The Theory of Everything

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
growthhormone
Posts: 40
Joined: December 19th, 2017, 1:25 am

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by growthhormone » March 16th, 2018, 2:45 am

To Steve3007:
I agree with your response, which is skeptical and opened-minded at the same time, to using Newtonian mechanics to study civilisation – Social Mechanics. Skepticism is important to any concept, particularly a new concept.
Surely, Over-extending metaphor/analogy will lead to a wrong conclusion. However if analogy/metaphor is correctly used, it will lead to a right conclusion. Whether it is correctly and incorrectly used depends on whether they are within the same category/system. Outside the system, it will lead to the wrong conclusion which perhaps is what you said, Over-extending . Having said that, I also want to point out that the term, metaphor or analogy do not express any interrelationships/mechanism behind this approach. I personally like the term used in the book and expressed by the INTERRELATIONSHIPS MODEL to explain this approach because it demonstrate the interrelationship/mechanism behind it.

“I'd be interested to hear more about how this analogy with the laws of Newtonian Mechanics supposedly describes the above historical developments”. If you want to get more details of using Newtonian mechanics to explain social activities (Social Mechanics), here is the link to the book. https://www.amazon.com.au/BEHIND-CIVILI ... B0732PBST4 It is free for those chapters and the whole book only cost $0.99. Although Social Mechanics is novel and interesting, I found the Interrelationships Model is more interesting because it directly challenge the idea that “the universe cannot be described by a single theory”.

To someone who labeled my questions absurd:
Some questions that I raised in here do sound absurd because their interrelationships are not understood. One the other hand, if those interrelationships were understand, then there would be no point to raise these questions. The purpose that I raised those questions was to bring them to the attentions of thinkers/philosophy lovers in this site for discussion. The question, what is the link between beauty and the rise of Western Civilisation, does sound absurd because there is no cause and effect relationship between them. If I asked a question: what is the link between John was hit by a car and got injured in USA and Mary passed the exam and got into university in Canada, you would certainly feel absurd. But if I changed the contexts to “John was hit by a car, as a result, he got injured. Mary passed the exam, as a result she got into a university”. The link between these two events is causality – a fundamental interrelationship (a fundamental law of physics) in the universe. This interrelationship is a part of the fundamental mechanism that governs these two isolated events. It is absolutely right that beauty and the rise of Western Civilisation are two isolated events. They do not have cause and effect interrelationship but they are linked by a fundamental mechanism which governs everything in the universe. That is the center of the theory in the book and expressed by a mathematical model. It is an attempt to address the issue of “THE THEORY OF EVERYING”.

The question, “If someone sees through the melting of an ice cube and tells you the future of human being, is this science or fortune telling”, is not absurd but WEIRD! However, if one could “see” the interaction between individual molecules in a melting ice cube, one would find them amazingly similar to the process of civilisation! Why is that? Because they both based on a fundamental mechanism.

To LuckyR:
Previously, I also raised a question “how can medical sciences be used to predict human future? What I want to induce a response is that the amazing similarities between a human body and a society allow us to use medical sciences to predict the future of social development. Is it weird? Yes, but it is very interesting when these two systems are systematically compared. Once again, this example demonstrates how the common mechanism governs every things in the universe.

I am not sure anyone in here interested in exploring this mechanism but I am looking forward to hearing any opinion whether positive or negative, and I expect more negative than positive opinion because a discussion like this also follows the fundamental interrelationships.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Namelesss » March 16th, 2018, 5:22 am

growthhormone wrote:
March 16th, 2018, 2:45 am
The link between these two events is causality – a fundamental interrelationship (a fundamental law of physics) in the universe.

Actually, 'cause' and 'effect' is a clumsy wat to say; "two mutually arising opposite Perspectives of the same One Event!" Here! Now!
'Causality/creation' (requiring 'time' and 'motion') is scientifically and philosophically impossible.
Any theory built upon it will fail.
This interrelationship is a part of the fundamental mechanism that governs these two isolated events.
"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman
All 'eternity' at once; Here! Now!!

There are no 'isolated events'. *__-

growthhormone
Posts: 40
Joined: December 19th, 2017, 1:25 am

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by growthhormone » March 16th, 2018, 10:43 pm

To nameless: Thanks for the comment. I really appreciate your contribution to the topic of the Theory of Everything. As I mentioned in my last post, I expect more negative comment than positive comment because it can be predicted from one of the fundamental law of physics, symmetry, from the Interrelationships Model. No offence, your opinion provides an excellent example to support the Interrelationships Model, lived and real. It demonstrates how the fundamental laws govern everything in the universe including things with intelligence. In this case, my opinion as a positive comment and your comment as a negative as a negative comment together form symmetry. It is necessary to have the opposite opinion to evaluate any new concept and that is why I am not kidding and genuinely appreciate and respect your idea.
However, if I need to comment on something, the first thing I have to do is to know what it is. I would not make any comment on the Interrelationships Model had I not known it.
Secondly, you said that there is no isolated event. Strictly speaking, you are absolutely right. Since everything is “linked” to a common mechanism, how could something become “isolate”? However, the term, “isolated event” had been used in the past, is being in the present and will be continually used in the future. Its practical meaning is without direct link, particularly no cause-effect relationship.

See how this Interrelationships Model not only indirectly describe events but DIRECTLY describe an event.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Namelesss » March 17th, 2018, 1:10 am

growthhormone wrote:
March 16th, 2018, 10:43 pm
To nameless: Thanks for the comment. I really appreciate your contribution to the topic of the Theory of Everything. As I mentioned in my last post, I expect more negative comment than positive comment because it can be predicted from one of the fundamental law of physics, symmetry, from the Interrelationships Model. No offence, your opinion provides an excellent example to support the Interrelationships Model, lived and real.
I was going to just let this all flow under the bridge, but, how is it that you can judge what I offered as a 'negative'?
I corrected a misunderstanding about causality/creation.
I offered a modern definition.
Is that a 'negative' in your pet theory, or just your personal momentary judgment? Or are you Shanghai-ing my words to fit your pet theory.
I guess that it can be seen as a 'negative' when it might refute a foundational assertion of your theory.
It demonstrates how the fundamental laws govern everything in the universe including things with intelligence.

Really? Then perhaps you missed this other ('negative') bit;

"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman
All 'eternity' at once; Here! Now!!
In this case, my opinion as a positive comment and your comment as a negative as a negative comment together form symmetry.

Nah, in my opinion, your distinguishing between such 'positive' your opinion and 'negative' mine seems a bit too arbitrary to be worth any real contemplation.
Yes, there is a Balance in nature;

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - First Law of Soul Dynamics

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1724
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Atreyu » March 19th, 2018, 5:09 pm

Well, science is not going to find TOE, because its acquisition lies outside of its boundaries. It won't be discovered via empiricism.

It could only be found via philosophy. And only then in conjunction with learning certain ancient ideas, because TOE cannot be formulated solely via reason. The ordinary human mind is only capable of understanding the idea once presented to it. It cannot formulate it on its own, "from scratch" so to speak.

Otherwise, we'd have had it long ago....

growthhormone
Posts: 40
Joined: December 19th, 2017, 1:25 am

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by growthhormone » April 3rd, 2018, 4:43 am

To Namelesss:

You “offered a modern definition”, which is “Actually, 'cause' and 'effect' is a clumsy wat to say; "two mutually arising opposite Perspectives of the same One Event!" Here! Now! 'Causality/creation' (requiring 'time' and 'motion') is scientifically and philosophically impossible.”

By offering “a modern definition” of causality as the premise (cause), you make a conclusion (effect), “'Causality/creation' (requiring 'time' and 'motion') is scientifically and philosophically impossible. Any theory built upon it will fail.”

As the cause, the statement, “any theory built upon it will fail”, has an effect implying the “INTERRELATIONSHIPS MODEL” will fail because that model is partially based on the law of causality.

I am personally convinced that the INTERRELATIONSHIPS MODEL makes sense while you imply it fail. These two opinions are opposite to each other, one positive, the other negative. I am positive about it and that is why I interpret your opinion negative. It is perfectly fine to be negative on any hypothesis and I don’t have problem with it since we all come here to discuss it.

Causality is the foundation of any meaningful logical reasoning/discussion. It is unimaginable to have a discussion not based on causality.

“I corrected a misunderstanding about causality/creation. I offered a modern definition.” “Actually, 'cause' and 'effect' is a clumsy wat to say; "two mutually arising opposite Perspectives of the same One Event!" Here! Now!”

'Causality/creation' (requiring 'time' and 'motion') is scientifically and philosophically impossible.
The definition of causality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Namelesss » April 3rd, 2018, 10:00 pm

growthhormone wrote:
March 16th, 2018, 10:43 pm
To nameless: Thanks for the comment.

You're welcome! *__-
Please learn to use the quote function, for clarity? K?
No offence, your opinion provides an excellent example to support the Interrelationships Model, lived and real. It demonstrates how the fundamental laws govern everything in the universe including things with intelligence. In this case, my opinion as a positive comment and your comment as a negative as a negative comment together form symmetry. It is necessary to have the opposite opinion to evaluate any new concept and that is why I am not kidding and genuinely appreciate and respect your idea.

One Universal Law that I have stumbled upon is;
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - First Law of Soul Dynamics
I don't know about your 'models', but if what I offer works for you, great!
If not, question me.
"It demonstrates how the fundamental laws govern everything in the universe"

"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman
All 'eternity' at once; Here! Now!!

However, if I need to comment on something, the first thing I have to do is to know what it is. I would not make any comment on the Interrelationships Model had I not known it.
Neither would I, nor do I.
Forgive my density, but are you trying to hint at something?
Secondly, you said that there is no isolated event. Strictly speaking, you are absolutely right. Since everything is “linked” to a common mechanism, how could something become “isolate”?
Fine, so, moving on...
However, the term, “isolated event” had been used in the past, is being in the present and will be continually used in the future. Its practical meaning is without direct link, particularly no cause-effect relationship.
Okay, so not moving on...
Yes, language falls behind revelation.
And as far as 'future usage', only up to a point, then it will be forgotten!
See how this Interrelationships Model not only indirectly describe events but DIRECTLY describe an event.
Why? Are you touting it as some complete ToE?
If not, again, why?
In an UNCHANGING Universe/Reality/Truth, the only 'event' is the perception of Reality by unique Perspectives.
Reality is best 'described' by QM (as One! Mindstuff!), and mystics, Mindstuff! One!
The QM model that (I find) best describes Reality is;
"Consciousness is the ground of all being!" - Copenhagen interpretation of QM
One Universal Consciousness! *__-

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Namelesss » April 3rd, 2018, 11:03 pm

growthhormone wrote:
April 3rd, 2018, 4:43 am
To Namelesss:

You “offered a modern definition”, which is “Actually, 'cause' and 'effect' is a clumsy wat to say; "two mutually arising opposite Perspectives of the same One Event!" Here! Now! 'Causality/creation' (requiring 'time' and 'motion') is scientifically and philosophically impossible.”

By offering “a modern definition” of causality as the premise (cause), you make a conclusion (effect),
Not at all.
When I said "mutually arising", that obviates the temporal linear appearance of 'causality'.
A 'premise' is a feature of the 'conclusion', and vice versa.
“'Causality/creation' (requiring 'time' and 'motion') is scientifically and philosophically impossible. Any theory built upon it will fail.”


As the cause, the statement, “any theory built upon it will fail”, has an effect implying the “INTERRELATIONSHIPS MODEL” will fail because that model is partially based on the law of causality.

Your constantly repeating of the word 'cause' (indiscriminately applying it to all and sundry) does not make it so.
'Cause' and 'effect' are two sides of the same One Thing! To 'separate' them is schizophrenia.
Propaganda is based on repetition. Won't work on me.
I am personally convinced that the INTERRELATIONSHIPS MODEL makes sense while you imply it fail. These two opinions are opposite to each other, one positive, the other negative.

All 'positive/negative' exists in your thoughts, your 'judgment'.
Reality simply is!
If your model is based on 'causality', it will fail (already fails).
That is one reason that humanity does not tout your pet model as 'the' ToE.
Sorry to clast your icon.
I am positive about it and that is why I interpret your opinion negative.

That is not science or philosophy, it is religion, a 'belief infection'. Just because you 'believe it' don't make it a Universal Truth!
Other than for you, that is.
It is perfectly fine to be negative on any hypothesis and I don’t have problem with it since we all come here to discuss it.

But any differing Perspective than yours is 'negative'? Because you are 'positive'?
How psychologically self-serving.
Can we drop this 'pos/neg' nonsense and merely claim a 'balance'?
Causality is the foundation of any meaningful logical reasoning/discussion. It is unimaginable to have a discussion not based on causality.

Nonsense! I do it all the time.
Perhaps if you actually read, and attempt to understand (rather than being blindly 'positive') what I offer... but it is the nature of 'beliefs' not to offer themselves up for critical examination, we are too egoically identified with them!
Philosophy deals in ideas, thoughts, logical and rational, not 'beliefs' (no matter how 'positive').
The definition of causality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
I don't need to backtrack to obsolete definitions that support your erroneous/obsolete theory.

"A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used." -Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

User avatar
Luin
New Trial Member
Posts: 9
Joined: April 1st, 2018, 1:07 pm

Re: The Theory of Everything. Finally, the judgement day and the moment of truth

Post by Luin » April 5th, 2018, 12:56 pm

growthhormone wrote:
March 2nd, 2018, 1:56 am

This common mechanism can be expressed by a mathematical model representing the fundamental laws of physics. Through presenting evidences, it is demonstrated that not only lifeless events follow these laws but the intelligence-driven civilisation as well. As such, all developments in a society including technologies and their consequential social development follow these laws. By using these laws and the aforementioned approaches, many unsolved questions have been successfully answered: the uncertain social development has been predicted; the mystery that the Greeks achieved a brilliant civilisation was deciphered; the puzzle that scientific revolution happened in the West first has been solved; the mechanism behind the rise of the Western civilisation has been unearthed; the enigma of elusive beauty has been unequivocally unlocked and many more…

Finally, comes the conclusion: human civilisation is a part of the evolution of the universe. The laws governing the universe also govern human civilisation.
And this mechanism is . . . ?

Can this mechanism explain why this happens after that? Can it explain the reason why here is different than there?

A ToE must explain everything, and it must bring the whole of everything under one coherent umbrella system. And, everything is a very expansive set that includes a lot that too many theorists ignore.

Everything includes time, space, proximity, contextual juxtaposition, existence, being state, precedent, system preferences, now versus then, here versus there, us versus them, mine versus yours, yes versus no, similar versus different, integral versus ancillary, and why anything at all does what it does regardless of the level of developmental sophistication it possesses.

Everything includes the existential structure, as well as the emergence of the concept of structure, as well as the primordial requirement that structure serves, as well as the universal means by which structure is initiated and progressively developed.

Everything includes the impetus behind existence, all that's come into existence by default, and all that's been actively and purposely brought into existence, as well as what it is that drives that which exists to do and/or be what it is; including why that which is capable of actively and purposely bringing anything at all into existence is driven to bring what it brings into existence.

Reality functions as a unified whole; not only at the quantum level and from one end of the Universe to the other, but right there at the end of our finger tips. The human being and its societies experience the things that they experience, and that experience itself is integral to the whole that is Reality. The human being and its civilizations fit into the whole of Reality, and the whole of Reality makes sense with the way that they are. In that sense, you are right that Reality exists as a physical system, and it cannot be compartmentalized as contradictory pockets of experiment indication translations.

I agree that the universality of this everything may be more traditionally suited to the Philosophy Department [and not to the Physics Department] due to its inherent incompatibility with falsification via blackboard equations, but it’s a definitional focus that a true and functional ToE must be fully capable of addressing. That said, I don't see any possible way that a mathematical model can serve to answer all that a ToE must address.

That said, if you've got this wonder model [and it's more than just a description of how "brute fact" drivers clearly affect all progressive development at all levels of material structure and human expression] then by all means let's take a good look at it. If you have fully defined it within this thread, then help me to recognize where this occurred, and please accept my apology for not recognizing it.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: The Theory of Everything. Finally, the judgement day and the moment of truth

Post by Namelesss » April 5th, 2018, 3:14 pm

Luin wrote:
April 5th, 2018, 12:56 pm
And this mechanism is . . . ?

Can this mechanism explain why this happens after that? Can it explain the reason why here is different than there?

A ToE must explain everything, and it must bring the whole of everything under one coherent umbrella system. And, everything is a very expansive set that includes a lot that too many theorists ignore.

Everything includes time, space, proximity, contextual juxtaposition, existence, being state, precedent, system preferences, now versus then, here versus there, us versus them, mine versus yours, yes versus no, ...
First, you bring necessary clarity to the 'all inclusive' nature of the ToE (only one can cover all of your clearly defined requirements).
Thank you for that clear and well thought out post!
What a great touchstone to test any ToE 'theory'!

I have one that I think would cover ALL the points that you raise.
It seems, though, that the only way to present it would be to address every point, one by one (and also, of course, address points not yet raised).
I have addressed all your points throughout my time here, here and there, but such coherency as you offer as foundation might well be a great way to 'put it all together-ish'!
Again, great post! I'll look for more!
We needed some good new blood! *__-

User avatar
Luin
New Trial Member
Posts: 9
Joined: April 1st, 2018, 1:07 pm

Re: The Theory of Everything. Finally, the judgement day and the moment of truth

Post by Luin » April 6th, 2018, 11:48 am

Namelesss wrote:
April 5th, 2018, 3:14 pm

I have one that I think would cover ALL the points that you raise.
It seems, though, that the only way to present it would be to address every point, one by one (and also, of course, address points not yet raised).
I have addressed all your points throughout my time here, here and there, but such coherency as you offer as foundation might well be a great way to 'put it all together-ish'!
Again, great post! I'll look for more!
We needed some good new blood! *__-
First, thank you for the generous reply. Like you, I have been toiling in this field for many years, and I have had [what I've believed to be] some forward progress along a very divergent pathway [relative to what's been the more mainstream math-centric approach] toward a functional ToE. That progress was the result of a focus on extremely primitive, pre-material physics, and ultimately led me to working with small groups within the paranormal research community. Not that my work devolved into traditional "theories of everything" [like mysticism or theologically based metaphysics] but that my research seemed particularly useful to those struggling to explain what it takes to "go bump in the night" without resorting to obliterating the coherence of the macro-system [physical reality] in the process.

It was very helpful in verifying a lot of what my own notions depend on as existential substratum, but it did not allow me much in the way of engagement with other ToE theorists. I'm seeing that as something that I need to bring into my effort now, and so here I am to share and learn.

I would like to learn what you've discovered, and perhaps gain a fresh perspective on my own realizations. I will state at the opening that my approach is not mathematical, nor is it an extension of any other published theory. It does exist as a book, but I am not interested in steering traffic to its sales page. The couple bucks that each sale garners doesn't even make it from the outlet's platform to me anyway. Some day I should look into that, but whatever.

My aim is to learn from other ToE theorists, and to have my own notions properly vetted. Then, if found to be viable, I want those notions to survive me within a community of like-minded people.

So, if your interesting in sharing what you've got in your pail, I'm curious.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: The Theory of Everything. Finally, the judgement day and the moment of truth

Post by Namelesss » April 6th, 2018, 2:50 pm

Luin wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 11:48 am
Namelesss wrote:
April 5th, 2018, 3:14 pm
I have one that I think would cover ALL the points that you raise.
My aim is to learn from other ToE theorists, and to have my own notions properly vetted. Then, if found to be viable, I want those notions to survive me within a community of like-minded people.

So, if your interesting in sharing what you've got in your pail, I'm curious.
Yes, we can have a wonderful (jargon free zone) conversation!
But, rather than begin from scratch, perhaps you'd like to backtrack a few months and read my various offerings here to get the basic 'flavor'.
In sum, it all fits together, coherently.
I've offered much on the "What good is the Bible" thread, but elsewhere, also.
Then, perhaps, we can talk.
Looking forward to it.
Peace

User avatar
Luin
New Trial Member
Posts: 9
Joined: April 1st, 2018, 1:07 pm

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Luin » April 6th, 2018, 8:30 pm

I read that thread and your input, but failed to find any statements that refer to a Theory of Everything. Lots of philosophical/theological assertions, but nothing concerning the substructure of physical reality.

Perhaps I could give you a better idea about what I consider a Theory of Everything. What am I allowed to post here? I don't want to violate terms with any content that I've created on my own.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Namelesss » April 7th, 2018, 1:53 am

Luin wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 8:30 pm
I read that thread and your input, but failed to find any statements that refer to a Theory of Everything. Lots of philosophical/theological assertions, but nothing concerning the substructure of physical reality.
I don't know what all you read in such a short time, but if you read a bit more, I addressed what you imagine to be 'physical reality' (there is only One Reality) often, and clearly.
Here's the thumbnail;
"Physical reality" is an appearance, a mirage. As is 'motion' and 'time' and 'gravity', for instance.
When one examines anything that is found to exist, whether what you consider to be 'physical' (out there) or your own daydreams ('other' day dreams), one finds all consist of the same 'stuff', not anything 'physical' but Mind! Information waves, quantum probability wave field, undifferentiated potential; Mindstuff!

'It is the unique momentary glance of Conscious Perspective (Soul) that finds (in the undifferentiated mind) 'differentiation of potential', by it's inherent limitations; being ignorant of (not experiencing) everything else but that which is perceived before it, at the moment.

Anything else, ToEwise revolves around the ultimate unchanging One Reality/Truth/Self!, Universe! Here! Now! A synchrony of perceived moments!
That is the foundation of the ToE.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Namelesss » April 7th, 2018, 1:57 am

In short, the "substructure of physical reality", as you call it, is Mind! Consciousness!

"Consciousness is the ground of all Being!" - Copenhagen interpretation of QM

Every moment of existence exists Now!

"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman
All 'eternity' at once; Here! Now!!

There is only one moment (Planck moment; 10^-43/sec; "almost" one billion trillion trillion trillionths of a second!!!) of the entirety of existence/Reality/the Universe!
All existence, ever, is one, literally, 'timeless' moment!
Now!

Post Reply