Jack Egerton

Bit late to the party, koti -- check out the other comments, I would suggest. I have done all I can to explain myself to yourselves. Phi for All, thank you for attempting to add depth and context. I believe I have justified my opinions to the fullest and quite broadly, so shall not here, unless I see real reason to do so.

If I am lucky, this will be the last we need to say on this particular matter, but the reason I sound impassioned is because we all should be for our interests and pursuits. I was hoping for some genuine intellectual countering or input from people here. Maybe I have asked the wrong questions or asked them in the wrong way, but I seem to have exhausted my methods for doing so.... Oh, thank you. The very first thing I have learnt on this forum: the word hidebound. Yes, well, my above statement, sums up my opinion on the discussions we have held here, before having seen your response. It changes little. Seeing that you seemed to take offence to 'you folks'. I intended that because of how fundamentally differently we seem to think and view the world, which is partially interesting, partially bemusing. Responding to a criticism suggests no anticipation of future responses or where a discussion would lead so, no, I will respond to critics (be they human or NN bot) and the criticisms that come from them, the flow and progression of which will depend upon how said critic has responded in past and is therefore likely to respond in future.

Thank you, Phi for All, your opinion is noted. I suppose every challenge I have had on this whole forum amounts to either 'do not be condescending/patronising/arrogant' or 'you have not explained yourself fully'. So which would you prefer in this instance, as I went for the hand-holding explanation approach here -- as step-by-step as it is humanly possible to do so? Having your cake and eating it is not advised practice. To only take the contrary view is also very bot-like. Poker bots, for example, are taught to play tight (fewer hands) when the other player plays loose (more hands) and vice versa. Is this how you folks like to reason?

I wrote things as a logical progression as if they were being imagined from conception forwards. You 'incepted' the idea after I had stated in conceptually, which seemly less appealing or original to myself, but maybe more appealing to yourself. Certainly, a machine learning bot is capable of what you just did, however and so we go full circle... Maybe, though I am not sure about this, I like what I believe to be correct conclusions to be arrived at 'organically', rather than just chucking information down the throat of the recipient. Who knows?

No need to be sarcastic Strange. I did intend that to be part of what I stated.

I only agree with Strange if the desire of the person is to understand nature in the universe they live in and not to give thought to whether they live in a simulated universe, for example. The title of this thread was given to challenge the idea that a 'theory of everything' is a legitimate or possible thing to pursue, as everything can include a simulated universe within a universe. Essentially, we are both stating things that are not in logical disagreement (exclusivity), as I said previously. I highly doubt anything you could say would change my understanding of that, though I am keen to hear what you would suggest. I suppose you have said all you want to on the subject though -- I understand your position.

I do not have time to watch that video, but later yes, I may well. Thanks. Strange: your opinions on the matter seem fair, yet I stick to mine. Noting, that I have not had the time to consider whether any of your statements were both in contradiction with my own and also seem true -- as that would be required to falsify mine in my own mind. I agree that searching for a theory of everything is akin to a religious pursuit, yes.

The culture I stated. Not recent American culture. I am waiting to see words as clearly stated as I have written from any such people... please. Noting, that the idea of a simulated universe is as old as the hills. The logical conclusion that a theory of everything is a theory of nothing is what I want to see in writing from another source, please.

I have never read anything written or said by either of those people on any such subject. So you guess incorrectly. Nor do I know whether they have talked about anything similar. If you provided a citation of them saying words to the effect of what I have said, I would be interested to see whether it compares.

swansont: I did not mention a situation in which one does not understand the whole universe in which they exist and I shall not, for it is not relevant to the scenario I proposed: a universe in which someone understood fully the laws describing nature in the universe in which they exist. Practical limitations such as data storage are limitations not preventions and so are also not relevant to imaging whether something is 'not impossible' as I stated. When I say limitation I mean they reduce the probability of something being possible and when I say prevention I mean that possibility is zero percent. A limitation can never become a prevention via that definition.

Loads of things in culture etc. You could say that The Matrix, preceded by Ghost In Shell, preceded by Solipsism, preceded by belief in a Creator, preceded by the ability to think inspired me. I am being facetious by missing out a few links in that infinite chain.

I am glad you comprehended what I said, unless you missed that 'not a theory of anything' is the same as 'a theory of nothing', that you may well see in the title of this thread

If one manages to fully comprehend how nature behaves, then consequently one can imagine a simulated universe, and therefore knows a simulated universe is not impossible. When a simulated universe is not impossible, one cannot know whether one exists in a simulated universe. In a simulated universe, any physical laws are possible by those who created that universe. Therefore, because one does not know if they are in a simulated universe, upon discovering or describing all physical laws of that universe in which they exist, one truly knows no physical laws of the real universe. Thus, I propose the following theory of everything that describes the physical laws of the real universe: 0 = 0 One can consider this equivalent to stating that Solipsism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism) is the only way to truly understand the universe.

I can tell you where my mind went since I last posted that reply -- and yes, it relates to the cosmos I defined -- a smart question would be: why would a person that hits the floor after freefall not pass through the floor (or distance from Earth at which they were born) in the Egertonian force-free model? This could be because the particles do pass through the floor but the information about which particles constituted the person is somehow jumbled but not entirely lost (entropy advancement) in a form of imprint of the localised disturbance caused by said particles. This seems to be in agreement with Information Theory that Hawking used in his conceptualisation of Hawking radiation. swansont: that does help, agreed. p.s. though 'disturbance' implies force, so my thought process has not quite straightened that all out yet, evidently. The rest of the description remains valid but not fully explained. p.p.s. last known location of particles could be last bit of Information pertaining to said particles -- no 'disturbance' required then. Then differing velocity (maybe differing kinetic energy, if energy were required in the model) is equivalent to different information known about the particles, perhaps, though that is implied above.

Lasse, if you have every heard a sky diver or some such person say, "the ground was coming up on me pretty fast", or something like that. Or, the apple that fell on Newton's head could say, "that head was coming up on me pretty fast". What would you say to that (besides crude wordplay)? The frame of reference of the person, e.g. in a Solipsistic universe, sees the ground moving towards it in freefall on Earth. The above would be a reason for thinking, on a base level, that my Hypothesis was intuitive and logical. (Conversely, if someone said, intuitively, "the Earth is flat", I would say "not true, one can see ships sailing over the horizon" or provide another such example for base intuition.) Beyond base intuition, the simplicity and seeming generality of the Egertonian cosmos is hard to fault and I have said that it could readily provide the same results as from relativistic equations and other mathematical descriptions of empirical observations of nature.