A lingual theory of everything

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I don't see how you could get something from nothing, but I've been thinking.

Perhaps energies wich do not occupy time could have existed before time. Time stands still at the speed of light. Light is an ellectromagnetic wave if I remember right. So it's perfectly acceptable to think that electro magnetic "entities" exist outside of and before our universe (time).

Things that exist outside of time probably wouldn't have to obey the rules of time unless moving through a "pool" of time at wich point they have to travel on a wave of time.

If time is space and space is distance, than it's perfectly plausable that in this dimension energy particles could move from here to there in a quantum manner.

 

 

 

In response to the thread " Something from nothing " I would like to pose a Theory which I have found covers the whole Shebang, namely " the LoT "

 

It is not stated in mathematical form.

It is not some fundamental particle , force , etc.

 

It is a lingual or language based statement: It can be built on with other principles and Mathematics as and if required.

 

 

 

Quote

" A Lingual / NON-Mathematical THEORY OF EVERYTHING ".

 

1. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur "

 

2. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur, if there is some form of initiative for it to occur. "

 

3. " If there are reasons for anything not to occur , left to their own devices, the path of least energy and /or resistance will be followed. "

 

 

I have found this works well. Covers Big Bang and before. The whole Shebang, namely " the LoT , ( including Scientific Principles that can be verified)"

 

TRY IT OUT . It works .

 

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos, 11 March 2011 - 09:41 PM.

.

originally submitted in "Do you have a new theory " at the top of the Quantum Physics Theme.Page 10 thereabouts

 

 

 

.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[michel123456]

The name "lingual theory of everything" sounds bad.

ToE is in fashion but I am sure next generations will laugh a lot with the idea.

 

On the other hand the concept is not bad. Newton laws of motion are based on such kind of statements. Archimedes law is also a statement. The principle of least action is also a statement.

 

So why not working with statements?

The concept thus would be to find the first most fundamental statements. That's Mike attempt.

 

 

1. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur "

It is difficult to reach the fundamentals (I have made such attempts in the past). For example "occur" includes the notion of time: there is nothing and suddenly something "occurs" that did not "occured" before. So Time is there already. Space is there too, because "occurence" presupposes space. Also "reason for it " includes a cause to effect relation, which is also related to time, and which should be explained by the fundamental statement and not be part of it. IOW the statement may be true but is not so fundamental.

 

 

2. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur, if there is some form of initiative for it to occur. "

Same comments with 1. the statement may be true but is not so fundamental.

 

 

3. " If there are reasons for anything not to occur , left to their own devices, the path of least energy and /or resistance will be followed. "

Same with 1 & 2, plus something related to the principle of least action. Very interesting but not new.

 

--------------------------

My shoot:

Everything that is possible to happen do happen. The subtlety is in the word "possible".

 

---------------

Apologize. It's a paraphrase of Brian Cox & Jeff Forshaw "everything that can happen does happen" from

The Quantum Universe: Why All That Can Happen Does Happen

Edited February 11, 2013 by michel123456

[36grit]

 

 

" A Lingual / NON-Mathematical THEORY OF EVERYTHING ".

 

1. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur "

 

2. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur, if there is some form of initiative for it to occur. "

 

3. " If there are reasons for anything not to occur , left to their own devices, the path of least energy and /or resistance will be followed. "

 

 

 

Anybody can say that.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

36grit, on 12 Feb 2013 - 01:14, said:

 

Quote

" A Lingual / NON-Mathematical THEORY OF EVERYTHING ".

 

1. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur "

 

2. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur, if there is some form of initiative for it to occur. "

 

3. " If there are reasons for anything not to occur , left to their own devices, the path of least energy and /or resistance will be followed. "

 

 

 

This was the post that I put a reply to your " Something from nothing " thread , and got Gazzotted . . So they have moved me to here as a separate , thread.

 

Quote

 

Anybody can say that.

Well I am an " Anybody , and I did say that. "

 

But I have played with it for about 20 years.

 

 

It does work for a very wide range of activity, including the big bang, and some of the things you were discussing in your post , " something from nothing ".

 

Although it sounds simple , it can be very, very,very powerful. And yet it can equally work at very gentle, weak levels.

 

I have tested it at various levels.

 

 

.

 

michel123456, on 11 Feb 2013 - 15:39, said:

related to the principle of least action. Very interesting but not new.

 

Interesting Wickapedia Quote , A lot of variety and depth there.

 

 

When I originally started working up the idea in the 1990's . It was just a germ of an idea. But over the years it became very exciting and very powerful. Like anything else that touches on a truism, the strength of the theory is embedded in reality itself, rather than we who notice the reality. ( if that does not sound too garbled. Not intended to.)

 

To refer to it as a TOE ( theory of everything ) is probably a bit of a pretension ( again not intended ) . It is just I realised I was working with " ANYTHING " which has connection with "EVERYTHING" . It started with my mind as a personal quest for a universal "theory" . The scientific community was talking about TOE's at the time ( theories of everything) so I latched on to the name. However TOE in the scientific community are really talking about the combining of all forces and particles into ONE master Force or whatever.

 

Perhaps I should call it something else . Like a useful theory. I do not wish to tread on peoples toes ( oops! Pun )

Edited February 12, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[36grit]

I want to be "Gazzotted" sounds like fun Your theory sounds like common sense, like saying everything is possible somewhere. The path of least resistance leads to that where, but initiative comes with consequenses.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I want to be "Gazzotted" sounds like fun Your theory sounds like common sense, like saying everything is possible somewhere. The path of least resistance leads to that where, but initiative comes with consequenses.

 

The reason I got Gazzotted was actually when I was trying to answer your 2011 inquiry about getting something from nothing.

 

 

36grit, on 13 Mar 2011 - 22:51, said:

I don't see how you could get something from nothing, but I've been thinking.

 

I myself had tried to think this through about 20 years ago.

 

I sort of came up with the three line statement of the B.. obvious, as some of my colleagues have said to me. So it is no supprise for you to say " Your theory sounds like common sense " which it does.

 

But as I tried it out it became very powerful. And it was able to handle some big issues and some big questions.

 

To give you a taster .

 

The secret number 1 of having things happen easily is to find " Space " for them to happen . In other words , Things happen more easily if there is plenty of space for them to happen . You might require some form of small drive or initiative to start the process, but then "if there is no reason for it not to happen " eg the really clear space , then it will happen.

 

Eg Atomic particles do it, Suns do it , Galaxies do it , There is lots of Space. People do it.

 

Unfortunately we find in today's society, which is driven by Stuff, Materials , Money, and goodness knows what else, there always seems to be reasons why we cant do something. Not enough space. So maybe why things dont happen , is " there is a reason for them not to happen "

 

Secret number 2 . Go find things to happen where there is no reason for them not to happen.

 

However it can happen with small things. And it can happen with very powerful things.

 

Don't forget the initiative bit secret no 3.

 

If you find the experiment works, Then you can go and observe it happening in the natural world of science.

Edited February 16, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[michel123456]

Something occurs when it is possible to occur.

 

Say you have a phenomena that has a unique possibility 1 into billions and billions to happen. In human understanding it is a phenomena that is very unlikely to happen. Although given enough time & space, it will happen unavoidably.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Something occurs when it is possible to occur.

 

Say you have a phenomena that has a unique possibility 1 into billions and billions to happen. In human understanding it is a phenomena that is very unlikely to happen. Although given enough time & space, it will happen unavoidably.

 

Well funnily enough , The first experiment I tried out my theory was with one of those Billions and billions of chances for something to happen. I was sitting on a beach, in south of England at 7am one morning, having just had a refreshing early morning swim. I looked at the beach to the left of me and the right. It extended uninterrupted for miles in both directions. The top part of the beach contained billions and billions of pebbles of all sorts of shapes and sizes, smoothed edges by erosion.

 

Step 3 . I started the initiative " that I wanted a spherical stone" say like a golf ball.

 

Step 1 I was a a location in space and time, where step 2 ' there was no reason why this could not occur. Billions of years of eroding history on rocks, and billions of pebbles.

 

 

I have the pebble , to this day . Round, Spherical, Size of a Golf Ball.

 

If you like , I will photograph it and upload it.

 

You might well ask how I obtained it.

 

 

However There was Space ( Space and Time ) for the pebble to be eroded to shape .......1 Step1

 

There was a thing to happen that there was no reason for it not to happen .........2 Step 2

 

. There was As I Raised it, The Initiative ( in this particular experiment ) .........3 Step 3

 

 

 

Moving on to Stars

 

My chemistry only goes so far, but as I understand it Early Stars were mainly Hydrogen with one proton. All sorts of Pressure and Temperature and we have fusion through heavy Hydrogen with one proton one neutron nucleus. Two of them makes Helium. Ok so we have stars with Hydrogen & Helium. Some time later, we can have Two of these fusion into Beryllium 4, But oops Beryllium has a very short half life so decays back very quickly . We have to have 3 of the helium 2 nuclei , to jump the Beryllium block, in order to fuse to make Carbon 6 ( helium X 3) and onward to Oxygen 8 ( helium X 4 ). And onward, with decays back to odd valued elements Like Nitrogen 7. Etc Etc at least all the way to Iron 26. After that we have to have another method like Super Novas, to blow up with immense energy, to take us up to Uranium 92.

 

 

Getting over the Beryllium problem required a lot of Attempts. Hydrogen to Helium itself takes a lot of attempts as hydrogen + has a problem with being too close to another H+ to fuse but plenty of shots will do the job. Now getting all those hydrogen and all 3 helium to jump over beryllium and get to carbon , I understand takes Billions on Billions of Shots.

 

No ' problemo ' Billions upon billions of atoms in a sun , all hot and moving about under pressure. Bingo we have jumped the Beryllium problem of short half life and ' got to Carbon and Beyond and got ourselves a universe '

 

Steps 1, 2 & 3

 

Initiative Step 3 , space and to happen Step 1 , given numbers and time no reason for it not to happen Step 2

 

 

 

 

Just a couple of Examples First Experiment and Current Science example .

 

.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Popcorn Sutton]

Nice post. So my suspicion is that all solid objects are actually bubbles, and the same can be said about anything observed, so a few questions I have are this, how is life possible? Theres a simple answer, and that is motion. But where does matter come from? My best guess is that its bubbled space because of an impact (like so-> |c <-visual of something flowing downwards and the surrounding substance bubbling). But, why are these bubbles chemically distinct? Theres a simple answer, electrons, protons, and neutrons, ok, but why those? And why do they have attractive and repelsive tendencies?

 

I have so many questions seriously.

 

Chomsky quotes Locke "god might have chose to superimpose to matter a faculty of thinking". I think that the mind is the closest thing to empty as possible.

 

I'll save you the trouble of reading my story. I have good reasons to believe my ideas, and they dont seem to conflict with real science long story short.

 

Also, id like to say that it really takes effort for me to post with my phone, and after a while of posting and being censored, banned, or locked, I find it very difficult to even press the post button, but I really do want to interact, I just want to know where this thread came from (why was it posted), and I would like to know your presumptions.

 

maybe I need to head to the other science sections before trying to tackle this one. Its just so obvious that I lack the knowledge you guys have. Give me some input please lol.

 

My favorite question word is how.

[swansont]

Also, id like to say that it really takes effort for me to post with my phone, and after a while of posting and being censored, banned, or locked, I find it very difficult to even press the post button, but I really do want to interact,

 

…

 

Give me some input please lol.

 

!

Moderator Note

A good idea would be reading and following the rules, such as rule 5. Don't hijack threads to post your pet theory or drag a discussion off on a tangent.

 

Do not respond to this modnote in the thread

[cladking]

 

 

It is difficult to reach the fundamentals (I have made such attempts in the past). For example "occur" includes the notion of time: there is nothing and suddenly something "occurs" that did not "occured" before. So Time is there already. Space is there too, because "occurence" presupposes space. Also "reason for it " includes a cause to effect relation, which is also related to time, and which should be explained by the fundamental statement and not be part of it. IOW the statement may be true but is not so fundamental.

 

 

Systems based on language can't work because of the nature of modern language. Things expressed in modern language can be deconstructed and truth can not be taken apart and examined. The only true statements possible with our language must be rigidly defined and the truth still disappears to the degree it can be deconstructed.

 

Ancient language was metaphysical and truth could be stated in it. Sunspots showed observers that it was the same sun that came up each day and this concept that all things have an origin was known as "Khepri". The language was a natural language that arose around man's need to understand nature. The laws of nature were its grammar and its sounds were its words. Expression became too complex and it failed.

 

Trying to understand nature in the absense of metaphysics is impossible. This is reality and this is why we ponder such inanities as whether a falling tree makes a sound or if there's a cat in the box. We are trying to understand reality in the absense of anything to tie us to it. It would make more sense to simply append "assuming we aren't a dream" to every statement than to question the nature of reality, assuming we aren't dreaming.

 

Nature is infinitely complicated but each of its processes are impossibly simple. This leaves prediction an impossibility but understanding a "simple" matter of identifying each of its processes using one or more metaphysics. Neither math nor logic can ever reflect reality. And this goes double when the logic is expressed in modern language.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Language can be calculated, but we can't do it by categorizing and relating it to more language, there needs to be an underlying physical constituent that can be measured. Concatenation is a difficult process. I know of one way it can happen, but it usually doesnt occur with maximal units. Something is happening that causes us to forget things and make ourselves more efficient, I need to know that process.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Systems based on language can't work because of the nature of modern language.

 

I understand the difficulties you express, but whether I like it or others don't like it the universe functions in a way that we like to understand to some degree. Observations of the way the universe works can be contained in our mind and communicated to others. All I have done is to try to encapsulate in language a particular phenomenon that I observed happening about me in the universe.

 

The observation that particularly caught my eye or experience gave me was :- Being an engineer i was used to forcing things to happen that I was asked to design. That's fine but as time went by I noticed that if you designed around the way things themselves actually wanted to 'flow' , the design became better the function better,the reliability better etc,etc.

 

From these observation I made an hypothesis that:

 

" if you found a space that had NO restrictions to the designed function , then the flow would be absolute "

 

I went on to test my hypothesis via various experiments.

 

One landmark experiment was described a few posts ago to do with stone selection from an almost infinite supply of curvy stones.

 

Thus no matter how I use these words to describe this phenomenon, it seems to hold up under scrutiny, which it would do if true

 

.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Popcorn Sutton]

Computational efficiency.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Language ................. " there needs to be an underlying physical constituent that can be measured."

 

i am only describing a measurement , within the context of " things happening " .

However that is quite a big sphere as unless you sit still and do absolutely nothing, things happen . The desire is to have things happen that you want to happen .

 

What I am saying is A) State it B) what you want..........what is to happen.I( which may not be possible, ) C) find a space that offers no restriction to its happening

Edited February 19, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Popcorn Sutton,

 

Please stay on topic. If you wish to start a thread about your proposed computer program, then do so.

[md65536]

Isn't this essentially a "Theory of Anything", without a list of what's not possible? -- It could be used to predict anything you want, depending on the parameters you use.

 

If so, how is a list of "reasons for something to not occur" any better than our current collection of theories and laws and assumptions? Neither is complete, right? So how could you ever complete the list of "reasons", to make this a true theory of everything?

 

Or if not, are there any new specific predictions that this theory makes? For example, I could write "A Complete History of Earth" in one line: "Anything that has happened, has happened." And that's true of all of history, but gives no specific information that isn't in any other history book. Without the specifics, it's not useful.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

'Off topic' seems to be a foreign concept to so many lately.

 

I've split 9 posts into a new thread, found here. Could everyone please stop trying to derail threads.

[Popcorn Sutton]

If you had a list of whats not possible, that would be like defying the laws of physics, and the computer wouldn't be able to compute it. If I want to say something like guhi naji watygfhti honjktitr, I can say it. Incorporating that into a list of things that are not possible is too restrictive.

 

The point is that input is basically anything possible, but output is always probable, although it doesn't have to be probable for the interlocutor.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The questions raised as regards LANGUAGE as a suitable vehicle for a THEORY can be answered with the following. :-

 

Our body of knowledge , held in the human condition has mainly been communicated by language. It is true to say that other communications have been added to assist over our history , such as visual pictures and mathematical descriptions and formula/ calculations.

 

Much as I personally love pictures as a medium for communications, others love mathematics, when it comes down to it , it is language that we fall back on when we really want to understand. Hence the forum we are using is mainly in LANGUAGE. And when you are not sure of a point.

 

. What exactly do you mean ? Is asked . And a language is expected in reply ?

 

. So it not unreasonable to pose an Hypothesis or Theory in Language.

 

 

True if accurate measurement or calculation is required then mathematics is the ideal vehicle. However it is very rigid and inflexible.

Language however can be more flexible and enables concepts to be communicated more easily. One could liken mathematics to a rigid high rise building. an amazing achievement, yet a dangerous place , say during earthquakes or whatever. . In the opposite area Language could be likened to a very tall tree, able to flex in earthquake or storm with ease. A safer place to be in an earthquake, flood, or tempest. Both are required Maths and language concepts.

 

The real trick is to make the concept work ( with Language ), then do the accurate results ( with Mathematics ).

Edited February 20, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Popcorn Sutton]

What about adding language to math? That is the type of math necessary to deal with language computationally.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

What about adding language to math? That is the type of math necessary to deal with language computationally.

I appreciate you personally are a computer programmer orientated person. But again from both my maths experience and a little software program writing experience. I have spent a lot of hours and heart ache de-bugging maths equations and software lines of code.

 

Whereas language does not crash, it might need a little discussion ,and can be tweeked easily.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Yes thats awesome that you have programming experience, theres not many people I can talk with about it.

 

Language does not crash when computed by humans because we are already disposed to acquiring it. However, if we lack stimulus, then it doesnt suit circumstances. And often, if that is the case, then we will strike parameters throughout conversation which can be very frustrating and lead to communicative difficulties.

 

In any case, the real theory of everything requires a theory of anything (i like what the other guy posted) and a very big computer.... and the incorporation of physical parts into a statistical analysis.

 

I've generated many plausible thoughts computationally using a mixture of mathematics and units of knowledge (any sequence of occurrences). My goal is to make the compressional use of language 100% accurate and I think at this point it is probably around 65% accurate. It needs the ability to make itself efficient though.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Yes thats awesome that you have programming experience, theres not many people I can talk with about it.

 

Language does not crash when computed by humans because we are already disposed to acquiring it. However, if we lack stimulus, then it doesnt suit circumstances. And often, if that is the case, then we will strike parameters throughout conversation which can be very frustrating and lead to communicative difficulties.

 

In any case, the real theory of everything requires a theory of anything (i like what the other guy posted) and a very big computer.... and the incorporation of physical parts into a statistical analysis.

 

I've generated many plausible thoughts computationally using a mixture of mathematics and units of knowledge (any sequence of occurrences). My goal is to make the compressional use of language 100% accurate and I think at this point it is probably around 65% accurate. It needs the ability to make itself efficient though.

 

You Know they have set a thread up all your own for developing your computer program project called " a computer program idea " . There is a guy on there who thinks your idea is a swell idea. He's called pwagen . You need to go and discuss it with him. I am still interested talking to you. but the moderators don't like you talking too much about your particular computer program on other threads.

 

If you want any ideas from me ,about you computer program, I can come across to your thread and post and converse on your thread ! ( then you will not be Moderated again )

Edited February 20, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Bignose]

Whereas language does not crash, it might need a little discussion ,and can be tweeked easily.

But language does 'crash'. If I walked into a room and sat a box down in front of you and said the box was very heavy, what does that mean? What if an Olympic weightlifter said it was heavy? How about a petite little ballet dancer? How about a toll booth attendant?

 

Language here is incredibly ambiguous. Language by its very nature is dependent upon the person who uses the words, and then is also dependent upon the person who hears and interprets the words. Words are fungible.

 

However, if I said it took 500 N to lift that box, that is unambiguous. It is not 5 N or 5000 N. 500 N may be easy for one person to exert that much force, and difficult for another. But it is, and always will be 500 N.

 

This is why math is so very, very preferred when talking about science. Because math can be used to make direct comparisons.

 

If I measure that the box takes 498.4 N to lift, the prediction that it would take 500 N to lift will be very much preferred over the predictions that it would take 50 N or 5000 N.

 

Language is great. There are many absolute classics of literature that tell extraordinary stories using only words. But at least some of what makes those stories so extraordinary is that they are constantly debated and reinterpreted over and over. 500 N never needs to be reinterpreted. 500 N is 500 N and only 500 N.

 

There is no language that can be as exact as 'it takes 500 N to lift that box.'

Edited February 20, 2013 by Bignose