Twenty Second Century Universe: In Philosophy

This is for the continuity of what I am saying. I am not actually replying to myself.


When I express the existence of an ultimate symmetry that is not the one that is most obvious to us, the first thing that comes to mind is the differentiality that we see in the universe -if no two objects in the universe can be exactly the same, then how can one speak of underlying grande uniformity? The answer begins with the fact of a rigidly uniform principle- Causality.
There is no causality particle , that when attached actuates the causal behaviour of objects. In a substantive analog , having no analogic, physical representation means that its unanalogic representation pre-dates not just energy , but the entire existencive platform of substantivity, meaning that it indicates a different "visceral substantive Consistence". There are no ghosts in the universe , everything must be engagable . If we can judge the operation of causality here , without a true physical representation of it here , then what we are being show is how exactly underlying symmetry is "proximally relative " to our overt three dimensional symmetry. This proximality escapes our present prepositonal standardization .
Let's turn to the structure of physical objects. We see invariability . The coherent presentation of any physical unit(object) in existence has to follow the format of layers an systematic synergy to maintain an objects coherence in reality. Layers go from innermost to outermost(I say this for we have no cognitive capacity to judge that largeness is a constructional starting point) and this comes with the interpretation of size and distance being factual.
Now centrality deals with the axiality of the layers, from where gravity , angular momentum , momentum , and the physical rudiments of the conservation laws are calculated . This centrality is obvious. It is the smallest point of the object from where equilateral proportion of density, and all physical proportionality emanates.
The fact of this type of objective outlay shows that centrality itself
Is energetic consequence, thus not a dimensional invariability.
At the smallest most central point of any object is not a fact of the idea that we think we really observe, but rather the sub-planck scale ,seeming quite an uncausal place, a place of obfuscated representations of so-called matter and time, distance and size .
As causality represents "other substantive symmetry", and the material construction and behaviour of objects depend on centrality so definitively in expressing these effects of causality ,our perceptions of size and distance lead us not to the smallest point , but. To the edge of our symmetry. Underlying symmetry is thus not to be seen as being beyond the smallest point, but just beyond our prepositional frame of reference ........

One of my goals is to soon have many people getting it. I'm not striking out at the criticism, nor am I desperately trying to avoid it. I am reading and listening to it because I know the theory itself is sound enough to warrant my confidence in it. There are a few book that I didn't get the first time reading them , but there was that sense of quality that made me read again , and a couple of those works changed my life positively.
Honestly, there are some parts that are going to have to be written less technically. Our ultimate goal is to have the man in the street get it. If I was on a street Corner in New York , or Bremen , or British Columbia , our Pretoria , adressing say a group of twenty five , I wouldn't speak exactly the way I write even though some of those people would get me at the first read.

.Alas alack Debra. Well put indeed

This work doesn't need trips of ego.

What it needs, in some cases ,is intelligent silence for it to be completely presented; but in some cases neither intelligence nor silence becomes a number of us.

We are less obscure than you might admit frank.

If anything the world was never so obscure as is now...even experts, better, specially experts because they are aware how much they don't know, admit the world has become far far more complex then human mind is able to grasp...
...the only reason this forum is not the top of obscurity is because it lacks grasping complexity to make it even more obscure...

For every one thing you learn you get to develop three more questions about it. A linear increase in knowledge represents a exponential increase in obscurity.

This work doesn't need trips of ego. What it needs, in some cases ,is intelligent silence for it to be completely presented; but in some cases neither intelligence nor silence becomes a number of us.

Arcades wrote:

We are less obscure than you might admit frank.

We???