To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS of TOE project
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Nanotechnology > Special Project: 'Complete' Cosmology Theory From Scratch
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

RealityCheck
Hello everyone.

Discussion with TRoc has convinced me that any truly 'complete' TOE theory must ultimately have 'philosophical' meaning for the 'minds', as well as 'physical' meaning for the 'brains', of we poor humans! So I have started THIS 3rd ASSOCIATE thread to run 'in parallel' with the TOE thread and the OTHER associated threads ("mathematical/number-theory" and "physical-theory-comparisons" and etc.).

As for those OTHER associated threads, the title is self-explanatory; and it is left to the discretion and common sense of any would-be contributor to keep relevant and to the point as far as is consistent with fruitful, wide-ranging discussion of any philosophical aspects that 'fall' out of our TOE as we slowly grind towards its 'completion' (hopefully!).

'Philosophy' loosely translates as 'lover of contemplation/thinking/reasoning'; so good luck....good thinking...and....ENJOY!

RealityCheck.
.
Good Elf
Hi RealityCheck and TRoc,

QUOTE
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
"Hermes and the other philosophers say that if a man has this knowledge for a thousand years and had to nourish seven thousand people daily, he would still have enough, and Senior (Ibn Umail) says that such a man is as rich as the man who possesses the philosopher's stone from which you can get, and so give, fire to whomever you wish"
Unfortunately this science of "God" and secret of the philosophers is despised by fools who do not know what it is and for that reason there will always be poverty and unhappiness in the World.
The Philosophers Stone... Peter Marshall

Of course you all realize this fundamental point about a Theory of Everything... It is ultimately the quest for the "Philosopher's Stone". The Theory of Everything will enable all to transmute base metal into precious metal and of course unlock the secrets of the Universe guaranteeing "immortality"... he he he! Careful all who tread here! Newton did and went mad. You must choose wisely.
user posted image
QUOTE
"If ... there is some end of the things we do, which we desire for its own sake (everything else being desired for the sake of this), ... clearly this must be the good and the chief good. Will not the knowledge of it, then, have a great influence on life? Shall we not, like archers who have a mark to aim at, be more likely to hit upon what is right?" --Nichomachean Ethics, I 1.

A secular explanation from Answers.com...
Philosopher's Stone
Like it or not... this is a band of Wizards and Witches all intent on Alchemical Wisdom biggrin.gif Beware blasphemers, you are warned.. "Seek ye the Grail?" "Whom does the Grail serve?"
"Answer and die."

Cheers
RealityCheck
Hi Good Elf (and everyone).

All that you have brought to our attention, GE, has to do with 'motives', 'aims', 'intents' etc. of THE PHILOSOPHER; it has nothing to say about THE PHILOSOPHICAL KNOWLEDGE 'itself' that is acquired as a result of the PHILOSOPHICAL JOURNEY/PROCESS.

Meaning, GE, that perhaps in this thread we should leave the 'personal applications' of 'knowledge/understanding' to each individual's discretion/philosophy of life; and concentrate mainly on the 'objective' communicable-'knowledge/understanding' aspects per se...at least until we have some sort of 'consensus' as to the 'true/right' (whoa!) philosophy, hehehe.


Anyhow, that's my two-cent's worth at this stage, GE, everyone. Good luck and good thinking!

RC.
.
Good Elf
Hi RealityCheck and TRoc,

In as much each of us brings his own motives to the table, each of us must face them "alone". In the real world there are no "Round Tables". I doubt if any around here are going to wield "Excalibur" to unify this table... he he he!
QUOTE (Excalibur the Movie+)
    You will be the land,
    And the land will be you.
    If you fail, the land will perish;
    If you thrive, the land will blossom.

    ~Merlin

Lovely story because it is about the greatness and the evil in the heart of man. A Theory of Everything will give the possessor a great "power", but of good or of evil remains to be seen. Like all Science in it's purity a TOE is neither... it is man that gives it greatness or taints it's power. I am a glass "half-full" type of guy... rather than a "half-empty" one. In one Legend Arthur "sleeps" until he is needed again.

Hitler was of the opinion that this "power" could be used for evil. He was wrong... or was he?

I think that's enough from me. wink.gif Good luck with this project.

Cheers
TRoc
All,


Indeed Good Elf, there are many philosophical threads of fear that we can weave upon reflection upon the idea of a true, complete "How Things Work" understanding. It will bring great changes, and will, inevitably, create great "bad things" when applied by "bad people". This fear, though, is another duality; whatever positive manifestations come about will have to "battle" against the negative. This is the cosmic "balance of power", and it has been going on since we began. It will continue with, or without, any advancements we make.

We currently (and for some time) have all the information necessary to do this. We have the tires, the engine, the gas, and the body. All we need is the transmission - the quantum gears the will produce a continuous torque - to transform our energy to the road, where we can put it to use. We need to weed the great Ego that has infiltrated our Learn/Teach system. We have already subjected the evolution of humanity to the halting forces of over-specialization. There is NO way we can pass down usable information to our children, except that they specialize. What has happened to the Philosopher? Where is the Generalist? Who other than a Generalist is going to "generalize" all of the data that we have accumulated in the vaults of Universities and Libraries into one cohesive idea? What was the "Ph" for in PhD? They have forgotten and abandoned the great value of applying logic to intuition. (making intuition primary) Of course, not ALL, but it is predominate in Science today.

Onward..


TRoc





Good Elf
Hi TRoc,

I am not warning people off. As you have said there is a great deal of "over specialization" without the width of comprehension of what we do. As I said Hitler tried it and it did him no good. Personally his downfall was all about him... not the 60 million dead that surrounded him. There will be fools that may hand a "weapon" into the waiting arms of another "Hitler" and feel not the slightest moral twinge saying they are doing their duty. There is nothing to fear... in the long haul we may need to learn a lesson first and perhaps pay a price. The warning is for those who are not "pure at heart"... he he he! biggrin.gif
QUOTE (TRoc Posted on Oct 14 2005+ 03:10 AM)
Onward..


Cheers
lengould
And which of us does not sit now before a bookshelf of our lost ambitions without realizing they are lost. Why, the young and the older who have not forgotten.
ourmanflint
Knowledge of "A theory of everything" certainly has philosophical implications, but talking of weapons and/or philosophers stones has nothing to do with it, a TOE will not bring any great change to us, apart from knowledge itself, simply because knowledge and application of knowledge are vastly different things.
jal
An up and coming junction-
QUOTE
TRUE VOID ‘PRIMARY VACUUM’ BULK. This absolute frame ‘true bulk’ is thus the INFINITE AND UNBOUNDED ‘FLAT’ UNIVERSAL SOURCE AND SUBSTANCE OF BALANCED-ENERGY-LOCATION ‘absolute points’. Each and every ‘absolute point’ LOCATION within this true-bulk ‘primary vacuum energy’ matrix is naturally and logically ‘connected’ to/from every other such location via a....

JUNCTION
#1.
We should NOT eliminate the possibility that the total "bulk" did not change/evolve to become our universe. It could still be there. We could be an embedded/sprouted universe in this "bulk" that we perceive/observe to have operating instructions/rules/laws/structures/particles which could be different then the in the "bulk".
#2.
The words that we use will influence the development of our logic. I hate the word "sphere" because it automatically includes 3d.
We should eliminate the possibility that our universe could have have gone through a 2d stage or even that "a 2d spot" can be oriented/folded/rotated/spin which would make us perceive 3d/etc.
I know that I could have used a diferent word. (string/branes/membranes/wave)
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
TRUE VOID ‘PRIMARY VACUUM’ BULK. This absolute frame ‘true bulk’ is thus the INFINITE AND UNBOUNDED ‘FLAT’ UNIVERSAL SOURCE AND SUBSTANCE OF BALANCED-ENERGY-LOCATION ‘absolute points’. Each and every ‘absolute point’ LOCATION within this true-bulk ‘primary vacuum energy’ matrix is naturally and logically ‘connected’ to/from every other such location via a....

JUNCTION
#1.
We should NOT eliminate the possibility that the total "bulk" did not change/evolve to become our universe. It could still be there. We could be an embedded/sprouted universe in this "bulk" that we perceive/observe to have operating instructions/rules/laws/structures/particles which could be different then the in the "bulk".
#2.
The words that we use will influence the development of our logic. I hate the word "sphere" because it automatically includes 3d.
We should eliminate the possibility that our universe could have have gone through a 2d stage or even that "a 2d spot" can be oriented/folded/rotated/spin which would make us perceive 3d/etc.
I know that I could have used a diferent word. (string/branes/membranes/wave)
simply because knowledge and application of knowledge are vastly different things

Fortunately, there are people who are good at math who have the possibility of framing this hopefully forthcoming "TOE" knowledge into workable formulas that will make it easier for the experimenters/tech/users.
Jal
Guest_javier
Sorry, but I hate the name "Theory Of Everything"

How can you use this name for a theory that only covers a small part of the key questions?. Many of "the big questions" are not covered by TOE, among others:

- Human brain, how it works? (What is conscience, intelligence, ...?). TOE does not seem to be useful on order to solve this question.

- What happened "before" big bang?. (universe starting from "nothing" is not an acceptable answer. Nor "it was always there" is. And TOE will not provide a third alternative. But we would like to know the real sense of existence, and TOE will cover only a part of the story (the most trivial part)

- The origin of live. TOE is not interested in this area.

Defiinitively, you can call it "Unified theory of physics", or "Quantum relativity", or any other definition that you prefer, but not "theory of everything".

jal
I accept your qualifiers. It is still a worthwhile project.
Jal
Excal
QUOTE ("Guest_javier"+)
Sorry, but I hate the name "Theory Of Everything"

How can you use this name for a theory that only covers a small part of the key questions?. Many of "the big questions" are not covered by TOE, among others:

- Human brain, how it works? (What is conscience, intelligence, ...?). TOE does not seem to be useful on order to solve this question.

- What happened "before" big bang?. (universe starting from "nothing" is not an acceptable answer. Nor "it was always there" is. And TOE will not provide a third alternative. But we would like to know the real sense of existence, and TOE will cover only a part of the story (the most trivial part)

- The origin of live. TOE is not interested in this area.

Defiinitively, you can call it "Unified theory of physics", or "Quantum relativity", or any other definition that you prefer, but not "theory of everything".


I agree. Whatever it's called, it should explicitly refer to an explanation of the structure of the physical universe, and, therefore, its most useful philosophical aspects would be those pertaining to the philosophy of science.
Guest
Quote from Wikipedia:

A theory of everything (TOE) is a theory of theoretical physics and mathematics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena.

Initially, the term was used with an ironic connotation to refer to various overgeneralized theories.

For example, a great-grandfather of Ijon Tichy — a character from a cycle of Stanisław Lem's science fiction stories of 1960s — was known to work on "General Theory of Everything" (Polish: "Ogólna Teoria Wszystkiego").

Over time, the term stuck in popularizations of quantum physics to describe a theory that would unify the theories of the four fundamental interactions of nature.

Unquote.

Guess it's OK to stick to it.
Tor
Sorry, forgot to log in, guest reply was me

Tor
psionic11
I agree with the idea that the name "Theory of Everything" sucks.

It still smacks of metaphysical overtones, and has the noob connotations of Science 101 classes. Fortunately, as the ToE reaches completion and condensation, condescension will be removed from the name. A more proper, mature, and specific nomenclature will stick in the history books.

M-theory: does the "M" stand for math, mother, music, or magic?

Math is the map, but the map is not the land.
psionic11
QUOTE (ourmanflint+Oct 14 2005, 12:49 PM)
Knowledge of "A theory of everything" certainly has  philosophical implications, but talking of weapons and/or philosophers stones has nothing to do with it, a TOE will not bring any great change to us, apart from knowledge itself, simply because knowledge and application of knowledge are vastly different things.

Good point, but when the ToE does enter the realm of applied physics, then technology, and then economics, consumerism, and politics-- the great power of a ToE will indeed bring great change to us.

Ethics has long been a part of philosophy, as philopsophy likes to step above the crowd of knowledgeable passers-by in the city streets and contemplate from the glass office tower above the mobs below.

Power can corrupt, and great power can corrupt greatly. A charismatic leader's ability to inspire, energize, and even mobilize the sheepish masses, like Hitler did, becomes a sociological study of one type of power.

Theoretical knowledge in sub-atomic physics became deadly practical knowledge resulting in that heinous mushroom cloud over Hiroshima.

M-theory or ToE may mathematically describe and paint a picture of worlds far older than philosophy, but the philosophical issues have been around much longer than the current mathematical models. The ethical use of arcane knowledge and power is an old subject. As is the awareness that it is we ourselves, and our "intents", the great "Ego needing to be weeded out of our learning/teaching systems", that all need to be theorized on, and put into practice.

Twelve step programs and sundry (or sun-dried blink.gif ) practices may be elemental steps in the "right" direction, but there is a long way to go yet. Our society is greatly heterogeneous, all mixed up of differing lifestyles and priorities, and it is naively utopian to expect a smooth greater whole that is ethically pure and noble.

Still, what a great irony it will be to have a working ToE in the hands of a schizophrenic and greedy few.

Case in point, imagine George W. holding the Philospher's stone in hand.

"Don't worry, folks, this is not a nukular bomb."
Darklingknight
We must realize though that we do not completely know ourselves and that the addition of knowledge will undoubtedly show us who we really are. That is the danger of knowledge since it can bring an inherent unhappiness to even the best of things if we know that there is something out there that is better. A "theory of everything" is something that will bring a great change to the world. It will destroy everything that the world currently works on since we won't have to work all that hard to get the things we want.

In not having to work for the things we want we will undoubtedly look farther afield to find something that challenges us. Is it worth the future being a boring droll place to know the ToE? We ourselves may find that the search for the answers is fun but what happens when there is nothing left to search for? The rules will always change with the input and what is possible. Imagine someone from the Dark Ages coming to our time and seeing the corruption of the youth and the laziness of the adults. What would they think? I imagine that they would see that our moving away from being able to directly get the things that we want by our own independent actions caused this decay.

A theory of everything to me isn't such a good thing because unless it is shared with everyone, with every person, child, and thing then it will only make those who have it that much more in control. We must not just become remote viewers of the possible outcomes of what we are researching. Our job just isn't to satisfy our selfish pursuit of fulfillment because if we do then we are just what Hitler was. The only difference would be that we aren't as highly visible to the rest of the world but we are just as bad. In the same vein I don't believe that we should stop researching because of the potential for harmful or not good outcomes. We are the architects of human life and the future(baring a big comet slamming into the earth) and it is our job to figure out what colors go good together.

We must be more than just scientists and more than just philosophers. We must be doer's and movers of the world. A theory of everything sounds nice but what are the implications for man and his future. Of course I am supposing you are a man before you are a scientist when you wake up in the morning(that goes for you as well ladies).
TRoc
Darklingknight,

Very well put Sir Darkling. I would like to comment on some of your post.

Quote "In not having to work for the things we want we will undoubtedly look farther afield to find something that challenges us. Is it worth the future being a boring droll place to know the ToE? We ourselves may find that the search for the answers is fun but what happens when there is nothing left to search for?"
Could it be that we could finally have a united focus on peace and happiness? There will be many years of study yet to come, piecing things together, and rewriting (simplifying) the texts. But ultimately, I agree that we will have a huge collective freeing up of our searching minds' energy. Can you imagine if the same Theory that unites physics also can be philosophically, psychologically, and spiritually uniting? Many people have a hard time with "the end of science" as we know it, yet it was but a short time (Earth scale) ago that the collective human mind, fed up with abuses of the institutionalized churches, sent forth a new branch of professional seekers: Science. This "sending out" requires the potential for a "calling in"of the question. It will still leave the greatest questions as to What came before "the beginning", and What is our personal Why (dharma); these will require still "faith" (a fundamental human emotion). But having a universal "road map" will undoubtedly make things easier for all.

Quote "A theory of everything to me isn't such a good thing because unless it is shared with everyone, with every person, child, and thing then it will only make those who have it that much more in control. We must not just become remote viewers of the possible outcomes of what we are researching."

Absolutely! This is what has pushed my small group (PathFinder Research) to go forward with sharing what we have, even though we know there is much more that can (and will) be constructed from what we are about to release. Indeed, if it were not for the Internet (and esp. this Forum), we would fear that any attempt to share this (through standard Journal publication) would/could be controlled and/or silenced. This is not to say that we won't seek those channels, because we live in this world that demands we "pay our bills", and what we have accomplished has taken years of "spare time" work. We are going to attempt simultaneous release of this Theory though Official Scientific, Public Scientific (here), Religious/Spiritual, and "Popular" channels. This is no easy task, and requires a small amount of timing changes, which will appear to be "stalling" or worse. I apologize for this, but it is unavoidable.


TRoc


Capn Caveman
Hello everyone, fascinating topic!

As for my two cents, I find it hard to believe that a TOE would even remotely stall physics research, I think it would work more like a catalyst, as I would assume the implications would be simply staggering.
I mean, the theory itself would be a long equation and would as a sort of mathematical map of the physical laws of the universe, but it would be sort of like looking at a map of texas and seeing that Austin is here, Dallas is there, but you don't know how to get between the two points or what benefits would be gleaned from the journey. I mean if it's a theory of Everything, it would be so thorough it would be like exploring the universe itself...

Or I could be just some crackpot.
jal
Ignorance is bliss!
When I was young, I thought that I was the center of the universe. As I grew older I became aware that there was more than me so I lost my central position. The next awakening came when I learned that the earth was not the center of the firmament. It was relegated to a secondary role in the scheme of things. Our sun was not even that important.
To make matters worst a fellow by the name of Einstein said that space and time are not fixed. Space bends and stretches.
He even said that E=mc^2. Matter is energy. There is only a tiny bit of matter, 10^80 particles, in the universe. Most of the universe is built of spacetime.
What I am to do?
When I was young, I thought that when I walked into a room and closed the door that nothing could get in. How wrong I was. I learnt that all kinds of radio waves, which I couldn’t see, were going right through the walls and right through me. We learned how to manipulate those things and we got TV and everything else.
Now, I have to accept that there is something else that goes right through everything and that we are moving through it without noticing it—space. We still have to discover what space is made of and how it affects all of the particles and those invisible photons. After all, if space can be bent and if space can expand, then there must be some kind of structure.
I really don’t want to give up another cherished belief. Now, I‘ve got to accept that this nothing thing called space is causing all kinds of thing to be what they are.
Take the Inverse Square Law, I must accept that this nothing space can have a structure that makes this true.
If we double the distance from the point of origin then at the receiving end the area is squared. In other words, if space has a structure then, each unit of space must have two in/out on each face so that there are 4 paths to reach the receiving end because there are 4 receiving units at the receiving end.
Horror upon horror, if this can be demonstrated, then that mean all of the inverse square rules depend on the shape of space.
Hummm!, maybe that is not so bad.
Since the earth has been moving through space for at least 4 billion years it has not encountered any variations of the 4 paths nor any variations in the size of the spots. The earth has not gone through any area of space that did not have the ability of receiving light from x,y,z. Surely, going through an area of space that cannot receive light from one of the direction would spell catastrophe for earth. If the earth was to go through an area of space where the spots were twice the size then gravity etc. would be affected and the earth would be destroyed. The earth would double in size etc.
Geee! Maybe… space is more important than matter?
I wish I was young again and that I had that ignorant bliss. Thinking hurts. Thinking keeps pushing/moving me around the universe. It’s not very comforting.
I want to be part of the old establishment. I want to believe that the earth is still the center of the universe and that space is nothing. I don’t want to be pushed around any more.
jal ohmy.gif

jal
Hi!
Gee! It looks like that nothing/space has got some kind of shape/topology. Does this mean that I must consider that nothing has an influence on the "real" world?
I guess that any TOE will have to find what is the structure of space and how it makes things the way they are. Things like (ISL), INVERSE SQUARE LAW and UNCERTAINTY and that maybe the cause of so many rules/laws is really "THE BIG NOTHING/SPACE".
Read the following:


A cosmic hall of mirrors
QUOTE
...These spaces are somewhat easier to understand than a dodecahedral space, but they require higher values of the density: Ω < 1.015 for octahedral spaces and Ω < 1.025 for tetrahedral spaces, compared with Ω < 1.009 for dodecahedral spaces. However, these values are still compatible with the WMAP data. Furthermore, Steiner and co-workers found that the signal for pairs of matched circles could have be missed by current analyses of the cosmic microwave background due to various measurement effects that damage or even destroy the temperature matching.

Jal

fivedoughnut
I believe there will never ever be a true theory of everything, only a never ending succession of "models" which over time will better approximate the "real truth"
In our Universe/Hyperuniverse there may be many highly evolved intelligences, billions of years in our advance who are still periodically altering/introducing new models in this eternal quest!
mr voo
I think the philosophical implications for any TOE will be startlingly apparent once a good toe is found. A strong anthropic inclusion is a sure way to allow the layman and unscientific to marvel at such a deep complex discovery. As all priests say- its easier to see the manifestations of God [Like...Man. Or insect.] than it is to see God himself. The initial one-point creation of the cosmos will always be a mystery, though we may deduce a grand mechanism to explain the created.
In ancient times, the priest and the scientist were one. Its good that now they are seperate but at the end of the day, we are all one.
Confused2
Philosophical implications of a TOE..
For present purposes I suggest a TOE should be like a map - just something you use to find out where you are, nothing more and nothing less.
-C2.
Eric England
QUOTE (TRoc+Oct 14 2005, 03:10 AM)
Who other than a Generalist is going to "generalize" all of the data that we have accumulated in the vaults of Universities and Libraries into one cohesive idea?  What was the "Ph" for in PhD?  They have forgotten and abandoned the great value of applying logic to intuition. (making intuition primary)  Of course, not ALL, but it is predominate in Science today.


An excellent description of the fundamental problem, going all the way back to Parmenides.
Eric England
Hi Folks,

Sorry about posting two times in a row, I don't find a button to edit my previous post.

I first wanted to add that I find a lot of your comments about the philosophical implications of a "TOE" quite insightful. It definitely has a more meaningful potential to mankind, than is commonly considered.

As a "Generalist" (I printed up a certificate for my office and it looks marvelous), I would have to say that "a complete theory" (ACT) boils down to an understanding of the Absolute & Relative, which are "applicables" in science, philosophy, and religions.

I will gloss over it for the moment and just say that the Absolute has no outside and the Relative has no inside, and "everything" in between is secondary, but explainable and not unimportant. I'll add that the Absolute & Relative are "provable" and the Absolute tells us why we are, and the Relative tells us what we are – most generally speaking.

Parmenides actually established the Absolute philosophically, 2500 years ago. He is rightfully considered the father of philosophy (by Plato & Aristotle) and metaphysics, but his discovery was never held onto and followed up upon.

He was the original generalist.

Also, I posted a little something on the TOE project thread, using infinity and > infinity as the most and least divisible simultaneously.

(now I get the edit button, I guess it's time-sensitive)
Eric England
One other thing about philosophy and its validity as a testable discipline. It's more testable than science gives it credit for. It's their limit of the definition of "testable" that gets in the way.

Here's one silly little example. Let's say my philosophy is that its all about me. The universe revolves around me and its all a product of my imagination. I and what I say, are absolute. Not a terribly uncommon condition actually.

Is this a testable premise? You bet it is (given time). It will of course, prove to be false, at least to the other witnesses of the test and hopfully to me in time.
RealityCheck
.
======= STAGE-I results IMPLICATIONS for PHILOSOPHY =======

Apparently, the FIRST identifiable and self-determining entity is NOT “nothingness”.

Rather, it appears to be a balanced or ‘physically passive’ omni-directional infinite potential for orientational tendency; said tendency being ‘manifest’ only if such tendency can actually ‘transpire’ through some ‘physical factor’ (yet to be identified in STAGE-II) acting upon any one or more heretofore balanced direction-line ‘coincidence centre(s)’.....so as to ‘effectively orient’, or otherwise make physically ‘active’, that centre’s inherent ‘directional impetus’ energy....and do so in a ‘preferred’ direction along whichever happens to be the now-unbalanced ‘directional-duality-line or ‘energy filament’ running through that centre that is affected by that as yet unidentified unbalancing ‘physical factor’....whatever it may turn out to be according to our STAGE-II results.

Therefore, to put it succinctly as possible:

"NOTHINGNESS" NEVER WAS.....NOR EVER CAN BE an a-priori physical condition....

.....that is, of course, UNLESS some OTHER as yet unidentified physical entity is found that may cause us to relegate OMNI-DIRECTION POTENTIAL to a merely SECONDARY or otherwise ‘derived/dependent’ physical entity. Until such can be identified, philosophers are necessarily obliged to now consider/discuss the present stage-I implications/aspects arising from the ‘omni-direction’ logic flow as already described, defined and otherwise outlined in the TOE & SUMMARY threads.

SOME OBVIOUS ASPECTS FOR PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION

For the purposes of further philosophical discussion of the INFINITE SCALAR of ‘omni-direction’ potential, it should be borne in mind that NO SINGLE’ CENTRE is implied.

Natural self-VECTORING of omni-direction potential, into INFINITESIMALLY thin ‘directional’ DUALITY lines of ‘orientation’ of potential action, go in all possible directions from/through any possible location in any possible frame, thus creating a correspondingly infinite MATRIX of ‘omni-directional CENTRES OF COINCIDENCE ‘LOCATIONS’ which may be either ‘effectively’ balanced or ‘effectively’ unbalanced (the nature/cause of the latter ‘unbalanced’ STATE being currently the subject of the STAGE-II Question & Answer Session still under way in our TOE Q&A thread).

Just because our ‘physics’ does not indicate anything OTHER than omni-direction as ‘a-priori’ physical entity, it does not mean that PHILOSOPHERS (who are less ‘constrained’ by ‘physics’) cannot happen serendipitously upon such a thing during our project’s progress, however unlikely it may seem at this stage. So we should all keep our minds ‘open’......

.....HOWEVER.....for any other candidate for ‘a-priori entity’ status to be put ‘ahead’ of, or even just ‘abreast’ of, omni-direction, it MUST EVENTUALLY be VALIDATED by/within a logically consistent framework that ‘corresponds’ with the observed reality around us on a ‘consistent’, ‘repeatable’ and ‘predictable’ basis (since, obviously, there is no point in ANY philosophical/logical system that is ‘whimsical’ in basis and/or effect as far as reality is concerned....simply because in that case no ‘reality rules’ can then be said to obtain except those of the ad hoc ‘philosophical system’ ITSELF....which then becomes the opposite of ‘physical system’, and so will disqualify itself from further consideration by our present scientific theorising process.

So for the moment at least, philosophy must follow, absorb and otherwise ‘integrate’ all STAGE-I ‘physical implications’ which may have so far arisen for and discussed in any and all of our associate TOE topic threads.

Stage-I physical/mathematical etc implications will be posted TOMORROW under the relevant topic headings for SPECIFIC discussion according to their respective TOPIC HEADING ambits.

PLEASE NOTE WELL: ALL the above ‘implications’ plus anything else input by participants under any of the other associate threads is FAIR GAME for PHILOSOPHERS to discuss HERE in this thread......AND OF COURSE, there may also be ‘overlap’ and ‘cross-pollination’ between/among any and all these associate threads...however, please try not to do so ‘gratuitously’; ie, any such overflow/cross-pollination should be STRICTLY PERTINENT to the discussions therein....meaning that they should be NECESSARY to the elucidation of points/descriptions/explanations being made under those particular TOPIC discussions.

Good luck and good thinking philosophers all!

RealityCheck.
Eric England
RC,

OK, back to the philosophy thread. I'll definitely leave the main one alone for this discussion. Let me see if I can better sum up what you're working with, in developing Stage 2. Not better than you, but better than I have, related to what you have pointed out.

Omni-direction is a-priori. All is caused by this infinite principle. All includes location, a connection between locations, an interaction along this connection, and an arena for this to occur within.

So far, all of these aspects are infinite. Then a preference of distance, direction, and charge get introduced. In essence, a finite embodiment of the infinite. The infinite contains the potential for the finite, which is then actualized.

Is this what you are working with for Stage 2?

Eric

RealityCheck
QUOTE (Eric England+Sep 15 2006, 03:53 PM)
RC,

OK, back to the philosophy thread. I'll definitely leave the main one alone for this discussion. Let me see if I can better sum up what you're working with, in developing Stage 2. Not better than you, but better than I have, related to what you have pointed out.

Omni-direction is a-priori. All is caused by this infinite principle. All includes location, a connection between locations, an interaction along this connection, and an arena for this to occur within.

So far, all of these aspects are infinite. Then a preference of distance, direction, and charge get introduced. In essence, a finite embodiment of the infinite. The infinite contains the potential for the finite, which is then actualized.

Is this what you are working with for Stage 2?

Eric



Hi Eric England.

Excellently concise....thanks! However, one point needs clarifying, and that is the question of 'arena' and its 'provenance'.

I have bolded the relevant sections of your 'nutshell' above of stage-I situation, which treats what I think is a very important, if not crucial, point which if it is not understood from the get-go, will cause all sorts of 'non-sequiturs' down the track for many people's logic/concept flows. Therefore I would like if I may 'modify' your precis thus:

Omni-direction is a-priori, and as such IS and EMBODIES and ENCOMPASSES or otherwise CONSTITUTES, IN TOTO AND IN ORIGINS, the 'source', 'substance' and 'context' for ITSELF AND ALL/EVERYTHING that follows from its INHERENT ATTRIBUTES/PROPERTIES, including 'arena' for 'manifestation/action' of said inherent attributes/properties.. All is caused by this infinite principle. All includes location, a connection between locations, an interaction along this connection. [section deleted....subsumed in 'expanded' opening statement].

I hope this crucial aspect is made clear: that the coincidence-locations matrix is generated by the omni-direction concept ALREADY WITHIN ITS OWN AMBIT as THE 'potential' UNIVERSAL 'context/arena'....and that the said matrix is merely the 'constantly' and 'instantaneously' generated 'manifestation' (or as you put it, "actualization") of that potential....to give what we may 'perceive' as a 'physical' SPACE/ARENA or PRIMARY VACUUM or TRUE VOID whose 'physical substance' is effectively the infinity of coincidence-locations generated moment-to-moment from/by our identified infinite and a-priori omni-direction potential.

Your further thoughts?.....and that includes YOU, everyone! hehehe.

I'll catch up with you again as soon as I get these other implications finalised and posted for the other threads...but damn.....'tempus fugit' when you ain't got much to spare! hehehe.

Cheers!

RealityCheck.
.
jal
Hi Everyone
I like to simplify biggrin.gif
All of that the discussion of part I is about is ... reaching a consensus that "OUR BEGINNING CAME FROM SOMETHING THAT HAD EVERYTHING POSSIBLE CONTAINED WITHIN IT."
I see the second section dealing with "breaking away".
The final result is what we have.
jal
RealityCheck
QUOTE (jal+Sep 15 2006, 10:07 PM)
Hi Everyone
I like to simplify biggrin.gif
All of that the discussion of part I is about is  ... reaching a consensus that "OUR BEGINNING CAME FROM SOMETHING THAT HAD EVERYTHING POSSIBLE CONTAINED WITHIN IT."
I see the second section dealing with "breaking away".
The final result is what we have.
jal



*sigh*...how I envy all you guys being able to put things so succinctly....you all put me to shame! hehehe. And you're right, the 'breakout' is imminent....if I can ever get to posting those damned OTHER-thread implications for you all to consider before you DO all 'break out'! hehehe.

BTW, jal, I replied to your equally succinct and apposite observation in the "THEORY OF EVERYTHING BEGUN...." thread.

Cheers all!

RC.
.
Eric England
Hi RC,

You may call me Eric or Erk, Earlick, Earwax, etc.

QUOTE
"Excellently concise....thanks! However, one point needs clarifying, and that is the question of 'arena' and its 'provenance'.

So let's see, I summed it up by saying the infinite principle of omni-direction "causes" all. You are correcting it to add "is" all. I think this is correct.

Omni-direction is and causes all. It is the principle, the field, and the arena; by which, upon which, and within which all occurs. Is this more correct?

Now, what I think should be a clarification of Jal's post.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
"Excellently concise....thanks! However, one point needs clarifying, and that is the question of 'arena' and its 'provenance'.

So let's see, I summed it up by saying the infinite principle of omni-direction "causes" all. You are correcting it to add "is" all. I think this is correct.

Omni-direction is and causes all. It is the principle, the field, and the arena; by which, upon which, and within which all occurs. Is this more correct?

Now, what I think should be a clarification of Jal's post.

"OUR BEGINNING CAME FROM SOMETHING THAT HAD EVERYTHING POSSIBLE CONTAINED WITHIN IT."

Our beginning (if there was) came from something that contains everything possible, including itself. Is this more correct?

I'm a generalist who likes to be specific. I can't help myself.

Erk
RealityCheck
QUOTE (Eric England+Sep 16 2006, 04:42 AM)
Hi RC,

You may call me Eric or Erk, Earlick, Earwax, etc.
QUOTE (RC+)

"Excellently concise....thanks! However, one point needs clarifying, and that is the question of 'arena' and its 'provenance'.


So let's see, I summed it up by saying the infinite principle of omni-direction "causes" all. You are correcting it to add "is" all. I think this is correct.

Omni-direction is and causes all. It is the principle, the field, and the arena; of which, by which, upon which, and within which all occurs. Is this more correct?



Thanks, "Eric". [I usually try to keep to the registered names because they are unique identifiers and obviate the need for further 'targeting' qualifiers when addressing more than one "Eric" etc....of whom there may be more than one at any one time here. But until I strike such difficulties, then Eric it is!]

And yes, again you've stated our identified 'a-priori state' position quite neatly...with my only addendum being as shown/added in bold in your above statement; ie: "of which"....

.....to stress that omni-direction potential, as the infinite 'always there' physical entity per se, ALSO constitutes (again, by virtue of its a-priori status) THE UNIVERSAL 'substance' FROM WHICH all is made up OF....as 'actualized' via coincidence-location matrix in its 'balanced' or 'unbalanced' configurations (the latter 'antics' of said matrix to be identified via stage-II session currently under way).

And with that, we have a rather 'neat' little statement of status to be going on with for the next stage considerations. Thanks Eric!


QUOTE (Eric England+Sep 16 2006, 04:42 AM)

Now, what I think should be a clarification of Jal's post.

QUOTE (jal+)

"OUR BEGINNING CAME FROM SOMETHING THAT HAD EVERYTHING POSSIBLE CONTAINED WITHIN IT."


Our beginning (if there was) came from something that contains everything possible, including itself. Is this more correct?

I'm a generalist who likes to be specific. I can't help myself.

Erk


No need to apologise for any 'personal traits' here, mate...we all contribute our respective unique/individual 'special forte' inputs/talents to this project.....for it will take ALL KINDS to 'thrash out' the best and most 'complete' TOE that we possibly can! hehehe.

As to "Beginning(s)": Yes!...I missed that...thanks again!...such a 'concept has NOT yet arisen (ie, there has been no 'logic trail' leading either towards or away from 'ETERNAL/TEMPORAL/CYCLIC etc' for our incipient 'universe' AS A WHOLE!). Talk about having to WATCH EVERY WORD WE UTTER! hehehe.

Jal, Eric and all....putative "Beginning(s)" for THE GREATER universe, both per se and as a whole, can only be part of our project's lexicon/glossary IF/WHEN AND ONLY IF/WHEN some stage in our process/logic ITSELF determines that it must be applied/used pursuant to any such stage's 'resolution' of this concept for universal beginnings...or NOT, as the case may turn out to be by project's end.


Well!...from only these few 'reworks' of ours, jal, Eric, I can see that many more 'cosmological concepts/definitions' will be coming 'anew' through this project of ours....like some sort of 'rewiring' for the conventional science/philosophy language/descriptors....just as it should be for a project boasting to 'start from scratch', heh? hehehe!

Catch up to you all soon.

RC.
.
jal
Interesting reading.
The BIG beginning does not affect us. It could be the other universes. The SMALL beginning is ours.
"OUR BEGINNING CAME FROM SOMETHING THAT HAD EVERYTHING POSSIBLE CONTAINED WITHIN IT."
jal
Eric England
Omni-direction is and causes all. It is the principle, field, and arena; of, by, upon, and within which all occurs.

It is, at, within, and without everywhere. It is infinite location for all to occur, but is it a principle "by which", all can occur? Does the infinite "imply" the duality of the finite? Can it show preference for distance, direction, and charge?
RealityCheck
QUOTE (jal+Sep 16 2006, 02:36 PM)
Interesting reading.
The BIG beginning does not affect us. It could be the other universes. The SMALL beginning is ours.
"OUR BEGINNING CAME FROM SOMETHING THAT HAD EVERYTHING POSSIBLE CONTAINED WITHIN IT."
jal



Yes jal...you've just hit on yet another area where many conversations go cross-purpose...in this case, it's the DIFFERENCE between THE 'NON-LOCAL' or 'BULK' UNIVERSE IN TOTO...and the 'observable' universe IN LOCI, eh?

OK folks, as jal points out, from now on in these discussions, whenever we invoke the 'universal term' in any statement/explanation etc, we must BE CLEAR as to PRECISELY WHICH "universal context" our statements refer!...whether to 'LOCAL' universe(s)....or to 'BULK' UNIVERSE [perhaps we should, apart from prefacing relevant statements with "local/global" to set the scene for said statements, we may also use 'capitals' when denoting the 'BULK' UNIVERSE and 'lower-case' when meaning the 'local' universe?

Thanks, jal...very important/critical aspect to prevent confusion. Thanks.

QUOTE (Eric England+Sep 16 2006, 03:29 PM)
Omni-direction is and causes all. It is the principle, field, and arena; of, by, upon, and within which all occurs.

It is, at, within, and without everywhere. It is infinite location for all to occur, but is it a principle "by which", all can occur? Does the infinite "imply" the duality of the finite? Can it show preference for distance, direction, and charge?


Good point. Well, what after all IS 'finiteness', if NOT 'localisability'? And we have THAT being instantaneously-generated 'in spades'....in the form of an infinite matrix of direction-coincidence-'locations' where omni-direction orientational-duality-lines form localisations of 'preferred oriented/impetus' properties/effects by/from the 'infinite' scalar to/through the 'finite' vector (IF, of course, such 'locations' may BE 'unbalanced' to the extent that a 'preferred orientation' for omni-direction can BE so 'vectorised' via/at such locations...something which stage-II inputs will help us resolve, I hope!). Will that answer for the moment, until I have more time to get into all your observations more thoroughly, Eric?

Meanwhile, everyone...please feel free to answer Eric or each others' queries! I have no monopoly on ANY of these conversations! hehehe. Cheers!

RC.
.
Eric England
Let me take an even broader view at this point, in summarizing Stage One, and see if it rings true.

Nothing can never be so there is somthing. This something is the principle of omni-direction. Omni-direction is infinity about infinite centers. Infinite direction at infinite centers, that are in infinite directions, at infinite distance.

Introducing matrix, prefered distance, direction, and charge; is to go from infinite to finite, by establishing a logical connection. Is it possible to go from a global infinite to a local finite, by a logical trail? The finite is the "observable", but what value should we give to the observable? Can we state that although all locations are infinite, that finite quantities and qualities exist at finite locations?

Is the "tangible", proof of something or the illusion of something?
Eric England
I want to change the last line to read – is the "tangible", proof of something physical or proof of the illusion of something physical?
Eric England
QUOTE
I asked because omnidirectionality seems to imply spacetime. The "VOID" mentioned consists of "an infinite, omnidirection-lines coincident-point/location MATRIX generated by omni-direction VECTOR lines".

I have little idea what this means but wouldn't 'omni-direction vector lines' have to be extended in spacetime? Or do the words 'coincident-point' here mean that this matrix would be spatially unextended?


Hi Wanderer,

The "physicality" of infinite omni-direction and its finite implications, would necessarily include spatial extent and the time it does or does not take, to transverse spatial extent. Spatial extent would necessarily include, that which is both inside and outside of mass.

In infinite omni-direction there is no reason to assume space-time, but only space and time. Mass, space, and time would be three equal but different expressions, of infinity. No one taking precedent over another, with all three intermingling infinitely.

In finding a logical trail to the finite expressions of the infinite, it may or may not show time to be one dimensional. The only way time can be be an expression of a fourth dimension, is if it can be shown the speed of light is finite (a constant). The fourth dimension is considered to be a right angle to the other three. The idea that this is something more than a simple change in direction is dubious.

As a matter of fact, the only way mass, space, and time can be considered finite; is to locate a finite matrix of centers, that exists within an infinite omni-directional principle that, has no center(s) at all.

The hunt in this process is to find constants of mass, space, and time based on infinity. To find a preference of direction, distance, and charge. A preference which creates lines of transmission that have a finite length and width, between the centers of things that have a finite extent, which have surfaces of a finite thickness.

Eric
jal
Hi Eric England!
I'm here.... but I don't know what I can add.
A lot of words are used.... and from that I try to get an understanding.
QUOTE
The BIG beginning does not affect us. It could be the other universes. The SMALL beginning is ours.
"OUR BEGINNING CAME FROM SOMETHING THAT HAD EVERYTHING POSSIBLE CONTAINED WITHIN IT."

Therefore,.... everything possible is = 100% potential.
I expect that more words are needed ..... supplied by all of you.
jal
Eric England
Hi jal,

I'm glad you came over. RC is way too busy, all things considered, to have that thread not be what he wants it to be.

Yes, more words are needed, supplied by anyone. They have to be rigorously concise, and logically connected with no gaps.

QUOTE
Therefore,.... everything possible is = 100% potential.


So I gather, you are further clarifying 100% potential, as not limited to a description of infinite omni-direction, but to include everything possible. This is a better ground to discuss.

To keep consistent with what has been stated in Stage One, everything possible might be all, other than nothing. But what would state that "all" is possible. Maybe something else, other than nothing, is not possible.

This, however, is the concise statement that says you are right. "Absolutely nothing is impossible."

To make a concise argument that "nothingness" never was or will be, and that something is being, in this case infinite omni-direction, actually requires one other step of logic that has been skipped.

Why can an a-priori absolute nothing never be? It's an out to a possible TOE, to say something didn't come from nothing, but it has to be shown as to why, absolute nothing is impossible. Why it doesn't exist.

The step that has been skipped is this.

If absolute nothing EXISTED, there wouldn't be absolute nothing. Or in other words, if non-existence EXISTED, there wouldn't be non-existence.

Again, "absolutely nothing is impossible" = 100% potential.

However, all we know at this point, is what does NOT exist. Now we introduce "something" and call it infinite omni-direction. I would suggest, though, that it should be called "something absolute". An absolute without an outside contingent. Something other than relative. Omni-direction certainly seems absolute, but let's take a look. Can infinity be absolute?

Anybody have any thoughts on how infinity can be absolute?

Anybody have any thoughts on how potential can become "actual"?
jal
Hi Eric England!
I'm probably a bad one to start this discussion with. smile.gif
QUOTE
how potential can become "actual"?

The background/bulk/infinite can be dynamic but in balance which could also be interpreted as being nothing or being everything.
Variations from.... (which we could presume to be zero or to be infinity) would result in our universe which would be differentiated from the bulk/original.

A mechanism which would allow this separation/variation from the initial condition is what will be attempted for the second phase.

I think that it will only be then that we will be able to "look back" and put a better definition on the original condition and on the 100% that we came from.

jal
RealityCheck
.
jal, Eric.

Excellent observations/reasoning, guys! Very helpful to all.

And YES, as soon as I'm freed from my present distractions (let it be tomorrow!!!), I shall get done with the stage-I implications; and a couple of weeks thereafter will begin the input phase of STAGE-II.

Whereby, as jal has reminded us, the 'mechanism' will hopefully be identified that will get us from infinite-scalar/infinitessimal-vector 'PASSIVE/BALANCED' (energy? impetus?)...to....finite LOCATION 'quanta' of ACTIVE/IMBALANCES in the inherent direction-orientation properties/effects etc. at those locations.

That's when the fun REALLY begins! hehehe.

And also when, as I said earlier, our glossary/definitions efforts can have anything to really work on in some sort of 'context'; as so far identified in our process.

Cheers and hope to get my end in order a.s.a.p! hehehe.

RC.
.
Mong H Tan, PhD
Hello, Philosophers, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit! smile.gif

Specifically, Eric England: Please take my “folly” expression as a joke; that’s why I attached a smile.gif to it!

Well, I’m moving my post over, as linked here Theory of Everything begun from absolute concept (PhysOrgEU; September 20); so, please feel free to comment on it, at your convenience.

However, for your consideration and discussion herein, I do have some comments (point by point) on your post above; as quoted below:
QUOTE
If absolute nothing EXISTED, there wouldn't be absolute nothing. Or in other words, if non-existence EXISTED, there wouldn't be non-existence[1].

Again, "absolutely nothing is impossible" = 100% potential[2].

However, all we know at this point, is what does NOT exist. Now we introduce "something" and call it infinite omni-direction. I would suggest, though, that it should be called "something absolute". An absolute without an outside contingent. Something other than relative. Omni-direction certainly seems absolute, but let's take a look. Can infinity be absolute?

Anybody have any thoughts on how infinity can be absolute[3]?

Anybody have any thoughts on how potential can become "actual"[4]?
1] This is a confusing metaphysical statement?! smile.gif

2] Do you mean “absolutely nothing is impossible” at the beginning of the “big bang,” or as the Universe as it is today?

As it is today, the Universe gives rise to Everything in it; that’s why we’re attempting to define it as the Infinity, as it is in a state of permanent dynamic equilibrium; as explained in the link above.

As Jal’s Universe = 100% potential (or energy), it is also an incomplete definition.

Quantum mechanically, if we would extrapolate Einstein’s E=Mc^2, the fundamental elements of the Universe are composed of the Energy-containing particles; and all particles of matter have a Mass, enabling all elements to collide and interact with each other, so as to form more complex compounds or entities in the Universe above and beyond, including the Evolution of Life on Earth; as explained in the STEM matrix concept, linked above.

3] Yes, Infinity is an absolute or permanent state of dynamic equilibrium of the STEM matrix; as explained in 2] above.

4] The elemental or chemical reactivity of particles or elements as energized by the potential they contain, gives rise to the more complex or actual physical STEM entities; as explained in 2] above.

Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening! smile.gif

Best wishes, Mong 9/21/6usct1:15a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Wanderer
Hi Eric - nice to be chatting again - Canute

You say that "In infinite omni-direction there is no reason to assume space-time, but only space and time."

I find this confusing. Is spacetime fundamental or omni-direction?

To me there seems a clear choice when it comes to postulating something fundamental. Either it exists in spacetime, in which case spacetime is fundamental, or it does not, in which case it is not a physical concept. Or am I missing something?

Wanderer
RealityCheck
QUOTE (Wanderer+Sep 21 2006, 11:06 AM)
Hi Eric - nice to be chatting again - Canute

You say that "In infinite omni-direction there is no reason to assume space-time, but only space and time."

I find this confusing. Is spacetime fundamental or omni-direction?

To me there seems a clear choice when it comes to postulating something fundamental. Either it exists in spacetime, in which case spacetime is fundamental, or it does not, in which case it is not a physical concept. Or am I missing something?

Wanderer



Hi Wanderer, everyone.

Just a reminder that our novel project is aimed at minimising any premature and/or ad hoc inputs to the self-determining logic trail as commenced/indicated by the 'independent theorising process' ITSELF.

So it should be borne in mind that AS YET, that self-determining logic trail has NOT YET 'identifed' such things as SPACETIME and many other 'concepts/constructs' we CURRENTLY bandy about in conventional theorising results that are the thinking/lexicon legacies of 'partial' and 'relative' theories whose ad hoc inputs are mostly responsible for the current 'confused' lexicon/explanations in this field.

So please familiarise yourselves with the stage-I results and implications (latter to be posted soon!) and, while being free to discuss whatever you please as 'background' and 'stage-input refining' discussions, according to our 'independent' approach, one MUST NOT LIMIT/DEFINE anything we HAVE so far identified, by invoking/introducing or applying CONVENTIONAL concepts that have not had their counterparts/equivalents 'identified' in our 'self-developing' process.

This will avoid 'cross-purpose' confusion and leave our process to get to whatever concepts/results it will get to ON IT'S OWN, and without undue interference by human CONVENTIONS coming from current 'confused' theories/terminologies. See?

By all means, discuss 'spacetime' or any other 'abstract/conventional' ideas/concepts, but please do not REQUIRE anything that we HAVE identified to be DIRECTLY TRANSITIONABLE, DEFINABLE or DE-LIMITABLE by/to any ideas/concepts not yet OBVIOUS to our self-determined logic 'justified' process perspective so far. Thanks!

Good luck and carry on, everyone! Excellent stuff!

RC.
.
Janus
Hi all,

Hope you don’t mind me putting a view forward.

I’m not sure I have got anything from the four pages I’ve read so far … no proper direction yet.
An idea comes in … a couple of replies … then something else … etc.

I am a bit fed up with peoples TOE not addressing the beginning properly.

Firstly, we need to just decide on three things:
1. everything came from nothing.
2. everything came from everything.
3. something else.

Once this has been decided we can then move on.

Obviously, my choice is everything from nothing … that’s why it’s first on the list.

He is my reason simplistically stated:
Nothing is a paradox … it has two states … but nothing has so find a singular state.
So nothing bounces between the two states … who knows how many times … but I can definitely say this bouncing took no time because time does not exist yet … we are talking about the entity nothing.

Nothing eventually finds an equilibrium point; thereby creating a third state ( the magic triplicate).
This third state is totally perfect and full of energy from all the bouncing …

I’ll leave it there for the moment … your thoughts please.

Cheers
Eric England
Thanks to everyone for "wandering" over here. Oh boy, I'm in big trouble now.

QUOTE
I find this confusing. Is spacetime fundamental or omni-direction?

Howdy there Wanderer,

In this TOE project, it was determined before I found this forum, that nothing can never be and that infinite omni-direction is a-priori. So the fundament we're working with is omni-direction.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I find this confusing. Is spacetime fundamental or omni-direction?

Howdy there Wanderer,

In this TOE project, it was determined before I found this forum, that nothing can never be and that infinite omni-direction is a-priori. So the fundament we're working with is omni-direction.

To me there seems a clear choice when it comes to postulating something fundamental. Either it exists in spacetime, in which case spacetime is fundamental, or it does not, in which case it is not a physical concept. Or am I missing something?

Infinite omni-direction has been postulated, as to not exist within anything but itself. It has been stated as being the "principle" of potential, by which all might be actualized. It is both inside and outside, of anything that is finite. It has been postulated there is a finite matrix of centers, connected by finite lines of transmission, allowing finite extents with finite surfaces, to express preferences of direction, distance, and charge.

Finite preferences of distance and direction can apply to anything. The reason they apply to mass, space, and time is because of "charge". Each is "charged" with a role to play in a tangible universe. Each can also have a + or – charge.

Walk into a room that gives you a positive sense of space and time, then introduce an "attractive mass" into the room, and suddenly the same room either seems too big or small, and time either speeds up or down, depending on whether you have a positive or negative attitude about the relationship you've encountered, with an attractive mass that might have just become repulsive.

I still think a logical link between infinite and finite has not be established.
_________________

Hi Mong,

Sorry for the pissiness.

How is #1 a confusing metaphysical statement?

QUOTE
Do you mean “absolutely nothing is impossible” at the beginning of the “big bang,” or as the Universe as it is today?

Excellent question. "Absolutely nothing is impossible", is a fact within the a-priori. There is no outside whatsoever, to the a-priori. I'm not implying a big bang, however.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Do you mean “absolutely nothing is impossible” at the beginning of the “big bang,” or as the Universe as it is today?

Excellent question. "Absolutely nothing is impossible", is a fact within the a-priori. There is no outside whatsoever, to the a-priori. I'm not implying a big bang, however.

As it is today, the Universe gives rise to Everything in it; that’s why we’re attempting to define it as the Infinity, as it is in a state of permanent dynamic equilibrium; as explained in the link above.

We haven't determined the universe gives rise to anything, including itself. Infinity can not give rise to anything. The only way something can give rise, is to have a departure point and arrival point. Infinity has neither.

QUOTE
3] Yes, Infinity is an absolute or permanent state of dynamic equilibrium of the STEM matrix; as explained in 2] above.

Infinity by itself, is not and can not cause, a matrix. The only possible definition of infinity is "that which does not actually happen". I say "only" while leaving room for argument. An "event horizon", none of which have been shown to exist, is the juncture of the finite components of the "universe", at any "point". This point, however, is no more about mass within spacetime (space and time), than it is about them being within mass.

Now matter how this finite point is arranged, to arrive at it from infinte or from "here", has not be logically established.
___________________

Hi jal,

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
3] Yes, Infinity is an absolute or permanent state of dynamic equilibrium of the STEM matrix; as explained in 2] above.

Infinity by itself, is not and can not cause, a matrix. The only possible definition of infinity is "that which does not actually happen". I say "only" while leaving room for argument. An "event horizon", none of which have been shown to exist, is the juncture of the finite components of the "universe", at any "point". This point, however, is no more about mass within spacetime (space and time), than it is about them being within mass.

Now matter how this finite point is arranged, to arrive at it from infinte or from "here", has not be logically established.
___________________

Hi jal,

The background/bulk/infinite can be dynamic but in balance which could also be interpreted as being nothing or being everything.

This is not consistent with what RC stated as "nothing can never be".

QUOTE
Variations from.... (which we could presume to be zero or to be infinity) would result in our universe which would be differentiated from the bulk/original.

0 can not be directly related to infinity as "or". 0 is between –/+ in an infinite scale. The scale is not absolute, nor is the 0.
____________________

Hey Janus,

So sorry to hear you're fed up. I choose #3.
_____________________

To all of you,

Eric
brodix
I'm a newbie here, but I thought I'd add my two cents. It's a way of elimating time as a dimension:

Time has two directions. The observer's arrow of time goes from past events to future events. On the other hand, these events go from being in the future to being in the past, so the arrow of time for the observed goes from the future to the past. To the hands of the clock, the face is going counterclockwise.

The three dimensional frame of reference is not moving along an additional dimension. This subjective coordinate system is interacting with other such frames.

If we were to build a clock-like device to characterize motion, it would have many hands, going in both directions and the cumulative action would cancel out in a general equilibrium. With the concept of time, most of these hands are combined into the face, with a few going in one direction as coordinates for the reference point. Time is a component of motion, not the basis for it.

The unit of time goes from beginning to end, but the process of time is going toward the beginning of the next, leaving the old. The hour on the clock starts in the future and the hand passes from its beginning to its end and then moves on to the next, leaving the previous hour in the past. Days go from dawn to dusk, as the sun moves from east to west, but the reality is that the earth is rotating west to east and the sunlight is moving on to other time zones. Our individual lives are units of time going from beginning to end, while the process of living goes on to the next generation, shedding the old like dead skin.

Compare it to a factory. The product moves from start to finish, but the production line is facing the other way, consuming raw material and expelling finished product. This relationship of the process and the unit is one of perspective. A unit at one level is a process at another and vice versa. What matters to the process isn't so much the end product, as it is the energy produced, in wages and profits, calories burned, etc, that propels the process forward, consuming more material.

Reality consists of energy recording information. As the amount of energy remains the same, old information is erased as new is recorded. Objective reality is the energy. Time is a function of the subjective information, as past and future do not physically exist because the energy to manifest them is currently tied up in the present. If another moment were to exist, it would require its own energy and so would not be on a continuum with our reality.

Time is not so much a projection out from the present event, as it is a coming together of factors to define what is present. The past being those influences which define current order and the future is determined by the energy to motivate that order. When order is an open set, it absorbs fresh energy, defining it and adapting to it, so that the future is a continuation of the past. When order is a closed set, the energy accumulates elsewhere and the future becomes a reaction to the past. Evolution and revolution. Essentially it is an version of the top down order/bottom up process relationship of Complexity Theory. Compare order, complexity and chaos, to past, present and future.

One definition of the arrow of time is that of decreasing usable energy and increasing entropy in a closed system. Keep in mind though, that a "closed system" is a unit and these processes are the aging of this unit.

This concept of time having two directions doesn't really propose anything new. It just examines what is accepted, in a little further detail. The general essence of relativity is that since there is no absolute frame of reference, all position and motion can only be measured with reference to all other bodies in motion. Say that since you are your own center of reference, do you move down the road, or is the road passing under you. Without thinking it through, this might seem silly, given the road is attached to the earth, but in a situation where the bodies approach similar size, it begins to make more sense. Now apply this to the concept of time. Since you are the center of your own reality, are you traveling through time, from past events to future ones, or is it that you, being the reference point, are still and it is these events which are passing you by, going from the future into the past? Isn't the road essentially an analogy for ones path in life?
Eric England
Hi Brodix,

Let me make an observation about time, energy, and infinity.

First energy. There seems to be a theme that energy is more fundamental that anything else. As though it powers the universe and matter happens in spacetime. Something like that anyway. But energy is just the wave form of a particle form, of "mass". When the particle gets blurry we call it energy and when the energy gets distinct, we call it a particle. String theory seems to think it goes beyond this, by saying there a vibrating lines. Cheese balls, string cheese, it's all the same.

Next infinity. As I stated before, "it is that which doesn't actually happen". It doesn't contain or have, a departure or arrival point. All points in an infinite scale that has no beginning or end, are also infinite in their own right. There is no inherent possibility of dimension, direction, or charge.

And time. The arrow of time, which is widely considered to go in one direction, dragging with it what seems to become the present and past, has a very simple reason why it appears the way it does. Time as an expression of the infinite (which doesn't actually happen), puts the universe in a perpetual state of potential, of "will happen". There is nothing about the universe, that science can say "has happened" or "is happening". As I mentioned before, event horizons (actual happenings) have yet to be located.

Time is one aspect of fourth dimensional thinking. Scientists give the arrow of time the value of a constant, as well as they give the speed of light the value of a constant. But they also admit, that is not definite that either one are constant, i.e. finite, and that because of this, it can not be said that either one are one-dimensional. It's all a can or worms (ummm... worms), that lead us back to trying to understand infinity, omni-direction, and what is "finite", why and how, etc.

Eric
Mong H Tan, PhD
Hello, Philosophers, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit! smile.gif

Specifically, Eric England: No apology necessary; but thanks anyway! smile.gif
QUOTE
If absolute nothing EXISTED, there wouldn't be absolute nothing. Or in other words, if non-existence EXISTED, there wouldn't be non-existence.
1) This statement reminded me of a typical Consciousness or Existence vs. Observer conundrum: In the absence of an Observer—ie, the Evolution of our human Life and Mind on Earth—does the Universe or Consciousness exist?

The scientific answer is yes; this is because the dynamic Universe did give rise to the human Life and Mind or Consciousness on Earth.

However, metaphysicians would subscribe that Consciousness is the Universe; and therefore, they would argue that Consciousness did exist in the absence of an Observer!

So, as your statement above has had implied to me: How could “absolute nothing” give rise to “nothingness” in the Universe?! smile.gif
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
If absolute nothing EXISTED, there wouldn't be absolute nothing. Or in other words, if non-existence EXISTED, there wouldn't be non-existence.
1) This statement reminded me of a typical Consciousness or Existence vs. Observer conundrum: In the absence of an Observer—ie, the Evolution of our human Life and Mind on Earth—does the Universe or Consciousness exist?

The scientific answer is yes; this is because the dynamic Universe did give rise to the human Life and Mind or Consciousness on Earth.

However, metaphysicians would subscribe that Consciousness is the Universe; and therefore, they would argue that Consciousness did exist in the absence of an Observer!

So, as your statement above has had implied to me: How could “absolute nothing” give rise to “nothingness” in the Universe?! smile.gif
"Absolutely nothing is impossible", is a fact within the a-priori.

2) I would agree to that; so we should kill off the “big bang” theory; and the “string” theory as well?
QUOTE
Infinity can not give rise to anything. The only way something can give rise, is to have a departure point and arrival point. Infinity has neither.
3) Good catch; Infinity should mean the dynamism or dynamic equilibrium of the Universe?!
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Infinity can not give rise to anything. The only way something can give rise, is to have a departure point and arrival point. Infinity has neither.
3) Good catch; Infinity should mean the dynamism or dynamic equilibrium of the Universe?!
Infinity by itself, is not and can not cause, a matrix.

4) That is right; Infinity is the dynamic equilibrium of a matrix, that we now call the Universe or the STEM matrix of unbound space, time, energy, and matter entities?!

Quantum mechanically, the “time” or “spacetime” is only a metaphor; in reality, there is no such thing as time; it is only a representation of measurement or coordinate in the STEM matrices—all the energy-containing matters, which are actively interacting with each other, and evolving into evermore complex entities, in the boundless dynamic Universe above and beyond—and in the Life entities as the “biological clock” as defined by Biochemistry (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience). In Physics, we also have the “atomic clock” as defined by the decaying process of an Element of choice as a standard; this is because all elements degrade differently in their each own unique spacetimes.

Furthermore, my understanding of an “event horizon” is that it is an “imaginary point,” at which point or the spacetime, all STEM entities would be disintegrated, transformed into energies, and absorbed by a “black hole”—wherein there lies another “imaginary point,” which is usually located at the center of a swirling galaxy?!

Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening! smile.gif

Best wishes, Mong 9/22/6usct12:21a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Wanderer
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 21 2006, 07:03 PM)

.

QUOTE
Just a reminder that our novel project is aimed at minimising any premature and/or ad hoc inputs to the self-determining logic trail as commenced/indicated by the 'independent theorising process' ITSELF.

So it should be borne in mind that AS YET, that self-determining logic trail has NOT YET 'identifed' such things as SPACETIME


My question was, does this fundamental thing 'omnidirection' imply spacetime or not. I'm not suggesting that spacetime is or is not fundamental, just confirming that there is not a hidden assumption in the idea of omnidirection. If omnidirection implies spacetime then we might as well take spacetime to be fundamental. If it does not then we need to figure how omnidirection gives rise to spacetime. At the moment we seem to having our cake and eating it, as my grandma used to say.




jal
Mong H Tan, PhD and all!
This process that we are doing may not contain all of you way of thinking.
I hope that you are prepared to get new insights and to compromise.
We might not even want to use some of your expressions.

jal
Mong H Tan, PhD
Hello, Philosophers, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit! smile.gif

QUOTE
We might not even want to use some of your expressions.
Good point, Jal! That’s why the other day when I first joined in, I suggested that we might have to redefine the conclusion of this Stage One discussions; as more new inputs are coming in for consideration.

Here is my proposed definition: The Universe is an infinite state of dynamic equilibrium, whereby the STEM matrices of space, time, energy, and matter interactions, give rise to Everything in it; in continuum, ad infinitum.

As for Wanderer’s rightly question of “omnidirection,” we might just have to scrap it, and replace it with “infinite dynamic equilibrium” as I suggested above?! The Universe is just too big a piece of cake for any metaphysician-philosophers to have it, and eat it, too?! smile.gif

Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening! smile.gif

Best wishes, Mong 9/22/6usct11:09a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
jal
Mong H Tan, PhD
I do not have your background... therefore the word STEM is neutral and does not give me any insight.
I going to stay simple since the results of what is done here will need to be condensed/simplified/explained and understood by "simple people".
QUOTE
The Universe is an infinite state of dynamic equilibrium

There is also the possibility that the dynamics are not there.... "a solid" with no room to move....that would be "equilibrium"

simple jal
Mong H Tan, PhD
Hello, Philosophers, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit! smile.gif

Specifically, Jal: STEM = space, time, energy, matter. It is a catchy acronym; all capitalized, so as to differentiate it from “stem” of the stem cells.

As you know, stem cells are the multi-potential cells in our body; when appropriate biochemical cues are given, they would grow into any cell types of our choice, experimentally; and in nature.

Therefore, analogically, in the dynamic Universe, the STEM entities would give rise to even more complex entities, as those that we are seeing today, in Cosmology.

Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening! smile.gif

Best wishes, Mong 9/22/6usct11:55a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Eric England
Mong,
QUOTE
So, as your statement above has had implied to me: How could “absolute nothing” give rise to “nothingness” in the Universe?!

"Absolutely nothing is impossible" being within the a-priori, does not mean it is just inside the universe, necessarily. A-priori doesn't necessarily mean the universe. With that said, absolute nothing is imposslbe. This does not negate "nothingness", however. There are two forms of "existent" nothing that I won't elaborate on, which are the relatively absolute form "no-thing" and the relative form "relatively nothing." The former being outside the universe and the latter being within it.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
So, as your statement above has had implied to me: How could “absolute nothing” give rise to “nothingness” in the Universe?!

"Absolutely nothing is impossible" being within the a-priori, does not mean it is just inside the universe, necessarily. A-priori doesn't necessarily mean the universe. With that said, absolute nothing is imposslbe. This does not negate "nothingness", however. There are two forms of "existent" nothing that I won't elaborate on, which are the relatively absolute form "no-thing" and the relative form "relatively nothing." The former being outside the universe and the latter being within it.
2) I would agree to that; so we should kill off the “big bang” theory; and the “string” theory as well?

Yes.
QUOTE
3) Good catch; Infinity should mean the dynamism or dynamic equilibrium of the Universe?!

Infinity does not have a dynamic.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
3) Good catch; Infinity should mean the dynamism or dynamic equilibrium of the Universe?!

Infinity does not have a dynamic.
4) That is right; Infinity is the dynamic equilibrium of a matrix, that we now call the Universe or the STEM matrix of unbound space, time, energy, and matter entities?!

Infinity does not have a matrix, a dynamic, or a preference for STEM. It contains none of this information.
QUOTE
Furthermore, my understanding of an “event horizon” is that it is an “imaginary point,” at which point or the spacetime, all STEM entities would be disintegrated, transformed into energies, and absorbed by a “black hole”—wherein there lies another “imaginary point,” which is usually located at the center of a swirling galaxy?!

An event horizon is any theory of observable finiteness, that we can not prove to an absolute degree of certainty, and in this inability to prove it, we run into the implication of infinities that are problematic. Any view of the universe is included in this.

jal,
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Furthermore, my understanding of an “event horizon” is that it is an “imaginary point,” at which point or the spacetime, all STEM entities would be disintegrated, transformed into energies, and absorbed by a “black hole”—wherein there lies another “imaginary point,” which is usually located at the center of a swirling galaxy?!

An event horizon is any theory of observable finiteness, that we can not prove to an absolute degree of certainty, and in this inability to prove it, we run into the implication of infinities that are problematic. Any view of the universe is included in this.

jal,
There is also the possibility that the dynamics are not there.... "a solid" with no room to move....that would be "equilibrium"

Yes. But an "infinte" solid?

Wanderer,
QUOTE
My question was, does this fundamental thing 'omnidirection' imply spacetime or not. I'm not suggesting that spacetime is or is not fundamental, just confirming that there is not a hidden assumption in the idea of omnidirection. If omnidirection implies spacetime then we might as well take spacetime to be fundamental. If it does not then we need to figure how omnidirection gives rise to spacetime. At the moment we seem to having our cake and eating it, as my grandma used to say.

Agreed. Omni-direction or equalibrium does not imply anything by itself. There is something missing. Good old grandma. I called her "Nana". A brilliant, but matriarchal bitch of an English woman was she.
Janus
QUOTE (Eric England+Sep 22 2006, 01:10 AM)

0 is between –/+ in an infinite scale. The scale is not absolute, nor is the 0.

Hi Eric England

Thanks for the brush-off.

Did you not understand what I was saying?

At the very beginning there were two states of nothing … that is the paradox.

By putting ‘nothing’ between plus and minus, you have taken a big leap forward … this is what everyone is doing and not giving proper status to ‘nothing’.

Just because mathematics chose to ignore ‘negative nothing’ does not mean it is not there.

Eg:
All the negative numbers are inverses of all the whole numbers.
Zero is a whole number so the inverse must negative zero.

Aside … I do despair at times when modern mathematics finds a paradox … then just goes and ignores it … so what if the mathematics still seems to work with the paradox … is there anyone looking for the special case … no.

I have found a paradox ( I can’t be the first) … that even someone with the most basic mathematics and simple logic can understand … yet you choose to ignore it and move onto something else.

I have also found another paradox with inverses … this one is also very simple to understand.
An inverse is equivalent to a reflection transformation.
Now, I just want show that, that is an illusion … there are two states to the inverse … a paradox.
I draw you attention to the well known optical illusion of the figure of a bust … looking head on, the face looks just like any other sculpture … but closer inspection shows that it is actually a concave face … that is, a face tuned inside out (the bust is sometimes shown rotating to get the full effect).

Put more simply the inverse of a sphere is still a sphere but turned inside out … by just looking at the sphere we cannot tell which state the sphere is at.
The only way we can tell is by increasing the radius:
If we increase the radius of the normal sphere the sphere gets bigger.
But if we increase the radius of an inverse sphere it gets smaller.

Aside … perhaps you’d like to figure out where the centre of an inverse sphere is … and then contemplate, if big bang really happened where the central starting point was … then contemplate whether we are in the macro or micro.

My two states of nothing are akin to the normal sphere and the inverse sphere.
‘Nothing’ is going between both states … eventually finding an equilibrium point but bursting with energy.

I think you have dismissed ‘nothing’ a bit too quickly.

Cheers
Eric England
Hi Janus,

No, a brush-off would have been to ignore you.
QUOTE
I am a bit fed up with peoples TOE not addressing the beginning properly.

I just said I was sorry you were fed up. Sarcastically to be sure, but a reaction isn't a brush-off.

So then you introduce the "holy grail".
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I am a bit fed up with peoples TOE not addressing the beginning properly.

I just said I was sorry you were fed up. Sarcastically to be sure, but a reaction isn't a brush-off.

So then you introduce the "holy grail".
Firstly, we need to just decide on three things:
1. everything came from nothing.
2. everything came from everything.
3. something else.


I chose #3. Again, no brush-off.

QUOTE
Obviously, my choice is everything from nothing … that’s why it’s first on the list.
He is my reason simplistically stated:
Nothing is a paradox … it has two states … but nothing has so find a singular state.
So nothing bounces between the two states … who knows how many times … but I can definitely say this bouncing took no time because time does not exist yet … we are talking about the entity nothing.
Nothing eventually finds an equilibrium point; thereby creating a third state ( the magic triplicate).
This third state is totally perfect and full of energy from all the bouncing …

1. What are the two states of nothing?
2. Why does it have to find a singular state?
3. What causes it to bounce back and forth?
4. Did it begin bouncing and then end bouncing?
5. What was it doing before it began?
6. Will it split into two states at some juncture?
7. Did each state contain one half of the energy from bouncing?
8. What were the two states bouncing within?
9. Are you sure you don't want to go with #3?

Eric
Eric England
Sorry to break this up into two parts, just couldn't handle it in one sitting.
QUOTE
By putting ‘nothing’ between plus and minus, you have taken a big leap forward … this is what everyone is doing and not giving proper status to ‘nothing’.

I took a big leap forward? Where was I when I took this leap?
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
By putting ‘nothing’ between plus and minus, you have take