Looking for feedback on the philosophy of a TOE
-
- Posts: 91
- Joined: March 22nd, 2016, 12:59 am
Looking for feedback on the philosophy of a TOE
Am looking for feedback on the philosophy of a theory of everything (TOE) for my website.
p.s. So far had made 14 posts that were approved by the mods, which is more than the specified requirements of 10 posts, but still cannot post any link. Will post the link of my website after the mods here have allowed it.
Question to mods: Beside the 10 posts as mentioned, what else is required for allowing inclusion of URL in my post?
-- Updated March 31st, 2016, 10:36 pm to add the following --
Would like to get feed back on "The UVS' philosophy of science" from the members of this forum.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15147
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Looking for feedback on the philosophy of a TOE
In philosophy our attention is often drawn to similar issues but are framed differently. I would describe the disconnect between the observer as the result of relativities rather than paradoxes. So a sunset is not so much illusory IMO as a perspective limited by the position of the locus of perception.
What are the practical implications for research of your hypothesis?In a paradoxically observed universe, to resolve the natural cognitive paradoxes of the apparent observations, it requires to invoke transcendental perceptions to enlighten on the paradoxically rendered natural phenomena, so as to elucidate all sorts of delusion that are being manifested naturally by the paradoxical effect of nature in its typical topsy-turvy manner.
Heuristically, a methodology of the UVS research that could effectively resolve the naturally rendered cognitive paradoxes of apparent observations in a paradoxically observed universe, invokes a peculiar type of transcendental perspectivalism (in coherentism) for its enlightenments on the actualities of the studied natural phenomena.
-
- Posts: 91
- Joined: March 22nd, 2016, 12:59 am
Re: Looking for feedback on the philosophy of a TOE
Yup. And thanks to whoever who had sorted this out for me.Greta wrote:Para, it seems that URL issue is sorted.
After the paradoxes are resolved, then it is a matter of reference frames. Prior to that, the natural phenomena negated by the paradoxical effect of nature, are delusively rendered in their apparent observations that are misleading in a typical topsy-turvy manner. And numerous natural phenomena in macrocosms and microcosms, are intrinsically imbued with the characteristics of the paradoxical effect; the paradoxical effect of nature is ubiquitous.Greta wrote:In philosophy our attention is often drawn to similar issues but are framed differently. I would describe the disconnect between the observer as the result of relativities rather than paradoxes. So a sunset is not so much illusory IMO as a perspective limited by the position of the locus of perception.
It resolved numerous cognitive paradoxes of enigmatic natural phenomena in the UVS worldview, and thus eventually amounted to a theoretically successful TOE in its paradigm shift that cogently offers a unified way for perceiving how the entire observable universe works throughout macrocosms and microcosms in unison as a single system.Greta wrote:What are the practical implications for research of your hypothesis?
Had posted a topic on this in the Philosophy of Science forum, but it is pending for approval at the moment.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15147
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Looking for feedback on the philosophy of a TOE
I suspect that you are thanking an algorithm - onwards and upwards with AI, eh?Paradigmer wrote:Yup. And thanks to whoever who had sorted this out for me.
I still don't see the paradox, just limited perspective and rendering. Some observations such as a flat Earth or the "vacuum of space" were assumptions based on insufficient data.Paradigmer wrote:After the paradoxes are resolved, then it is a matter of reference frames. Prior to that, the natural phenomena negated by the paradoxical effect of nature, are delusively rendered in their apparent observations that are misleading in a typical topsy-turvy manner. And numerous natural phenomena in macrocosms and microcosms, are intrinsically imbued with the characteristics of the paradoxical effect; the paradoxical effect of nature is ubiquitous.
Is this an extension of the debates branching out from Newton v Leibniz?Paradigmer wrote:It resolved numerous cognitive paradoxes of enigmatic natural phenomena in the UVS worldview, and thus eventually amounted to a theoretically successful TOE in its paradigm shift that cogently offers a unified way for perceiving how the entire observable universe works throughout macrocosms and microcosms in unison as a single system.
Had posted a topic on this in the Philosophy of Science forum, but it is pending for approval at the moment.
I saw the post in the queue and was, and am, inclined to not approve it since you already have this thread on the topic. Do you think the other thread takes a sufficiently different angle to this thread to warrant approval?
-
- Posts: 91
- Joined: March 22nd, 2016, 12:59 am
Re: Looking for feedback on the philosophy of a TOE
OIC.Greta wrote: I suspect that you are thanking an algorithm - onwards and upwards with AI, eh?
Noted.Greta wrote: I still don't see the paradox, just limited perspective and rendering. Some observations such as a flat Earth or the "vacuum of space" were assumptions based on insufficient data.
IDK. Was merely thinking that was the appropriate section for positing a philosophy of science topic.Greta wrote: I saw the post in the queue and was, and am, inclined to not approve it since you already have this thread on the topic. Do you think the other thread takes a sufficiently different angle to this thread to warrant approval?
-- Updated April 1st, 2016, 2:56 am to add the following --
Greta wrote:Is this an extension of the debates branching out from Newton v Leibniz?
Negative. It is more on an extension on the works of Descartes for an aether based vortical universe, which is substantiated with loads of empirical evidence discovered after his era.
-- Updated April 1st, 2016, 3:42 am to add the following --
IMO, the following quote by Descartes, is an enlightened perspective on the actuality of our Solar System:
“Solar system formed from gigantic whirlpool within a universal fluid - eddies in flow produced planets” - Rene Descartes (1644)
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15147
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Looking for feedback on the philosophy of a TOE
The idea reminds me of a thought experiment I enjoyed where I imagined the universe's evolution in fast forward and, yes, galaxies, stars, planets and moons seem to weave themselves into existence via vortical movements. The vortical nature of black holes is similarly intriguing. The Descartes quote more or less matches my mental visualisations.Paradigmer wrote:IDK. Was merely thinking that was the appropriate section for positing a philosophy of science topic.
Negative. It is more on an extension on the works of Descartes for an aether based vortical universe, which is substantiated with loads of empirical evidence discovered after his era.Greta wrote:Is this an extension of the debates branching out from Newton v Leibniz?
I am not inclined to draw such a sharp division between the "luminiferous aether" and the rest of reality, though. I see space as being of the same nature and stuff as stars, planets etc, just less concentrated, so I'd see aether as simply "parts of reality that are thinly distributed enough to allow forms of our relative density (or greater) to easily pass through it". Where does the Earth end and space begin? The surface? The "edge" of the troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, thermosphere, exosphere, magnetosphere?
From the other thread (which I did not approve due to repetition), you said in your introduction:
In regard to the toroidal universe, my understanding is that most researchers believe the universe to be flat, although maybe that does not preclude the possibility of a flat torus?Paradigmer wrote:This is pertaining to a worldview of a torus-shaped vortical universe in its paradigm shift.
Have had been immensely working for the past eight year plus on a TOE coined as "Universal Vortical Singularity" (UVS). Am looking for feed back to refine the UVS's philosophy of science in this POS section, and I believe those who are familiar with the works of Descartes, or the Age of Enlightenment, should find this topic interesting.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Looking for feedback on the philosophy of a TOE
Just to make sure I'm looking at the right thing:
When I click on the link in the OP, I get a passage of text entitled "The UVS’ philosophy of science" and the first line says this:
"In the philosophy of science of UVS, the observable universe is intrinsically imbued with a paradoxical effect of nature, and all its harmonically resonated manifestations are inherited with this paradoxical characteristic."
and it goes on from there. Am I looking at the right thing? Is this the theory on which you would like feedback? If so, my first impression is that it is extremely difficult to work out what you're talking about.
For example, at the start you assert that the universe is "paradoxical". In the link entitled "An apparently paradoxical universe" you discuss lots of examples of these "paradoxes" that are the result of observing the motions of moving bodies from the surface of another moving body (the Earth). This is not a paradox. A paradox is a self-contradiction. Such things as the apparent movements of the Sun, Moon and Mars as viewed from the Earth are not self-contradictions. They're just hard to understand. It's a different thing.
You then say of these "paradoxes":
"Peculiarly, in a typical topsy-turvy manner, the paradoxical effect of nature delusively renders all sorts of natural cognitive paradox in the apparent observations of the paradoxically rendered natural phenomena."
and so on. Maybe I'm just not very good at reading English, but I can't make head or tail of what you're trying to say here, and it goes on in similar vein.
I think you'll get a lot further if you try to speak in plain English wherever possible. Make statements. Describe arguments to defend those statements which cite evidence and show logical progression. Don't bombard the reader with unexplained terminology. That kind of thing.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023