PrimalMinister

Marvlous, absolutly no idea why you have said it. I am just trying to point out the big bang/evolution is obviously a theory of everything, because it explains everything, including what we don't yet, scientists like Richard Dawkins say it is just a matter of time, but science will explain it.

You can tell the big bang/evolution is a theory of everything. I keep using the term theory of everything but I want to tell you what it means, the "theory of everything" is a romantic idea about the universe and John Wheeler quote captures that romance. The theory of everything is a simple idea that given enough time, science will explain everything. You closed my thread, its fine it was a mess anyway, lets start here with a fresh simple look at things here. When I say theory of everything I am referring to the romantic idea that science, given enough time, can explain everything. The big bang/evolution is a theory of everything, it explains everything does it not?

The big bang/evolution is sciences story about how we came to be, and there is lots of evidence to support it. Why don't we just declare the big bang/evolution the theory of everything, because it is a theory of everything if you think about (I am hoping to get people thinking).

Scientists are so overwhelmed by the universe, it appears they have failed to realise that the big bang and evolution is a theory of everything. I have stood back and looked at it objectivity, the big bang and evolution is, whether you have realised it or not, a theory of everything, it looks like a theory of everything, it should be called a theory of everything.

Is the big bang and evolutionary theory sciences theory of everything, it looks like a theory of everything to me. It looks like it a theory of everything because it explains everything doesn't it? Yes there are gaps in our knowledge, but the overarching story is tight is it not?

Look, I am happy to look at your theory of everything (the big bang and evolution) and if you don't want to discuss mine fine, but be brutally honest and objective about your own theories. I am just happy to find agreement on the objective facts. Is the big bang and evolutionary theory sciences theory of everything? It looks like a theory of everything to me. You are just making an assertion, its not pure science, its your opinion. You are not being very scientific.

Please use clear, consise, scientific language when talking to me. And please don't bark orders at me, its not civil and a sign you spend time on the internet where it is perfectly ok be rude. I am ready to listen to you, regardless of whether you being objective or simply spouting opinion as fact. I am ready to listen to you, I have listened to you, you don't have to get all preachy with the evidence and the models and the pillars and so. Some people, I can tell, have given up on the hard questions and are looking for small science to make progress, not big science, lots of people have given up on big science as it hasn't proved that fruitful. I will tell you how this is going to play out, first I am going to start a go fund me page so I can get some money to help prove my case. This money, is going to be used as a prize for proving me right or wrong. I may employ someone, hopefully a scientist, but maybe not, to look over input from others. I hope to sign up 3000 scientists to give one hour of their time to look at this theory, that is like somebody working on it full time for three years. I will make the big reveal when this is in place. I think people need to prepare for it, for example, you have to come to terms with eternity, with infinity. So before you get to see the big reveal, you can explain to me how the universe works. Can you explain how the universe works without using opinion?

What exactly is unscientific about claiming the universe is pixel/tile/cell based?

Strange, you are getting frustrated because I am not doing the 'big reveal', I realise this puts me in crank zone, but I am prepared to weather that. If that gets this post closed, thats a shame, yes be sceptical, but don't be dismissive, you don't know enough about it to dismiss it. Strange, do you want this thread closed because I am not doing the big reveal? Is that is what is bugging you?

But instead of doing pure science, you drop back to a subjective opinion. You believe, or are of the opinion, that science cannot explain everything, or you believe, or are of the opinion, that science can explain everything. Logic tells us it has to be one of them, it can't be both, its either or. The 'truth' of the matter is we can say for sure whether or not science will explain everything or that some things remain a mystery to us forever. Its all just opinion.

Lets get down to the basics, can his statement be used as supporting evidence for my theory? Think about what I am saying, and be brutally honest and objective. It is his whole life, all his knowledge, experience and wisdom, in a single sentence. He understood, RIP. Our current theories are a mix of objective facts and subjective opinions, there are no subjective opinions in what I am putting forward. I know you want the 'big reveal' how the magic trick is done, but you are going to have to work for it by being brutally honest, objective and sincere. Are you ready to put aside opinions completly and look at the facts, the best evidence there is?

People are asking for evidence, consider the John Wheeler quote, he taking all his knowledge and wisdom and condensing it into a simple, clear, consise form. That is something to behold, that is a man who after many years of study, says something like that. He is of the opinion that science can explain the universe, and he is right. Is this supporting evidence, John Wheelers statement?

That is your subjective opinion. Ok, is it not science to seek the underlying cause of cancer so we can cure it? You either believe, or are of the of the opinion this can be discovered, or you believe, or are of the opinion that it will always remain a mystery. Its the same with everything. As I understand it, science is in the business of explaining things, am I somehow again wrong?

Are you saying I cannot tell the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion. If I am wrong about about this, you need to explain why I am wrong, that is scientific. How hard can it be to understand the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, are you trying to say I am not even intelligent to understand this difference, I proved I know the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion with the simple table explanation. What is bad about the table explanation, does it or does it not clearly explain the difference between objective fact and subject opinion.

Surely you believe, you are of the opinion, that science will explain everything in the end given enough time? Am I correct in assuming this? Are we in agreement here? I am looking for agreement because objective facts are objectivily objective facts, its self-evident, it doesnt need evidence, it explains its self. It I am looking for facts, not opinions, a fact is something we all agree on it because its objective, its fact, only fools argue with facts (like the flat earthers, what a ridiculus bunch). So we have to look at the facts and put opinion to the side. That is why I am looking for agreement, each agreement will take us closer to the truth. As I understand science today, we have a theory of everything (big bang, evolution) and there are just a few more things we have to work out. That is my understanding of current science, am I wrong?

Maybe I am a nutter, a crank, but I am going to point out the problems with our current theories and I know they are problems, I am intelligent enough to know that, and if you are brutally honest and objective you will admit those problems exist too, although a few people will probably give me the "god did it explanation". Look, this conversation is so bad that we can't even agree on a defintion of objective fact and subject opinion. I will present the evidence but if you refuse to look at I am stuck, so I have thought long and hard about how to present it, and it takes some preperation to understand it. Ok, great, but you are are being lazy because you are just preaching to the converted (except I was not brought up religious, I was brought up to think scientifically) where do you think science is going, how far can this big bang theory take us? Science claims it is looking for a theory of everything but this is confusing as they all ready have one, big bang, expand, stars and planet form, life emerged and evolved, all happening over a very long time. So why is it we are looking for a theory of everything if we already have one (big bang, evolution)? Have you not yet realised the big bang and evolution is the theory of everything, I am confused. Do we understand how the universe works on not, you tell me, you are the experts. Please, I am not anti-science and I pro science, I love that people are interested in science, I think more people should be. I have seen the article, I don't remember where but it basically listed things to look out for if you are dealing with a crank. Yes, I do tick a few of the boxes, but fortunatly for me, a lot of them don't apply to me. If someone knows to this document maybe we can can look at it to see if I am really am a crank, that should be a bit of fun.

Right, that is a bit better. Now if you think about what you just said you will realise that I have mentioned the omnipresense of the laws of the universe, and you seem to be saying this is what needs to be explained, am I right or wrong? Like how do I tell the difference, is the big bang the objective truth or subjective opinion. Is the universe a mystery to us or do we have it all worked out, please tell me what is fact and opinion.

Ok, but how do I tell the difference, I don't want to confuse objective facts with subjective opinions, I want to know the difference in clear, consise, scientific langauge. Can i have a clear, consise scientific explanation of the difference between objective facts and subjective opinions so that I can understand in its fullness. Thank you. This statement is not very scientific, its not as elegant as the mathematics is it? Ahh, the beauty of it all. I will be honest, people are being well lazy and unscientific with this post and that would be obvious to the objective observer that people are being lazy and unscientific. There is a scientific difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, there is a logic behind the difference, which we SHOULD all agree on is the objective truth. So please give me a clear, consise, scientific explantion of the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, and then agree with me that objective fact is context independent and subjective opinion is context dependent. I know I have banged on about a pixel/tile/cell based universe but lets put that aside, let this be the first question and we will talk modern science for a bit.

I am happy to sit on this forum and questions of current science, to show I am science orientated, but also to show you that our current theories do have problems. I simply have to point out that you can't explain what happened before the big bang, this is a huge problem with that explanation, you have to accept something extraordinary with no evidence, but if we accept this you can explain the rest. You have to take a leap of faith accept the whole universe was once compressed to a point or whatever, there is no explanation for the big bang, you can only explain what happened after. The big bang is not objective fact, its subjective opinion. It is a theory. I am happy to ask the questions and have you answer them, they are only going to prove my point. But nobody is answering my questions, like "can tell the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion" if you can you can clearly explain the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion. This is basic philosophy you appear not to have grasped. So lets say I am fresh on this forum and this is my first question. What does science have to say about the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, how do you tell the difference, how do you tell when someone is presenting opinion as fact? That is my scientific question to you, thank you in advance for your answers.

Sorry, are you saying I am not being scientific? Some people are posting here are not being scientific. For example, many of you know dont understand the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, despite being intelligent, creative and a whole lot of other probably fantastic stuff, and I can prove that. So if you shut this thread I will open a new that asks " some scientists have declared philosophy is not needed, but it is because some scientists cant tell the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, and I can prove that. But, I suspect, subjective opinion will get in the way of pure science, which is what I want to talk about. Most of the posts here are subjective opinions, nobody is coming at me with objective facts, its all appearances. When John Wheeler succiently boils down his whole knowledge and experience in to a single elegant statement, what do you make of that statement? Is this evidence in our puzzle?

Ok, but that is a subjective opinion right? Its just an idea, not without good reason, that we can unify the the four forces and this would constitute a theory of everything. But its just subjective opinion, not an objective fact. You believe, you are of the opinion, that unifying the four forces constitute a theory of everything, but I can say objectivily that unifying the four forces does not constitute a theory of every thing and a pixel/tile/cell universe does. There is a lot of science masquerading as fact when it is actually opinion. I know I repeating things a lot, but to be honest you are just repeating things at me, I am all for science, knowledge, progress. I am avid follower of science and what scientists have to say. Look, I know I am evading what you want to see, you want to see evidence and so on, but I can prove it to you, with thought experiments, that the universe is pixel/tile/cell based. I don't know about an experiment to prove it, but because its self-evident it doesn't need evidence to support it, even though there is evidence to support it. We need to start with some objective facts that we all agree are true. Isn't that "being scientific"? I have tried to steer the conversation but no one is really responding to what I am saying, most people are just spouting science, which is wonderful. But no real engagement, I am human being you know, I suffer from the human condition. And when you look at the evidence, its obvious its that the universe is pixel/tile/cell based. Its the best possible explanation for how the universe is actually implemented and to repeat John Wheeler again as he succiently boils down his whole knowledge and experience in to a single elegant statement: “Some principle uniquely right and compelling must, when one knows it, be also so obvious that it is clear the universe is built, and must be built, in such and such a way that it could not possibly be otherwise.”

I guess I am saying are a lot of scientific opinions masquerading as fact, but it you sort objective fact from subjective opinion, you are left with one important question: How are the laws omnipresent and isotropic in apprently empty space. Once you use the principle of context independence/dependence to seperate fact from opinion, that is the only real question you are left with. And a pixel/tile/cell based universe explains how the laws of the universe are omnipresent and isotropic. Because like a hologram, you have the whole image (all the laws of the universe) embedded in every part (in each pixel/tile/cell). I can explain in all but its probably not what you are expecting, if you are expecting anything. But things have to be honest and objective or this endeavour will be a waste of time. Science doesn't need a theory of everything, its already got one, the universe started in a big bang, is expanding, stars are created by gravitational collapse, life emerged and evolved on this planet. Why are we looking for a theory of everything, whats wrong with our current theory of everything. Is our current theory of everything the right one, how sure are you?

Is that fact or opinion? You say "so far", that stinks of opinion. I am not interested in discussing subjective opinions, I will only discuss objective facts. I will make distinctions between objective fact and subjective opinion by using the context independence/dependence principle which is fundamental to understanding this theory. Strange has somehow got to say I am not explaining despite explaining, I am really interested to see how he explains how I am not explaining it, he is going to have to take a step back and see that I am, its just that he is not paying attention. Every other comment on this post was completly predictable, I enjoy science and I like that my brain thinks scientifically, objectivily. I don't let subjective opinions influence my scientific view and I certainly don't raise my opinion up as fact.

But I have already got to the point, the point is that the universe is pixel/tile/cell based, I am not tip tapping around it, I am getting blatanly to the point and you are simply not being sincere with me. The insight came to me as tile based, but pixel is more wide spread and known, the basic principle is the same though, that the universe is composed, for want of a better word, pixels. Maybe you would prefer if I use the word tile? Its all the same really, its just an analogy. I know you want more and I will explain, I have nothing to hide, but we have to start somewhere. Consequently, do you understand that objectivity is context independent and subjectivity is context dependent? Its a simple question, has science taught you not taught you this truth? I am being objective when I say objectivity is context independent and subjectivity is context dependent, its the same for everyone, it is an immortal truth. If you cant' understand this simple truth you have no hope of understanding the theory of everything because you won't be able to tell whether what you are looking at is real or not. I know you don't think something so simple as context independence and dependence is important, but it is. And if I am going to convince you the universe is pixel/tile/cell based we are going to have to find some agreement, some basic objective facts that we know to be true. How is saying the universe is pixel/tile/cell based somehow tip tapping around the point, the great insight (here I go again if you are actually listening) is that the universe is pixel/tile/cell based. But you are not thinking about this post at all, its easier for you to dismiss me as a nutter, or what you call them, cranks. I know this and I know this is what you are doing because I am very much into science and you are predictable. I am hoping for some surprises but if people can't even give a clear explantion of the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, between fact and opinion, such as in the table example, proving that objectivity is context independent and subjectivity is context dependent, how can you claim to know the truth, are you holding up subjective opinions as objective facts? I don't know is the honest answer, I don't know you at all. But through what I hope is engaging conversation, is that we talk pure science, objective facts only, no subjective opinions. I am stressing this point because its important. Closing the thread is in bad taste, I have not danced around (even though I was going to) the point, I decided to make it nearly straight away as I can't be arsed with subjective opinion, I am only interested in objective fact. So why again to you think my context independent/context dependent example of objectivity and subjectivity is a bad example? So how do we agree on things if there is no clear definition of objectivity and subjectivity. How can we talk pure science with so much opinion? Its not my definition of objectivity and subjectivity, it is 'THE' definition of objectivity and subjectivity, and scientists should know this because it is a self-evident truth, it doesn't evidence to explain it, it is the evidence, its self evident. I am sorry but philosophy is important and I honestly thought people would enjoy some thought experiements, but I know you are not thinking about it, you are not being sincere. You say I am skipping around the point, I say the point is that the universe is pixel/tile/cell based. How can you be reading my posts and say I am not getting to the point, I have repeatedly made my point but you insist I am not making one? I know you are not thinking about what I am saying and you are not being sincere, this is not very scientific and is not what we expect from a civil society, if you are going to participate in this forum I think the rules of the forum imply sincerity. Please provide a better explanation of objectivity and subjectivity if you can, but I doubt you will be able to because the explanation it is basically right, its the truth, and you are not happy with the truth, seriously? And this is a pattern I am introducing. This is all totally relevant to explaining everything, I know you may not see it now, but it takes some time to get use to, its easy (as you are doing) to dismiss it at first and not realise it is the fundamental truth about the universe. I don't know what to say, theres a lot of people who highly regard their own opinion, enough to say the thread should be closed. Please again explain how I am tippy tapping around the point when the point is that the universe is pixel/tile/cell based, whats your logic in me tippy tapping around the point? I know you want more, evidence and so on and I will present it. But one step at a time, all based on agreement on every stage, this is important for me 'proving' it to you, so you can know that what you are seeing is real. If you can't properly distinguish between objectivity and subjectivity how do you know whether what you are looking at is real or not. I know I am babbling a bit, but this headline could appear in papers, "scientists don't know the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, need to learn some philosophy" and it would be true. Please, I beg of you, give me a better explaintion of objectivity and subjectivity, one better than the truth which is what I shared with you. You cant' come up with a better explanation, I gave the only defintion of objectivity and subjectivity that exists, the true one, you can provide a better explanation that that. So can we agree on anything or is the no such thing as objectivity? Look, I said the big problem with physics is how the laws of the universe operate in apparently empty space and the solution is a pixel/tile/cell based universe, I am not tippy tapping around the subject, I am being quite consise and to the point. How can you say I am tippy tapping round the point and not explaining? Closing this thread is a shameful and not in the spirit of honest, objective science. I am being perfectly upfront, honest and objective in everything I say. You can't say I not being objective because I am. Take John Wheelers quote, hes an authentic scientist, he said "some principle", obvious", "MUST be built in such an such a way that it could not be otherwise", and he is bang on. You dont have to believe me for the moment, but surely you trust someone like John Wheeler. He said some principle and that principle is a pixel/tile/cell based universe. You can't say John Wheeler is a crank and he wouldn't of said that without good reason. Please, Strange tell me how exactly I am skipping around point? I making my point and you are not even reading it properly,

Ask yourself a simple question, can you explain every mystery in the universe? What is the honest and objective answer? You have claimed you are 'not sure' but it will become clear because its obvious. Can we agree your box was a temproray table? I don't know, what you have said doesn't make much sense, we can measure a table and its usually (although not universal) the height is somewhere convient for people sitting on chairs. The table of course, if you had thought about it properly, which you didn't, is irrelvant, the point is there is a difference between objectivity and subjectivity (otherwise called fact and opinion respectivily). Whats the difference exactly between objectivity and subjectivity, how do you tell the difference? You said you are 'not sure' why it is relevant, if you want the truth, if you want the facts, you have to have agreement, we can start simple and get more complex as things move on, but we have to have agreement, you have to understand the problem first to understand the solution. You can find the problem by questioning science (and scientists) and ideally (if they are honest and objective) have them admit its a problem. There is no escaping starting at the beginning. If we were to have an honest and objective debate, based on sincere, penetrating questions and honest objective answers, I can explain essentially the whole of reality and there is nothing extraordinary about it, its just simple and straight forward. Look at what John Wheeler said, he is bang on correct, he uses the word 'obvious'. Is John Wheelers statement not evidence? He is a respected scientist. What does his statement mean? Why did he say it? Why am I bringing it up? This is no cult, there is no disappointing mystery behind the mystery behind mystery, this is the glourious truth. You have mistaken me for another creationist and are just spewing the usual 'evidence' stuff, I know this, you do not have to preach to the converted, science wins over religion. I am sorry but you are going to have to do better, you are going to have to actually think about stuff, sometimes going over old ground, sometimes new. I have already thought about this a lot, and well there is a lot to explain, it is after all a theory of everything (its not a theory of everything, but it is 'essentially' a theory of everything, and its what science is looking for whether they know it or not.) You can ask me to get to the point all you like, and I will but you have to work with me, you actually have to use your imagination (which Einstien himself is more important that knowledge). You can't be all handwavy with me and treat me like a creationist, saying the universe is pixel based in rational, reasonable, its not wild and out there, its scientific. And its profound whether you realise it or not. I have thought long and hard about this and I know its the truth, and I will convince you, but we have to work through it step by step, there is no escaping starting from the beginning, in all our wonderful complexity, its actually a back to basics paradigm shift, I only have the opening, I believe the universe has more to offer us, this is not an end to science, its a beginning of a new science. So I will go back to my excellent table example, can we agree there is a difference between objectivity and subjectivity and that they are both real? Can we agree objectivity is context independent and subjectivity is context dependent? The table is a brilliant example, but of course the table is irrelavent to proper thinkers. Do you agree that objectivity is context independent and that subjectivity is context dependent? Are you going to be all wavyhanded with someone who is stating the universe, in a reasonable, rational, scientific way, is pixel based. So can we find agreement? Surely as people who love rationality, reason and science, we can come to agree on things. John Wheeler was a good philopospher, other scientists are terrible philsophers. Some of you on here are terrible philosphers, Strange I am looking at you for the poor comprehension of the excellent table example.