PrimalMinister

The universe is magical, not in a fantasy way, but in the way a normal magician does, he pulls of an impossible seeming trick (the laws of the universe are everywhere in apparently empty space) but now he is going to show you how the magic is done.

Which is why I am talking about problems with the current theories, science doesn't explain how the laws of the universe are somehow everywhere, someone said this is philosophy when actually it turns out its the most important problem with physics. You try explaining how the laws of the universe are everywhere in apparently empty space?

Look, this is all new to me, the forums, talking to people about my theory. I haven't done that before. Because no of what I have said is opinion, its an objective fact, its self evident, it explains itself. It is a simple unit of space, it goes through a fixed cycle of creating the universe then destroying it, very very fast, reality is constantly popping into and out of existance. That is time. So now I have given you the basis of a new spacetime theory to replace Einstiens. I have already said I am not going to do the big reveal yet, I know this is frustrating but I have thought about this a lot and I am only going to provide some basics for now. For example, if the universe is pixel based then it only sustains and decays things, it doesn't create, so it doesn't explain how stars were created, good luck working that out. The original conversation was a bit messy, I am going to slow down a bit so things stay more understandable. I dont quite get what you are on about here, sorry.

I am willing, just I am not allowed. However, by claiming the universe is pixel/tile/cell based I have magically provided an answer to "how" the laws of the universe are everywhere, its objective fact and its self-evident, its not my opinion. Philosophy becomes science.

Ok, but the big bang is an extraordinary claim and you have to accept things on faith. No new evidence is needed, I have all the evidence I need because my theory is self-evident, its purely objective fact with zero opinion, you wont me able to disagree with me on it, because its not my opinion. So please, tell me, the laws of the universe are everywhere, please explain "how" they are everywhere. The universe is doing it somehow, but physics doesn't care, its making great progress in small science (which is fantastic) so it doesn't care about big science. The laws of the universe are everywhere, how can they be everywhere in apprently empty space?

What about a theory from a design/engineering perspective? That can exlpain how gravity (or any other phenoma, hence theory of everything) can be bound to apparently empty space? This is a bit problem for physics, because I am sure gravity is not bound to apparently empty space by magic, there has to be some practical explaination as to "how" the universe is actually pulling off this binding to apparently empty space. I has spent my whole life on this one single problem of physics, I don't know if you think its a problem or not, I don't know how much you have considered this particular aspect of physics.

The evidence said the sun went round the earth. How do you know the universe hasn't done this with the expanding universe evidence, you could just be making the same mistakes people in the past when they looked at the evidence.

I know I bang on about fact and opinion a lot, but if you don't have all the facts you are stuck with opinion. Science can't explain what happened before the big bang, it doesn't have all the facts, the big bang in an opinion. Yes there are facts there, but they are mired by opinion. If you have an opinion in something, you "believe" that. Consequently, you have to believe in the big bang because if you are brutally honest and objective, we can't say for sure it happened. I don't want to "believe" the big bang happened, thats religion, I want to "know" it happened. I

Ok, so do the laws keep revealing layer upon layer adinfinitum, or are there only so many layers and do we finally get to an end of the layers. Because we don't know, we dont have the facts, we are left with opinion, a choice of two, you either have to pick one or sit on the fence until such a time we do know. This is basic logic, if you don't have the facts, your left with opinion. Modern science doesn't have all the facts, so it fills in it with opinion, hence our theories are a mix of facts and opinion. They are not objective as they claim to be. The universe is subtle, the evidence once said the earth was flat, the evidence once said the sun moved around the earth, what makes you so sure that the expansion of the universe is not just another illusion? You have to step back and question whether what you are seeing is real or not.

Ok, that seams reasonable. So I gave the table example of the table, you put it in a room, the table is a table and that is an objective fact, its context independent, you can move it to a new room and the table is still a table we all agree its objective fact and that it is context independent. Conversley, people can have opinions, like for example the table is to big or to small for the room, that is subjective opinion, it is context dependent because this time when you move to a new room, people may change their minds and decide the opposite of the first room. So objective facts are context independent while subjective opinions are context dependent, am I getting this wrong, it sounds similar to what you are saying.

Look, I am asking you to explain to me the difference between facts and opinion, despite me being intelligent enough to already know the difference between fact and opinion. That's how ridiculus this discussion is, you are making me jump through hoops. In theory, this should be straight forward, in practice its not. How do you know what is objective and subjective exactly, its a mystery to me.

Ok, I asked this before, explain to me the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, so I know, explain to be in clear, consise language. At present, you have still not told me how I might do this, I am here to learn, teach me. I am no longer talking about my theory of everything (as I understand it I need to do the big reveal before I can discuss it on the forum) I am now talking about your theory of everything.

That is just word play, very basic logic tells us something is either fact or opinion, it can't be both, its either one or the other. What exactly does saying 'its a defintion' add to the conversation, you are just bringing in another term for no other reason than you felt like it. I would argue you cant properly tell the difference between what is objective and subjective, you dont know the difference between between fact and opinion. Logic, philosophy or whatever tells us that if its not a fact, its an opinion. And by the way, a couple of my friends have said I am brave to pour my heart about about my mental health problems, plus its my birthday, so despite having a crappy time on here, I have been really enjoying the digital company of my friends. I also explained briefly that I have realised sciences theory of everything, they where supportive. I hope my time here will get less crappy, I enjoy science.

I am enjoying this conversation, and by the way, its my birthday today, I am 42, the solution to the problem of life, the universe and everything.

Ok, lets be brutally honest and objective, that is a subjective opinion on the theory of everything, its just a romantic idea.

You cant disagree with objective facts can you! Ok, the theory of everything is so far, a theory that unifies the four fundamental forces of the universe, a romantic idea that given enough time science will explain everything, and also that the big bang/evolution story which starts at A, moves through B, and gets to C in a nice line to explain us. What do you think the theory of everything is, maybe the theory of everything is not one of those three things and is something else, maybe there is no such thing as a theory of everything, I don't know, you tell me. I will add, I did not invent the theory of everything, I dont know the history and people behind it, all I know is that there is a film dedicated to Stephen Hawking called 'The Theory Of Everything', RIP.

You are right, why is that so hard to get agreement on things?

Look, how can i comprehend that the laws of the universe are omnipresent and isotropic, but not comprehend what a theory is. Some people have already made their mind up about me so it doesn't matter what I say because it is automatically dismissed. I have tried to find agreement because objective facts are something we can all agree on, in theory anyway, in practice, for some bizarrie reason (internet lifestyles) we cannot seem to agree on anything, not even an objective fact (which by definition is something we all agree on, usually because its an objectivily objective fact).

You explain what a theory a theory is, you are the expert, I have been lumped with the ignorant fool role. Why do we call them theories and not facts, what is stopping us from us from calling our theories fact, answer that. Why is it called evolutionary theory and not evolutionry fact. Why do you use the term theory when fact is better. I am playing the ignorant fool.

Do you honestly think I am that much of an ignorant fool, that I would say a theory is story scientists tell in order to explain things. Why do you think so little of me, you know nothing about me. Apprently I don't understand the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion. My, what a fool I am.

We haven't yet agreed on anything, what can we agree on, can we agree the big bang happened, that evolution happened, and that combined they explain how we got here? I am going to keep tapping away at this point, why can't we find agreement, surely that is basic straight forward science. I have been searching for agreement since I started posting, are you just evading this to be difficult. I will play the ignorant fool if you like, I don't mind, you trying to cyber bully me into me into submission isn't going to work. That warning was bang out of order and I will explain why in clear, consise, scientific fashion. Someone should had said to me, Simon what you are doing is called showboating and this is not allowed on the forum, here is a link to that rule or all the rules. Then, I would have read the rules, realised I was showboating, and stopped it before I got an actual blemish on my record. What you have done by not clearly warning me before blemishing my record, is fucking bullshit, but it tells me a lot about you (even though I know nothing about you and you nothing about me). Yes, maybe I should have read the rules, but why you didn't be 'in the spirit of science' be clear with me and upfront with me, where is your compassion for a rookie mistake.

By the way, I just wrote a long post on facebook to my friends, it contained a discussion of my mental illness, and the assertion I have realised how the universe, I am getting lots of positive responses, its different here and I know why.

I understand science, its not some mystical thing only the scribes can understand. I know the big bang/evolution story, our story of how we came to be, and I know it does not explain everything, that there are gaps, but the solution to these gaps is simple, more science. I am here, please explain how I got here, to explain this you are go to invoke the big bang and evolution, I can see how it is a theory of everything, I dont think its the right theory of everything, but lets run with current science. I am not excluding any parts, I am simply pointing out that the big bang/evolution looks like a theory of everything. Why is this so offensive?

The theory of everything is a made up idea, I think it is a romantic idea about the universe, that everything is explainable with science. I claimed in another thread I had realised science can explain everything, but it was I got accused of Soapboxing, this is all new to me, so I am sorry for that, it wound have been nice to have it explained to me in clear, consise, scientific langauge that I was soapboxing, it would have stopped before you gave me the warning, but oh well, you are the adminstrators, you decide how this plays out on here. Anyhow, the big bang/evolution theory explains everything, including things we don't understand yet, the scientific process, given time, will explain what we don't understand. So I am now making another claim, I hope this is different.

Because it explains everything, including things we don't know yet. There is plently of evidence to suggest the big bang and evolution happened so why don't we don't we just say this is truth, this is the theory of everything and trust the scientific process will fill in the gaps.