark

    • vinaire  On November 8, 2013 at 5:27 AM

      dis·crete adjective
      1. apart or detached from others; separate; distinct: six discrete parts.
      2. consisting of or characterized by distinct or individual parts; discontinuous.

      1350–1400; Middle English < Latin discrētus separated; see discreet

      .

      By discretization I mean a wave forming into wave packets. Here we have more particle properties getting manifested, but no particles yet.

      • MarkNR  On November 8, 2013 at 8:51 AM

        Sorry, I was familiar with discrete input/output with computers. On-off rather than analogue, variable. But I was not schooled in the physics definitions. I went over the basic definition of discretization and then a bunch of formulas but not an explanation of what was meant by the term.
        Instead of each particle separating into parts, it means the particles or waves GATHERING into separate entities. You meant that once the waves gather into certain energies or configurations, they gain or lose certain properties.
        Is that right?
        If so, thanks, learn somthin’ ever’ day. (My southern patois.)
        Mark

        • vinaire  On November 8, 2013 at 7:39 PM

          Oh! Tell me about it. I learn somthin’ ever’ day too!

        • MarkNR  On November 8, 2013 at 8:37 PM

          Thx, Vin.

  • vinaire  On November 8, 2013 at 5:34 AM

    Mark said, “The physical rules and laws determine the ‘how’. There is no ‘why’ without intent, and intent implies a consciousness. I lean toward there being a why.”

    .

    A programming may be manifested as “intention”. Is programming a form of “consciousness”?

    • MarkNR  On November 8, 2013 at 8:25 AM

      I did bit level programming with Programmable Logic Computers, PLCs, (machine control computers) for years. There is no intent inside computers. It is all transistors which are charged or not charged. The bit is latched in or it’s not. Once the programmer lets go, it’s like a ball rolling down a hill, it just follows the path that is there. The only ‘intent’ is the programmer, 100%, absolute.
      Mark

      • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2013 at 10:23 AM

        MarkNR: The only ‘intent’ is the programmer, 100%, absolute.

        Chris: This is an assumption that I am continuing to look at. For myself, I don’t think that assumption covers it. I think how we define many things such as intention is not laid out quite right. Taken out of their usual context within the body are many processes which “simply roll downhill” but iterated to large degree result in surprising manifestation… Just saying that we should keep our minds open for what comes up next.

        • MarkNR  On November 8, 2013 at 1:56 PM

          Perhaps ‘absolute’ was a strong word, perhaps even foolish of me.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2013 at 5:25 PM

          Mark, You have plenty of company here because it is always foolish to break with the status quo and try to figure anything out. We don’t care too much about that.

      • vinaire  On November 8, 2013 at 7:34 PM

        A being could be made up of metaphysical transistors. Who knows!

  • vinaire  On November 8, 2013 at 5:45 AM

    Mark said,”Also, lower freq. of EM waves can be bent, blocked and curved by magnetic fields.”

    .

    Can you refer me to actual experimental data in this area. Thanks.

    • MarkNR  On November 8, 2013 at 8:12 AM

      When I drive under power lines, I lose the radio signal, but the sky doesn’t get dark. Shortwave radio will bounce off of the ionosphere, but telescopes can still see clearly. A UHF antenna will gather radio waves to a central point. X-rays cannot be lensed in any manner except by long, slight angle deflection. Strong magnetic fields will affect radio waves but not light or higher EM frequencies. I conducted the car experiment yesterday by accident. I have conducted the shortwave reflection experiment many times.
      Mark

      • vinaire  On November 12, 2013 at 1:32 PM

        What I am interested is in knowing the exact mechanism. Under what conditons does it get bent? Under what conditons does it get blocked? And under what conditions does it get curved.

        I am only aware of Maxwell’s equations.

        .

        • MarkNR  On November 16, 2013 at 4:49 AM

          Vin:
          “What I am interested is in knowing the exact mechanism. Under what conditons does it get bent?” (EM radiation)
          Actually, Vin, I was kinda asking you. Why do different wavelengths behave differently.

        • vinaire  On November 16, 2013 at 9:00 AM

          I have no idea. Things are what they are.

          My attention goes primarily to inconsistencies. Why things are what they are goes to the bin called “unknowable” until some intuition comes along.

          I don’t figure on it. I just look.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 16, 2013 at 9:27 AM

          Vin: I don’t figure on it. I just look.

          Chris: The notion that we shouldn’t “figure” on it seems to be a left over inconsistency from Scientology and a false data at that. There is nothing wrong with “figuring on it.” This is thinking and we all do it all the time. Hubbard’s purpose to get us to not think was not coming from his desire to get others to do his bidding without thinking and conditioning us to accept his bridge to total freedom and KSW as truth.

        • vinaire  On November 16, 2013 at 9:50 AM

          When I say, “I don’t figure on it.” I mean, “I let all the vectors align themselves naturally.” I try to keep any sense of self out of the equation.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 16, 2013 at 10:03 AM

          This is a good model but a model nevertheless. Using KHTK mindfulness, I see processes running – many. The urge to know oneself manifests as an application endeavoring to run a self-diagnostic. This is an offshoot of other bodily monitoring and control such as in general the endocrine system. The metaphors of self seem to be the construct of this activity.

        • vinaire  On November 16, 2013 at 3:40 PM

          Read Axiom #0.

          .

  • anitawarren1  On November 12, 2013 at 9:43 PM

    Vinaire, this is VERY interesting. Thank you!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: