Absolute truth?

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

You are right Guigus: what I said WAS intended to be a mystical-like expression, not a rational one. It was neither right nor wrong. Hopefully it was beyond either--now THAT'S mystical (Gate gate para gate parasamgate)

Rigorously speaking, it was wrong, because it assumed you have to wait until you are dead for being and nothingness to be the same, while they are already so (your death is not that important).

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
No, this is your theory of what a theory of everything might look like. By definition, a theory of everything is a theory that explains everything, period. The day we find it, then we will be able to tell how it looks like, and not a second before.

You keep reminding me just how foolish you truly are... This is not a matter of your failed attempts at being clever... "The theory of everything" is the name of a theory physicists have been chasing for quite some time... Read up on it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

It's you that are proving to be foolish by failing to understand the obvious, namely, that a theory of everything means just a theory capable of explaining everything--no matter what physicists believe such a theory should look like. And not only that: you are also ignoring that long before Science was even born, philosophy had already asked for an explanation of everything that exists--the first one was Thales of Miletus, about 547 BC--to which today's physics historically owes its own capacity to do the same question (knowing a little history never hurts).

Or perhaps you mean the expression "Theory of Everything" was recently trademarked by some Physics "organization"? If so, are you paying royalties? Because I am not...

2 Replies

@guigus,

Guigus, if you read my post carefully you would see that we are already what we will be upon our death:
"I've always had the feeling that "everything" and "nothing" are the same.To make it personal, when I die I will become both nothing and everything. While I am alive I am "some thing" in particular; when I die I will be no particular thing, ergo I will be "no thing" or--as I really am now-- everything. This applies to you as well.

2 Replies

@guigus,

I suggest you take your 'mind control' elsewhere, no one here is interested in your argument which you are passing off as 'obvious'.

No matter how loud you shout it you are still a fool.

Of course a fool who persists in his folly will become 'wise'.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Well if:

"we are already what we will be upon our death"

Why do you continue to use phrases such as 'When I die'? Or 'I will become'? Presumably right now you are all there is and are as full as any could be.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Guigus, if you read my post carefully you would see that we are already what we will be upon our death:
"I've always had the feeling that "everything" and "nothing" are the same.To make it personal, when I die I will become both nothing and everything. While I am alive I am "some thing" in particular; when I die I will be no particular thing, ergo I will be "no thing" or--as I really am now-- everything. This applies to you as well.

I'm sorry. Your saying that upon your death you would "become both nothing and everything" gave me the impression you meant your life excluded such an identity--which is precisely the mystical view of this. I'm glad to be wrong.

0 Replies

@JPLosman0711,

JPLosman0711 wrote:

I suggest you take your 'mind control' elsewhere, no one here is interested in your argument which you are passing off as 'obvious'.

No matter how loud you shout it you are still a fool.

Of course a fool who persists in his folly will become 'wise'.

Forget the insults for a moment, and just answer me: isn't a theory of everything a theory capable of explaining everything, no matter how? Putting another way: do you think that if today's physicists found a completely new theory that indeed explained everything they would refuse it because it was no longer what they used to call a "theory of everything"? Of course not (unless they were complete fools, to use a word of your liking). And why? Because it doesn't matter how you explain everything, provided you do.

2 Replies

@guigus,

Before I answer your question I'd like to direct your attention to this:

First off, there is no 'me' who can 'insult' you. You classify certain sentences or phrases as 'insults' because you see them as a threat to you from your 'self'.

Secondly there are no theories.

A theory is a concept, which is merely a combination a characteristics that people(Be-ing) use to 'prove' the existence of the outside world. It's basically an excuse to look outside instead of in so as to manufacture certainty with everyone around them.

Ever since you can remember we have been using all sorts of proof(theories/concepts/explanations) to define our existence, instead of looking 'inside' of who we are and standing on what we know.

Your question is sort of tricky because it presupposes that there already is an explanation for 'everything'. If you're going to grant that presupposition then what could 'how' matter?

I suggest you look 'inside' and stop relying on 'theories'.

1 Reply

@guigus,

To reply to your extended post:

Are you merely suggesting word play here? Are people 'fools' because the mean what they're saying but use different words?

Last, what good do explanations do? I mean seriously, most explanations just get my head into a 'flurry' of anger.

You'll find the list of presuppositions in most professional 'explanations' to be quite large.

1 Reply

@JPLosman0711,

JPLosman0711 wrote:

Before I answer your question I'd like to direct your attention to this:

First off, there is no 'me' who can 'insult' you. You classify certain sentences or phrases as 'insults' because you see them as a threat to you from your 'self'.

Secondly there are no theories.

A theory is a concept, which is merely a combination a characteristics that people(Be-ing) use to 'prove' the existence of the outside world. It's basically an excuse to look outside instead of in so as to manufacture certainty with everyone around them.

Ever since you can remember we have been using all sorts of proof(theories/concepts/explanations) to define our existence, instead of looking 'inside' of who we are and standing on what we know.

Your question is sort of tricky because it presupposes that there already is an explanation for 'everything'. If you're going to grant that presupposition then what could 'how' matter?

I suggest you look 'inside' and stop relying on 'theories'.

You began your post with "before I answer your question." Well, I'm still waiting...

1 Reply

@guigus,

Have you read my second reply to your post?

I did answer your question, now if you're refusing to move off your own presupposed 'ground' then that's a different story.

0 Replies

@JPLosman0711,

JPLosman0711 wrote:

To reply to your extended post:

Are you merely suggesting word play here? Are people 'fools' because the mean what they're saying but use different words?

Last, what good do explanations do? I mean seriously, most explanations just get my head into a 'flurry' of anger.

You'll find the list of presuppositions in most professional 'explanations' to be quite large.

I am not discussing any particular explanation, just observing that for a theory to be a theory of everything it is enough that it explains everything. There is nothing to discuss here, really. It is almost shocking how some people can "think" otherwise.

2 Replies

@guigus,

I contend that you are just looking for anyone to agree with you, rather than actually thinking and having a coherent discussion.

Good luck finding a yes man, you already have your 'self' as one, isn't that enough?

1 Reply

@guigus,

There is always something to discuss!!!

Why miss out on a chance to have an intelligent conversation with someone?

I'd say, that if you keep thinking your way is the 'only one' then you're limiting your 'self'.

0 Replies

@JPLosman0711,

JPLosman0711 wrote:

I contend that you are just looking for anyone to agree with you, rather than actually thinking and having a coherent discussion.

Good luck finding a yes man, you already have your 'self' as one, isn't that enough?

It didn't need to be a "yes," it could well be a "no" (provided it was a justified one). However, you answer was "there are no theories," which I preferred to ignore (don't you see that "there are no theories" is itself a theory?).

2 Replies

@guigus,

Alright sir, I'll play your game.

Here's a 'theory' for you:

My theory is that a theory(concept) is a combinations of characteristics that were 'put together' by people(Be-ing).

Now, if I was absolutely forced to answer your question it would be a 'yes'. A theory of everything would include 'everything' regardless of how it is 'proved'.

What you need to see is your question is a non-issue because there are no explanations and there is no 'everything'.

There's only 'you', Be-ing!!!!

1 Reply

@guigus,

It is not a 'theory', you just call it one because apparently you need it neatly formatted and labeled to your liking.

Just because you attach a word to a string of other words doesn't make it so.

Even if it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and walks like a duck. Doesn't mean it's a ******* duck.

0 Replies

@JPLosman0711,

JPLosman0711 wrote:

Alright sir, I'll play your game.

Here's a 'theory' for you:

My theory is that a theory(concept) is a combinations of characteristics that were 'put together' by people(Be-ing).

Now, if I was absolutely forced to answer your question it would be a 'yes'. A theory of everything would include 'everything' regardless of how it is 'proved'.

What you need to see is your question is a non-issue because there are no explanations and there is no 'everything'.

There's only 'you', Be-ing!!!!

Now I have to thank you for (finally) answering to my question.

Now you say that there is no "everything." Well, if you consider that assertion carefully, you'll realize you are doing one of two things:

1) Denying that everything exists as a reality, which is denying your existence, the existence of your negation, my existence, etc.

2) Denying that everything exists as a concept, which makes you contradict yourself, since your negation of that concept, by making use of it, proves it exists.

Neither way things seem much promising...

1 Reply

@guigus,

The only 'reality' that exists is 'you'.

I do deny my existence, just not in the way you're thinking.

There is not a 'me' that is aware of my existing 'self'. My 'negation' arises and passes away in a fleeting millisecond, does the wind you feel blowing your hair on a cool winter day exist? Or is it just something you 'feel'?

I am not denying your existence, in fact you are the only one participating in this conversation.

Concepts and negations of concepts also come and go like the wind, just as thoughts and feelings.

When you get pissed off for losing your job, does the actual 'feeling' of anger exist in and of itself? Or is it just something you are temporarily aware of?

PS: You're the one who 'makes use' of whatever you read(concepts/negations) not me.

1 Reply

@guigus,

True, but it comes down to the word "concept". I agree we learn "natural numbers" but there is an infinite number of them. (although I did remember a program about a mathemetician who said infinites do have an ending of sorts) But what is going on when you are reaching for a theory/concept of everything? Is it merely understanding the "gist" of everything? If so, extreme outliers may become unexpected. Also, if a theory/concept of everything didn't require knowing all the particulars can it really be called a theory/concept of everything? (perhaps what may be closer to the "truth" is a "concept of almost everything from the perpective of humans". But that would be a mouthful to say...)

1 Reply

Absolute truth?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know