A completed theory of everything!

I have been thinking on this lately, and the answer I got for determinism or indeterminism as turn odder and odder...it may be that both are "true" in a loose sense ! In this "envisionement" still prevails Hard-determinism, as it has the last word, but at least accounts for how indeterminism could be explained away as a phenomena, and accepted for practical purposes...all of this without questioning the Imutability and Eternity of BEING itself...

Lets take Super-string Theory as a base platform but change some things only for the purpose of sustaining the hypothesis : (no harm meant as it is a brilliant and elegant Theory)

1 - Consider that Multiverse is in fact standing still in a 11 dimension film elongated in an Axis of discrete Space/Time were the entire set of possible Universes is perfectly determined or defined to a maximum number, thus covering all possible choices of what there is...(this is the"material" basis of Logic for the purpose) (this could also be considered a mix between Information Theory and Superstring, I guess )

2 - Now consider that the entire set of Universes implies a link between its parts but with a partial barrier (not an ultimate barrier)

3 - Consider that Human beings and all the other conscious possible beings, are somehow aware of they "other selves options" in parallel Universes, (a Meta-Human Conscience) and this, through the complete set of all possible choices they do in each of them, being each world, on a macro level, perfectly determined...and considering on a micro level that the collapse of the wave function is caused from other worlds "interference" in the dialectical process of mutual "observation" from all the set of worlds on each other through the axis of the, in fact "frozen", 11 dimension "Meta-Space/Time...( bear in mind that all dimensions must be linked obviously so this is actually conceivable...)

4 - apply the same idea to objects probabilistic statistical behaviour...

...Are you getting to what I am aiming ?

This is far from finished as this is a radical an very recent idea that I have...but it certainly sounds great, and appeals to me !

(by worlds "observing" each other, I mean Information, on each other actual internal state in all internal possible locations)

Best Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

---------- Post added 03-30-2010 at 02:10 PM ----------

This kind of impossible reconciliation, between Determinism and Indeterminism, reminds me of Superstring fight with Supergravity...

---------- Post added 03-30-2010 at 02:35 PM ----------

...We can in a final step bring all this to a perfect one dimension axis of binary programming data...or is it, a step to far ?

...OK check this to see were I am coming from...its from another thread, but it explains why the reference may not be truly abstract...

I am quoting myself:

...The challenge remains, however, to say what underlies this alleged dichotomy. In the absence of such an account, the philosophical significance of the contrast remains uncertain. We may know how to classify things as abstract or concrete by appeal to "intuition". But unless we know what makes for abstractness and concreteness, we cannot know what (if anything) hangs on the classification...

from your own source:

Abstract Objects (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

My intention for those reference are just to give you the definition of abstract objects. You need to know abstract objects as conceived has the the property of being non-causal, and non-spatial-temporal.

Note that by telling you what about abstract object is, it is completely irrelevant to what underly the distinction between abstract and concrete objects. Knowing what A "is" is a different from why "A is different from B".
The former is definitional, while the latter address the reason for the distinction.

I appreciate the effort, but I think that almost everyone can tell what abstract or concrete objects are in practical terms...

Can you tell what makes for abstractness or concreteness ?
How do you define a concrete object ? What?s the fundamental substance ? is it matter ? what is matter ? Is it a "grain" ? is it a wave ? what is a wave made of ?

Eg 1 shows that there are objects that exist outside of space-time, if they exist at all.

My second example eg2 shows that it is meaningful to talk about disjointed worlds.

What can I comment if you contradict yourself in the sentence ???

What do you understand by meaningful, and what do you mean when you say, it shows ???

it shows nothing, and I guess that?s why scientists on that subject state such is a metaphysical claim...

listen Turing I am quite focus, so stop with that please, the point all along was, IF is not good enough...the problem rests with assuming some premisses...that was the entire debate...some may think there is a good chance of them being true, others don?t...my only point being this matter is not settled, and there is sufficient reason to doubt it...

To were I stand disjointed Reality?s are out of Time/Space to each other, directly or indirectly there?s no link...such panorama is odd and hardly serves any purpose in nature...

Multiverse level one assumes that this worlds hypothetically have a common ancestor, the same Law?s of nature, 4 forces, with slightly different initial conditions, this meaning, considering that dimensions are linked together, it has nothing to do, with truly disjointed worlds...at best they are transcendental, and this is a very different picture !

I have no objection to Islands if there is a Sea to linked them, in the case Dimensions make the job !

What Everett does NOT postulate:

At certain magic instances, the world undergoes
some sort of metaphysical "split" into two branches
that subsequently never interact.
This is not only a misrepresentation of the MWI, but
also inconsistent with the Everett postulate, since the
subsequent time evolution could in principle make the
two terms in equation (2) interfere.

As a monism defender I love its Unitarianism, its elegance and even its soundness, all good so far, give or take the problem of true infinities, but from that point on, I can only see Chaos and not Order, pure speculation just for the sake of keep going, and at this level I often remind myself, that one must always have present that diversity without cohesion makes no sense...

...given, what I just have said, and what I heard from you so far, I see no point in continuing to attend the debate, as you haven?t brought yet sufficient reason for a level 4 Multiverse...actually from the paper that I read on it, there is n?t any at all !

As to the Wheeler/Hawking question "Why this equations and not others", I answer as so many do and have done, through the centuries, from all areas of Science and Philosophy...they, this particular Law?s, to the extent of my perception on World cosmogony, are simply NECESSARY ! ...reflecting on the becoming, the process of BEING.

P.S. : ...Its pointless to insist in any further commentary on the issue up for debate. It has been a long exhausting and unproductive deaf talk, that should have been ended, long time ago...

I wish you good luck on whatever might be that is catching your interest or attention, specially when it comes to the part of sharing it with others in a meaningful constructive way. Let that be your hard focus in a Globalized experience of communication !

With nothing further, Best Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE