PeterJ Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 "Trying to understand nature in the absence of metaphysics is impossible." (Cladking) It seems this way to me also. Indeed, it seems rather obvious. And it is a relevant point. Philosophers often point out that the subject/predicate structure of language causes problems when trying to construct fundamental theories. Bradley, for instance, proposes that in metaphysics this structure is necessary but impossible to maintain for a completely reductive theory. Russell points out that all our statement take the form 'there esists an x such that...' , and this places a limit on what language can describe. I'm tempted to quote Lao-tsu also but will refrain. So I'd say that language cannot completely describe a complete and consistent 'theory of everything'. Mathematics would have the same problem, as Russell discovered. The theory would have to leave something unsaid, perhaps in the form of an undefined term or two. The problem arises as soon as we try to define 'everything' in a set-theoretic way,
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 22, 2013 Author Posted March 22, 2013 (edited) "Trying to understand nature in the absence of metaphysics is impossible." (Cladking) It seems this way to me also. Indeed, it seems rather obvious. And it is a relevant point. Philosophers often point out that the subject/predicate structure of language causes problems when trying to construct fundamental theories. Bradley, for instance, proposes that in metaphysics this structure is necessary but impossible to maintain for a completely reductive theory. Russell points out that all our statement take the form 'there esists an x such that...' , and this places a limit on what language can describe. I'm tempted to quote Lao-tsu also but will refrain. So I'd say that language cannot completely describe a complete and consistent 'theory of everything'. Mathematics would have the same problem, as Russell discovered. The theory would have to leave something unsaid, perhaps in the form of an undefined term or two. The problem arises as soon as we try to define 'everything' in a set-theoretic way, I can follow your well presented reasoning, and am drawn towards the latter comment that restrictions come if you exclude different ways of expressing things. I am torn between WORDS and PICTURES. Whatever is presented to me ( figuratively ) say by someone describing something or reading something or observing a phenomenon , I invariably try and picture it, even if the pictures are analogies. If I am presented with mathematical explanations , again I try and visualise the maths (in bits ) . If I am told " there is no visualisation" I run screaming for the nearest lake to jump in. If I am told I must persist with the Maths I try and get so far, then my head HURTS . I could go on 'wording it' or 'sketching it ' for ever and ever. I think our brain, ( certainly mine), is set up in a way which is happy with words and pictures. What mathematicians see or feel in their brain is obviously very pleasurable, good job they are around to bring that ultimate precision and brain bending formula. for me, bring on the discussion and visualisation. Perhaps :- Only Reality Itself is , the real thing. Any model may approach, but will possibly fall short of reality itself . However , this does not stop us getting as near as we can Maybe this is a repeat of what you were saying in your last paragraph . What happens though if Language is more real than the Universe that we think is reality. Edited March 22, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos
PeterJ Posted March 22, 2013 Posted March 22, 2013 (edited) " Only Reality Itself is , the real thing. Any model may approach, but will possibly fall short of reality itself . However , this does not stop us getting as near as we can " Yes. Hence the title of Bradley's essay on this topic 'Appearance and Reality'. And, of course, in the beginning was the word.. There seems to be meaningful sense in which language, the giving of names to things, perhaps their stabilisation as concepts through their given names, actually creates the thing. Your two sentences here seem equivalent to Lao-tsu's seemingly contradictory comment that the Tao cannot be spoken and yet must be spoken. Language has to give up at a certain point, but we must do the best we can with it. Bradley's 'Reality' and Lao-tsu's 'Tao' would be the same phenomenon. Not sure this is on topic though. Edited March 22, 2013 by PeterJ
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 25, 2013 Author Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) " Only Reality Itself is , the real thing. Any model may approach, but will possibly fall short of reality itself . However , this does not stop us getting as near as we can " Yes. Hence the title of Bradley's essay on this topic 'Appearance and Reality'. And, of course, in the beginning was the word.. There seems to be meaningful sense in which language, the giving of names to things, perhaps their stabilisation as concepts through their given names, actually creates the thing. Your two sentences here seem equivalent to Lao-tsu's seemingly contradictory comment that the Tao cannot be spoken and yet must be spoken. Language has to give up at a certain point, but we must do the best we can with it. Bradley's 'Reality' and Lao-tsu's 'Tao' would be the same phenomenon. Not sure this is on topic though. ----------------------------------------------------------------- I am going to make a summation of the last few points, which should clarify my stance on this matter ! ------------------------------------------------------------------ Edited March 25, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 28, 2013 Author Posted March 28, 2013 (edited) " Only Reality Itself is , the real thing. Any model may approach, but will possibly fall short of reality itself . However , this does not stop us getting as near as we can " Yes. Hence the title of Bradley's essay on this topic 'Appearance and Reality'. And, of course, in the beginning was the word.. There seems to be meaningful sense in which language, the giving of names to things, perhaps their stabilisation as concepts through their given names, actually creates the thing. Your two sentences here seem equivalent to Lao-tsu's seemingly contradictory comment that the Tao cannot be spoken and yet must be spoken. Language has to give up at a certain point, but we must do the best we can with it. Bradley's 'Reality' and Lao-tsu's 'Tao' would be the same phenomenon. Not sure this is on topic though. When I made a start on " A Theory of Everything in the 1980's " , I thought people were looking for a Complete Theory Of Every last darn Thing. I was very disappointed that what science was meaning at that time was a single theory which would combine all then known four forces ( Gravity, Electro-magnetism, the weak force, the strong force. ) . However I have always been interested in the Big Picture. So I set off looking for the biggest ever THEORY of EVERYTHING. To me there could be no bounds. So it must encompass All matter visible and invisible, the universe, God or anything that anybody cared to say might come before the big bang, from NOTHING, to pre-super civilizations that might have conducted some form of massive experiment to create a universe/s. see picture :- As current science tended to or appeared to concentrate or limit its theories to mainly calculation or mathematical prediction as the major basis for establishment. At least in the areas of physics that I was familiar with. I have always been attracted towards the philosophical , conceptual approach that many of the early masters brought some of the early basics to light. So took the choice to look for A Theory of Everything in WORDS as concepts first. The maths I believed could come later. What I believe I have come up with can contain the predictive, causal part, that conventional physics contains but I am of the opinion that we will limit our expansion of discovery if we do not think BIG. As illustrated above. I think that on whatever scale we look ( which I am happy to give examples to support the theory ) we will find a measure of causal , predictive classical physics , followed by regions of space and probability which are non causal even though often (not all ways ) navigable by statistics. See following illustration Note the left hand side shows predictive style ,causal ideas. This is followed by probability style progress. This is then progressed with more causal, predictive science. This is put in a simplistic diagram, but I hope illustrates the principle by which I believe the universe is working. whether this is at the quantum mechanical level of atoms or at the astronomical level of (as big as it gets ). Edited March 28, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos
PeterJ Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 (edited) Interesting stuff Mike, and good pictures. I also have little interest in a theory that merely unifies some forces by some mathematical procedure or other. But the big picture would have to be bigger than this. You do not explain matter or mind, its existence or creation, not answer even one philosophical question. A correct theory of everything would explain everything. But 'everything' is a very difficult concept. I would recomment Paul Davies book Mind of God for an initial discussion of this. Also, incompleteness becomes an issue for theories of everything, as Hawking points out, and needs to be dealt with in the theory. Russell's paradox also arises, for it is the same problem in a diffterent form. You show 'everything' as contained within a blue line that marks the set. Is this line inside the set? In this case you need another line in the diagram to contain this, and so on to absurdlty... . You seem to have a strictly physical theory on the go, and this cannot be a theory of everything. Even Hawking agrees about this, although his essay on the topic ('The End of Physics') seems to have disappeared recently from the Internet. Perhaps he changed his mind. Edited March 28, 2013 by PeterJ
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 28, 2013 Author Posted March 28, 2013 (edited) Interesting stuff Mike, and good pictures. You do not explain matter or mind, its existence or creation, You seem to have a strictly physical theory on the go, My initial experiments with the theory were with physical things and the human consciousness. ( Mind ) In Principle , I was ,and still am in the "how science works mode" One makes observations. One makes an Hypothesis. One does experiments to test the Hypothesis. One evaluates the results. Adapt experiments . Make public the findings and results. Using this diagram. In normal life most of us ( apart from me now I am retired, go about the normal causal things of life. I did go to work, I did the business, so I got paid, we all consumed food we were housed , and so we lived. So far on the diagram I am at the first POINT in CUP. Now this is where I set myself up in a Test with large probability. Had I left it at that , the diagram shows approx 40:1 probability of reaching the next cup. But I made an initiative, in an environment where "there was no reason for it not to happen" whamo ! It happened. On to the next line of causal activity and on we go. For years and years, experiment after experiment. The Theory does not contain the details for the experiment, they need plugging in at the time. Feeling confident in the theory , I now look for examples of how the universe uses this system to function. Now it is no good saying " i want to win the lottery " as there are some 50,000,000 other people giving you reasons for it not happening for you. However if you think about it there are initiatives you can create ,if you are careful, that perhaps have no reason for them ,not to occur" now we are getting there, or at least nearer. IF you think about Creation. To Create, infers there was nothing there already ,or there was complete empty space for a universe, otherwise it would already have been created before. If the theory is right. There was no reason for things not to occur. So anything or everything can occur. However there does need to be an initiative. Once things exist , then there start to be things preventing other things occurring to some extent accept along " lines of least resistance " . Now as regards, who or what started this whole process off is up to the individual, as to a) Was it nothing ? Many people think this ! b) Was it some previously existing Super Civilization ? Some people think this ! c ) Was it God ? Many people think this ! This then is up to individuals to think about , talk about , and come up with their own answer ! If you want to go one step back from each of a) b) and c) that too is possible with the theory . Edited March 29, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos
SplitInfinity Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 When I made a start on " A Theory of Everything in the 1980's " , I thought people were looking for a Complete Theory Of Every last darn Thing. I was very disappointed that what science was meaning at that time was a single theory which would combine all then known four forces ( Gravity, Electro-magnetism, the weak force, the strong force. ) . However I have always been interested in the Big Picture. So I set off looking for the biggest ever THEORY of EVERYTHING. To me there could be no bounds. So it must encompass All matter visible and invisible, the universe, God or anything that anybody cared to say might come before the big bang, from NOTHING, to pre-super civilizations that might have conducted some form of massive experiment to create a universe/s. see picture :- Whole Shebang.jpg As current science tended to or appeared to concentrate or limit its theories to mainly calculation or mathematical prediction as the major basis for establishment. At least in the areas of physics that I was familiar with. I have always been attracted towards the philosophical , conceptual approach that many of the early masters brought some of the early basics to light. So took the choice to look for A Theory of Everything in WORDS as concepts first. The maths I believed could come later. What I believe I have come up with can contain the predictive, causal part, that conventional physics contains but I am of the opinion that we will limit our expansion of discovery if we do not think BIG. As illustrated above. I think that on whatever scale we look ( which I am happy to give examples to support the theory ) we will find a measure of causal , predictive classical physics , followed by regions of space and probability which are non causal even though often (not all ways ) navigable by statistics. See following illustration DSCF3034.JPG Note the left hand side shows predictive style ,causal ideas. This is followed by probability style progress. This is then progressed with more causal, predictive science. This is put in a simplistic diagram, but I hope illustrates the principle by which I believe the universe is working. whether this is at the quantum mechanical level of atoms or at the astronomical level of (as big as it gets ). DSCF3035.JPG I find that any model, diagram or representation specific to a Theory of Everything could be developed by you or anyone else for that matter...since a Human Being is constrained in doing so by our limitations of perspective and especially our rediculously limited knowledge base. You are trying to build a representation of EVERYTHING...and since we cannot even understand why Quanta such as Photons and Electrons as as both particle and wave...nor do we know why the Higgs-Boson either allows or gives Protons and Neutrons Mass...or what the heck is responsible for what we have labeled Dark Matter and Dark Energy...nevermind figuring out the Unified Field Theory...or for that matter do we understand at all in any way why a Woman will ask a Man if he is listening to her as he is in the middle of watching a Football Game on TV when she absolutely KNOWS that he is NOT. If there is ONE direction we might at least point ourselves in the direction to for the purpose of at least trying to get have a starting point it would be the concept of Quantum Evolution. Quantum Evolution is a term used to describe the reality of how all Particle/Wave Forms will continue to arrange themselves by various Universal processes into greater and greater complexity. Thus Quantum Particle/Wave Forms comprise all Matter and Energy. At the point of the existance of Hydrogen...we get Gravitic Effect and Celestial Bodies and Stellar Fusion. Then we get Helium....then the creation by Supernova and other mechanisms...we get Heavy Elements....and of course the creation of Molecules of greater and greater complexity...then eventually DNA and LIFE. Thus LIFE is a product of Quantum Evolution...then Biological Evolution develops multicellular life and continues to develop life of greater and greater complexity until we get Consciousness....and then Intelligent Self Awareness...and then perhaps...Artificial Intelligence. Point is...it is a continuing process that is involved and connected to every aspect of at least OUR reality within this Universal State and perhaps connected to other Divergent Universal States of One Infinite Universal Group...in what perhaps maybe an existing Multiverse. But all this only applies to just ONE UNIVERSAL GROUPING. In a Multiversal System there would be Infinite Numbers of Groupings and each group completely different in having it's own set of Natural Laws or Physics. Given this possibility...which would have to be taken into account if you are building a model of everything....how can we represent something that by it's own definition be so alien in it's nature that Humans could not understand or even dream how to represent it? Split Infinity
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 29, 2013 Author Posted March 29, 2013 (edited) . . [ I have previously proposed the Hypothesis as a potential Theory of everything: ]- 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 undertook a First experiment back in the late 1980,s , which I have described earlier. I have continued to conduct and observe evidence for the theory over the intervening years. Here is a photo taken today of the EVIDENCE of the first experiment conducted in 1980,s ......................................................... The following is a copy of the earlier post at the starting page of this thread:- Page 1 ( A Lingual theory of everything) :- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 the 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 at 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Put another way: is there any physically achievable result ? There is your Hypothesis, There is your Experiment. There is your Test. There is your Evidence. All-be-it that it spans humungus numbers and time, nonetheless the evidence is there, you can touch it ( or at least I can ) you can look at it, its solid evidence. ! ( Score 1 to me , 400 to you. At least I am trying ) a phenomena that has a unique possibility 1 into billions and billions it will happen unavoidably. Michel, only just got round to posting the evidence , sorry a bit delayed . Too busy trying to fathom the whole shebang out ! Mike Edited March 29, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos
swansont Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 There is your Hypothesis, There is your Experiment. There is your Test. There is your Evidence. I missed where you predicted you would find this, and only this. I mean, if you had found a pebble that was a different shape or size, that would have fit as well. A "theory" that predicts nothing and explains everything is not a theory. A true theory has to exclude (hypothetically) possible results. The more exclusion the better.
PeterJ Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 One problem is that it the only proof we can ever have that an event is possible is if it happens. It would be impossible to find an event that was possible but did not happen. Thus evidence and counterevidence is impossible. Also, I cannot see what this theory is for. How does it help? What does it say about specific problems?
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 29, 2013 Author Posted March 29, 2013 I missed where you predicted you would find this, and only this. I mean, if you had found a pebble that was a different shape or size, that would have fit as well. A "theory" that predicts nothing and explains everything is not a theory. A true theory has to exclude (hypothetically) possible results. The more exclusion the better. No I did not predict it, not really. I knew from experience, and from observation , leading to part of the theory ,that for most things in your life that you want to happen , come "From taking the first step". Hence the 'initiative' bit of the theory. But I had a formulated theory, much as quoted above ,but in one sentence. I was laying on the pebbles ,having just swam in early morning sea water 7 am ,cold, but the sun was warm. I lay back ,alone, no one to be seen anywhere for miles to the right and similarly the left. Just Pebbles, more and more pebbles. 10 meters down the beach it turned to flat sand. I was thinking about the theory, as I was more musing about it in my mind to do with astronomical and other physics things that pointed to the theory idea. O.K. I said to myself "smart ass " If this theory is right, try it out. Now. I sat upright and said " I want a perfectly round stone " The first step, the initiative. Now what ! Do I sit here and wait for a round stone to drop out of the sky on my head, 'i asked myself' What do I expect. My reasoning being ,that with all these millions upon billions of stones, and all the erosion processes gone toward making all these pebbles , it seemed to me that there was no reason in the whole world why there should not be a perfectly round stone somewhere in these billions upon billions of pebbles. No stone fell on my head. Oh well I said to myself . Theory is shot. To my right and left every 25 meters or so old wooden groins decended down toward the sea edge some 50 meters at this time. They use them to stop the beach washing away. These were old and in bad repair. In fact I could see through the groin to my right to the flat damp sand beyond the groin. It was perfectly flat sand but there was a rather strange little pile of three pebbles all on its own. Odd because the third pebble was on top of the other two. As I clambered through the wooden groin I could see more clearly, but they were just three ordinary every day random pebbles ( except that one of the ordinary pebbles was on top ). As I got near I could now see a forth pebble that was hidden from view before this time. Oh my giddy aunt IT WAS PERFECTLY ROUND . This is the one in the photo uploaded. I paced around in shock... Mike you are a scientist. This is just coincidence. I spent many hours pacing up the piles of stones looking to no avail to find such a stone by searching . Thus started a whole series of testing !
PeterJ Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 Mike - I don't think you have a theory but maybe you have an insight. I have tried a similar experiment, motivated by a quite similar idea. It worked on the two occasions. I tried it, and each time the chances of it working were approximately zero by my calculations. So I have some sympathy with your idea and the story of the pebbles. I just don't see how you can make anything of it without developing a overarching cosmological theory for which it is just a very small part. To say that anything that can happen must happen does not seem to get us anywhere.
swansont Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 If you don't make specific predictions, it cannot be falsified. It's a tautology. Not a theory. Not science.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 30, 2013 Author Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) If you don't make specific predictions, it cannot be falsified. It's a tautology. Not a theory. Not science. That's a tad sweeping. May be under a current paradigm of what makes early 2013 science earn the title "science". If we were to take a bigger perspective and think of today's science as the surface of the earth science and tomorrows science as the science of the sky, then tomorrows science will need a new Paradigm. What works for analysis and prediction on the earths surface, could be seen as far more predictable than craft in the sky. And then again a further paradigm shift when going into space. So that we don't trap the expansion of blue sky research on the ground so that it CANT take off more easily, perhaps we could relax the strictures slightly to allow for new theories in their infancy. I am proposing that for any initiative-goal pair, there exists a thread , or pathway which CAN link and allow the expediting into reality of the initiative providing :- The potential, at the initiative, across the 4 dimensional space-time region , is higher than that potential at the goal. IF it is not, then more potential will need to be given to the initiative. The initiative will pick up anything required to achieve the goal on its journey along the thread. To not change its nature, the initiative would only require minimal input to move across space-time at a thread of equal potential. This last sentence is applicable as Isaac Newtons first law. I hope you appreciate to look at the idea of " A theory of everything" I have had to leap all the way to the other end of the spectrum and go figuratively to the EVERYTHING edge of the Cosmos. Edited March 30, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos
ACG52 Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 I am proposing that for any initiative-goal pair, there exists a thread , or pathway which CAN link and allow the expediting into reality of the initiative providing :- The potential, at the initiative, across the 4 dimensional space-time region , is higher than that potential at the goal. IF it is not, then more potential will need to be given to the initiative. The initiative will pick up anything required to achieve the goal on its journey along the thread. To not change its nature, the initiative would only require minimal input to move across space-time at a thread of equal potential. This seems pretty meaningless.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 30, 2013 Author Posted March 30, 2013 This seems pretty meaningless. .Mike Smith Cosmos said .." I hope you appreciate to look at the idea of " A theory of everything" I have had to leap all the way to the other end of the spectrum and go figuratively to the EVERYTHING edge of the Cosmos." I don't get it. When I read my own words about 'The Theory' or the recent interpretations of ' the theory', I get excited, thrilled at the consequences and in awe at the magnitude and intricacies of the machinery of the cosmos. I see lines of least resistance or no resistance curving and swirling through the cosmos, working to keep the whole thing going. I see individuals battling there way to make things happen that the universe resists for all sorts of scientific reasons, I see some getting hold of these threads and riding/surfing the cosmos by riding the threads. If your motiffe has any relevance I would have thought you too would see that. Perhaps I am not explaining myself well enough by using such generalized terms in my theory without giving more detailed examples of the threads ?
ACG52 Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 I see lines of least resistance or no resistance curving and swirling through the cosmos, working to keep the whole thing going... If your motiffe has any relevance I would have thought you too would see that What you see has more to do with your imagination than it has to do with any physical science. It's like rubbing your eyes hard, and then expecting the rest of the world to see the colored blobs you see.
Popcorn Sutton Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 I think Mike is explaining it very well. I don't know if there is much more to say about it, but it seems to be true that all occurrences require initiative. We may never know the true origin of things, and I'm sure people will have their opinions, but I firmly believe the stance mike is presenting and I see no coherent opposition. We should rejoice for finding a new truism. Its stuff like this that slaps some sense into us because it's so blatantly obvious. I'd also like to urge you guys to understand the true meaning of meaning. It's an association. Mike has given all of us the initiative which has prompted some of us to respond, and others to think. Thats meaning. Cow can mean bell, the definition is not rigid. It may seem meaningless, but the theory is and will be very useful. You can call it a theory of everything because you can generalize it to anything. It doesn't answer many questions, but when it is made public via algorithm, it will answer all sorts of questions. It's exactly the theory we need. -2
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 31, 2013 Author Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) I just don't see how you can make anything of it without developing a overarching cosmological theory Peter . In my 20's at college, while studying Electronics, on the side I read up on some of the philosophers like Berkeley, Decarte, and Laplace. Some were saying ' Everything beyond your fingertips could be an illusion' , others that ' the universe was a massive clockwork machine that theoretically if you had the computing power of a God you could predict the future of the whole universe both past and future '. These and others could send your brain into a spin. I took a rain check on all of this and got on with life,and all that life was to throw at me. Over the years I have developed my own ' picture of things of how things are ' as best as I have been able, based on observation and the whole compendium of everybody else's ideas as I have read, seen or conversed with others. I am now nearly 70 which sounds a lot but is only (,up to 10 a child, up to 20 getting to college, to 30 getting into life, 40-50 marriage and life begins at 40, 50 and 60 career development, 70 I am here. eek ( Where did it go?). All I know for certain is 'Ones' ideas develop. All I have ever wanted to know is " What is this Whole Cosmos all about ? " Thinking back to those early days and their philosophy. I do not think the world beyond my fingertips is an illusion. Its real and its amazing . Its not a giant clockwork machine unwinding. Its playing a cosmic symphony of incredible depth, unpredictable in many many parts, yet driven by an interesting regulating set of systems. Although I am utterly convinced, its not like one of my designed electronics prescriptive circuits, there is far more to it than that . I would love nothing better than to understand how , in principle , does it work.? So the search goes on .! . Edited March 31, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos
PeterJ Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Yes, It goes by at high speed and then suddenely you're 70. I'm not there yet but can see it coming. I think it;s a very good idea to develop your own ideas and not be too swayed by other philosophers. Few of them solve major problems so we need to do it differently. But, the problems they identify are genuine problems. For a theory of everything these problems would have to be solved. My objection to your idea is that it does not address any of them. For instance, such a theory would have to solve the problem of consiousness. If it did not do this it would not be a theory of very much. As it stands your idea seem to concern only physical mechanisms and processes, so even if it worked it would be a purely physical theory and would run into the same trouble in metaphysics as all purely physical theories. A plausible Toe would not leave major problems unsolved. I think you;re being very unfair on physicists by asking them to accept your idea, It isn't close-mindedness, it's the lack of testable consequences, predictions and solutions, it isn't that it';s wrong, it's that it does not make a difference. A Toe should be controversial and directly threaten current ideas. Then it becomes interesting. Or that's how I see it. You say that you 'do not think the world beyond my fingertips is an illusion. Its real and its amazing . Its not a giant clockwork machine unwinding'. But you do not need to choose. It could be an illusory clockwork machine. .
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 31, 2013 Author Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) a) . For instance, such a theory would have to solve the problem of consciousness. b) seem to concern only physical mechanisms and processes, c) unfair on physicists by asking them to accept your idea,. d) should be controversial and directly threaten current ideas. [ Then it becomes interesting. Or that's how I see it. ] Peter, Will try to reply to these four comments of yours. a) consciousness. I agree is very fundamental. I have read a lot of books by Paul Davies including I think his book Mind of God. If I remember he too put Human consciousness very high up the list of fundamentals. Two or three points I would bring up at this juncture as regards consciousness. As you and others have commented that the theory I have put forward does not contain specifics ( say consciousness, or whatever) . When coining it , in order to cover "Everything" I had to sweep out to a phrase that covered this namely "anything or everything " hence " 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. " As Examples :- So things like God, Metaphysics , all the Pre -material Universe things tend to be in 1. Whereas 2. concentrates on why and how easy or hard things happen. Many of the calculations of the physics of material behavior concentrate in 3. True for an individual issue , say consciousness I personally would need to go away and think " how does that fit in with the theory and make explanation as to why/how or whatever which way Human consciousness exists or behaves. I will do that , and see what I come up with. It will probably involve , flipping from 1) to 3) to 2) Your b) physical mechanisms There are probably a couple of reasons for this . one I personally am a physics man, I have spent most of my life working with problems that involve physics type problems, underneath (not on top) I think in mechanistic ways. Two I have been trying to use examples within this forum and to individuals that tend to look at things in science based ways. If I was at a party with some art type people I would probably couch my ideas in a different form. Although at the moment I seem to be struggling. Your c) unfair on physicists I actually thought it was me having a hard time. My motives for putting this theory forward , apart from my personal satisfaction with the theory , Was that I do find it works . I would like others to know of it and try it out. IF this is one of the ways the universe works, its not my theory, its just a principle as to how a lot of things work, [if not everything ] whether I have put it into words or not. Your d) should be controversial I thought it was fairly controversial That God can be explained if necessary. That something as immense as the Big bang and the creation of the material universe could suddenly come into a completely,total empty void.That positivism and negativism is explainable as a type of human behavior which has an explanation. That negative feedback systems are present in the geological systems keeping our earth a suitable place to live. ( that is if we dont b.. them up.). That great things are individually and en mass possible if we FIND the right INITIATIVES in the right location. ( a place and space where anything or everything can happen , if there is no reason for them not to happen. Not just any old place.) 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. " Clue IBM used to instruct their salesmen in ( remove all the objections to why someone should NOT buy their computer system . Then they WOULD buy) Serendipity Our Jack Russel ( Called ' Sweetie' ) has just gone and eaten my glasses while I am tending to my post.! Edited April 1, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted April 1, 2013 Author Posted April 1, 2013 (edited) Okay, I suppose I'm not understanding it all yet. I had a think about the Human Consciousness issue. Peter . Last year I painted a sequence for the very important growth to human consciousness in contemplating and seeing the Cosmos as per Paul Davis. Starting from the big bang and a hint of before. Through the Geological column to Human Consciousness. Quickly applying this to the theory :- 1 st cube illustration of pre Bigbang domain. 2nd cube 4 dimensional space time Post Bigbang domain + . Probably a bit hasty, but illustrating it coming from before the big bang ( Pre-Bangrian ) Joke I think Mike is explaining it very well. I don't know if there is much more to say about it, but it seems to be true that all occurrences require initiative. We may never know the true origin of things, and I'm sure people will have their opinions, but I firmly believe the stance mike is presenting and I see no coherent opposition. We should rejoice for finding a new truism. Its stuff like this that slaps some sense into us because it's so blatantly obvious. I'd also like to urge you guys to understand the true meaning of meaning. It's an association. Mike has given all of us the initiative which has prompted some of us to respond, and others to think. Thats meaning. Cow can mean bell, the definition is not rigid. It may seem meaningless, but the theory is and will be very useful. You can call it a theory of everything because you can generalize it to anything. It doesn't answer many questions, but when it is made public via algorithm, it will answer all sorts of questions. It's exactly the theory we need. I hope you are going to feed this lot into your computer algorithm when you get it up and running ' Popcorn ' . It will probably come up with '43' ( Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy) and then wipe ME out of existence ! I owe you a promised subject from this list:- 1. Mechanical Movement by Plate Tectonics 2. Movement of sea waves and light photons. 3. Mechanical movement of heat . 4. Radiation in space of Radio waves. 5 Electron orbital/energy band change. 6. Viral and antibody attack . 7. Quantum tunneling . I think it was 4. and 5 . I will start with 4 ... RADIATION IN SPACE OF RADIO WAVES and how this works within the framework of the theory of everything I have proposed earlier. :-................................................................ Edited April 1, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos
Recommended Posts