A completed theory of everything!

@ughaibu,

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;142454 wrote:

Of course, i can explain to you say "the size of the real number is must greater than the size of the natural numbers". That is something a 12 year old could understand, but if you ask "why?", then you have no choice by to understand all the technical details.

Quote:

Lets see...

Do you believe that a 1 of 5 variables for A Universe equals 1 of 10 for B Universe ?
Is the nature from each variable dependent or independent from the Whole ?
.

What "variable" are you talking about?

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

God has to be FRAUD!. Smile

0 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;142458 wrote:

Of course, i can explain to you say "the size of the real number is must greater than the size of the natural numbers". That is something a 12 year old could understand, but if you ask "why?", then you have no choice by to understand all the technical details.

TuringEquivalent;142458 wrote:

What "variable" are you talking about?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;142564 wrote:

I honestly don ` t know what you mean by "variable". Do you have in mind "constants of nature"?

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;142730 wrote:

I honestly don ` t know what you mean by "variable". Do you have in mind "constants of nature"?

Forget variable if it confuses you...take object instead...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

What does "1 in A equals 1 in B" mean?

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;142736 wrote:

What does "1 in A equals 1 in B" mean?

What I mean is that the size and substance of the Whole truly determines the nature of its variables to the bottom...it determines what they are, and this including their context and circumstance...where they came to be and how...position, speed, charge and so on...their substance is process...
The Whole really equals the sum of its parts if we ad their history to the equation...history of dynamics

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;142273 wrote:

So There would still be the question of why this model, and not some other model.

At this point, i am a bit depress, because a complete theory in physics would not be able to tell me why the TOE given to me by the physicists is the only one that exist, nor will the model that accompany that TOE is the only one that applies to the given TOE.

You have hit upon the same truth that I have. The universe is completely and utterly contingent. The universe comes from nothing and for no reason. Just be glad you're here now.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;142795 wrote:

Certain words have a technical meaning attached to them by being part of the common language of an expert culture. The word "singleton" has a particular meaning in set theory that might not have had any meaning out a group of set theorists. The difference between you, and me is that i am forced to express certain ideas that are unavoidable in their appeal to the language of some expert culture. You are using words in such loose way that no one can understand, but yourself. You are not "being technical"( whatever that means), but you are being sloppy.

---------- Post added 03-23-2010 at 11:12 PM ----------

Night Ripper;142801 wrote:

You have hit upon the same truth that I have. The universe is completely and utterly contingent. The universe comes from nothing and for no reason. Just be glad you're here now.

I don` t think i agree. I do think the laws, and facts about the universe is contingent. I don ` t think the state of world given by the laws, and initial conditions are contingent. I don` t think the universe come from nothing( which i think is absurd). The common thought is that for there to be something is for that something to come from some thing else. This is wrong, and absurd.

2 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;142806 wrote:

Certain words have a technical meaning attached to them by being part of the common language of an expert culture. The word "singleton" has a particular meaning in set theory that might not have had any meaning out a group of set theorists. The difference between you, and me is that i am forced to express certain ideas that are unavoidable in their appeal to the language of some expert culture. You are using words in such loose way that no one can understand, but yourself. You are not "being technical"( whatever that means), but you are being sloppy.

I would give you Fernando Pessoa answer about what Tech is, but in your case I may say its pointless...you have no idea on the implications of what you state and defend, but the funny thing is that your full of Technique...Ignorance is blessed...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;142978 wrote:

I would give you Fernando Pessoa answer about what Tech is, but in your case I may say its pointless...you have no idea on the implications of what you state and defend, but the funny thing is that your full of Technique...Ignorance is blessed...

What did i say? How is what i said warrant a personal attack?

I said you are sloppy because:

1. You are not being clear with your language.
2. You mistake not being clear( 1) from being "technical".

To be honest, there are certain ideas that are impossible( practically) to convey without the use of the language of an expert culture. I try to use less tech words here just because most people might not understand what i am talking about. I have the intellectual integrity to be clear in a subject that requires a lot of technical language. You are the opposite of me. You try to be as vague as possible not because the technical nature of the subject. Why? I have no idea. You are completely right about one thing. Ignorance is blessed.

0 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;142806 wrote:

I don` t think the universe come from nothing( which i think is absurd).

There's nothing absurd about it.

Quote:

The need for the normal ordering of particle fields in the vacuum can be interpreted by the idea that a pair of virtual particles may briefly "pop into existence", and then annihilate each other a short while later.

We already know that something can come from nothing. It's part of modern physics. I'm just applying the same idea to the universe itself.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;143019 wrote:

There's nothing absurd about it.

We already know that something can come from nothing. It's part of modern physics. I'm just applying the same idea to the universe itself.

You are mistaken, because the "nothing" of modern physics is empty space, and empty space is not nothing. It has properties that are described by modern physics.

To get completely nothing( whatever that means) is lack any structure imposed by any equations of physics. That is not physically possible.

2 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;143022 wrote:

You are mistaken, because the "nothing" of modern physics is empty space, and empty space is not nothing. It has properties that are described by modern physics.

To get completely nothing( whatever that means) is lack any structure imposed by any equations of physics. That is not possible.

So why do they say the BB started from nothing?

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;143024 wrote:

So why do they say the BB started from nothing?

I said the physical universe began some 13 billion years ago. By saying this, i made no commitment to:

1. the universe come from nothing( which is absurd).

2. There is some preceding state before the big bang.

3. Our universe is form from a preceding universe( mother universe).

I might not commit to 1-3, but i do thing 2-3 are very likely. I am not sure. Again: i am not sure( not something you read often)

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;143022 wrote:

You are mistaken, because the "nothing" of modern physics is empty space, and empty space is not nothing. It has properties that are described by modern physics.

To get completely nothing( whatever that means) is lack any structure imposed by any equations of physics. That is not physically possible.

It was just an example. You're missing the point. It's still the same idea. Suddenly there are two particles where before there were none. Suddenly there is a universe where before there was none.

TuringEquivalent;143027 wrote:

I might not commit to 1-3, but i do thing 2-3 are very likely. I am not sure. Again: i am not sure( not something you read often)

But 2-3 don't solve the mystery, why something instead of nothing. Saying that we come from another universe or another state doesn't solve anything. That's like saying God did it. The question remains, why did that universe exist, why did that state exist, why does God exist?

It's like when people asked what holds the world up and someone said an elephant. Then people asked what holds the elephant up and someone said a turtle. Then people just stopped asking and nothing was really explained.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Quote:

It was just an example. You're missing the point. It's still the same idea. Suddenly there are two particles where before there were none. Suddenly there is a universe where before there was none.

Again, this notion that the physical comes from nothing( whatever this means) can be reject. Never mind that "something coming from nothing" is itself a bit impossible. There is also many conceivable alternatives. Our universe could come from a mother universe, a collision between between branes etc. I don ` t see the necessity that the universe need to come from nothing( whatever this means).

Quote:

But 2-3 don't solve the mystery, why something instead of nothing. Saying that we come from another universe or another state doesn't solve anything.

It does solve the original question, but it does presuppose something else. To solve why our universe exist by positing another, mother universe will lead us to presuppose this mother universe.

Quote:

That's like saying God did it. The question remains, why did that universe exist, why did that state exist, why does God exist?

Saying that god did it would not solve the original mystery because the existence of god itself be a mystery. Why does god exist instead of nothing etc?

To answer the question "why does anything at all exist". You need to realize
this is a different question from "why our physical space-time manifold exist?"
The" everything" need not be the same as our space-time manifold. There could be something not in our space-time manifold that generates us.

My own answer is that there had to be something that exist. It could be god, it could be a set of laws, or metalaws, or some type of matter. Again: i am not sure.

Quote:

It's like when people asked what holds the world up and someone said an elephant. Then people asked what holds the elephant up and someone said a turtle. Then people just stopped asking and nothing was really explained.

I completely understand.

You might be interested in this:
YouTube - Paul Davies on an Ultimate Explanation Part 5/5

If you listen to the whole thing. I think you realize more fundamental question is not "where the bb come from?", or " why something exist?", but rather " why this set of laws?" The reason is that the laws is what import order. My own feeling is that there are other laws, meta laws. In fact, all logically possible set of laws would describe a universe, or a multiverse.

2 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;143057 wrote:

My own answer is that there had to be something that exist.

Nothing has to exist though. Why would you think that? You're talking about necessity and the only things that are necessary are tautologies. Tautologies are necessarily true. However, they are also empty. It is necessarily true that "it will either rain or not rain tomorrow" but it says nothing about the weather.

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;143057 wrote:

I think you realize more fundamental question is not "where the bb come from?", or " why something exist?", but rather " why this set of laws?"

But this question is illegitimate, as has been explained to you before, because if there are laws then those laws are random, so there is no"why"!

0 Replies

A completed theory of everything!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know