A completed theory of everything!

what exactly what are the "dynamics and context"? If you mean dynamics from physics, then that is given a force law. Is that what you have in mind?

My friend, i am not trying to be vague, or confuse anyone here. Whatever i said, i can given you references, and precises definitions. Can you honest do me the same favor? I don` t look down on anyone, but i do want to at least understand the other guy.

I?m going uncharted territory here, and mostly intuitive yet hard and serious thinking, I know you can give me references...I know some of them at least...

I?m trying the hard way...because I simply, truly, sense it as deeply wrong...
I know I have the entire scientific community against me...and I like those guy?z from always...I?m not a fanatic or a religious one, if you know what I mean...

---------- Post added 03-22-2010 at 05:08 PM ----------

...all I can give you for know are metaphors and approximations on something which is not yet well refined...I?m sorry if it such comes as an insult to you or is regarded as a complete loss of time...

This assumption can be rejected. What i say is more general than things. My argument do not appeal to states of the world, but to the causal laws which applies to it.


This assumption can be rejected, or that the distinction might not even make sense. Who is to say the universe is not complex? Dirac equation describes the electron, but is it complex or simple? Simple to who? If this equation is complex, then how how does it origin from simplicity? If it is simply, what are the equations, and why do they hold?



Key to what?





I think you are confused between natural selection, and cosmological theories. The former allow structures to become complex, while the latter is the search that the fundamentals of reality that are non-reducible. The non-reducible entities could be simple to a physicists, or complicated to an non-expert. My op posts do not appeal to any specific nature of our physical universe. My argument talks any logically possible TOE, and ask fundamental questions regard it. This i am afraid is more related to mathematical logic, model theory, and formal system than simple matter like the state of the world, or any particular physical theory.

---------- Post added 03-22-2010 at 04:43 PM ----------



Are you so self-important that you want to give the most shortest, incomprehensible answer? Fine.

Sorry but I dont see complexity becoming simple.

The most complex molecule never reverts and becomes simple.

I suppose if you run the BB backwards...it might appear that way. But complexity is not where we should be looking for this theory, its in simplicity with a basic law that encourage complexity.

No, friend, i know your intuition. You intuition( correct me if i am wrong) is that there could be many different worlds govern by different laws, but there is this super meta-law that governs the collection of worlds. You would called this collection a world. There could be meta- meta laws etc, and there could be collections within collections, but you would say they are one world.

I appear to have made a mistake with what quote button I should be pushing,sorry..

For this theory of the BB to be rejected it needs more clarification. We need originality to be defined before we invent a theory.

Im not looking at evolution with this theory but it might be consequence of the same theory. Nature exhibits the same compulsion as any growing complex element.

It has to be described mathematically but it has be simple in its conception with the same ability to become complex. It will be relevant whatever the circumstance.

No idea what "originality to be defined" mean here.

Also, not all people agree that theories are "invent".

Friend, like i said before. Laws that are supposed to be fundamental are not the kind of things that "evolve" from anything. An electron is described by dirac ` s equation is not a consequence of any other law, or historical accidents. People can say the laws describes the electron, or that the law govern the electron, but no way way the law( if it is the most fundamental) comes from anything.

...I do agree that the brain naturally tends to associate things...but the question is, if it does so, is n?t that necessarily because such intuition is well justified ?...

...Of course the deeper truth about Cause rests on what such concept truly means...an entirely different matter I would conclude, but also the one that raises all the "noise" around it...

...in a Deterministic perspective, out of space and time, final cause dialectical process, means only Being, that everything there is, always was...such is about Necessity and LAW...

...consequently one has to deduce that Cause is only about the nature of how Being behaves...I mean how do we justify justification ? Is Logic, logical ?...there?s obviously a lot on going to think upon...but the essence of Cause is in LAW and nowhere else...

...The essence of LAW of course, is no justification...


LAW is what justifies without being justified !


...The Ultimate Cause is not caused, once it is the true reason of all there is...

---------- Post added 03-20-2010 at 05:19 PM ----------

...I might ad that the justification of LAW its in its purpose...it?s CAUSE, comes in the after and not in the before...

Agreed... re-read my above final added paragraph on properties...

1) just a detail in what you said above on what I think...derived law?s are not true proper laws...they are useful in a theory, but ultimately false...

2)...collections of law?s end up in a algorithm of maximum energy (a path of energy appliance) displayed in time/space...so there is only ONE true Meta Law...that equals the total amount of energy paths in all Universes...and they must be linked somehow somewhere in time...

I am one of them...nothing is invented if considered necessary...

1) Derive laws are great. They give us the prise of applies, but they are not the kind of things i concern myself with when thinking about the fundamental reality.

2) Just to give you a case. I am sure you know Neother theorm right? Well, a physics system has some quantities( ie: energy) conserved if the system is time symmetric. Suppose now, you have two worlds governed by different laws, and they do not share any differentiable space-time manifold. Could the two worlds be called a single physical system? If not, could there be a conserced quantities as energy by Neother ` s theorm? I think not. If there is not energy, then there is not lagrangian, or hamiltonian, so you would not be able to formulate a action principle for the world worlds. If not, then is there really a law? I think not.

Note:
I know things are getting technical, but this is not a simple subject matter. You have to know some physics, computer science, math, and specialize knowledge of philosophy. This is always a problem for me here. Once, again, i am sorry for making it too complicated.

The "TOE" in physics might not even be possible according to one philosopher.

If there were two worlds they would have to have a common starting point and from there a singular a priori true set of rules...they would be rule entangled....

I dont see any reason to think that a TOE, as specified in your opening post, is possible, can you offer any reason?
This might interest you: Theory of Everything - Digital Physics

A completed theory of everything will solve some problems in physics but hardly any problems in philosophy or in society. It will change very little in the ordinary world which we inhabit. 3 of the 4 fundamental forces already have a unified theory; did that solve any problems in moral philosophy?

It is best to view the time space continueum as a linear equasion.
On the left matter enters finite space from infinity, to be shaped and governed by the four laws which define finite space. we'll call this point a white hole. Flowing like a river to the right it exits the four laws and is disassembled into infinity once again we'll call this a black hole.
In the left half of the continueum space time is compressed, the right half it is stretched. Matter enters and exits at the same relative speed but slows down in the middle.
Of course this leaves the four laws.
Our planets surface functions in this same way, expelled by volcanos to flow to subduction zones. Even the Human life span works this way.

I don ` t want to be mean, but you have no glue on what i said, and the only reason you ask for a reason is because you don ` t know, and you are too scare to ask.

I never, ever propose any TOE at all. In my op post, i pick out any logically possible TOE you can imagine, and proposed, and rise foundational questions regarding it.

My intuition, and the intuition of many people with similar mathematical intuition is that reality can not be this boring. Might it not be possible that all logically possible TOE, and all possible models that applies to each exist. I mean there would be a universe described by some TOE, and some model that applies to this TOE, then there would be a universe that is isomorphic to the given TOE with this model. This feels right for me. what do you think?

The only reason I ask is because I'm too scared to ask? Either you have a reason or you haven't, I will assume that you haven't.I'm aware of the fact, so what?I think your statement is ill-formed, no more than your opinion and a request for opinions from others, and your reception of the opinions offered is inappropriate.
Were you Immanuel?

Again, i don ` t want to be mean. If i am wrong, tell me why. I am not afraid of bring in technical details. You avoid it by making personal attack, because you don` t know, and yet you want to comment. If you can give me one valid point, i would be happy. Until that time comes, good bye.

As pretty much all your responses to me have been this kind of abrasive nonsense and after many similar experiences with you on the other board, I concur, good-bye.