This thread is a continuation of "Is there a Theory of Everything" above, for the purpose of posting final results. The above thread, now rather lengthy, has brought forth some very interesting ideas, from which we may consolidate conclusions. But this thread is also open for further discussion and inquiry, in the spirit of exploratory debate. "Everything" transcends mere physics, and thus has the incredible ambition of interrelating everything. It is what IS.

All the best, Ivan

PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATION FOR A 'THEORY OF EVERYTHING'

On reading Quantum physics, on a possible Theory of Everything; i.e., Paul Davies "The New Physics" (Cambridge Univ. 1989), and John Gribbin "The Search for Superstrings, Symmetry, and the Theory of Everything" (Little Brown 1998); I am struck by a common problem to which there seems to be no solution. Though best minds have studied this for over a century, from Faraday and Planck to Einstein and Fermi to Salam and Weinberg to Gell-Mann and Nambu and Wu and scores others, there is a lack of conceptual coordination, as expressed by the mathematics, of being able to relate the strong and weak forces, electromagnetic forces, and the weakest force of gravity, into a general theory. I suspect that it may be possible to re-coordinate the mathematical expressions where there is a 'basic common denominator' into which all functions have to fall, and from which all Quantum interactions of the higher levels would then find expression. Though mathematics is a language, one of how interactions relate, with its own grammar and structure, it is nevertheless only a language, much like ordinary spoken languages, and thus may lend itself to expressions of both truth and fiction. I will try to express below, in ordinary language, what I think can be translated into mathematical expressions, and from which I think we may find models that express reality closer to the truth than understood hitherto. And if so, then we may have found an expression, which can later be translated into mathematics, which may be the possible foundation for a Theory of Everything, not only as a theory tying together the forces of physical reality, but ultimately as the supranatural forces that tie together all living things that exist within it. We would know we had achieved this goal, perhaps albeit an unachievably lofty one, when we can translate the mathematical language into observable and measurable phenomena in the natural world.

If we take into account that much empirical data on Quantum Electrodynamics and gravity has been gathered, and that this data generally bears out General Relativity as posited by Einstein and successors, then we should assume that the data is good, as it is being measured, and that only a way to fit the data into a more generalized theory is lacking. The math is at times tricky, requiring canceling out infinities in order to renormalize the equations as Gibbin writes (pp. 65-67): "Mathematically, the infinite mass of the cloud around the electron is compensated for by assuming that a 'bare' electron would have infinite negative mass. With careful mathematical juggling, the two infinities can be made to cancel out...); which leads one to think that infinities in calculations need to be removed, since it is improper to divide or multiply by them. However, what if infinities were the desired results for which we were looking, and from which we could draw a common denominator? Would measurements of quarks, leptons, muons, nucleons, electrons and nutrinos then fall into place? This would be the goal of a Theory of Everything, I would think.

1. UNITY IN OPPOSITES, on the Interactions that cause Universal Being:

Let us make a basic assumption about how is structured the universe: "Unity is found in opposites." There is ample demonstration of this, that positive and negatives attract to form a unity, much as the two poles of a magnet cancel out in between to remain one complete force. So the pluses and minuses of the universe seem to cancel out, whether in a state of stability, where all things rest in balance, or dynamically, in a state of becoming. This principle applies as well to atomic and subatomic existence, implying that there is a kind of balance in existence that normalizes the opposites into unity, or what we then perceive as a kind of existential-reality stability.

If this is so, that opposites normalize into unity, then it would seem that a logical place to search for a basic assumption for a Theory of Everything would be in the two extreme universal forces that are opposed to each other. I would recommend that from the observable universe there are two such very great forces: Quasars and Black Holes. One is the brightest object in the universe, the Quasar; the other is the darkest, the Black Hole. Now, this is not a starting point, but rather an observation from which a starting point can be established. So the next step would be to identify from our known observations of physics the two opposing forces that influence matter and its creation or destruction. For this I would suggest "Photons", as light, as representative of all electromagnetic waves of all magnitudes, in all spectrums; and an "unknown" as the opposite to photons, as that which represents the 'dark' force. It is this 'dark' force that I think is missing in Quantum physics as it now stands. There are measurements and theories of Strong Forces, gluons, that bind the proton and neutron together. However, these are little understood, and if one were to theorize instead that such a force, being the 'glue' Strong Force that holds together the nucleus, then it may approach forces of 'infinite magnitudes' similar to what we observe in Black Holes, a kind of Total Force. Or perhaps it could be best described by the measurable force of the 'unknown' X particle, or 10 (to 15th) GeV, i.e., 10 million million times the electromagnetic weak force; then we would be seeing it as equivalent to a force at the time, theoretically, of the Universe being only 10 (to minus 37) seconds old, or at the very beginning of the so called Big Bang. (I am skeptical that the Universe started this way, and think that instead this may be happening on a continuous basis throughout the cosmos as tiny 'mini-bangs', but this is not important for this purpose here.) So we are then looking, from this deduction, for a dark 'strong force' to be opposite electromagnetic 'light photons' that approximates the binding force of the universe at its 'creation', in effect, with near infinite gravity cohesion. This is not to be equated in any way with 'gravity' as we understand it, what is keeping me in my chair as I write this, but rather as a force so powerful that in theory it contains all of existence within it at the 'birth' of the Universe.

Much of physics, it appears to me, is fancy, as the Big Bang is a fanciful account imagined because of how the math works out; same as measuring the colorful eightfold path of interquark forces leads to mathematical expressions for which our minds are not equipped to imagine; to imagining photons as being both particles and waves. In this case, the fancy as deduced here is that there is a force that approximates a compressed universe into its singularity, which is so powerful that even photons cannot escape it, except at close quarter as within the atom. This is why I alluded to earlier to the Black Holes, because they are evidence of such a force. So, to give this 'unknown' force a name, one that has not been used in the colorful description of Quantum physics, and one which approximates the nature of this force, being gravitationally near infinitely powerful, I would give it the name of a gravity "infiniton". This is not to be compared to a 'graviton' which measures a very weak force, that of gravity, but rather the very strong force of the 'infiniton', which is inside the atom.

PHOTONS AND INFINITONS:
Now, by default, because we do not know this force other than through its various manifestations as evidenced by how it interacts with photonic electromagnetic energy, we are then forced to treat it as an unknown, yet one of near infinite, or even infinite, properties. One can look at the universe's Black Holes for evidence of how these infinitons work, that they are able to absorb all light and matter into themselves, to go... where? The answer is Nowhere, for they simply reabsorb into what the Universe is made of, nothingness. On the other side of the polarity is what the universe radiates with, the electromagnetic energy of light, or photons, in all its spectrums from X-ray to infra-reds. Then, how these various energies interact with the infinitons is what manifests as created matter. These interactions are then measurable in Quantum physics, from which we can gain an understanding of how light interacts with the properties of the infiniton 'dark matter'. Thus, if so, then Quantum physics should become greatly simplified. On the other hand, the Big Bang would come into question because this theory would point that, over great distances of space, light is being gradually absorbed by the resulting 'dark force'. So in cosmic space, over those distances, light would red-shift with time, not because of space expanding, but because the dark matter left over from the interaction of photons and infinitons acts like a drag on it. In the same manner could be measured how photons knock out electrons from metals, or how the wave-particle nature of electromagnetic energy interacts at different levels of the nucleus to measure at what state is the energy within the atom, away from the all collapsing force of the infiniton. All these would be measurable evidence of the interaction between photons and infinitons. The rest would then be arithmetic, to design a periodic table of how various levels of energy between the photons and infinitons interact within the atom. And when this is done, we then are close to arriving at a Theory of Everything, because then we can incorporate gravity and dark matter into the equation.

GRAVITY AND DARK MATTER:
How photon energy and infiniton energy interact explains the mechanics of atomic structures as they exist in our observable reality. However, the offsets between these two powerful opposing forces are not total, in that there is a leakage that then 'renormalizes' with what happens in the universe. That leakage, I suspect, is what is left over from the attractive force of the infiniton as it is modified into atomic existence by the electromagnetic forces of photons; the resulting byproduct force, which is a rather weak force, is Gravity. In the equation of TOE (still unwritten), the universal constant would then work out to be what is left over as gravity, as the force that then unites all of existence into a comprehensive whole everywhere throughout the cosmos. Gravity, as a left over force of infiniton attraction, is then spread out evenly to affect all objects, and even the photons themselves, over great distances. This is evidenced by successfully using 'gravitational lenses' in space astronomy, where the gravity of distant galaxies act as a lens on the light coming from behind those galaxies, and magnify it to be picked up by orbiting space telescopes. So photons and gravity do interact, but because this interaction is rather weak, it is observable only over very great distances, unlike the strong interactions between photons and infinitons within the atom, where they interact directly. Because this weak interaction is happening all over the existing cosmic space, it creates a kind of 'shadow' through which light must struggle, which we then think of as 'dark matter'. I do not think this dark matter actually exists, but it is only a manifestation of how light interacts with gravity over great distances. So, like gravity, dark matter is then a waste product of the photon-infiniton interaction, and is measurable only by how light interacts with it over great distances. Therefore, in the final equation of TOE, Gravity is only a left over constant from the subatomic interactions of photon electromagnetic energy and the very dark glue of infinitons as the near infinite common denominators of the universe, of nothingness.

INTERRELATIONS AND BEING:
It should be understood that this Theory of Everything is being sought after in a philosophical sense, fanciful or not, rather than strictly in a Quantum physics sense, though the mathematics developed from it could lend itself to physical observation. This would be the test, that the math measures against observable reality, whether in a better understanding of Quasars and Black Holes (which may in fact not be collapsed stars at all, but rather 'infiniton stars'), or how energy is exchanged both within and without the atoms. It may yet prove that Gravity as a force is duplicatable, perhaps at levels far in excess of those exhibited by natural bodies in space; same as it may prove that the velocity of light is not the greatest speed in the universe, that there are things much faster. Though I could envision this only as a theoretical philosophical idea, that the infinitons mentioned above have instantaneous force, that they attract outside the values of time, and thus their 'leakage' of gravity is likewise instantaneous in its potential attraction; but if so, then gravity is 'felt' over immense cosmic distances instantly also, though only as a byproduct weak force. This could mean then that gravity is a faster 'communicator' within the universe than light, and if so, the 'interrelationships' that span the universe are intercommunicating instantly all the time, which could lead into a whole new way of seeing how the Universe interacts with itself.

In the end all things come back to us, for we are the seekers with our being, and we are the storytellers. We have to find meaning which will give us a sense of understanding of how things are, of how existence affects us in our minds and bodies. It is for this reason that we have posited a concept of 'being', to which we belong and within which we feel our inner existence. That this 'being' can then be connected to outer existence in some unified way becomes the goal of the Theory of Everything, and either we find our consciousness connected to all existence within this being, or we do not. If reality is a vast interrelated phenomenon of itself, of how it interplays between the universe spanning electromagnetic energy of photons and the universe crushing infinite gravity force of infinitons, then how this drama creates both matter and life within its existence becomes a potentially unifiable theory, of everything. Life and mass, consciousness and light, all become interrelatable as one, canceling out unnecessary opposites, one vast interrelationship that is able to coordinate itself from the largest dimensions, and to identify itself into the smallest parts. And, to be true to itself in a principle of mutually canceling opposites, both Consciousness, the byproduct of Life, and Existence, the 'isness' of Itself, combine into Being, the Who we Are. And thus, what had been seen as an existence of the duality of Mind and Reality now becomes combined, the Theory of Everything, as One. But... One what?

2. ALGORITHMS:
Using the basic (0 x infinity) = 1 , model for TOE, let us apply known quantities to this general formula, and let us further assume that "m" is equivalent to "1", and that the photon "p" is set as a function of the speed of light, at "1/c2". The infiniton "I" is still unknown.

This would translate (0 x infinity) = 1 into the basic model [ p x I = m ].

Now, if we take photon energy to be set here at the "zero", and thus "1/c2" [or the inverse of the speed of light squared], and the "infinity" value set at "E", to represent the infiniton, which is as yet undefined, then we can easily see that this coincides with the famous E=mc2. Or, to put it differently: 1/c2 x E = m, which is how we structured the algorithm above.

Now, the "E" value is what needs to be determined to satisfy this equation, not as only an equation of "electromagnetic energy", which E=mc2 describes, but also as an equation that incorporates the gravity energies of G, the universal gravity constant, and of the still unknown "inifiniton" strong force. So this is where it stands thus far, to convert what is essentially a formula of energy-only into a formula that incorporates the Strong Force of nuclear gravity as the infiniton, or "I".

However, to satisfy the condition stated above that gravity, the G constant, is a left over product of the p x I interaction, then I would subtract it from the result of m. Therefore, I would restate the basic formula above as follows:
1/c2 x E = m-g

where "-g" takes the place of "G" since it is not a primary force but merely "left over" from the interaction within the atom (which is shown as negative because it is what is "missing" from the atom). Now, we could be further illustrated by showing that "E" within the equation is replaced with "mc2", so that we have [1/c2 x mc2 = m (-g)], which then (by bringing 1/c2 over to m) breaks down to mc2=mc2, which is =E.

So we are thus left with the formula: 1/c2 x I = m-g, for now... and we are looking for a value of "E" which expresses and approximates the Strong Force of "I".

I think of the photon as being the basic energy unit that is used not only in how space is structured, but also how life is incorporated, since photosynthesis is the basic interaction between living things and universal light energy. ( I.e., all living things feed off of the life energy of light as it is transformed first by plant life, and then converted into a food source that travels all the way through the food chain, even to us!) If so, then photonic light is the key that ties together physics and life energy, which further interrelates the material world with the animate. If a Theory of Everything is truly to be of 'everything', it would need to incorporate these interactions, as well as the mind-body connection.

For more info on TOE see: http://www.unifiedtoe.com/index.html

TOE, ALGORITHM, continued:

Please bear in mind that this is still a "work in progress", so all is subject to revision. However, having said that, there is an algorithm that seems to be emerging from our initial venture into this murky area of a "Theory of Everything".

Using ordinary language, we have taken the idea of an infinitessimal 'zero' interacting with an 'infinite' force to equal a unity of 'one'. This was first expressed as (zero x infinity = 1), which was then substitued with a value for the photon, as 1/c2, or one divided by the speed of light squared, and some value for what I called the 'infiniton' which is a very large 'strong force', which if expressed within the E=mc2 equation with m=1, yields 1/c2 x 1 x c2 = 1, which is a truism. We then further substituted c2 with some 'unknown' value and added the weak force of gravity, with gravity being the left over byproduct of this interaction, to complete the 'little TOE', so that it now looks like this: 1/c2 x E(?) + g = m.
If we set m = 1, as per our original definition of mass equal to a unity, then the equation becomes:

1/c2 x E(?) + g = 1, where it now stands.

So in ordinary language, we are interacting the photon, as represented by 1/c2, and the infiniton, as still undefined, to equal mass.

Now, if we substitute the value of E(?) with the high energy of mass and momentum in terms of electron volts, we get: pc = [E2-m2c4]1/2, where 'p' is the electron's momentum. (See math at: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/debrog2.html#c2 ). This breaks down into pc ~ E, which at a velocity as a fraction of c becomes: v/c = pc/E, which as v=> c, pc => E. However, momentum 'p' can also be expressed as: p = E/c = h/w , (see referenced URL above), where 'w' is wavelength (I don't have the 'lambda' key), and 'h' is Planck's constant, which further becomes: E = c x h/w , or finally: E = ch/w.

So now we have a possible value for E(?) above. I'm not totally happy with this because it does not seem to fit into the mental image I have of the infiniton, but let's take it to the next step to see where it goes. So if we substitute the E value in 1/c2 x E(?) + g = m above, the we get: [1/c2 x ch/w] + g = m. This is then further simplified by multiplying out 'c' into: h/cw + g = m.

3. TOE, The GREAT MANDALA OF BEING:

Being=> Consciousness=> Identity=> Change=> Motion=> Photonics=> Supergravity.

These are the seven great elements of the Theory of Everything.

Above is the snake biting its own tail, the great mandala, of how the universe is its own simulator. Each of the above is an identifiably separate but interwoven state of being element into which fall the whole, and from which then radiate the individual parts. That there is change and growth in the universe over time is one unifying feature to this Mandala of Being, and that all parts within the whole are interrelated at close and great distances, is the fabric that holds the mandala of everything together. Let us elaborate each of these categories of being as we close in onto the conclusion of a Theory of Everything. Rather than starting at the beginning, as most stories do, let us instead start at the end.

BEING:
We are. This is the great mystery of existence, that there are beings who are curious of their own existence, ourselves. Humans question, but more than that, they interact. We interact with the reality within which we individually live; more importantly, we interact with the reality of each other's existence, the being of other existences who then interact with us. Is this not the most wonderful mystery of all? That we could reach into the existence of another, and they into ours, is pure magic. By what reason, what great plan of existence, do we then meet the people we meet, discourse, relate at an intellectual distance, or in the intimacy of our feelings, touch other human beings's being, and even interact through agreement, or conflict? Is this not a miracle too little appreciated because of its universality, its commonness? I think that the accident of birth, and the events of meeting other beings, and what progresses from all this is not accident at all; rather, it is the most marvelous event of universal existence, that we are, together. Being is a magic miracle.

CONSCIOUSNESS:
If the first miracle of existence is being, then the second is consciousness. In ordinary language, we are conscious because we have a feeling of ourselves. But in universal terms, what I would call philosophical language, we are conscious because we live, we learn, we do, and we choose. These are characteristics that most living things share in common. We are alive with learning and doing and locomotion and choosing, even when we are not aware we do this. What distinguishes humans from most of the other animal species is that we have an acute awareness of our awareness, that we are conscious of our consciousness. Into this consciousness fall our thoughts and feelings, our loves and hates, our thinking of ourselves and others, and how we view the reality within which we exist. We are curious of how we were born, which we cannot remember, or what happens after we die, which we cannot truly imagine. Likewise, we are curious of what is happening around us, when did it begin, and of how it will end. But most curious of all is that life around us also is, and if taken to mean that it is also conscious in its own way, then we are all together in a sea of consciousness that is the fabric of a universe. It is a universe within which living consciousness is a condition of existence, which each living thing must make choices and then act in how it had chosen. We can choose because we are conscious, which we must do to survive. Consciousness is an integral part of our being alive.

IDENTITY:
Each thing is what and where it is. This is the basis of all identity, including us, the who we are. In a theory that encompasses everything, then being as an identity of inanimate matter is not so different from being of living things. We all share an identity of being within the whole, the fabric of a universe that is its own simulator. How each thing is interrelated into that whole then determines its role and place within that whole. If the whole is to be taken as being total, infinite in space and time, then we are all products of how that interrelated infinity has defined itself. This is more than merely A = A; rather, it is where A = everything else to infinity and back again to A. Within this new definition of A, some of us display characteristics of being alive, while others do not. We do not know that of what we are all built is not also conscious, but its expression as being alive is limited to how the infinite reality had defined it. Because no two things can occupy the same space at the same time, living things have a different universal identity from the inanimate objects, though life uses the inanimate to build itself a body within which to be alive. And when the game is done, we all return back to an identity of the inanimate, of which we remain in mystery. Each of us is as we had been positioned through space and time into the identity of being who we are, either alive or not. We are what and who we are.

CHANGE:
This is the pivotal point of the universe, that things change. We live in a dynamic existence which remains fixed or static only for periods of time, for in the end, all things change. When we lift up an object, and toss it away, we had effected change. But the universe had already allowed for this, and the change that took place did so within the parameters of what had been allowed. If the change was acceptable in some universally constructive way, then it was added back into the totality interrelationship that defined that change; if it was not acceptable, then it was rejected and failed to materialize. So it was with the changes that characterized living species, which then either evolved to accommodate changes in reality, or perished. This is always a biaxial event defined by both time and space, where the changes are registered within the whole, and from the whole came a redefinition in how this change fit into the interrelationships that were created from it. When change became so accepted that it developed consciousness, then the universal totality became alive. We live in a changing and living universe, which defines who we are individually in ourselves, in relation to who we are in the whole.

MOTION:
Everything spins. This is a fact of universal reality, that all things are in motion all the time. This motion is another miracle of existence, of the great wheel of being. However, this motion does not happen in a vacuum, rather it is influenced by all the other motions around it, either up close or at great distances. We live in a fluid universe where the fixed relations are constantly subject to change, and when this influence is felt, motion results. When life first appeared, it immediately reached for the ability to move, to move about, and to seek out what it needed for survival. Even plants, which are rooted to a spot, will move in successive generations to places more appropriate for survival, same as they will move towards the light of the sun. The forces of the universe perpetually exerted on each thing cause motion. Motion is everywhere all the time.

PHOTONICS:
Light is the messenger of the whole. We are continuously bathed in photonic light which reaches us from the greatest distances of universal dimensions. When the Hubble telescope finally worked, we were amazed to see fully formed stars and galaxies 15 billion light years away from us, a light still reaching us today, 15 billion years later. I suspect that we will discover that this light had been traveling to us from even greater distances. As each photon hits an atom it then releases an electron, which if then reabsorbed releases a photon. This is how the universe is built, of electromagnetic waves of energy quantized into particles of light which then interact with the basic units of matter as expressed by atomic mass. And all this is tied together into a universal whole effecting motion and change, which then is defined by interrelationship into identity, which then exhibits life and consciousness, which in the end becomes a unit of being. All these interact with one another, spatially and in time, at infinitesimally small distances, and infinitely large universal dimensions. Photonic light is absorbed by living matter, first through photosynthesis in plants and algaes, then eaten by animals, transformed into being, and in the end returned into the planet, and thus into the stars from which it came. We are alive on a great mandala of light, of being, and the photons are its messengers. Akhenaten was not so far off!

SUPERGRAVITY:
Now we have come full circle, from being to nothingness. If light is the messenger of being, then the gravity that holds together the universe as a great mass is its shadow. In the algorithms above, we theorized that: h/cw + g = m. This is not an absolute statement, only one that illustrates that the forces of the universe can be expressed in how they interrelate with one another. Brought to its simplest, the universe has no mass and no time, it is nothing. This nothingness is expressed at the center of each atom, same as it is expressed within the center of each black hole star, that nothingness is the superforce from which nothing escapes, not even light, a kind of supergravity. Yet, this infinite blackness is then relieved, or modified, by the photonic light that encounters it at close quarter, which then defines the atom. This is what is sought in the algorithm above (expressed originally as: [1/c2 x hc/w] + g = m = 1, where 'h' is Planck's constant, and 'w' is light wavelength, which then multiplies out into: h/cw + g = m; see Algorithm posts above), which is how light modifies the supergravity into a unit of mass. This is also the expression of infinity times zero equals one, where mass is then equal to one, photonic light is infinity mass, and supergravity is zero mass. Zero. Nothing. Being into nothing, until modified by light. This is the miracle, that electromagnetic waves of light bring out being, consciousness, identity, change, and motion out of itself, from an infinite reality, into a reality of everything. This is the light, as expressed by its interaction with nothingness. Light versus supergravity is the basic fundamental unit for a Theory of Everything: infinity versus nothingness. And nothingness gave in to infinite light to allow for one.

So the Great Mandala is complete, and the snake bites its own tail, as it had been expressed through the ages of visionaries and mystics. We have given this snake only a more modern face, a description that redefines reality in terms of how we now understand it, still subject to change. Each part of the Great Mandala connects to every other, and each can be further expanded infinitely. In time, we will evolve to better understand it, and with it evolve our consciousness to better understand and become our being. We are far greater than we know, and the universe is far simpler than we have made it. Like the concentric circles of Aristotelian and Ptolomeic astronomy, we had through Quantum Physics described the universal reality into multidimensional algorithmic functions curving space and time, when in fact, there is much less to it than that. We are not at the center of the universe, anymore than everything else is at its center; rather, we are simultaneously at the perimeters, while all things around us are bathed in light; and the concentric circles within which we travel are really around each other. And then how we choose to do this, this dance around each other, either with love and understanding and tolerance, or with conflict and pain, that is for us to be conscious of, to choose. Within everything, by how it was all infinitely designed, like the snake biting its own tail, we are the makers of our realities. We are the light filled scriptwriters, and players in each others plays. Think, whether through dreams or fear, or sexual attraction, the neurons in the brain are fired with who we are: Being. Or is it Love? This is why we were born: To Be. It is who we are. That is all.

CONCLUSION:
Such is the Theory of Everything, both as an algorithm of the basic photonic/infiniton interaction, which is embodied in the atom; and on a cosmic scale how electromagnetic waves, such as light, interact with the supergravity force, such as black hole stars, with gravity as the left over product that spans the universe. However, the Theory of Everything physics is not the whole of it, only the basic building block of how the universe is built. It is the phenomenon of Interrelationship that defines what IS, how each thing within the cosmic reality has found its place within the universal whole, in terms of everything else, ad infinitum. This is a Quantum jump in human consciousness, that we can step outside our subjective selves and objectify Being in terms of how it defines itself, including all life. That the universe is in motion and subject to change is daily observable; that it has come to Being in this dynamic state, of how it came to this from some primordial soup of non-structured plasma like being, is nevertheless still a mystery. We do not know the answer to this, and can only guess that sometime long ago, perhaps trillions of years ago, the universe existed only as a plasmic potential that gradually differentiated itself into the energy of light and supergravity it is today, from which were then born the first primordial atoms, and into which evolved all things as they are today. That some of these products of this interrelated evolution could now look back upon its existence, and wonder, is a miracle even a Theory of Everything cannot explain. We are the most miraculous product of an infinitely designed Totality of Being, and for that we should not only be overwhelmed and awed, but should be truly grateful and respectful of what IS, of ourselves, and of each other. I had asked above "One what?" In conclusion, the Theory of Everything is thus embodied in One, as a living, thinking being: It is each one of us.

Ivan D. Alexander

Ivan,

I think before you become too engrossed in establishing a formula, two issues should be resolved: 1) No data is available to prove black holes exist: 2) Your thoughts on photons lead to a problematic dead end. Follows are a series of links; among the many of them is a composite notion of where we must solidify a TOE. Every paper in every link has the potential to destroy every TOE theory imaginable; therefore, a complete understanding of the potential effect that just one wrong character in an equation renders it – worthless. To begin, please go to:

http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aether_5.htm

It is the last article located at:

http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aetherqr.htm

You will find many links at the above URL, and all of them are relevant to what we are attempting to accomplish. To read the abstracts for every article presented, use this URL.

http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aether.html

Before going much further, The Yilmaz Theory of Gravity should become familiar turf because it is the one Gravitational theory that makes sense, corrects the known errors in Einstein’s theories; moreover, it fits a Steady State hypothesis to near perfection. If the theory can be validated, it will destroy the BBT. Einstein, never actually bought into the BBT, neither did Fred Hoyle; however Hoyle could never overcome the flaws in his own Steady State theory, but the Yilmaz theory does exactly that. I have added work by Jason Douglas Brown to the new website by permission. It gives an excellent working position to learn how the theory works, the corrections to Einstein’s theories, refutations to others, and hopefully will assist by forcing present day cosmology to re-evaluate present patently false notions. A couple of internal links in the work by Brown do not work but one of the sites has ceased operation, the other apparently moved elsewhere.

http://www.newtheory.org/jason%20brown/newtheory.html

Einstein was to put it rather bluntly, intimidated by Minkowski, whose interpretations of Relativity actually gave rise to the BBT as eventually proposed by Lemaître, and others. See the following,

http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/minkowski.html

To fully understand the problem of light, you must understand what and how the notion of – time – affects everything. There is no potential whatsoever that – time – can be any part of the necessary equations that will be formulated in this process. Time, is wholly, and fully an independent curiosity that is local phenomena that occurs between our ears, your ears, my ears, everyone’s ears. In other words, time must be relegated to precisely what it is; otherwise, all of this is an exercise in futility. You can grasp these notions by studying the following link.

http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html

Before we establish a philosophical, theological, and common sense TOE, the science portions must be soundly grounded, for if it is not, the results for the general public is worthless.

Claude

"Time, is wholly, and fully an independent curiosity that is local phenomena that occurs between our ears, your ears, my ears, everyone’s ears."

I would have to agree! Only perhaps it's more of a universal phenom in the general context. If you could stop time, I dare say that consciousness could be understood, and as such the TOE would, I think, be almost comletely solved.

Imagine a spinning ball that is red and green all over. Only until it stops, can you accurately examine it and arrive at a definitive conclusion about [part of] its nature.

Walrus

Hi guys,

Hello Walrus!

"Between our ears" can it also be the heightened consciousness, intuition, that solves the red-green enigma of the spinning ball? "Time" freezes in our imagination only, since it either does not exist, or exists only as a measurable continuum of change, meaningful to us only, if not necessarily to existence itself. We are conscious of this, can stop action and examine it, and then let it go in the way the universe keeps redefining itself, with and without time, or our sense of observation. Like highly sensitized dowsers, we are in touch with the infinite, but the result is a finding... of what, a Truth?. And then we say "Wow!" Please add your TOE ideas! We truly still have a good long way to go.

Good to hear from you.
***********************************************************
Claude!

You are so right, that we need to continue to refine the elements of TOE. Your research is pointing more and more into the intricacies of what is actually happening in how the universal existence is interrelating within the All, into what is our reality. But this does not negate where we are starting from, which is at this point still only a "philosophical foundation" of TOE. The science behind this, and the final measurable and confirmed algorithms are still in the future. I am rather puzzled how my original (0 x infinity) = 1, postulated force interaction, turned into: h/cw + g = m, (where m=mass, g=gravity, c=light velocity, h=Planck's constant, w=lambda wavelength), which does not make intuitive sense to me but that's how the math works out. I suppose either photons have "infinite" mass, as some think, and then supergravity has "zero" mass, nothingness; or vice versa, which makes more sense to me; but either way, the math is the same. Then again, maybe this is intuitive after all, that the greatest possible opposites combine into mass, what is an electromagnetic wave interacting with a superforce of gravity, which thus results in the atoms of matter that populate reality. Gravity is then a leftover product, which is universal to all mass throughout the cosmos, and completes the whole.

So we have a start, but not yet a completion, for how do we interrelate all the contestable variables of neutrinos, muons, leptons, spins, strings, etc., into a final understanding of TOE? Philosophy can point the way of the journey, but the real journey is more in the domain of science. So, much more to be discovered, tested, verified, documented, challenged, debated, retested, until a satisfactory and verifiable conclusion arrives.

Mind you, this is all in the domain of perception, of a philosophical foundation only, of how understands my mind the most extreme Nothingness of the universe interacting with its most dynamic activity of All, which I call Light. But this is only a perception of how the two balance out into a philosophical unity, mass. Not "worthless", merely a new way of seeing how Nothingness is created into a unity of Being. The actual science behind this is still open to inquiry. However, unlike yourself, I do think that Black Hole stars are real. Somewhere out there, there will someday be proof of this beyond astrophysical speculations, but we can't travel there, and if we could, we couldn't radio back! How do you measure the immeasurable?

So exciting! Let's keep on truckin. Thanks again for references.

Talk soon, all the best, Ivan

PLASMA RESEARCH PAGES

Plasma basics:
http://www.plasmas.org/basics.htm

Plasma photos, from Aurora to nebula:
http://www.plasmas.org/photo.htm

Plasma internet resources:
http://plasma-gate.weizmann.ac.il/PlasmaI.html

So there is more to research, though plasma may be only an intermediate phase of energy and matter.

Still thinkin... Ivan

WJ, Ivan,

WJ, your words, “Only perhaps it's more of a universal phenomena in the general context,” triggered a brain synapses.

If we could stop all motion, I have no doubt we could fully examine every thing, but if we stop consciousness, there is no thing to examine.

Logic just spoke to me and said,

“The answer to questions of what being means, to be a human being, is encapsulated within our conceptual and real (true) human ability to reason.”

Your turn guys; I am about brain-dead for lack of rest. The past two weeks have been hectic.

Claude

Algorithms:

http://examinedlifejournal.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=11&topic=3

As posted on Examined Life Interdisciplinary, Physics, for possible comments.

Ivan
----------------------------------------------------------
Is there a philosophical/mathematical foundation for a 'THEORY OF EVERYTHING'?

On reading Quantum physics, on a possible Theory of Everything; i.e., Paul Davies "The New Physics" (Cambridge Univ. 1989), and John Gribbin "The Search for Superstrings, Symmetry, and the Theory of Everything" (Little Brown 1998); I am struck by a common problem to which there seems to be no solution. Though best minds have studied this for over a century, from Faraday and Planck to Einstein and Fermi to Salam and Weinberg to Gell-Mann and Nambu and Wu and scores others, there is a lack of conceptual coordination, as expressed by the mathematics, of being able to relate the strong and weak forces, electromagnetic forces, and the weakest force of gravity, into a general theory. I suspect that it may be possible to re-coordinate the mathematical expressions where there is a 'basic common denominator' into which all functions have to fall, and from which all Quantum interactions of the higher levels would then find expression. Though mathematics is a language, one of how interactions relate, with its own grammar and structure, it is nevertheless only a language, much like ordinary spoken languages, and thus may lend itself to expressions of both truth and fiction. I will try to express below, in ordinary language, what I think can be translated into mathematical expressions, and from which I think we may find models that express reality closer to the truth than understood hitherto. And if so, then we may have found an expression, which can later be translated into mathematics, which may be the possible foundation for a Theory of Everything, not only as a theory tying together the forces of physical reality, but ultimately as the supranatural forces that tie together all living things that exist within it.

If we take into account that much empirical data on Quantum Electrodynamics and gravity has been gathered, and that this data generally bears out General Relativity as posited by Einstein and successors, then we should assume that the data is good, as it is being measured, and that only a way to fit the data into a more generalized theory is lacking. The math is at times tricky, requiring canceling out infinities in order to renormalize the equations as Gibbin writes (pp. 65-67): "Mathematically, the infinite mass of the cloud around the electron is compensated for by assuming that a 'bare' electron would have infinite negative mass. With careful mathematical juggling, the two infinities can be made to cancel out...); which leads one to think that infinities in calculations need to be removed, since it is improper to divide or multiply by them. However, what if infinities were the desired results for which we were looking, and from which we could draw a common denominator? Would measurements of quarks, leptons, muons, nucleons, electrons and nutrinos then fall into place? This would be the goal of a Theory of Everything, I would think.

So there may be another way to look at a "Theory of Everything".  This would be by interrelating what are the most extreme opposites imaginable into a unity, which could be expressed conceptually as:  zero x infinity = 1.

Now this is a rather bold philosophical statement, one not mathematically proven, but bear with me, for there is another way to express the same all inclusive formula using Einstein's famous:  
E = mc2.  This would be the result of conceptually substituting the above, 0 x infinity = 1, with expressions of photonic electromagnetic energy and supergravity strong forces, which interact to become an atomic unit of mass.  If so, then let us design a new algorithm representing electromagnetic waves of photonic light and atomic strong forces as such:

photon =  1/c2  (one over speed of light squared)
mass= m = 1 (so we set mass as the unity here)
Energy= E = mc2 (which is Einstein's famous formula)

Now by substituting the zero value with 1/c2, and the infinity value with E, and m as equal to one, here is how the new algorithm would look: 1/c2 x E = m.

So now we have what is really no more than a restatement of E=mc2, however it does not satisfy the need to express this algorithm in a way that incorporates the photon/electron force interactions within the atom.  So to achieve this, I would substitute the E value as follows:

If we substitute the value of E(?) with the high energy of mass and momentum in terms of electron volts, we get: pc = [E2-m2c4]1/2, (1/2 is square root) where 'p' is the electron's momentum. (See math at: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/debrog2.html#c2 ).  By doing this, we are now able to get inside the atom and express how photonic light interacts with electrons as pc~E.

So this gives us an E value that is now expressed not as mass and light velocity squared, but as light speed and photon momentum.   At a velocity as a fraction of c, pc~E becomes: v/c = pc/E, which as v=> c, pc => E. However, momentum 'p' can also be expressed as: p = E/c = h/w , (see Momentum of Photon: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relmom.html#c2 ), where 'w' is wavelength (sorry!  I don't have the 'lambda' key), and 'h' is Planck's constant, which further becomes: E = c x h/w , or finally, we now have what we want as E in terms of the electron interaction within the atom: E = ch/w.

So now we have an expression that satisfies both the all inclusive "theory of everything" formula of zero x infinity = 1, and the Einstein formula of E = mc2, but expressed as a electron/photon momentum value, which is E = ch/w.  In rewriting this back into the original, we now come up with this algorithm:

1/c2 x ch/w = m, which is almost a Theory of Everything, but not quite.

What is missing from this algorithm, same as it was missing from Einstein's, was the product of Gravity.  And this is where we have to make an educated guess, for there is a discrepancy between zero and 1/c2, since they are obviously not the same, which also applies to E = ch/w in representing infinity.  In order to rectify this, we need some additional value that can bridge the differences, and for this I would postulate that the missing ingredient is gravity, that which attracts mass to mass, as a very weak force of G (as expressed by F = GMm/r2).  However, rather than G, I would choose to express it as the gravitational constant 'g' to equal (cm3/g/s2).  Now, we have a value that spans infinity, as gravity, and is also the left over product of the photon/electron energy interaction within the atom, to become a remainder byproduct of gravity, if you will.  To bring this into the algorithm, I would thus either subtract it from mass, since it is what mass is missing and thus causes it to attract, or bring it to the other side of the equation and add it as an additional force within the photon/electron interaction, so that the final equations look like this:  either as 1/c2 x ch/w = m - g, or (1/c2 x ch/w) + g = m.  Or to say it more completely by giving g its (cm3/g/s2) value:  
(1/c2 x ch/w) + (cm3/g/s2) = m

So this is the algorithm of a Theory of Everything, where zero x infinity = 1 is satisfied as expressed in terms of photon/electron/gravity energy interactions.  In seeing it this way, we can say that the infinite mass of the photon interacts with the nothingness mass of the superattraction within the atom, what are commonly called gluons, with a left over byproduct of gravity.  

Implicit in this reasoning is that the more atoms form an element, the more mass if will have, and proportionally the more gravitational force it exerts.  Also implicit in this, though not yet discovered nor proven, is that gravity may in fact not be equal throughout the universe, but be stronger in the absence of photonic energy, and lesser where more photons are present.  It may also account for why physical matter represents only about ten percent of the total computed mass of the universe, for the rest is stored in the so called dark matter, that exists in greater abundance where there is a shortage of photonic light.

This algorithm also satisfies the Einstein formula of E=mc2, and by multiplying out the above it gives TOE an elegant simplicity as:

h/cw + g = m.

where:

h= Planck's constant
c= light velocity (varies at distances or through mass)
w= wavelength lambda
g= gravitational constant
m= mass = 1

Now, we have TOE, but is it usuable in this fashion?  

Yes, if we simply substitute values for each element that is meaningful.  For example, again using Einstein's relationship of E = mc2, we can make p = h/w = mv/(1-v2/c2)1/2 , so that pc = E, which then yields, if 'm' is set with a 'zero subscript' as rest mass, E = [p2c2 + (mc2)2]1/2. This can further be expressed as TOE algorithm, going back to the (1/c2 x E) + g = m, we get:

[1/c2 x (p2c2 + (mc2)2)1/2 + (cm3/g/s2)] = m

But now this is the limit of my rudimentary (high school) math, so I am forced to leave it here.  

I should also point out here that if all this is true, then what we know as our physical reality, the physical universe within which we live, is not more than a kind of holographic creation of light energy as it interacts with the primordial nothingness of space.  We live in a great super emptiness blessed by the light that forms all things, and perhaps even blessed by a love that exists within each atom as a form of consciousness.  In us, that consciousness has risen high enough in concentration to be aware of its own consciousness, that we are "I am".

Any thoughts?  Can this be refined further?  Anyone have their own Toe algorithms?

For more info on TOE see: http://www.unifiedtoe.com/index.html

Enjoy!

Ivan Alexander©

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ps: My friend Nelson, a chemist, later added to the TOE above:

"The difficulty in achieving a TOE isn't mathematical, it's conceptual.

Chemistry wasn't understood with the concept of an atom--we still didn't
know what made atoms different. Only when we had the structure of atoms
(electrons, protons and neutrons) could we understand chemistry.

The same thing happened with all electromagnetic phenomena when Maxwell
figured out the interrelationships between the electric and magnetic fields.
Two fields, four equations--the electromagnetic TOE.

Particle physics got TOEed with quarks. 4 quarks, 3 leptons, 3 neutrinos and
we've got all the particles.

So a successful TOE must by necessity be fundamental. What's fundamental to
the basic particles, electrodynamics, and gravity? That's the question.

As far as physical constants go they serve two purposes: to define a
relationship in terms of dimensional units (length, time, mass etc.) and
provide a numerical amount--a measure. The numerical amount will change
depending on the units of measure used. There are units of measure such that
all the physical constants are reduced to 1. These are called the Planck
units--they bring all the physical constants to unity. So C, h, G and so on
are all 1 when using Planck units.

> [1/c2 x (p2c2 + (mc2)2)1/2 + (cm3/g/s2)] = m

If you want a fundamental mass unit (fundamental to gravity, quantum
mechanics, electrodynamics and everything else to which mass can be applied)
you can derive it thusly:

m=(hc/G)^1/2 It's the Planck mass unit. To see more:
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?plkm

Is there a single structure underlying all physical phenomena? Many think
so, thus the search goes on. The one thing that hasn't been examined in any
meaningful way is space itself. Is there a structure to space? Many think
so. That'd make for an easy TOE."

Nelson

Claude!

Good point. It seems some things in the universe we can stop (by certain forms of scientific examination), while we ourselves keep running. Or perhaps it is like the old movie the Omega Man (remember that one?). Time stops and someone examines the 'snaptshot in time' and tries to determine what happened.

The TOE must consider immortality to be absolute. In that sense, it is a looking beyond oneself, in time, to make sense out of everything-conscious existence and matter. Maybe it goes back to what anonymous said (cosmology) about steady-state v. big bang, etc..

Otherwise, logic and science has not been able to crack the mystery of how and why conscious existence emerged from inert matter.

Walrus

WJ,

Do you think conscious existence emerged from, or originated from inert matter?

Claude

Ivan: Your Algorithm Premise is flawed. Nothing x All = One...Is a Meta-Physic. I submit that since 'No-thing' is in fact both x & y, neither x nor y, Zero is a numeric construct. I suspect that a better path is to explore dual particle identities, i.e., the being of x = the non-being of x simultaneously:) G-man

Claude!

If consciousness is considered a metaphysical phenomenon, in its very essence, then I don't see how it could. On the other hand, if consciousness, in its very essence, is part of the mind-body problem, then to some degree inert matter comprises its essence. Or, in another context of cosmology and sentience, matter could be apparitional from the word go.

Three thoughts to choose from, and I'm sure there are more. Speaking of which, electrical phenomenon that causes objects to move, along with conscious matter-materialism, leads to the thought or inference of immortality.

Thoughts?

Walrus

Hi G-man, good point, about No-thing as being a non-thing-event, so questionable as one side of the equation, same as infinity cannot be used to multipy anything, so questionable too. So this is the leap of consciousness, that we extrapolate very small quantities to infinities in both directions equally, and muplitply these to create unity. Don't know if this is what the universe did to fill its singularity with 'all that is', but if it is, then it is great. Of course, only through empirical measurements and verifications could this theory of everything be proven. So, its out there on the table, but all are welcome to add, or substract, or toss it into the bin. In fact, my biggest worry about 'h/cw+g=m' is whether or not it is good math. The rest will follow.

Thanks, take care, Ivan

Everyone,

WJ,

Can consciousness be placed in any category?

I think not, for I have tried to prove it as noumenon, phenomenon, and abstract, but have not successfully did that. If consciousness cannot be categorized, consciousness is the same as being, which I have not been able to categorize either.

Somewhere, everyone is missing the boat, me included.

G-man,

You are correct, the math as expressed does not work, but dual its does not contain the answers either. Kant had it wrong; noumenon does not give rise to phenomenon. I once thought it possible, but noumenon is purely imaginary, an abstract if you will; therefore, without the ability to make manifest in reality that conceived of within abstraction, there is no point in pursuing a dual-ist notion. Base matter research is interesting, but it will not give us the answers we are looking for concerning a TOE. With better instruments, and the potential for us to learn more about particles I am positive science will inevitably prove something smaller awaits discovery; i.e., a lepton consists of even smaller entities, and those entities consist of even more diminutive parts. In other words, no such state where no thing – is - is beyond the ability of human rationale to understand.

Ivan,

Human rationale is bound by informational data; therefore, hypothetically speaking, we do not need to play with numbers to formulate a TOE, and if we do, nature will prove it wrong. Reason being, nature does not play a numbers game, consequently a game that is artificially constructed cannot be expected to deliver purely objective information that we require to build a TOE. To begin, we must use an assumption, admitting that assumption is/was objectively experienced; therefore, allowing subjective examination by everyone that elects to use any and every method of inquiry available. There is one set theory that will allow exactly that, and the set does not involve a numerical sequence for it consists of but one object; however, from that one object (a set of all sets) every other set can be proven logically, which does not give rise to the existence of all things as we know them, but can explain the existence of all things as we experience them.

A TOE does not require the explanation of how anything came into existence; instead, it only needs to explain why things exist. That removes the stumbling blocks of causation, of which, I am not so sure should have become a stumbling block. So, I begin with one logical premise, and then continue in stages.

1. The universe exists

The first question we must answer is; why does the universe exist?

Each of you must consider that question and formulate a response. You response will be subjective; therefore, subject to examination by everyone. Can you logically compose an answer that satisfies your own curiosity, and if not, why not?

If what I perceive as being true is true, and the universe has always existed, the universe exists of necessity. Necessary things cannot be accidental; therefore, ruling out the BBT in its entirety, yet openly allowing for singular events to occur as observed, and as human beings experience them; thereof, the second premise is established.

2. The universe is a necessity

Please note the specific phrasing whereas not to misconstrue fact of causing an idiomatic error, in that, a necessity does not suggest a causal factor, whence, if we use the word OF instead of A, the use of, OF, signifies a causal factor, of which, if the universe always has existed, it never originated, meaning, it never came into existence; therefore it is not OF anything, nor do we need further explanation, or rhetoric.

You must think outside of your heads!

Claude

Everyone,

Continuation of my last post-

1. The universe exists
2. The universe is a necessity

3. A necessity serves a purpose

If the universe is a necessity that implies the universe serves a purpose. But what is that purpose? Each of you must answer that question logically, and in a manner that satisfies your own curiosity. In this stage we must eliminate the notion that the universe could be a contingency.

4. A purpose is the functional use of an object or being to obtain a specific end.

Purpose cannot be misconstrued whatsoever, for if purpose is abused, the result or end is not achievable. It is in this area of thought where we must be very careful and justify by citing actual experience, or validated observations.

These are the four premises that situate existence, all existence. By using them in the order as iterated, we have a logical basis that provides us with the essential building blocks required to establish a TOE. We must keep in mind whimsy and or imagination cannot influence a TOE, for the first occasion that we incorporate either, the TOE then becomes an absurdity.

A wise man once said, “A person who contradicts nature is a fool.”

What is the first contradiction of nature presupposed by the BBT?

Answer: Something originated of nothing.

Claude

Claude!

Contradiction exists; belief is what follows. I say that in part because you are right, consciousness is a mystery. Or maybe said another way, consciousness exists. The who, what, where how and why's, is what precludes an 'absolute' TOE.

Enjoy the journey. Life is a garden; dig it.

:)
Walrus

WJ,

Thanks!! See, in difference we can establish a mutual understanding.

Claude

Hi everyone,

Truly propitious, or are they prospicience, thoughts entered past few days. Cool!

Claude,

Most succinct fundamental postulates. Yes, #1. "The universe exists." This is most definitely a given, or else there is nothing to talk about. #2. "The universe is a necessity." This makes sense to me only if the universe is also consciousness. If so, then it has a reason for the necessity to exist. If not, then why has it evolved consciousness? So I see as consciousness being a prerequisite for a necessity of being, for then existence falls into place. #3. "Necessity serves a purpose." This dove tails back into the necessity item, which translates into the purpose of generating, through its existence, consciousness. Why? Only a guess, but the universe needs a way to know itself. #4. "A purpose is the functional use of an object or being to obtain a specific end." To this I must answer that this is us, that we are the beings whose consciousness has reached a degree high enough, as opposed to that of our fellow living species, where we are conscious of our consciousness. We gave it a name: "consciousness". So that is the specific end, that we are conscious beings in all the spectrum of consciousness. I might add, however, that this process is not yet complete, and that our consciousness will grow beyond reason into realms which we at this point cannot yet imagine. The truth is out there... even outside our heads!

I should also mention here that all this makes sense to me quite easily when existence, the universe's reality, is viewed through the lens of interrelationship. This is because what interrelationship reduces to in the end is that the allness of existence redefines itself, in terms of everything else, for each part of itself, ad infinitum. It is the marvelous aspect of an infinite interrelationship is that it defines itself into what is, of necessity because of how is everything else, how the all allowed it to be. What you see is what you get.

In the end, for any TOE, we are the observers, and only through right thinking and right empirical observation can the sets within the ultimate set make sense to us, one that we can relate to reality, and one which can work for us, or perhaps even with us, when infinitely conscious enough.

WJ,

I dig it! Consciousness brought to its highest level, in my view, is faith. This is so because faith when tempered with reason is how we overcome our basest emotion of fear. The two are opposites, so we either gravitate towards fear, which we all do anyway, or towards faith, which takes an act of will. Of course, faith also entails risk, because if your faith is not supported by reality, by empirical evidence, by rational observation, by reason, then it becomes foolhardy. We all know that foolhardy beliefs can lead to rather unpleasant results, so the risk of faith is a serious matter. But I do like faith as the highest order of human reason, until proven wrong. The other emotion that is up there with faith, as opposed to fear, is joy which, sadly, like love, is too often unappreciated by so many of our fellow conscious beings of today.

Very powerful stuff, Walrus, not contradictions but rather mirror images of the same, in a conscious being.

G-man,

I've been thinking at length, while walking the dogs last night, on your comments about the validity of algorithms that employ both zero and infinity. This lead to an interesting brain bubble which looks like this: If we multiply any whole integer, or sum of whole integers by infinity, it is of necessity equal to infinity. Infinity multiplied by anything is always infinity, which seems rather vague, but such is that mysterious fog called infinity. However, and this is where it gets interesting: If you multiply infinity by any number less than a whole integer (actually less than 1/2, I think..), you get the result of one minus the fraction used. For example, to multiply 1/3 by infinity is equal to (1 - 1/3) = 2/3 (or 1/1000 x infinity = 0.999), which is the way infinity results when applied to fractions. (This is another way of seeing a very large fraction multiplied by its inverse as equal to one, i.e., 1/10,000 x 10,000 = 1.) The smaller the fraction, the closer you approach to its value of one minus the fraction, and the closer you approach to the unity of the integer, one. If the fraction is so infinitesimally small that it approaches zero, then by multiplying it by infinity, the result approaches the whole integer, one. (This is another variety of Zeno's paradox, in a way. I haven't worked on it fully, but I suspect this multiplication of infinity only works for fraction of 1/2 or less; above 1/2 to full integers, the results are once again infinite.) So, if this is correct, we can use infinity to multiply fractions, and get a workable result, which is one minus the fraction; we do not get meaningful results when we multiply any whole number by infinity, no matter how small or large, because the result is always open ended, infinity.

So taking this back to my TOE equation (1/c2 x ch/w), we have an example of a fraction times its infinity-unity (one minus 1/c2) and the closer you get to one; except it does not fit exactly, so there is a remainder, which I tagged on as gravity, to complete the mathematical expression. However, this is only an equation of those three forces: light photons (from microwave to infrareds), electromagnetism (electrons and their interactive forces within the atom), and supergravity (black holes and supergluon forces within the atom), and not all the other things that go into making a reality. This may in fact not explain anything at all, and if so then it is merely a mathematical curiosity. But if it is measurable and correct, then it vindicates the use of zero and infinity algorithmically, or at least that part which is any number less than one multiplied by infinity, to equal one minus the fraction used. Pretty cool, no? BTW, my wolf-dogs had a good time down by the river chasing rabbits and coyotes to build their appetites, even if not to satisfy it.

Hope all this adds some light, or at least some insight to how my mind understands these things. Though, I am the first to confess that in fact I do not know. My consciousness is limited to what the universal consciousness has ascribed to what I call my limited intelligence, alas, which at times is seriously lacking.

Enjoy!

Ivan

Everyone,

The basis of a TOE-

1. The universe exists
2. The universe is a necessity
3. A necessity serves a purpose
4. A purpose is the functional use of an object or being to obtain a specific end

Think about it - outside of your heads please!

Over the weekend I will put the next stage together.

Claude

Another brain bubble, continued from above:

Hi again G-man, all,

This came to me while lying down to rest, but closing my eyes only brought on another brain bubble, so here it is.

If the above is taken one step further, we get interesting results. Same as a fraction multiplied by infinity yields the integer one minus the fraction, we could do this with 1/c2, which is used in our TOE algorithm. So if you take our original formula of: 1/c2 x E = 1 - g, you can express it to have E = infinity. (This is not a statement, but merely an illustration.) If so, taking the mathematical principle of multiplying fractions by infinity, you get: 1/c2 x infinity = 1 - 1/c2, as we discussed earlier. Now think what this means! You may recognize it as another way of saying: (1/c2 x infinity) + 1/c2 = 1, which is same as the TOE algorithm restated, and it also fits the principle of multiplying a fraction by infinity.

Why is this so cool, you ask? Because it means that if E were truly infinite, which it may not be, then 'g' would be automatically equal to '1/c2'. Now! That would simplify things immensely, if it were so. But in figuring out E = hc/w, which we did earlier, we cannot make such a statement. However, if E approaches infinity, the algorithm: (1/c2 x hc/w) + g = m (where m=1, and pc=E=hc/w), then this formula is not so far off. It would imply that '1/c2' is also some value of 'g', which now makes sense as an algorithm that can incorporate gravity and photonic light as a function of each other. And that is really cool. Imagine, g ~ 1/c2, and thus the formula: (1/c2 x hc/w) + g = m, or multiplied out: h/cw + g = m, may in fact be right on.

So what does this really mean? Well, I have to go and walk my dogs, so cannot lie down again, which means that there is no rest for the wicked!

Cheers! Ivan

Ivan!

If the nature of reality cannot be known, then what follows? Perhaps the metaphor that faith moves mountains is appropriate here. Paul Davies tells us that pure logic (mathematics) falls short in uncovering the truth about the nature of existence. As conscious Beings, we do not know what it means to exist, let alone the nature of our essence.

FH&L is all we have. Otherwise, one must prove that mathematics is beyond a pure human construct, and has its own independent existence.

Walrus

Walrus!

I agree with Davies, and our friends Claude and G-man, that mathematics falls short of the truth. At best, in its purest form, it describes relationships (i.e., x & y, 1/n, + or -, = ><, etc.), but does not capture the truly big picture of a universe filled with consciousness. Then when using numerical digits to describe what is in essence analog reality, we really start to fall short. Yet, as an engineer or scientist will tell you, mathematics does have its usefulness. Approximations, like trial and error, can help us understand or replicate reality, though not philosophically pure enough to give us the truth.

I like Davies's vision of the universe as its own algorithmic simulator, from a math point of view, which interrelates all of reality within itself. The fact that this system then generates human beings like ourselves, all of life more or less conscious, is truly awesome.

All the best, Ivan

Brain bubble #3 "Pop!"

Hi Guys,

Upon further reflection, it seems that my theory on how to multiply infinities by fractions fall short of meaningful results. For example, how does one multiply 5/8, or 3/4, with the above formula? The results become progressivesly smaller towards zero as the fraction approaches one, which does not compute. So I am forced to abandon 'brain bubbles' #1 and 2, for they cannot be supported rationally. Still, they are a curiosity, and it may warrant further exploration. I got stuck on multiplying 1/2 by infinity and came up with two results, either again 1/2, or using an infinite sum of 1/2 factorial, I came up with 1. So something is wrong here. Ditto for the idea that 1/c2 ~ g, since this was contingent on bubble #1, so scratch that too, all tossed into the trash bin. Back to the drawing board... Then again, thinking out loud, knowing that any less than 1/2 value times infinity results in a value less than one, what happens with greater than 1/2 times infinity? Is it worth progressively more than one? For example, is 5/8 x infinity = the sum of 5/8! to infinity? Hmmm... have to walk the dogs some more.

Cheers! Ivan

Ivan,

Multiplication of fractions is specious, and multiplication of decimals is malicious; division of either is absurd, but when mixed with infinity you are dealing with absolute insanity.

Claude

Brain bubble #4, voodoo mathematics, or how to multiply by all infinities, and zero.

Okay, I think I got it, though the results are bizarre to say the least. Here is how multiplying by infinities results:

Starting with that nefarious 'zero x infinity' = 1, we can fancy that the results of multiplying by any other number within infinity will yield something akin to '1'. This would be understandable thus only if 'infinity' also means it has all the numbers on both sides of 'zero', so that whole integers are in effect also offset by their inverse fractions. So that 2 is also 1/2, and 3 is also 1/3...,10000 is also 1/10000... etc. So what happens when a number is 'pulled' from this infinite totality is that it is 'isolated' within the totality. Thus, any fraction below one is pulled from the result, which thus becomes 1 - the fraction. I.e., 1/4 x infinity = 1 - 1/4, or 3/4. This is true for all fraction from just under one to just above zero. So 7/8 x infinity = 1 - 7/8, or 1/8. Taking the fraction down towards zero yields results that approach 1; while taking fractions towards 1 equal results that approach zero. Very odd, but it gets better yet! So if every fraction multiplied by infinity is contained within the zero to 1 parameters, every whole integer multiplied by infinity is contained with the zero to infinity parameters. Let me illustrate:

1/16 x infinity = 15/16, since this is held on this side of 1.

1/2 x infinity = 1/2, since this is equidistant from both 1 and zero.

225/232 x infinity = 7/232, again held this side of 1, but now approaching zero.

So the larger the fraction approaching 1, the smaller the result approaching zero. But what happens when the result is either 1 or zero? Now it gets interesting:

Zero x infinity = 1 but,

1 x infinity = both zero and infinity, and itself as 1. !!!

Now this is the bizarre paradox, since how can this be? How can it be worth both zero and infinity simultaneously?

It can be understood, or at least imagined to be so, that once we get to one, we jump out of the 'zero to one' parameter, and into the 'zero to infinity' parameter of whole numbers. This is just a game of using digital numbers, but remember that they are all offset by their inverse at infinity, so that all the numbers and their fractions are being used. And thus, the only numbers isolated from this total infinity are those numbers being used for the equation, those that are not offset within infinity. Therefore, when the number is a whole integer, it now falls into both the 'zero plus' category, and the 'infinity minus' category. Whereas the fraction falls into the 'zero plus' and '1 minus' category. For example:

2 x infinity = 'zero +2' and 'infinity -2', so that the number 2 takes on a dual role.

5/4 x infinity = 1.25 and 'infinity -1.25, in the same way any number larger than one, no matter how large, since it is only that number that is isolated from the infinity totality, and all the others cancel out by being both whole integers and their inverse fractions.

Likewise, 1,000,000 x infinity = 1,000,000 and 'infinity - 1,000,000'.

Now this is math that can be appreciated only by Aliens, Mr. Nash, and makes no sense to us Earthlings. Though this may not constitute a proof as such, it might be a rules of the game, so to speak.

Why would it not result in 'one' plus the whole integer number, instead of zero plus the integer, you may ask? The reason for this is that 'one' is already the first integer above zero, so to add to it would violate the rule, since it is already represented as 'zero + one'. (The only exception is when the integere one is used, then it becomes zero, infinity, and 1, to reflect all the possibilities of infinity, since 1 divided by 1 is also one. This is the power of One!) Therefore, the rule of this infinity multiplication game is that all numbers below one answer to one, or less; whereas all numbers above one answer to themselves, or to a minus from infinity value. At 'one' itself, the value is dual, as well as itself, and can be represented either as 'zero' or 'infinity', which are the two infinity parameters starting points.

So this may explain the strange paradox when using fractions greater than 1/2, that the result tends towards zero; it also explains how numbers greater than one are defined as both themselves, and values approaching infinity minus themselves.

How can this be understood in real terms in how the infinity that is our universe is constructed? It takes a point of view that all things are interrelated to infinity to make any sense of this. Again looking through the lens of interrelationship as a function of identity, then any number is as the totality of infinity has allowed it to be in terms of the remainder of everything else. For the whole integer number, this leaves the result as being dual, both the unit defined, as well as the totality around it to infinity, minus the unit defined. So, seen this way, the duality is not a paradox at all, but rather a restatement of A = A, as being also A = 'infinity - A'. Pretty strange way of seeing things, but then this is only as an interrelated totality 'sees' itself. When the number is less than one, then 'one' becomes its 'totality,' in effect, and thus this is why the result is some number below one, since it represents the negation of the number from its totality, which is one. Any questions?

Well, you could tell I've been walking my dogs again, but in fact this strange way of seeing things came to me quite surprisingly while I was writing the beginning chapters of "Scriptorium", a story of the monks on the Island of Iona who, around 800 AD, wrote the Book of Kells.

Will have to 'think', when thinking of something else, of this again. Intuitive to the max? It's the only explanation. The question is, how can a proof of this sort be constructed? Can it be useful, if true, in our TOE? And can it be verified empirically and not just theoretically? Don't know, but it sort of makes sense to me. It's like taking Aristotelian identity mathematically to the next level. The result is a duality in infinity, which is pure voodoo I'm sure. Does it make any sense to you, or am I truly out to lunch?

Hmmm... Ivan


Ps: Does this mean that perhaps "1/c2 ~ g" is back in the running again?

Ivan: My only point is that 'Everything,' taken as
a totality, may indeed be equal to One,
perspectivally. But as such it is not knowable. We
can only 'know' x in relation, contextually, to a
~x, which in turn requires division, which is a
process function, which is a time-as-duration
funtion, which requires dimensionality. So, why
does 'Everything' express itself dimensionally?
G-man Th

Ivan,

Only one thing wrong with your hypothesis; what is infinity? It is not even theoretically possible to represent infinity numerically. Infinity encompasses all of everything, which means there is nothing external to infinity; therefore, infinity is a closed system of which encompasses all of everything within it. Once you climb aboard that merry-g0-round, no amount of numbers will prove anything whatsoever; instead, numbers always confuse the actuality of reality. In other words, what you must accomplish proves the fallacy of using numbers because it is not possible to write the algorithm demanded to accomplish fact.

The algorithm demanded is,

A polynomial algorithm incorporating exponential function – in other words, the faster you push the harder you go.

That is why Gravity is the force that controls the universe.

Claude

The basis of a TOE – Part II

In the first part we established four premises requisite to compose a TOE; those premises follow.

1. The universe exists
2. The universe is a necessity
3. A necessity serves a purpose
4. A purpose is the functional use of an object or being to obtain a specific end

Conclusion: The universe exists because of necessity, and serves a purpose as used to obtain a specific end or result.

Discussion: Here, we must attempt to elucidate the purpose served by the universe, but where to begin is our problem. If the universe always existed as a necessity, it is obvious the universe is not an accident; therefore, the purpose for that of which the universe serves is congruent. If the purpose of the universe is congruent, that means the purpose is not contingent, which means, the purpose of the universe is also a necessity, specifically of the logical type. If it were not, there would not be a purpose for the universe. Logic? Here, we must ask a pointed question: Can logic be totally external, and independent of a living entity that is capable of using those results from logical operations? I believe the answer is readily apparent from the use of modern computer apparatus. A computer can be programmed to perform calculations; however, the calculations that result are meaningless to the computer that formulated the result. If all of this is true the answer to the question asked is, an unequivocal and emphatic, no; therefore, there is but one conclusion for us to consider – there is no alternative. The purpose of the universe is to support life.

Second postulates –

1. Life exists
2. Life exists as a necessity
3. Live serves a purpose
4. Life is the means to obtain a specific goal

At this point, I digress in order that discussion can take place. From here forward, formulation of a TOE is relatively straightforward; it encompasses modern science, common sense, analytical thinking, and logical progression through conclusion. It does not entail the use of difficult formulas, nor are they even required.

Claude

Dear Claude,

You say: " Infinity encompasses all of everything, which means there is nothing external to infinity; therefore, infinity is a closed system of which encompasses all of everything within it."

I agree with this, and all of everything encompassed within it still holds, even though infinity is able to define points within itself, in terms of itself. We call that "A = A".

This is why I stipulated that for every number there was also to be considered its inverse, or else only half the infinity is being considered, which would be cheating. This means numbers go infinitely in both directions from one towards infinity, and one towards zero. "One" as G-man reminds us, is the All. When this is considered, the way to deal with it is immensely simplified, since it already represents itself at the point of any number chosen. So when we use infinity, we are actually using all the numbers in existence, except that they simultaneously cancel out as an inverse of themselves. What remains is a function as I described above, either 'one minus a number' for fractions, or 'infinity minus a number', and 'zero plus a number' for whole numbers. The original all inclusiveness of infinity is not violated, only redefined within itself. Do you see what I mean?


Hi G-man,

Would you believe I could also use the same process to multiply by zero? Crazy but true!

Indeed I too think that 'Everything' in Totality is equal to One. This is illustrated by numeral One having the power I gave it, either as the totality of fractions, or the starting point of whole integers. I do not think the thinkers of the Pythagorean school thought of this, nor their later Arab descendants who gave us Algebra. Now, to turn our attention to Zero.

This is really cool. Remember, we are pushing on Orthodoxy here, so must tread softly, so as to not offend.

If you take the original:

Zero x infinity = 1, and then by bringing 'infinity' over to the other side of the equation, it translates into:

Zero = 1/infinity, which you can now use in an interesting way.


This is critical. Let's say we want to multiply 5 by Zero. We then get, because '5 x infinity' is both 'infinity -5' and 'zero +5':

Zero x 5 = 1/(infinity-5). And because 'infinity-5' is also 'zero +5', we convert the equation into:

Zero x 5 = 1/5.

But this I cannot explain intuitively, so the math may be more esoteric than reality. Also, if I try this for a fraction, any number less than one, I get a weird result. For example:

zero x 1/2 = 1/(one-1/2) or 1 divided by 1/2, which is = 2.

So, zero x 1/2 = 2. That's okay, so far.

But if I use any other fraction, the results become greater than one, but not the inverse. For example:

zero x 1/5 = 1/(1-1/5) or 1/4/5, which is = 5/4.
zero x 1/12 = 1/(1-1/12) = 1/11/12 = 12/11
zero x 1/99 = 1/(1-1/99) = 1/98/99 = 99/98

zero x 15/16 = 1/(1-15/16) = 1/1/16 = 16
zero x 2/3 = 1/(1-2/3) = 1/1/3 = 3
zero x 7/8 = 1/(1-7/8) which is = 1/1/8 = 8
?????

Well?... It makes to no sense to me! How can a number multiplied by zero be more than ONE?

Let's FORGET multiplying by ZERO!!


Until I wake up next time, I am your humble un-Orthodox servant,

Ivan

Claude,

Again very succinct, and right on target with:

"The purpose of the universe is to support life."

I took it one step further by stating that the purpose is to support Consciousness, which I believe, faith here, is what Life is really all about. But tell us more. I am truly intrigued by how you see this TOE.

All the best, Ivan

Ivan,

I have received the answers from friends that could verify the math. According to them, I am correct; therefore, during the course of the next two weeks I should be able to finalize the TOE outline in its entirety. The next stage is the most difficult for the postulates have to merge into the first two sets but remain separate; by that, I must frame such arguments as subsets, and each subset must be applicable to subsequent sets as well as the first two.

One area that will give us serious problems is that of necessity. Any ideas that anyone of you can come up with would help immensely. Necessity is what dictates how things are in the universe at any given place. That is where consciousness enters the TOE, and what I proved theoretically is, every particle in the universe is – intelligent, and it is conscious!

Claude

Why do we Philosophize?

There are two ways to do philosophy. One is to debate an issue, find impossible contradictions, scrutinize to minutia, and in the end remain forever skeptical. This is good, for it is the best exercise of reason to keep us within the bounds of what is real, what is possible versus what is impossible. It is a tradition that goes back to the best minds of ancient Greece, and possibly beyond.

However, there is a second way to do philosophy. This way is to bring together diverse disciplines of knowledge into a complete whole, to formulate how all the pieces fit together, even when at first glance that seemed impossible. It is this second kind that is so exciting, that sets new horizons to scale new heights of human thinking. Like the tumblers of a lock all falling into place at once, the door opens, and we see things we had never seen before. Imagine reconciling the speed of light with the smile of a child, that is indeed wonderful. Dream, think, dare to imagine, that human consciousness can achieve its destiny not in a spirit of doubt and naysaying, but in a spirit of soaring ideas taking us where only imagination is our limit, and then, under the scrutiny of the cold light of reason, that it is all true. To see the Truth, that is wonderful.

And that is why we philosophize a Theory of Everything.

Ivan

Claude: Question: Is it possible that even though
we speak of necessary contigency, how to factor in
the possibility of 'life as accident'? G-man This
is

G-man,

In formulation of a TOE, I do not foresee contingency as problematic unless necessity is not sufficient within its definition whereas, accidents are necessary, of which if true, we have one huge problem facing us. So, how shall I explain self? Lets put it this way – If necessity = the universe, contingency is included by necessity to thwart failures; by that, life is not an accident.

Speak to me bro!!

Claude

Claude: You seem to be suggesting that...Chaos is
merely the unknown order of things:) G-man This
is.

G-man,

How else would you define chaos?

Actually, I would say,

Chaos is the unpredictable order of things.

To me, that fits new physics rather nicely.

Claude

Claude: We thus enter an interesting epistemic realm. Doesn't Order suggest predictability? And, is unpredictability (as a function of futurity...)a function, perhaps of proximate perspective, aka size? In other words, due to my tiny size and space-time location point, the light from stars millions of light years away are only now reaching me. Yet, imagining that I were much larger, I would first cease to notice days (which are a function of my small size and limit to a time zone...). Expanding even more, perhaps my size would encompass/embrace the distance between/separating the tiny me here and the distant stars my eyes see? My point: perhaps time (as measured motion through space's dimensional coordinate grid) is a function of physical size/proximity. Your thoughts? G-man

G-man,

Addressing duration whereas concerning locale is most difficult since at what point is it possible to delineate local time A, from local time B? One year on Jupiter is equal to about 12 earth years – so, if we are located equidistant from Earth, and equidistant from Jupiter – what time is it? I once asked Stephen Hawking that question, and he wheeled off the stage; reason being, there is no answer because in the universe it is not possible for time to be a uniform measure of anything, including duration. From that perspective is where an accurate TOE denies all potential for something to come of nothing, which can be proven quite easily by correcting E’s errors in both R and SR, a fact that I fully expect will destroy the BBT.

Order does suggest predictability; however, if the universe is endless and infinite in both duration and expanse, the universe is in essence a – wysiwyg thing; in other words, here inside the universe that we experience daily when traveling from point A to point B, you get what you see in reality as you travel. That is true if traveling to Andromeda, or even some star that is even further distant. As we observe the Crescent Nebula (NGC6888), an object 3000 light years away from us, we see it as it is, not as it was! If we could send a vehicle to the Crescent Nebula and record the journey on film, we would not observe a single change from beginning to end of our journey, except the size of it would increase accordingly as the distance away from it diminishes.

Maximum potential for the speed of light – 186,000 Miles per second
60 seconds = 11,160,000 miles – 1 minute
60 minutes = 669,600,000 miles – 1 hour
24 hours = 16,070,400,000 miles – 1 day
365 ¼ days = 5,869,713,600,000 miles – 1 year = 1 Light Year
3000 light years = 17,609,140,800,000,000 miles to the Crescent Nebula

That distance translates into an insane absurdity whereas the Big Bang is concerned. I ran the actual calculations, which proves it would take 132,699,437,000 of our earth years for the Crescent Nebula to be located precisely 3000 light years away from earth. What that means is, present cosmology estimates the universe is only 13 – 15 billion years old, but actual figures proves the universe to be more than 132 billion years old at the minimum!!

Claude

Dear Claude, G-man,

Sorry have not been keeping up, but been busy writing "Scriptorium", which is coming along nicely, and other stuff. But your posts made me think of something, which I then modified my entry for TOE in the Interdisciplinary at Examined Life under Physics:

"I should also point out here that if all this (TOE algorithm) is true, then what we know as our physical reality, the physical universe within which we live, is not more than a kind of holographic creation of light energy as it interacts with the primordial nothingness of space.  We live in a great super emptiness blessed by the light that forms all things, and perhaps even blessed by a love that exists within each atom as a form of consciousness.  In us, that consciousness has risen high enough in concentration to be aware of its own consciousness, that we are "I am"."

I also went on to say that say, as it applies to gravity;

"Implicit in this reasoning is that the more atoms form an element, the more mass if will have, and proportionally the more gravitational force it exerts.  Also implicit in this, though not yet discovered nor proven, is that gravity may in fact not be equal throughout the universe, but be stronger in the absence of photonic energy, and lesser where more photons are present.  It may also account for why physical matter represents only about ten percent of the total computed mass of the universe, for the rest is stored in the so called dark matter, that exists in greater abundance where there is a shortage of photonic light."

Getting back to your posts, Claude, I agree that the computations for the age of the universe as they are being presented now are pure nonsense, and that your number may be closer to the truth, though perhaps still far short of it! I suspect that when we get to understand light better, we will find that the universe had many more surprises for us. For example, we may discover that as we travel in any direction at great velocity, what happens is that the universe in effect travels towards us in like manner, and if so, then very distant space travel may be more simple than we currently imagine. We'll have to wait for better science to find out, however.

And G-man, I like the imagery of being bigger than the distance between us here and the source of light of far off galaxies, then 'time' as we understand it ceases to exist. And this can be extrapolated that to the universe itself, which is all of itself, in effect infinity, time is not a meaningful value, except to those of us little creatures who are concerned with the change we experience at our level. So we measure something that we call time, but a totality has no such measure, unless it were to focus into the connecting gears within itself to experience change. Then again, maybe the totality grows and changes from the smaller changes within it, and if so, then there may be some sort of time consciousness at the whole, since that is constantly being remanufactured by the totality of its parts.

Talk soon, later, Ivan

Ivan,

Just a quick note of explanation:

I cannot calculate an age for the universe. I can only calculate the age of NGC6888 in relation to a theoretical Earth age of 0 years, which is based on "a theoretical distance" the Crescent Nebula is away from Earth.

Claude

Algorithm updated.

This is just a notice that the entry of May 25,
2002, was updated with a new "Ps" footnote by
Nelson on the value of "m", which could be used to
rewrite the algorithm.

Ivan

Ivan, G-man, Everyone,

The following text is © Copyright protected in the fabric of the text. That done to protect specific data as researched and validated by persons other than myself, although the origin of presented concepts are of my own formulation. Use of this text is freely allowed so long as this © Copyright notice is included, and or affixed above the thesis presented with the understanding ownership belongs to the author of it.

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

Hierarchical structure of the universe- © Copyright embedded in the fabric of this text

1. The universe is the ground all things in the universe are rooted in, and emerge from.

1A. Being is the trunk of all existing entities or things inside the universe.

1A1. Nature is the first branch to emerge from the trunk of existing things in the universe.

1A1a. Reality is the second branch to emerge, and it grows from the first branch.

This iterates the basis of structure in the universe. As the tree expands, each branch then can grow exponentially within each dimensional aspect of which, there are but only four possible sub-categories. There is no metaphysical alternative to the hierarchical structure of the universe; moreover, there is no potential for mingling or mixing of these four basic categories as the universe is structured. Every factor in the universe is based on but four potential possibilities, which in essence denies several popular theories including the Big Bang Theory for origin of the universe, the theory that life could originate of inert matter, the theories of Evolution, Gravity, Relativity, Special Relativity, and the potential end of what we call, the Universe.

Discussion 1. The universe as a whole is the primary structure that supports everything inside of it; therefore, necessarily, it is the first order of priority, which in essence needs be the last frontier to be explored, evaluated, and eventually understood by the human enterprise. For us to believe it is the first place we should begin our search, is bound to lead us to failure; therefore, of necessity, emphasis for all research needs be prioritized appropriately whereas, human beings never lose the appropriate perspective of the lesser things inside the universe. The universe is the basis of every thing; therefore, the basic structure of anything demands that it is sound, and possess enduring qualities, of which the universe provides such mandated attributes without reservation. Hence, we can say, all things are Grounded in the universe without fear of being proven logically incorrect, and totally absent any ambiguous pretense.

Discussion 1A. Being denotes presence within the universe; thus, it is being that needs to be considered as the Trunk of all existing things in the universe. It is being that supports those things branching from the Trunk; therefore, being is rooted in the Ground, which is the universe. Being, therefore, is secondary in priority of research, meaning, it should be third on the list of research by the human enterprise. If we follow these priorities we can be assured of success in our endeavors as human beings to eventually understand exactly what our being means, and stands for.

Discussion 1A1. Nature is misunderstood by the human enterprise. It is misunderstood because nature is not a thing; instead, nature is the attributes of a thing. Hence, nature is easily misconstrued. Inherently human beings think of nature when in abstract modality of reasoning, which causes self-deception for nature cannot be made manifest as reality, for reality is not what we human beings experience. There is no mother nature; therefore, we must recognize nature for what it is precisely – the attributes of a thing. Whence we identify nature properly, we remove many mysteries that stymie human progress; thus, the nature of things is third in order of universal hierarchy, so it becomes second on the list for purposes of research, and understanding by the human enterprise. If we do this properly we should consider the nature of things as being the first Branch to grow from the Trunk that is Grounded in the universe

Discussion 1A1a. After an object has an identifiable nature, it obviously appears as its reality that we, human beings observe; thereof, Reality is forth on the universal hierarchy order of priority, which becomes first on the list of research by the human enterprise, so that we have a totally structured chain of evidentiary research that will provide us with a much improved and superior understanding of the world about us. Exact understanding of reality is contentious, for again, most people misconstrue reality. Reality is not what we experience; reality is the appearance of an object for us to observe. Reality is not an abstracted composite whole; instead, it is pure individual object appearance, and it is by all means mutually exclusive. Neither you nor I can penetrate, permeate, invade, know or experience the reality of another thing or being, material or immaterial. What we can do is observe the world about us, which is filled with the glorious reality of every individual thing within our view of our world as we, the human enterprise, experiences our Worlds. We can categorically state; Reality is the second Branch that grows from the first Branch that grows from the Trunk that is Grounded in the universe.

Every thing, object, creature, and being in the universe follows an identical hierarchical structure, no matter what the entity is. The structure applies to life, inert matter, objects, and all perceived abstract immaterial entities. It is inconceivable for something to come of nothing, or where nothing previously was; thereof, it is inconceivable that things can exist, which does not consist of material substance of some type. There are four states of matter, liquid – solid – gas – plasma; of the four, plasma is the least understood, yet it is the most common form of matter in the universe. Plasma is readily displaced by each of the other three forms of matter; therefore, we can safely say without fear of falsification, the universe consists entirely of matter, and there is no place inside of the universe where matter is not present. Necessarily, that means, the universe is a closed system, and would be impregnable from outside of it, because there is no outside of it. If there is no outside the universe, necessarily, that means, the universe has no beginning; therefore, it cannot end. If the universe has no beginning and cannot end, the universe is of necessity, which means it is endless, ageless, and shapeless; therefore, the universe is infinite. There can only be one infinite thing, that thing is the universe. Matter cannot be created, neither is it possible for matter to be destroyed; therefore, it is logically impossible for a universe such as ours to exist, if such existence is not – infinite. The nature of an infinite object cannot be denied, and in this discourse but one aspect proves beyond doubt that I am in fact, absolutely perfectly correct. Matter is infinite within every aspect of it; therefore, the universe is infinite in every aspect of it, which denies every potentiality that things can manifest of nothing, further proving the universe exists of necessity.

As the repercussions of all this begin their materialization in my thoughts; here, I openly challenge every human being to falsify one single aspect of this thesis.

Claude

Comparing our TOEs.

Dear Claude (and all),

I am most intrigued by your development of the four points of Hierarchical Structure of the Universe©, which in some ways parallels my seven points of Philosophical Foundation for a Theory of Everything, (Being, Consciousness, Identity, Change, Motion, Photonics, and Supergravity, which I followed up with the algorithm: h/cw + g = m). Your points connect to mine with some agreement at the Being and Identity levels, I would think, which you call Being and Nature, as well as Universe and Reality, which are implicit to my TOE. I did puzzle over why you had Nature before Reality in the branches from the trunk of Universe, but upon reading carefully your wording, it makes sense. As I understand it, Nature is not meant in the sense of what is the natural world as we know, but more as an intrinsic nature of things, all things, including living things. The result is a fractal like evolution of interrelated parts that then compose the whole, which is the all inclusive totality of an infinite Universe.

My one question is that you seem to discount the Universe of having the ability to evolve, which I find puzzling. Why is that? Can the Universe not have the capability of redefining itself? I think of consciousness, as being such an important component of the Nature of the Universe, that it is able to manifest itself more pointedly over time, this being the result of an infinity that is constantly redefining itself in terms of itself. This you may recognize is a basic principle of Interrelationship, how the whole lends value to its individual parts, so that with each change within the whole, a new totality emerges, which then again redefines its individual parts by how they relate to that whole. I would think this could be a basis for evolution, of consciousness, of living species, even of how matter interacts with itself. Surely nothing comes from nothing, but something comes from a great assembly of things to infinity, and back. Why not allow for that Infinity to grow? And if it is growing, then the visible end product is a more concentrated level of consciousness within the products of that growth, its living members who inhabit it, conscious mind. Think of this as being one possible explanation while life, at least on Earth as we know it, has displayed evidence of change over the millions of years, even as it does now in animal and plant adaptation to changing environments. I believe the evidence is there, that before the appearance of human beings, conscious beings in the way we are conscious, (that is conscious of ourselves as being conscious), very likely did not exist. Yet, that we should appear now, and very likely evolve consciousness further, possibly even into our mechanical extensions (artificial intelligence), then this may be a trend the Universe is manifesting within itself, what I would call evolution. Can this fit into your idea of TOE?

I ask this because I think we are on the right track. The mystery becomes less mysterious when we uncover some answers, though it is still a long mystery for now.

In looking over my notes, it seems that matter, and Reality, are very linked up together. Where I differ from your thesis is that I see matter only as building blocks of that self defining mechanism that gives the Universe its method of change, namely what I call interrelationship, or interconnectedness. This matter then gets broken down further into what I think it really is, which is the interaction between photonic energy and the supergravity of the universe, nothingness. However, this is a kind of paradox, for how could light come out of nothing? This I do not know, and I am loathe to turn it over to a Creator, for humankind has used this cop-out too often. So instead, I am stuck with an unsolvable mystery: Who started this whole process of modifying nothingness with light anyway? Not that I disbelieve that there can be God, but I do not want to lean on this too heavily, for who/what created Him? Who/what created the plasma that spans infinity? Or the photons? But if my way of seeing matter as really a kind of Universe created illusion, which for us is real, made of light interacting with supergravity to create the atomic world, then we live in a truly marvelous Illusion indeed! And when we die, do we see the illusion dissolve then? Don't know. So I am still thinking.

Lastly, I also detect in your thinking that you put the hierarchy of the human mind above that of the Universe. If so, then all thinking is geared to how the mind finds definition of what is; I see our mind's efforts to do this only as one more observation of how the Universe is already defining itself. So, in my TOE, it is the other way around. Am I correct in my understand of how you understand this? Just sharing my ideas with you, not a deliberate debate, for sure.

Take care my friend, let us hear more!

Ivan


Ps: It is we who look up at the stars while they had already been looking down at us, for eons, same as it was the stars that created the matter of which we make our bodies.

Claude & Ivan: I must say, I'm very impressed with the depth and quality of your thinking here, and am thoroughly enjoying it! We seem to be encountering an inherent structural limitation (despite variant rates of motion due to regional differences in gravitational force) in terms of how to sufficiently describe what it really is we're grappling with here, fundamentally...sort of like a Flatlander trying to describe the notion of a top surface and bottom surface of a flat object. How to see the back of one's head absent a mirror? Uncle Albert suggested that at light speed, a traveller might see the back of his own head. Yet at what speed would the same traveller be able to look into his own eyes? The inside/outside perspective dilemna (even if nothing is outside) also leaves us with the predicament of being unable to be in two places at once. How to become a Priveleged Observer?:)G-man