A lingual theory of everything

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

It's been proposed that Micro Tubules actually ARE knowledge. I don't know how we would even be able to test that statement, but if we find a way and prove it right, I will be celebrating to say the least. We should make the day of this discovery a holiday if it is proven.

.

I have not yet found the book of Roger Penrose about micro tubules, I think it might be in Italy. I am going over next month I will look for it. You could meet me there !

 

So as not to loose momentum with the tread. I think it is surfice to say at this stage, that IF nature has used tubes as part of human consciousness this is yet another endorsement that a theory materialised , which looks to have a natural and efficient way of sorting the structure of the universe ,should support language and thinking is exciting news itself. Worthy of a holiday ! I am taking mine now ! Let's celebrate in Florence, an ancient seat of science , art and learning.

,Makes sense ....... if there are tubelet and channels and such in the brain, there very well could be an analogous "something like it" among the things the brain senses and remembers.Regards, TAR. I am reminded of a thought I had a few years back, of the surface of a still lake having an exact reproduction of the mountains and trees and clouds reflected off its surface. Take the surface and fold it all up into a skull and you have something like a brain. A model of the outside, on the inside of the skull.

Sometimes symmetry looks like a reflection. Even our self ,with a centre line from head to toe, has this look of reflection, with two eyes, ears , arms nostrils feet , the appearance etc one could go on. I think you need to explain more what you mean Tar

 

Mike

Edited February 17, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[tar]

Mike Smith Cosmos,

 

To explain a little more. I am assuming that the human developed quite in concert with the environment around him/her. To each of us, the whole world, even the whole universe is present. The shapes and changes are happening "out there", but we get all our knowledge of it, through our senses of sight, sound, smell, taste and touch. (Well most of it, I suppose the inner ear senses the gravity of the Earth and there are probably some other senses not fully acknowledged our ranked as a sense.) But why are we so intimate with something so "outside" and far away? How do we take a God's eye view, or a snapshot (reference to your other thread) and build a "complete" model of the thing that is on the outside, on the inside of our skull? In my lake surface thought, the whole of scene above the shore is apparent on the surface of the lake below the shore. This "view" would be available to someone standing next to you, as it is available to you. So the "information" coming from the surface of the lake (the light rays of a certain frequency, from a certian direction) must have existed at every point on the surface, much as a broken holographic plate contains a complete image in each of its shards. The whole of the sky and every tree and rock cloud and bird is contained on the surface. If we were standing on opposite sides of the lake, you would see me directly and you would see me in the surface, and I would see you reflected off the same small area of the lake that you are seeing me reflected off. Two examples of completely different scenes, both existing, along with the scene from any other direction on that one small surface area. So, I take information as the form being internalized into the brain, and take that small surface of the lake that contains "information" from all spherical compass points, as something like an eye. The eye focuses the rays on the back of the eye and and cells at the back of the eye, release chemicals and pulses according to the frequency in a matching way to the direction(position) and frequency(time) of the thing on the outside, and delivers it to the brain, which has facility to make of this, the whole scene, out of this information. As if projected onto a screen. The surface of the screen much larger than the skull, in fact a surface that must be as large as the world around us appears. So I considered the "folds" of the brain as a way to fit all that surface into a small space. Somewhat like the surface of a lake being folded up, into a skull.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The shapes and changes are happening "out there", but we get all our knowledge of it, through our senses of sight, sound, smell, taste and touch.......................................

............. a "complete" model of the thing that is on the outside, on the inside of our skull?

I have experienced this just recently with some ART project to do with perspective. This was to do with a display of people walking about on the outside on Pavements in a high street. See following Pictures .

 

Firstly. It needs to be stated that due to strange weather, many people in England are having to walk about in Flood Water.

 

.

 

Notice everybody 's heads are roughly at the same height. Namely at the eyeline of the viewer or photographer. Whereas their feet (in the water ) are at different heights. ( or depths) .Far down , those near by , much higher , in the distance. If you went out with a ruler or measuring tape they would all be 5 or 6 ft high but they do not appear so. Such is the delusion of perspective. This enables us to take seriously those near by, and not be too concerned with those in the distance. This would be more relevant if they had swords or were in fact lions.

 

So inside our head , although the people are roughly the same height we can deal with it , in our head .

 

Similarly with the following this time on dry land .

Notice again ALL heads are roughly at the same level , whereas the feet are at much smaller hight ( or rather depth) the further away they are.

 

Our brain is able to deal with this " untruth " about this height of people by computing that they are further away . Here reality and the image are in fact different. Yet we make sense of it. ( on the inside , in our brain)

 

Very near by , any slight deviation in persons height is magnified. This enables avoiding action , so as not to collide. This man must be marginally taller than me the photographer. Had he been exactly my height, the 'eye line' would have been a straight line exactly.

 

 

 

 

Ps where is POPCORN SUTTON , I thought all this language, consciousness , images , all possibly contained in Microtubules. ,was going to cause a holiday to be declared for this DAY.

It's been proposed that Micro Tubules actually ARE knowledge. I don't know how we would even be able to test that statement, but if we find a way and prove it right, I will be celebrating to say the least. We should make the day of this discovery a holiday if it is proven.

 

Mike

Edited February 18, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

. INPUT - PROCESS - OUTPUT

 

. This has been the flow diagram of computation.

 

It is perhaps not accident that we as human beings have :-

Eyes to see , Ears to hear [input ] , a brain [ process ] and voice and hand to write and do [ output]

 

Surely this is a good indicator that our natural way to interpret the universe is

 

To observe with our eyes and hear words with our ears [input ]

To think about and make a model of the universe , by word and image [ Process ]

To Explain by Writing speaking and other motor activity [output ]

 

Also it seems we are the ones to do this as we appear to be the same order of magnitude bigger or smaller than the smallest thing PLANK and the largest thing THE UNIVERSE

 

 

So we seem well positioned to address this issue ! . What Issue ? . EVERYTHING

Edited February 19, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

It is perhaps not accident that we as human beings have :- are well positioned to address this issue !

. . What Issue ? . EVERYTHING

 

. . . Edited February 20, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

. THE VERY SMALL to the VERY LARGE [EVERYTHING ]

 

 

Usefull and pleasant to use :- SIMULATION of the EVERYTHING

 

. INTERACTIVE Exploratory Simulation of Everything across Scale:-

 

. from very small [plank ] 10 to the minus 35 to very large [universe] 10 to the plus 27 [ observable] and beyond

 

 

link --- http://htwins.net/scale2/ ---- Single Click on START Button --Be patient loading 12- 15 seconds-- [ Then slide in and out scale ]

 

 

mike

Edited February 21, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[sheever]

Interaction drives computation on atomic level doesn't require simulation in my opinion.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Interaction drives computation on atomic level doesn't require simulation in my opinion.

eh !

 

Put that by me again ?

 

I have probably used the word simulation , in the wrong context. .

I was meaning the Clip , by the software provider , was presented as a simulation rather than a video. .

I was NOT trying to say that the whole universe, [ everything ] was a simulation. 'heaven forbid '. I will jump off a cliff if I am a simulation !

 

mike

Edited February 21, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[sheever]

thanks for clearing this out Mike,got you now.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

thanks for clearing this out Mike,got you now.

 

The point I was trying to make by introducing that clip was , that we seem to have a mind that can stretch to the far expanses of the universe , either by knowledge or by imagination ( possibly in those Roger Penrose Microtubules in the brain ) and similarly down to the extremely small. By electron microscope or by imagination. It does seem so coincidental that we are roughly mid way.

 

It seems like the Goldilocks principle is at play again ( just right Not too .... or to ..... but Just right ).

 

mike

[sheever]

You were asking about the great contractor regards to your theory here is this for you about the Plancks observation results of the dark flow.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5090

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

EVERYTHING SEEMS TO RESPOND TO FIELDS to FOLLOW THE MOULD .

 

On reflecting on two issues brought up fairly often in this thread that should be considered.

 

There are although unseen, myriads of FIELDS of various types crossing the entire universe. ( gravitational, electric, magnetic, Higgs, quantum , strong force fields, weak force fields , radio active fields and no doubt many more besides. ) among other things we or particles respond, react , move with, move against, like to be at right angles to FIELDS of one sort or another. If we could see them, we would think we were being buried alive by them. However if we could see them , we could have a field day. (Oops! Pun)

 

To set the scene. We think the air we move about in, the space we see up in the sky, the space between the stars, ALL looks empty.

I am sure a gold fish in a tank ,thinks the tank is nearly empty and he/she moves about freely , miraculously , drifting by a miracle about its space,

 

If you have ever stuck your head out of a train or car window going 100 mph air feels like a pressing rubber sheet. My eldest daughter , jumped out of an aircraft in free fall.. She could not close her mouth for a while, I bungee jumped off a crane 150 ft up ,out into ablivion afew years ago. I thought I was going to die ! The atmosphere is not empty, neither is outer space. . It might seem there is nothing there , but there is. There are particles and fields everywhere, maybe not as densely packed as you are used to, that is why meteors streak white across the sky, heat shields burn on incoming space craft. Aurora glow, comets push there tails away from the sun.

All this in what looks like empty space.

 

If we could see , what would we see. Well I do not actually know , but I can imagine.

 

I went swimming , as I do with a snorkel for hours at a time in the gentle warm seas ,hither and hither. Because you can breath under the water yet be made buoyant by the water near to the surface, feel the warmth of the sun on your back and with flippers drift gently through a wonderland..nothing new in that for those who have done it. But one day, down at one of the Canary Islands, I have never forgotten was where for the first time , I actually saw the currents. Normally water is water and you see nothing , only the objects in the water, like fish, stones , weed .

 

But this day I suddenly SAW and FELT a very cold water current. I had not realised what I was doing , I had been swimming gently for an hour or two only 30-50 meters from the shore , but I did not realise I had strayed into the mouth of a fresh water river as it entered the sea. You could see several feet under the surface, shimmering convection- like yet vertical rounded .patterns, while at the same time I felt these surfaces as I was ,swimming through the interfaces of the mixture of fresh water and salt water. The cold was intense and I could feel every ripple. It was actually quite frightening , like I was wrestling with an invisible/ partial visible giant. Once I got used to it I could ride the current, under water as long as I allowed it to take me where it would. This got hairy at times, exciting, but it was like riding a giant, just under water at the mouth of a large river. I have never seen or experienced such phenomenon since. I think it was the cold warm interface, the salt/ fresh water interface.

 

The reason for this lengthy description, is that I think the field lines of all sorts and flavours that permeate all of space , whether near the earth, on the earth , in space or wherever , are not the same, but similar in that things, whether particles or whatever can ride the currents to their advantage. The patterns , contours, lines, straights, curves make up a moving mould that offers opportunities for

Efficient movement, structure, flow, energy , conservation , etc but most of the time we are floundering around unaware of many of , or all ,the opportunities present.

 

Mike

Edited March 3, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

EVERYTHING SEEMS TO RESPOND TO FIELDS to FOLLOW THE MOULD ......

.......the field lines of all sorts and flavours that permeate all of space , whether near the earth, on the earth , in space or wherever , are not the same, but similar in that things, whether particles or whatever can ride the currents to their advantage. The patterns , contours, lines, straights, curves make up a moving mould that offers opportunities for

Efficient movement, structure, flow, energy , conservation .

Mike

Although different entities feel the effects of different forces , often there is a net effect of either:-

 

ATTRACTION. or. REPULSION. or . NEUTRAL ( no effect )

 

So in moving about the universe along or about the field lines , allows for a mapping to be achieved , and thus being able to produce a diagram of both the " tubes of opportunity " and " the mould " that has/ have a significant effect on the ways things move about the Universe.

 

Eg " MOULD" stones shaped into niche

Eg " TUBE OF OPPORTUNITY " river flow between banks

Eg " some "Tubes of opportunity " set for 1000's, 1000000 's years , both laid down by water and eroded by water . ( one side of the tube )

Eg " ( other side of the tube )far bank

 

Mike

Edited March 13, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Example of field lines at a particular part of the universe



Mike

Edited March 17, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Example of field lines at a particular part of the universe

 

image.jpg

 

Mike

So if I were able, Encased in a super special protective suit. With an 'initiating' magnetic pulse and an on board magnetic field of appropriate nature :-Then, I could spiral down the ' tube ' of magnetic field lines , down into the heart of a black hole . What a 'happening' As a more exciting ride ,than my ride with the cold currents around the Canary Islands .

 

mike

Edited March 18, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[rktpro]

Lingual theory of everything would only help ancient civilization which has no means to record their observation, pass it to other generation, and above all-are very primitive in knowledge. You can't teach a student where to apply force on a sphere to make the resultant friction in motion zeroz. That is just one thing, a lingual theory, containing no math, and of course no scientific ideas, is of little use, IMHO.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

During the thread I have proposed a ' lingual theory of everything ' as a possible vehicle for understanding how the universe appears to work.

I was asked to make predictions.

One of these predictions was that the universe with its various fields, emanating from all the forces at work from various quarters , would form a whole variety of " Tubes of opportunity " based around and following field lines that offer a minimum resistance ( if not zero resistance ) to an " initiative " being enacted at the entrance of the tube .

Some examples of tests and results have been quoted.

As a very clear scientific example coming from the heart of electronics , I would like to introduce the CATHODE RAY TUBE as an electronic example of a TUBE OF OPPORTUNITY .

 

Courtesy of link https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEIQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwps.aw.com%2Fwps%2Fmedia%2Fobjects%2F877%2F898586%2Ftopics%2Ftopic07.pdf&ei=DIQ-U7WrKOaV7Aap_YGoBg&usg=AFQjCNGxAjNemiaD-IeBxsgog_D_QoOvDw&bvm=bv.64125504,d.ZGU

 

Looking at this in the context of the lingual Theory of Everything , :-

 

The Initiative starts in the locality of the heated cathode. Here free electrons are produced by heating a cathode plated metal surface , to sufficiently high temperature, in order that a cloud of free electrons are released from the surface of the cathode.

 

The initiative starts when an attractive potential of very high positive voltage is placed on an accelerating anode, to pull the electrons in the anode direction. say 3000 volts to 10,000 volts . The tube has been evacuated of air so that " there is no reason for things not to occur" , namely causing electrons to collide with air molecules, [ this being one of the conditions included in the 'lingual theory of everything '

 

The electron begins its journey in this particular " Tube of Opportunity " , heading off to ultimately end its journey on the screen at the far end of the tube.

 

Due to the purpose of a Cathode ray tube ( TV. Oscilloscope etc ) the electron will pass various controlling devices on the way . Such as a control Grid to be able to lower in intensity, cut or modulate the beam. , a set of deflecting plates to move the beam from side to side or up and down , a focusing Anode to keep the beam tight and ultimately focused. A phosphorescent screen to convert arriving electrons into Normal visible Light.

 

Many millions if not billions of persons and engineers have used these "tubes of opportunity" over the last 60 years to watch many a film or news item ,or electronic experiment.

 

Mike

 

ps. I have personally designed circuits around, worked with and been hypnotised by these tubes most of my life, only recently have we moved on to LCD.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

During the thread I have proposed a ' lingual theory of everything ' as a possible vehicle for understanding how the universe appears to work. I was asked to make predictions. One of these predictions was that the universe with its various fields, emanating from all the forces at work from various quarters , would form a whole variety of " TUBES OF OPPORTUNITY " based around and following field lines that offer a minimum resistance ( if not , zero resistance ) to an " initiative " being enacted at the entrance of THE TUBE .

 

As a very clear scientific example coming from the heart of electronics , I would like to introduce the CATHODE RAY TUBE as an electronic example of a TUBE OF OPPORTUNITY .

 

Having looked at this now in the context of the lingual Theory of Everything , :-

 

.[/i][/size]

This clearly demonstrates that we may use the " lingual theory of everything " as a design tool ,

Namely, if we wish to produce a device , to make a particular process achieve a specified result , whether this be at a nanometer dimension or the dimension of the entire universe , then we :-

 

Need to set up an environment or MOULD consisting of TUBES , that as near as possible has zero resistance, to what we specify we require. ( vacuum for an electron passing, slimy throat and digestive tract, is we want food to pass through, some form of designed maglev track if we want trains to pass fast, some form of legrange point coupled with a specific trajectory in space ,or indeed a universe to come into existence. )

 

NOTICE THE CATHODE RAY TUBE HAS A. ( Self regulating feedback system to guide the electron to a specific goal on the screen .. Plates anodes , grids, and electronic circuitry ) . It needs to be noted here that the design of this mould and/or tubes with their self regulatory nature is pivotal . The universe is stuffed full of such systems. However we can either ride the existing mould and tubes or make ones to our requirement. ( the mould is just the collection of tubes ) . You will need field line detectors to determine where the field lines produce tubes, or trial and error . If you are the environment that's also what you have got as your self regulatory feed back systems.

 

Whatever you require? Then set up by design the tube of opportunity, or FIND an existing tube / tubes of opportunity . Then create the initiative ( eg. heat a cathode ray tube cathode with a small amount of energy , lazer, cyclotron , flight trajectory, a super massive empty universe.) and away we go .

 

The secrets of the design lay in the steps taken as described above, and now listed below , in principle .

 

1) Decide what you want to be achieved

2) Find or create the correct space ( tube)

3) Set up the self regulation system

4) Set up the initiative with initial energy

5) Give it a nudge ! If necessary .

 

(4 & 5 may combine )

 

Follow this and you can make anything or everything happen ! Simple !

 

Mike

Edited April 5, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Best tip ever .

 

DESIGN SOMETHING WITH CARBON NANOTUBES

 

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanotube

 

 

More images

Carbon nanotube

Carbon nanotubes are allotropes of carbon with a cylindrical nanostructure. Nanotubes have been constructed with length-to-diameter ratio of up to 132,000,000:1, significantly larger than for any other material. Wikipedia

 

Mike

Edited April 6, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[physica]

This has very limited application. Math applied to the universe will tell you that maths points out time and time again counterintuitive reality. A simple example would be basic fluid mechanics. When a pipe is constricted the fluid moves faster but the pressure drops in the constricted part of the tube. There are many other examples that show this. If you look at any field (medicine and biology are prime examples in this current time) the more advanced the field gets and the more it develops the more it utilises maths and becomes specialised. Your theory isn't a theory, it's pub talk. Your pub talk may have been some use 3000 years ago but nowadays it really doesn't cut the mustard. There have been many advancements in mathematical philosophy. By 430bc zeno's paradox pointed out that you couldn't logically state that a charging warrior couldn't overtake a tortoise. It now can because of the understanding of calculus. Now lets set the situation.

 

A warrior is having a running race agains a tortoise. We give the tortoise a head start. Now for the warrior to overtake the tortoise the warrior first has to get to place where the tortoise is before overtaking it. By this time the tortoise will have moved on. the gap will get smaller but with the premise that the warrior has to reach the place where the tortoise is means that the warrior will not overtake the tortoise, instead the distance between the warrior and the tortoise gets infinitely small. This paradox was solved by Cantor in the late 1800s. Now let's apply your theory of EVERYTHING to this paradox.

 

the perfectly healthy warrior will overtake the tortoise

 

1. There is reason for it not to occur as the statement is illogical without calculus. You vaguely state that maths can be applied when if needed but give no statement as to what take priority. The logical statements state that it is impossible to overtake the tortoise but the maths says it is. Because your "theory" is extremely vague on this (kind of looks like the maths addition was an afterthought) your theory is stating that there are two states, one where it is impossible for the warrior to overtake the tortoise and the second one where the maths says it is. In conclusion your "theory" adds no clarification to this and completely fails in the aid of understanding. \

 

2. incentive does not clarify or aid in the understanding of overtaking a slower moving object so again it completely fails

 

3. least energy doesn't come into this at all so again completely fails.

 

in conclusion your "theory" fails on all three accounts to describe an object overtaking a slower moving object and offers zero clarification. The only reason this pub talk has gone on for so long with so many replies is that it's so poorly written with the most vague language with little hints like "It can be built on with other principles and Mathematics as and if required" so a defender can twist and change the tune at their will. If we look at the definition of the word theory it means to explain or justify something. Yours fails to do this with paradoxes discussed in BC times!!!!

 

hey I've got this new theory of everything:

 

everything has or hasn't got energy

 

I know deep right??? I'm going to mention this thread as my inspiration in my acceptance speech when I get a Nobel prize in physics for this deep theory

Edited April 13, 2014 by physica

[tar]

Physica,

 

Couldn't follow your against logic and with math thing.

 

It does not matter if the logic is wrong or the math is wrong, it is easy to see that a warrior can overtake a tortoise.

 

We knew, 2500 years ago a warrior would overtake a tortoise, even with a head start.

We know now, a warrior will overtake a tortoise, whether we prove it by logic, or by math, or by simple observation.

 

It is not counter intuitive that a warrior should overtake a tortoise. It is obvious and real, and actual fact.

 

If you have some logic, or some math that says a manifest thing, an actual reality is impossible, I will tell you with great confidence, that you are mistaken.

 

Regards, TAR

Physica,

 

By the way, I follow Mike's threads because he does not take anybody's answers as final answers and if a question remains in his mind about a thing, he looks into it and forms a hypothesis and observes reality and sees if it contradicts his hypothesis or not, and makes the required adjustments when contradictions are noted.

 

He also posts nice pictures that are interesting and attractive that show examples of the thoughts he is having.

 

I personally believe Mike to be a man of science. Honest and smart, and a nice guy to boot. He is exploring the place, and discovering stuff.

 

If you already have all the answers, then tell me what gravity is, and what pi is, and why there is something rather than nothing.

If not, if you don't know why these things are, and why they are not something else, don't act as if you know better than Mike.

 

I would rather be on Mike's team than yours. I have no idea what you are trying to understand, or prove, or discover, or enjoy.

 

Regards, TAR

[physica]

I can tell you with great confidence that you have misunderstood the post. I know and many others also knew that a warrior could overtake a tortoise. This is why it's a famous example taught in most mathematical philosophy courses. Nowhere I stated that a warrior overtaking a tortoise is counterintuitive. Zeno's paradox illustrates the importance of the development of logic. If you can't describe something logically that you can see then theres room for development. Zeno was right because calculus was developed which logically described the problem and it is very useful in mechanics. I picked the warrior example because it is a famous ancient problem that nobody will waste time on debating. Well at least I was under the impression that no one would waste time chewing over whether a warrior could overtake a tortoise or not. The whole point of the post is that a theory clarifies, explains or predicts something. His "theory" fails to do this on all three accounts. It is actually so backwards that it even fails to logically clarify a paradox identified before christ. A theory has to be logically consistent, not just on the areas you like, that's called making it up as you go along. considering that the "theory" fails on all three accounts means it's nothing more than pub talk.

 

As for the other half of your reply, I don't claim to know the answer behind everything. But that doesn't mean that his pub talk can be called a theory. As for liking him because he's a nice guy and he does nice drawings..... again this doesn't mean that his pub talk is a theory. There is no teams, you should be looking at the arguments. This is a science forum, not a high school popularity contest. If you disagree with the way in which the "theory" fails of all three accounts be specific and I will address them.

 

Right now I challenge anyone to show he how his theory clarifies, describes or explains zeno's paradox. I have shown you why it fails miserably. He is the one making the claim that this is a theory of EVERYTHING. Therefore he has to prove how his theory clarifies zeno's paradox, thus logically stating that an object can overtake a slower moving one.

 

Let's lay it out concisely.

 

If we use simple observation the warrior will overtake the tortoise

 

if we use calculus, the warrior will overtake the tortoise

 

if use logical statements that clarify what it means to overtake something then it is impossible for the warrior to overtake the tortoise

 

Now we know what will happen, but his "theory doesn't clarify which approach. Therefore according to his theory of EVERYTHING it is impossible and possible for the warrior to overtake the tortoise. This simple example is used because when you start applying it to counterintuitive situations it will only get messy.

Edited April 13, 2014 by physica

[tar]

physica,

 

From the beginning of this thread, people, including myself have raised objectiions to portions of the theory, demanded clarification, and showed reservations concerning certain aspects of it.

 

But you have missed the most important word in the OP. Lingual.

 

Mike is not proposing a theory that will explain and predict everything, outside of human perception, and thought and language. He is exploring the world we perceive, within the context of us percieving it, and talking about it.

 

A lingual theory of everything, presuposes us talking about the place. How we think and talk about stuff is a component.

 

You, for instance are talking about math and logic, as if they exist without us, as if symbols and language are the thing we are symbolizing and talking about.

 

I am rather sure it has to be the other way round, and we experience, and talk about a thing that is already manifest, and characterise it, the best we can, and discover more about it, with every observation, and share our findings through language.

 

A lingual theory of everything is not likely to result in being able to create universes with thought. Except in the ways we actually do bring our thoughts into reality. We do, on many occasions, as Mike suggests, copy the tubes of opportunity, that the universe has already in its nature. Either we use ones already apparent, or we take a hint from some aspect or characterisation and copy the thing, and make the tubes and paths and roadways, and garbage shutes, and cathode ray tubes that will reduce the resistance to happening, that the thing we want to happen would otherwise encounter, without the tube of opportunity.

 

And don't forget that what can be said about a thing, is not necessarily knowing the thing as it is.

 

So you can tell me that math and science have found that many things are true, that are counter intuitive. I would simply answer, that if its counter intuitive, if it results in a paradox, if it makes you think that a warrior cannot overtake a turtle, or if it results in an obvious contradiction, it is not true, and there is something wrong with your characterisation, your formulae or your logic. Because the universe itself is not capable of doing anything that does not fit exactly with every other manifest thing.

 

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. And every motion of anything, is done in the context of everything else. Every position there is, is there in reference to everything else. And most importantly, for discerning the usefulness or validity of a Lingual theory of everything, is that anything you can say about the universe, is a response to what the universe has already shown you to be true and manifest and possible. It is not likely that your model, in the lingual sense can be more true, than the thing in itself, that you are modeling.

 

Regards TAR

 

Pub talk? Perhaps. But I don't think so. Besides, I don't drink anymore, gave it up in 1980. So any allusion to drunkeness, or frivolity, on your part, concerning this thread and its value, I believe to be way off the mark.

Edited April 14, 2014 by tar

[physica]

 

 

Mike is not proposing a theory that will explain and predict everything, outside of human perception, and thought and language. He is exploring the world we perceive, within the context of us percieving it, and talking about it.

 

The warrior is something inside human perception.

 

 

 

You, for instance are talking about math and logic, as if they exist without us, as if symbols and language are the thing we are symbolizing and talking about.

No I haven't. I haven't even raised the question of whether math and logic exist without us

 

 

 

So you can tell me that math and science have found that many things are true, that are counter intuitive. I would simply answer, that if its counter intuitive, if it results in a paradox, if it makes you think that a warrior cannot overtake a turtle, or if it results in an obvious contradiction, it is not true, and there is something wrong with your characterisation, your formulae or your logic. Because the universe itself is not capable of doing anything that does not fit exactly with every other manifest thing.

Exactly I agree with you and this is my main point. I continue to stand by the notion that a warrior can overtake tortoise and this is why this "theory" fails so miserably. It hasn't given direction for which approach to take on the warrior overtaking the tortoise. It fails when you apply it to the 3 statements of the "theory" so your response is go on your observation. But then lets apply this theory to something else be observe on a daily basis, probability. This is where reality is very counter intuitive, you can't just say go on everyday observation. Although these BC paradoxes have been solved with modern logic are still taught because they are the foundation of logic and reason. If a theory doesn't give direction to these BC paradoxes it is a sign that the theory is inconsistent and pretty much useless. Now your last reply is fairly messy and didn't really address anything. You should be clearer and more to the point. Now give me a concise answer to this. I know it's very tempting when you're scrambling for things to say to start talking about tangential issues.

 

what is your solution to the fact that the "theory" fails to give direction in the warrior overtaking the tortoise paradox?

 

As it stands right now the application of this "theory" states that it is possible using post calculus math, impossible using just logical statements, and possible relying on everyday observation. The all know that that it's possible, the major flaw in this "theory" is that it fails to give direction. It doesn't state that maths trumps all, it doesn't say that everyday observation trumps all and it doesn't say that logical statements trump all. This is a screaming sign that it's pub talk. The three statements in this "theory" are as vague as a drunk stranger giving me life advice in a pub.

[tar]

physica,

 

So, the theory fails, if it does not give direction as to whether math, logic or observation trumps all?

 

My interest in the approach and the questions raised here is related to my personal investigation of the meaning behind language.

 

That a chinese person can be talking about a cloud and a russian person can be talking about a cloud, and even though the language they use is completely different, looks different, sounds different...a cloud is still a cloud. What they each "mean" is the same thing.

 

So take a cloud, and apply math to it, and logic to it and observation to it, and none of the three trump the cloud. The cloud is the thing as it is. The math and the logic are what we can say about the cloud, the observation is the sensing of the cloud, getting the form "into" our memory for comparision, and prediction. So the lingual theory of everything does not particularly give direction as to which trumps which, but does not "fail" because of this. It just fails to answer your question, as framed by you.

 

Regards, TAR