Grand Unifying Theory of Everything (part 1)

Welcome to A2K

Although your conclusions so far are familiar to anyone who has read Buddhist doctrines, your premise about what is "given", your attempt at "objectivity", and the very idea that "logical reasoning" can be utilised in reaching that conclusion are all philosophically problematic.

If you follow up many of the philosophy topics in this forum, especially with reference to "reality" or "truth" you will find heated debate over these issues. These often involve references to "non-binary logic", "anthropocentrism", and "languaging". Godels theorem has also been discussed with respect to the epistemological status of axioms in the coherence of systems.

See This Response to your identical question over in Science and Mathematics, misteryule (and welcome to A2K, BTW). As observed, prolly ain't a real good idea ta quit yer day job ta concentrate on yer present project.


Oh, and not much point postin' somethin' more than once around here - no real problem with that, just not much point to it. A topic that's gonna get attention is gonna get it just about where ever it gets placed, the way things work hereabouts. Lots easier to keep track of just one converstion, too.

The topic you write is something I have thought about some 20 years ago and I still do at some moments.
You started with the following statement :
and are actually equal and opposite.
I started with : =

That idea came from theory.

will be created when are made.
Imagine a blank paper, it is nothing. Imagine that the blank paper is completely made black. There still within the paper nothing, there is no drawing, although it is in fact completely or

Image that you draw a line. Then there is something. There is a limit.


I think that are very important.
And when I heard about Einstein, then I saw a real limit.
There is a maximum speed... the speed of light.
That maximum speed of light seems very important for the creation of our universe.

And than I saw also that was not so linear anymore, which makes that time is another dimension.
Everything is realy relative... within the Universe.

To end it, I also believe that there was always something and we will always have something.

Gravity? Substance exerts an attractive force on other substance, the more substantial, the more forceful?

And where there is nothing there is no forceful attraction?

"hope that helps"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Grand Unifying Theory of Everything (part 1)


Sorry, gonna have to stop you there before you go any further.

The Universe does not exist within space. If anything, space exists within the Universe, but not the other way around.

I'm with Rosborne on the space thing.

Also, the expansion of the universe might be the expansion of space between matter or some sort of substance and not something going outward into 'void'. That's speculation though.

I find it illogical that nothing = something. By definition nothing is the absence of something. Whether an absolute 'nothing' can exist, I'm unsure of.

I'm not sure I agree with the theory that "nothing" is something tangeable, that can be equal or opposite to anything. Nothing is not merely the absence of "something" it is the absence of everything. It's a linguistic crutch to describe an abstraction that doesn't and can't exist in any way, hypothetical or otherwise. The same for something a little more conventional, like a hole. Then you get semantic absurdities like having a person named "nobody" who children blame for braking things, and being able to "carry around" a hole in your pocket (or take it out and put it in something else, ala Yellow Submarine).

I think I see your point. It's all the vagueness in the semantics. However, a person may use 'nothing' as the absence of a certain thing, like 'nothing' is in a bottle, meaning that no observeable object is in the bottle. This nothing is a word that depends on context. Absolute 'nothing' in the sense of the absence of everything is weird. There are two things to be considered: do you mean by 'nothing' that it is the absence of all concepts? or is 'nothing' the absence of all things and that it doesn't matter if we can see it as a concept...

Since he said in the first post that our existence disproves any ides of "nothing" that he meant absolute nothing (he also said that "nothing" was an absolute). When we say that there is "nothing in the bottle" or that there is a "hole in the ground", I would classify that as an idiom. A rather more linguistically universal idiom, but an idiom nonetheless.