PrimalMinister

We have to agree on things otherwise this is not going to work, which is ok, this is literally only the start of my journey to reveal the truth, I still have plenty of avenues, the truth is powerful. As I have said, do you agree that the table is a good example of objective truth and subjective opinion? Surely you want the objective truth and not subjective opinion? How do I know you know the difference if we cant agree on what is objective fact and subjective opinion. It will be trying to explain something to a religious person who holds up their subjective opintions as objective fact, just a nightmare. I know the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, do you? I am being serious, I am looking for us to get some agreement on things first else it will just be a muddle like it has been so far. So I have said its simple and it is, the question is, is the table a good example of objective truth and subjective reason? If we are clear about this, we can move forward, one step at a time. But you have to honest and be able to tell the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, so I will repeat the question again, is the table a good example of objective fact and subjective opinion. If it is a bad example, please provide another, hopefully we can get some agreement on the facts, which is very important in understanding it.

I don't mind you moving the post, I was unsure where to place it anyway. I have explained the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion with the table, would you agree this is a useful explanation of the two? We can use it to point out what is opinion and what is fact, so we can remove the chaff from the wheat, you want an explanation on you will get one, and it will be obvious to you that the following evidence, although it is opinion, it actually a fact: “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 cant state the obviousness of it, it so straight forward its laughable. The universe is truly a remarkable place, its design is absolutly sublime.

We all walk into a room with a table inside, we all look at the table and say "that is a table" and that is objective fact, its independent of its context, you can move the table into another room and we still all agree its a table, its objective fact. Some of us think the table is too big for the room, some of us think the table is too small for the room, they are subjective opinions and are context dependent, they change if you move the table to another room. I know the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, and I am going to start pointing it out so we can get a true picture of science.

Of course, but if you think about, its self evident that a pixelated universe could explain how the universe manages to populate space with laws so that they work everywhere and in any direction, as if by magic. Look, have we solved the mystery of the universe or not? I believe that if you ask science objectivily and honestly the answer is no, we have not. Somehow, despite our advanced knowledge and technology, the universe is still a mystery to us. If you want to understand the explanation, you have to come to it objectivily and honestly. This is my opinion, so take it will a pinch of salt, but the big bang didn't happen, the pixel based universe is a far superior explanation and is ultimatly very satisfying. You can't solve the problem if you don't admit there is a problem in the first place. So whats your opinion on design? Does the universe have a design or is a random accident. I think the universe has a design, and that design is pixel based. I can assure you that despite this being tiny, this is big. I say current science has had a good innings but has nowhere left to go. Isnt it crazy that we don't know how the universe works if we are objective and honest? Shouldn't we know by now?

I would say the question 'how does the universe implement a myriad of different laws uniformly' is the most important question in physics and is answered by a pixel based universe. I have repeated this because its key, I think this is the most important question in physics, its deep and mysterious and it needs an explanation. Do you agree its deep, mysterious and in need of an explantion or not? Do you agree it is the most important question in physics or not?

What do you want? I am explaining it. The universe is composed of, for better want of a word, pixels, that go through a cycle of constructing the universe then deconstructing the universe. And it is an interesting question, what do you want? There must be a point to sciences explanations of the universe. I know this is true, but I don't think you are thinking about it properly. Like why do you think I am suggesting this is a theory of everything, because the thought took my fancy? No, its not that, its well thought out but it needs some getting used to. So think about what exactly you want from me, considering how much we already know about science,. Do you want it to be an unending puzzle and mystery or would you like a final truth? It has got to be one of them and personally I am on the side that there is a final truth, and that truth is a pixel based universe. You have to remember I am for science, I listen to sciences explanations, you don't have to preach to me about 'evidence' and so on, I know exactly what I am doing. I asked for other peoples input first to see if I could get some agreement on things, like despite our best efforts the universe is still largely a mystery to us. I know the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, very clearly. So it come back to this, what evidence do you want? And have you thought about it properly? I would say the question 'how does the universe implement a myriad of different laws uniformly' is the most important question in physics and is answered by a pixel based universe.

Thats the beauty, it doesn't need evidence, because it self-evident, it explains itself. I am well aware of science but it takes a philosophical approach. We are approaching the end of science as we know it, and its going to take some time to shift but it will. Look at the science we have done so far, its incredible, but where is it all going? Science has covered a lot of ground but its running out of places to go. Some people believe that it will just be endless puzzles and we will never get to the bottom of it, I disagree, saying the universe is pixel based is a final end to the mystery of the physical universe. It needs a breakthrough and this is it, its a practical way to implement a complex universe, a simple set of super laws that exist in every pixel. They go through a simple cycle, they construct the universe, they deconstruct the universe, all at the same time, over and over again, literally for eternity, just constructing, then desconstructing the universe, very fast of course (think Planck scale). The whole universe just goes through this cycle endlessly. Therefore reality is a series of never ending instances of reality, the next one slightly different to the last, depending out how the pixels unfold and fold. And there is evidence for believing the universe is pixel based from science and just general experience. For example, we know pixels are simple, but when there is a lot of them together you get a bigger complex looking picture. Lets keep this simple, first of all, what evidence do you want to see, do you understand the problem I am claiming to have solved? You really have to ask yourself what does a theory of everything look like, what do you expect of it? Modern science isn't conclusive, its all "thats what the evidence suggests" but the pixel based universe is the science behind the science, its a magic trick and the universe, like when we thought the earth was flat, again when we thought the sun travelled around the earth, has fooled us again with the expanding universe. The evidence has always been the same, there are somethings that change, and some things that don't change. What do you want? Surely you want to know how the universe is doing what it is doing, its doing it for sure.

Sure, but the deepest, darkest secrets of the universe can be a bit of an anti-climax. That said, with the beginning being an anti-climax, the story builds into a wonderful theory of everything. Any way, the theory of everything is not an equation, it is a concept that can be explained in under a mintute, its very simple, but after contemplation, is obviously the truth. There is more to this story but the short version is "we live in a pixel, tile based or cellular universe". That is the theory of everything in a sentence. It will be taught in schools in five years time, maybe less, and its inevitable, because its the truth and its obvious its the truth. I know you want more and there is more, but that is what a theory of everything looks like. I am not starting a cult, I am sharing what is a profound truth about the universe, even if you don't see it or believe it. No God, no more questions about what lies underneath that, its final, the universe is composed of pixels (the best analogy of the three) and you can't break them down any more, thats it, thats the end, thats the universe. Each pixel contains all the laws of the universe and is repeated adinfinitum, like a hologram where the whole image is embedded in every part. I told you it would be an anti-climax, the theory of everything is that the universe is, for want of a better analogy, a pixel based universe. I know that in the end you will agree with me but I am interested in seeing how this plays out. I think I am finally ready to make my case, however people react to it and whatever they think of me. This is not easy for me, but its inevitable, the truth is the truth, science wins in the end. Yes, the mystery is gone, but the universe has more mysteries, the mysteries of eternity. The pixels are immortal, the universe is immortal, this is the new source of mystery in what is a paradigm shift. I know what to expect, but if you think about it properly, give it proper consideration, you can answer this quote: “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.” That principle is pixels, tiles or cells. From here on in pixels because everyone knows what a pixel is and how it works.

This is a challenge for me, what do you do if you have realised how the universe works, billions of people all over the planet believing different things, how do you face them and say "look, this is the truth about the universe and in five years times this will be taught in schools." Religion has no chance, not in the light of the truth, to use their terminology. I am asserting I am have realised how the universe works, I have realised the theory of everything. It has taken me a long time to come to terms with this, but there is no denying, I have realised how the universe works, I have realised the theory of everything. The truth is powerful, in five years times what I share with you on this forum will be taught in schools (children will probably know it before school) and religion will be largely dead. The world will, I believe, unite around this scientific breakthrough and celebrate by introducing a new global calander, starting from year 1. To me, this is inevitable, I have no scientific career to ruin so I am not bothered if I am proved wrong, I really have nothing to lose. But if you want to know the truth and I am willing to share it, you have to come to terms with eternity, there is no creator, but the universe itself is infinite and immortal. It is different to how it is portrayed by science currently, but it is perfectly complimentary. Its a sort of third way, different to science and religion, but encompassing questions and answers from both. There won't even be a discussion on whether the universe has a design or not, it has a design, and I am going to reveal, slowly, but with out a doubt, surely. It is for the best.

The thing is, once the evidence said the sun revolved around the earth (because thats what looked like happened). As for not believing, history tells us we have gotten it wrong before and current affairs suggest there is disagreement on what exactly goes on. The reason I think I am on to something is that I look at the 'evidence' and come to a different conclusion. The same evidence is there for everyone, its how we look at it is what is important, history teaches us that. So looking at the evidence isn't enough, you have to take into account our minds. And this is the beauty of what I am putting forward, the basic explanation can be understood by a child. It is also final, in that doesn't need to explain how it came to be, its final, its immortal, the universe is immortal, the laws of the universe are immortal, you can't understand the universe until you grasp infinity, then it all becomes clear. If I am right, then we have gotten to the most basic and fundamental root of the universe, a set of super laws that underly everything. The universe was never 'created', it does not have a creator or designer, but I would argues that is does have a design and the design is sublime. Then if that's the answer you are getting, maybe its not the right one, with what I am suggesting, is that you get to a bottom layer in which those questions actually get answers. I mean, imagine what a theory of everything might look like, I am sure you are creative, what qualities must it have? Surely, it will be straight forward to understand, its not magic right, there is some practical way to explain it all, something that clears up all the mysteries and something everyone can agree on. And they agree on it because after reflection it is obvious, to quote John Wheeler: “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.” If a respected scientist can say something like this, I think its possible. Yes, you can play with stuff you know, research interesting and worthy topics, but surely these are still the important questions, its the mystery that intrigues the best of us, how, why. How the universe has the same laws everywhere is actually explained in what I am suggesting. But it took me time to adjust to what was at the time, was a new reality.

Maybe it was a mystical experience, maybe the universe is a mystical place. But no, it's about how to practically implement a universe such as ours. I have thought about it a lot since and it still makes sense. The magic is that the laws of the universe seem bound to everything but when you try to pin them down they are bound to nothing. This is a very subtle feature of every single physical law. They pop in and out of existence as needed, but where do they pop in and out from exactly, thin air? Magic could be an explanation, and I am talking real life magic, not fantasy magic. Anyhow, I don’t believe the big bang, I have been told that before the big bang: There was no space and time. Two branes collided to create the big bang. That we will eventually experience a big collapse of the universe where the universe collapses into a new big bang. These are quite extraordinary, and different, claims and to me personally I think that these claims about the big bang, with looking back at history, are not correct. If we had a full understanding of the universe, a theory of everything, everyone would be in complete agreement, not dishing up their opinions as explanations as to what happened before the big bang. Anyhow, science is about predicting the future, not explaining the past. How often to you hear scientists and philosophers ask, “how far does the universe go?”, what is the maximum level of complexity the universe supports?”. To me, the big bang is just the final step on the journey to the truth, but it is essentially wrong. The problem needs some explaining because its subtle, I can see it clearly but trying to explain it is something else, as I say I don’t discuss it with people, I just think about it. Some people think the ‘spacetime’ entity explains gravity, I disagree, I think this is a mathematical abstraction, not a real phenomena. How does the bending of spacetime keep me rooted on the earth, I can see it working on a planetary scale, but how does it work here on earth, I don’t see that. Also, like the big bang you have to make counter-intuitive acceptance of extraordinary claims. Anyway, the problem can be addressed directly: That laws appear to exist that are everywhere and work in any direction in apparently empty space. But asking these other questions is also useful: Why do we have the laws we do? How is the universe implemented? Why do we have these laws and not other laws? You have to ask deep questions to get deep answers. They make not make sense if you have not tried to answer them before. Maybe you, I or others can explain the problem better than I have here, this is why I want to focus on the problem first. I respect that people have degrees and so on but it's only fate or whatever which stops me from having one. I look at what the best minds say, I agree with a lot of it. However, I am sceptical of some of the bigger more extraordinary claims, so I sit on the fence really. It only happens that the solution to this subtle problem is magic in that it looks quite astonishing when you don’t know how it done, but when you do know, it becomes obvious. There are no extraordinary claims in what I am proposing, its all quite natural, straight forward.

I am 42 now but when I was about 23 I had what I believed was a profound realisation about the universe, I still think about it today and it is no less profound to me. This realisation was related to what science calls the theory of everything. It wasn't and isn't a theory like todays, but it is an idea, an insight into how the universe is actually doing what it does. Although I am not classically trained in physics this does not mean I am bad at maths or can't read about the maths, its just not that important to this insight. In fact, the insight is about explaining why the universe is mathematical in the first place. Anyway, this realisation took about 6 years to unfold, until I had another profound realisation about this insight. The end result is that I had realised what must be the perfect universe, and it could be possible that our universe is also perfect, if this idea matures in to a full fledged theory subject to the scientific method, and it turns out be the actual truth, the final theory of everything. This insight came about because I was thinking about a subtle problem in physics, which with the utmost respect to those with degrees, is likely not in the curriculum, even if you have done a Phd. I am not saying that Phd's don't think about this problem, its just that you could have gone through you whole science career and simply not thought about it. The thing is, if I am for example right with this idea, then I happened to solve a very abstract problem that is critical to understanding the theory of everything. Anyhow, I think it is worthy discussing this problem because otherwise you could say the whole universe is powered by 'magic' and be valid. I do not think the universe is powered by magic, I think there must be an explanation for what appears like magic. So what is the problem I am talking about? It is that phenomena of the universe, matter, forces and so on, appear to be subject to rules (what we capture in our equations) while not giving away how they are governed universally in apparently empty space. Why are the laws here the same everywhere we look, why are there laws, how are they being implemented. And the insight is simple, that all these laws are governed by a set of laws higher or lower level than the ones we are use to. Like to date, we have only be studying the software of the universe and this insight is into the hardware of the universe, like what we have been studying is all virtual while the insight is about what is actually real. This means that there is a relatively small number of super laws that govern all other laws and that these super laws constitute a theory of everything. But these super laws are implemented in such a way that they actually solve the problem of how phenomena appears to be powered by magic. I was not lucky enough to have gone through university and have people with the same interests to talk to about it, so I am here to now claiming that this idea or insight is worthy of discussion and may turn out to be true. There is evidence for it and it is supported by logic, its complementary to current science and is a sort of third way between our current paradigms. This is how I envisage the conversation going: 1. That knowledgeable, skilled physicists can say that, after consideration, the problem I am trying to explain exists and needs a solution. 2. That, understanding the problem, people offer up solutions. 3. That I offer a solution and see if it solves it. It should be noted that I am not religious, I don't believe in God or all the stories in holy books, but I am not convinced by the big bang either, or aspects of evolution. I am not convinced with explanations of how life came about, the emergence of sexual dynamics, the emergence of flight, I am not convinced adaptation by natural selection can take us from a single cell to human beings. I am squarely on sciences side, its just I don't think we have got it right yet, and for some reason, which I am sure some people will speculate on, believe I could be on to something. So my first request is to knowledgeable, skilled physicists, is this a problem and does it need a solution. Thanks for any responses.

I was told that if an astronaut travelled away from the planet near the speed of light and then came back a year later everyone on earth has aged 20 years. What is happening here? He has travelled into the future (despite never leaving the present).

In the case of atomic clocks, one travelling round in a satellite and one on earth, how do we know the clock in the satellite is travelling into the future instead of just ticking faster?

Of course you are immersed in the old paradigm while a shift is occurring. Take quantum mechanics, if you want it to be deterministic instead of probabilistic you just plug in the orientation to the cellular automata, that's where the randomness is coming from. It's consistent with experiment (complimentary) and day to day life. What about the big bang, that has had to be patched every time the data has proved it wrong, the only reason its being held onto is because there is not a better explanation.

But its reality we are interested in right? I ask these questions because I am currently working on a paper suggesting the universe is a kind of cellular automata but its not going to be finished for a few months. If it turns out I am correct then it would be a paradigm shift (as it suggests the universe is infinite, eternal, immortal) and a theory of everything because it gets to the root of the universe (its the science underlying mathematics) and discovers the final truth about reality (that the universe is an infinite, eternal, immortal cellular automata). It answers questions like 'why is the universe mathematical' and 'why do we have the laws we do' but its incommensurable with some of modern physics although its complementary to most of it. This is why I asked this question, as a sanity check. And because I am fascinated by the universe and science. And its enjoyable to discuss it.

Well take the laws of flames, when we light a fire the laws governing the flames manifest and when you put the fire out, they disappear along with the fire. Its like the laws of the universe are everywhere but when you try to put you finger on them they are no where.

I know relativity has been 'proved' but how do you know its what is actually going on as opposed to something that works but is not true/real such as epicycles. How do we know this is not just a repeat of this, making theories that work but are not true/real. Relativity seems like this to me, it is obviously onto something but I don't think its the actual truth, i.e. I don't think space-time literally bends and warps, I think the equations work (in certain conditions) but are not describing actual reality.

The laws of the universe seem to manifest in space when they are required and then seemingly disappear back into the same space when done. Where are the laws of the universe exactly?