The Theory that Everything Matters

[SteveA]

I wanted to post a recent perspective I had that was quite beautiful to me and this relates to my previous comments regarding a Theory of Everything that Matters (what else would we want to concern ourselves with? There appears to be no purpose in going beyond that)

The new theory might be the "Theory that Everything Matters".

What are people looking for in a Theory of Everything? Why the search and exploration? Obviously there must be some emotions, reasons, desires and/or personal values involved in order that we search for something, but specifically what is that which we're looking for?

For a long time the concept of the "unknown" has been a roadblock for me, though in some ways there has been a realization that, in itself, the unknown doesn't have any specific value - it's in many ways just an intangible nothing. The concepts of suspend or the feelings that something may be unknown or that there exists something "else" or "beyond" etc. waiting to be discovered are not in themselves unknown things but real experiences that don't really have any unknown properties to them. They're still there at any moment waiting to figuratively "grabbed and explored", but inherently they don't any specific value beyond any other experience - no more and no less. It's just as important a component of experience as a color of the rainbow or eating food etc.

In many ways, the belief in an unknown is just a drive to search for what "else" there might be, but if there really was a point where there was nothing else, then that drive no longer has a purpose (except for the possibility of adding some suspend - though truly suspense etc. are not unknown things.

Inherently it appears that from a larger perspective, things are predetermined in life and any choices that were made regarding it are not specifically made "here and now" but in terms of influences "beyond", though in another sense we could also say that's already reflected in the simple fact that everything is unique and inherently has its own path. In that sense, the true unknown is simply a matter of discovery what oneself is and this is reflected as unknowns in the environment, though the process is fundamentally linear and without choice on some scale which is not seen.

Consider this, if we have two otherwise indistinct doors and are asked to choose between what's behind one or the other, is there any value to making a choice between two such indistinguishable unknowns? No. (Though there's a weird example I say of something that implied that from certain subjective perspectives there can be ... but that's neither here nor there really, if you want you can believe you opened either door. If you don't get to see both the options, then what's behind both could be identical anyway)

But let's say that yes, there are an infinite number of diverse things and that some may be more preferable or not etc.

Ultimately, we could go on forever opening one door after another and we could even say that every one is continually preferable, in some sense, than the previous one - an infinite stage of ever greater and greater possibilities.

Now would that really be everything someone would want (I guess it depends upon the context and in some ways, yes, that might be an ideal) Let's look at this a bit closer though, wouldn't we also want the ability to figuratively "stop and smell the roses" or an ability to even go "backwards" for some reason if the fancy stuck us etc. etc. etc.

The ideal appears to simply be that there is a complete freedom to explore all these possibilities, and yes "more", but recognize that "more" is not inherently anything specific an can just represent a single pathway of predetermined evolution, and again, in a sense the storyline, including our ability to feel that something is uncertain or unknown is also present.

Now step back and try to consider every possible thing (even the possibilities beyond those of current comprehension and the manners in which many possible story lines can also be intertwined in the most intricate and elegant ways into all of this and recognize that all these concepts exist already as things that can be experienced) and yes, the concept of the "next" and ability to construct new forms etc. and select things from memory etc. can exist within this as well.

Now consider if you wanted to create something - is there something in the mix of all that, that should be irrevocably discarded, never to have the possibility of existence again in your perceptions? I don't think there's a single thing that doesn't at least offer the possibility of at least indirectly supporting something of beauty or value elsewhere, even as a contrast or memory to know why one thing was selected at some point over something else.

Basically, imagine being at the center of all those perceptions and that every single one has some potential use, value or beauty, even including one of them, neither more or less useful than any of the others and it's the "unknown" - you can write the entire chapter and leave room for the next if you want to, along with options for using white out etc. (at least if you don't really erase completely as that's like trying to destroy a past that got you to this moment, but it's "doable" covering over something for a while)

Anyway, there might be "more" than that in some sense (but seriously I can't think of anything more than that) and at least this morning it really "clicked" emotionally and was a beautiful realization that everything in it has a purpose, reason, value, use, potential etc.

What may lie further down the hallway was never more important than any of the incredible number of things that already has existed along the way and there's no purpose or value in only a continual "next" thing - more is never enough and better is never the best. I think "Enough" and the "Best" is already here once you get a broad enough view of the surroundings! ... but of course there's no reason to toss out "more" either - they're all excellent options with beautiful possibilities in any direction you want to head. (Yes, I'm doing a sales pitch to myself and am doing a decent job ... hard to say no to an offer like that, oh but wait, yes, you can say no for as long as you want to also, and that's part of the package as well!!! In fact it could probably be altered in terms of components and swap in or out things, so in some ways you can take as much or little as you want, (though I don't think irrevocably removing something is a great idea), but personally I don't think there's really anything better that could be imagined and in many ways it's already right here - front and center, and it's been a beautiful day)

So what would be the point of my post? I think it's just to suggest the possibility that if you had an ability to select the best way things could be and experience it (at least within logical limits - which may not ultimately be required, but I'm simply trying to work within the realm of things that appear to be conceivably possible to me) that could be something that's already been done, but it might take understanding why things are as they are to really be able to appreciate it and there might be little of anything that needs fixing in life - whatever the game plan was ahead of time might have panned out rather well (ok, maybe a few minor tweaks here or there if the creative mood strikes, but overall there could potentially be a complete freedom, at least within ones own capabilities and expecting anything more than that is likely to lead to disappointment - "more" is a vague terms and if it's not something specific, then "getting more" would similarly be something non-specific and if you can't think of anything else, then what more could you want? Maybe there's a paradox in there, but I admit that currently I'm hardly interested in even looking for what "else" there might be ... that's just another option out of many possible choices and can be left for whatever time I'd like to pursue that. In effect, none of this need actually be anything creative "now" but it could have already been created ahead of time - it doesn't really matter - the path of exploration of the unknown is a linear progression but that's the same in any direction you head and no more or less significant than anything else, which is a rather beautiful thought to me )

[labelwench]

A couple of times in my life, the sense of 'what am I looking for?', has been very profound.

I have even written to myself, as an exercise in psychology and analysis, on the topic.

When one has all of the amenities of life, and does not desire many of the common 'brass rings' that others pursue, why then, a sense of 'something missing'?

My present thought, is that this is getting very close to examining the energy of 'life' itself, that this 'seeker' aspect is part of life's program, common to all, with the variant being that we all look for that which resonates with us personally, and which may ultimately lead to the goal of truly knowing oneself.

In truth, I don't believe there is a single other person that we ever 'get to know', though we spend our life in the company of others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvtJPs8IDgU

[SteveA]

I assume that life around us reflects properties on many scales beyond our immediate seeing/knowing. We get samples of some of the letters or words, but not the language or the story, but among all that it would even appear logical that there's still the equivalent of a record of how someone got to where they are right here, right now (otherwise how could we physically move "forward" in time without all the pieces still present that led to this moment?)

One way or another, it's still there and part of that is something innate in the individual, there's everything there that led to the moment and the abilities to move to the future. It seems most likely that ones actions (from one perspective - though fundamentally there's no logical way to describe anything creative or growing but only the properties of things that already exist, so in a sense, logic is just a memory filled by something else) don't simply change the present moment but relationships over/across/through time. That was also something that hit me recently - in one sense, things have been set in motion and we're flying blind to an extent, but if we could really see all the influences and consequences over time of the things we do, would there be something we'd change?

It left me a bit awestruck to think of all the little things I do every day and what influences they have and how those could evolve for better or worse in many ways on much larger scales - though in a sense those actions alone would not be the sole cause of those events, they could still have a significant influence on the specific forms and times when they're expressed. In many ways, that's a responsibility I don't want to have but on the other hand I can't really avoid it and doing nothing isn't an option either. So, it's really just a matter of doing what you do in whatever way you choose to do it, though I think when you know you've done your best and the rest is up to something else, that's when it's easier to sit down and enjoy life for a while (All work and no play can make for some grumpiness! )

In truth, I don't believe there is a single other person that we ever 'get to know', though we spend our life in the company of others.

Then again, there may be someone you do get to know better along the way

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW-3KwXpkkM

[RascalPuff]

Dear SteveA:
Your dissertation seems reminiscent of J. Alfred Prufrock's question - 'Do I dare disturb the universe?' It may relate to your quasi dilemma (which imo, many share with you, though I've not previously seen it expressed as you do). T. S. Eliot also ponders the same issue.

There seems to be a direct relationship with 'the butterfly theory' of Lao Tzu, who may be the first person in known, written history to suggest that each and every small and apparently inconsequential event may initiate a sequence of repercussions that evolve into occasions of enormous consequence (rarely recognized as having been originated by whatever previously small event). In the past twenty years or so, a book entitled 'Chaos (theory)', contributes mightily to what was originally Lao Tzu's speculation known as 'the butterfly theory' (where the beat of a butterfly's wings in a garden may eventuate in a hurricane or tornado in another place at a later time; etceteras...). Anyway, word is that the book 'Chaos' apparently proves this notion out to be true.
Your post theme also fairly evokes the truism that 'Nature abhors a vacuum', and may suggest that 'we' are compelled to endeavor (to perservere) to add more to the existing existential vessel of bygone and ongoing events... There also seems to be a presence of 'melancholy' here; that we may be trying to preoccupy ourselves - in avoidance of ennui. (An antithesis to the cliche that 'We are not alone', is: That we are 'alone'.)
Imho, yours is a thematically interesting, thoughtfully addressed and meditatively inspiring focal point.

Best regards,
- RP

[SteveA]

Thank you, Rascal, for the thoughtful reply and yes, definitely related subjects.

I know much of my posts here can seem disorganized and conflicting and that's because I'm referring to many possible perspectives, though I see them as at least a possible cohesive "whole". What lies beyond the immediate here and now could always be questioned, but it's been quite a while since I've accepted "unknown"/random as a satisfactory answer for myself.

I don't believe we can really act or reason without a belief in at least something intangible - yesterday is no longer here, nor even the last second, yet we refer to these things all the time and treat them as real as motion itself. Time has been an enigma in many areas of physical science, yet it's one of the most pervasively clear things in experience. Without time, I can't imagine how anything in the universe could exist, yet physically it's intangible.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me quick list a few of "layers" of causation to all of this that I believe exist. There are different perspectives from each of the relationship the "here and now" has to these:

1) The inexplicable/random/unknown source which appears entirely beyond an ability to say anything precise about it, so in a sense my listing it here is paradoxical and potentially misrepresentative of it.

I don't know what to say about it but it would be the fundamental intangible creative source of things and it appears we can only describe the silohette of everything it is not (and I might be mistaken there as well).

There are two contexts we could take of the "here and now" and now relative to this. If we look at all possible things beyond ever being a part of ones own experience, influence or comprehension, then the "here and now" would probably be less than the dot of an i in the footnote of a brushstroke of an image that's practically unrelated to it.

In a more realistic view, there's everything of that that is/has been/will be a part of oneself and those possibilities. In that "subset" the here and now could, in many ways, be all that there, relevantly, has ever been and in a sense, this is really the only component of that possibility that should relate to any of us (and when I say us in this context, I'm not specifically talking about everything that someone else is or could be, but simply the part of others or other things that lie within that realm of those things I'm a part of, which is related to the next "layer").

2) The individual time line

Immediately I must say that truly I can only speak for myself, rather by definition, though I do believe that people and things can overlap (in which case they share components of a space), be embedded within each other (in some ways this can be seen as being a part of something elses past) or encompass each other (in which case that thing is a possible future) etc.

So we could see it similar to an individual "expanding" over time along a surface/boundary of interaction into a space, though fundamentally this a linear process and it's a single cause/effect chain laying within a space of conscious properties of experience.

It would seem that logically there is no possibility of choice at this level, as all choices are already reflected in the fact that out of that larger space of possible time lines, an individual is one of them. And this time line could be infinitely long, yet still not fill all of that space (there are different forms of infinite things - any thing that can grow without limit is still infinite)

There might be some entirely irrational things that exist, but really that would seem to lie at the previous unknown/creative level. At this point, everything is predetermined, but that's also the same as saying that unique individuals exist, which can still possess unseen/unknown properties to themselves or between themselves, but fundamentally this would be similar to a masking or illusion.

Don't misunderstand me though, there's little of any difference between illusion and reality except for beliefs, though in a sense it's those beliefs that I'm talking about here.

Anyway, the "here and now" from this perspective would be some particular point of evolution along this pathway. We still can't alter anything yet, though the version of time that this space uses is not necessarily the same version of time as we experience and in some ways we can still experience choices and a freedom further down.

3) The folding and nested form of a time line in conscious space.

Now this really where all the "fun" begins Though, of course, that's just a conscious opinion, but at least in terms of definitions there really should be nothing consciously "beyond" this, so in a sense, the first two layers I mentioned from the perspective of any conscious understanding should actually lie within this and I think this is much of the point Melanie has been trying to point out and in some ways this is also what "clicked" for me earlier today.

In a way we can imagine that #1 and #2 exist, and they may, but really they wouldn't be in any form we could consciously work with and in that sense they really are not even "unknowns" or "predetermined" because those concepts we consciously work with are not necessarily the same.

Notice that even life and death and nested layers of existence can still exist as forms of that conscious space through which ones time line passes.

I guess the real point is that #2 is basically the property of time passing and appears to be what allows that things and concepts etc. can change, but it is simply the existence of that property of time itself and not the remainder of the specific things that we experience over time or the properties of those events etc. but simply that such events can exist and change.

#3 adds all the specifics to this and even allows for this time line to be threaded through a space of interactions, so in a sense we could say that the universe is a product of a single time line (and it should be because things are held together coherently in their motions through time)

And this is finally where my comments above apply about what influences ones actions have. In some ways we could say that your actions affect nothing more than yourself and in one sense, this is nothing more than the everyday experiences and choices made all the time, but we could also see that as the leading edge of something much larger - in a way, chaos theory and the fact that chaotic properties exist in the universe reflects this fact. Both views can be true. So yes, we're experiencing and acting upon things on local and small scales, though those are also part of a larger picture.

At the same time, if we believe that #1 and #2 exist, then from a different perspective we're not really immediately influencing the larger picture but instead experiencing what it is already determined to be on a local scale, whereas if we don't believe #1 and #2 exist but instead that all these events are dynamically influenced, then the picture could be quite different.

-----------------------------------------

A more accurate view of what I believe we're actually experiencing now is that all we know of is basically all the twists and turns of consciousness (#3). I do think that things are probably predetermined on a scale that's so large it's practically irrelevant and that's not a problem to me because it just means that I am whatever I am (and I don't even know what all that is yet). That's a limitation I can accept and in a sense it is also liberating because I don't feel any need to be anything more/other/different than that. A choice only has value of there's something better, but if you already have those things, that's the best and there's no need for a choice (except maybe if you want to play games choosing between all the best things ).

It's easy for me to ramble and I should get to bed soon, so I'll have to stop there. Overall, I'm not unsatisfied with how things can be, though I guess I'm just trying to find the best view - the one that works best (which of course is a subjective thing) both intellectually and emotionally with room to grow and explore and fit in all the rest too, hopefully with as few trade offs as possible, though it can also be that what initially appears as a trade off can be a blessing in disquise and something you may not have even initially realized that you were looking for. It's likely that emotions have some insights to things in ways that may not be currently recognized. Considering the complexity of things that even just one thing like an eye does in the background, it's not surprising that emotions nudge and pull to give us some directions and we might even see them similar to having some safety features like an airbag in a car.

(Now I completely drifted off topic ... yes, I better get to bed! Goodnight and thanks for the comments, RP)