[Guille]

Originally Posted by dleviwing It has been said that Nicolas Tesla had knowledge that has never been presented to the general public. Could it be that he knew the TOE solution? One quote of his that I find disturbing is: "I know how to split the Earth". The same questions and predictions were posed with the development of nuclear power. The TOE may or may not bring about undesirable changes, but it will take more than mankind's understanding of nature to destroy her creation.

Yes, ok, the GUTOE is more than destruction ability, but I doubt Tesla knew it. And anyway, Nostradamus, who, by the way, was born the same day as me, also mayde hundreds or thousends of predictions and claims of the sort of "I know how to split the earth", and the "proof" if it can at all be written in apostropheese, of these visions, are really incredibly very doubtable, to the point that you doubt that if at all is worth it to doubt about it. It's just as far from science as religion, art, astrology, numerology, or any of that kind of crap.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by TinyTree I suspect the TOE, once discovered, will not have any direct applications for hundreds of years. (I of course could be wrong). But it would fundamentally have to tie together gravity and quantum mechanics. The only real threat from it is if it described some physical phenomena (like a black hole) which was readily creatable, and then someone created it. But since we already have that in reality (the atomic bomb) it seems much more likely that we would do ourselves in with atomic bombs than with any new theories- why would we need them to influence our future trajectory? That is to say in other words: we already have enough knowledge of the universe to rip ourselves to shreds, and have done so repeatedly, how would a new mechanism make any difference whatsoever, unless it was much easier to accomplish? (Which I doubt). So the theory of everything will likely not impact life for hundreds of years, but I suspect at some point it would have some profound impact on interstellar travel, which is probably hundreds if not thousands of years off. The only exception to my statements are if a religion springs up around it, then that could change everything (for either better or worse, but probably both)

I sort of agree. Well, I don't know if your dating is very correct, but definatelly, just like all theories of physics, and of sciences, it will not inmediatelly find a use. The first kind of use that will be able to be done from it will be of the kind of predictions, done by equations that are or part of the theory or derivated from it. See, these equations, ussually in physics, aren't known to be able of doing such predictions, but then they are discovered to. The second kind of use that a scientific theory has is the applyability to technology, engeneering, inventions and experimental sciences. The last will be the first to use it, as it always happens. Engeneers will be the second of the group to use the theory, as they definatlely need it to work and improve things. The rest of technology not included in engeneering, will be then third kind of things to use the theory. And, finally, inventions will be done. But inventions are hard to do, that's why they will take a long time. For example, in the 70s and 80s was when physicists started to discover that quantum computers oculd be done, whiles the theory was there since planck started it. And the mayor reason why it will tak etime to this is that of all theories: the practical side of sciences won't have devleope dyet enough for it, thus, it iwll not be interesting., until knew technology arrives.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Robert Of course, it is my view that the TOE be developed and understood, i.e. explainable in clear and understandable language, as soon as possible; hence this website. Whether people believe it or not is another question. Most people prefer to be right rather than to know the truth. An ego thing I guess. Thus, if one believes in a deity, he will continue to do so, and if one is an Atheist she will continue to be one. It takes time to change ones beliefs that are so deeply ingrained in ones nature. This is one topic I'd like to bring up at this Saturday's Chat Session - Thoughts -- Where do thoughts come from? Why are we so resistant to new ideas? Why do we sometimes believe in nonsense? How our environment, religious and cultural upbringing, education have such a profound influence on our thoughs and beliefs.

Why and how our brain/mind works? That is the very principal question of all the study of thought. But to answer it, we must first answer the smaller individual questions. But I don't want to answer them here in this thread because I'm definatelly coming to the chat session and I'll have lots and lots of things to expose there, I doubt I'll have time, so I will start a thread tomorrow to discuss on everything I read or don't manage to post.

Originally Posted by Robert On the other hand, if the TOE says that there is no spiritual reality

I wonder a lot about this part of GUTOE's ethics. Will the GUTOE be influenced by society/cultures, or will this be influenced by it? Definatelly the GUTOE will affect society and culture. If the GUTOE is a true philosciensphical theory, based on ratio-logical thought, and empirical observations, then it won't be influenced by society/culture. But if you think about it, even if the theory is like that, it will be influeced by society/culture, because the research done to acheive it will not be objective: if it's a person that believes in the soul, that person won't look (and thus, won't find) a theory that proofs there is no soul. But actually one of Murphy's laws says exactly the opposite: things appear when you don't need/want/like them, so if you look for a GUTOE with spiritual reality, it will have no spiritual reality, and vice versa. The proof is Rusell's investigation for a logical logic, by which he arrive dto his paradox, and concluded there is no logical logic. Poor old Russell...

[michellemfry]

Tesla said he could split the earth. Do you think it was related to the iron core? or to how to split a spherical orb, no matter what the radius?

I remember hearing that we had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the earth 200x over. Now someone can split the earth. And the universe is filled with hydrogen. Imagine if the heavens were set on fire, more than the usual stars shining. The truth is the universe is full of explodeable material. The twinkle of the stars is not a non-violent, gentle, fusion. Vast amounts of energy and matter are being produced and released.

Why? E = mc^2. You get an awful, terrible amount of energy from very little mass. Why? To fuel the expansion of the universe. Why? Size matters. Why? Little things mean alot(that's us!).

[Guille]

Originally Posted by michellemfry Tesla said he could split the earth. Do you think it was related to the iron core? or to how to split a spherical orb, no matter what the radius? I remember hearing that we had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the earth 200x over. Now someone can split the earth. And the universe is filled with hydrogen. Imagine if the heavens were set on fire, more than the usual stars shining. The truth is the universe is full of explodeable material. The twinkle of the stars is not a non-violent, gentle, fusion. Vast amounts of energy and matter are being produced and released. Why? E = mc^2. You get an awful, terrible amount of energy from very little mass. Why? To fuel the expansion of the universe. Why? Size matters. Why? Little things mean alot(that's us!).

Ha... It's an atractive deduction, but it's a too positivist existential view. I prefer to think that each individual human is nothing in the whole of earth and the whole of earth is nothing to the universe. So we are nothing to something which is itself nothing to everything.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by force5 You bring another long lasting debate to mind. That of free will versus predetermined events. How do you think the world would change if it was proven that everything is pre-determined.

sorry it took so long to reply. Well in this case I think it would give us more respect for time, more reverance for the beauty of action. Indeed it would be very profound, uplifting and yet besetting. Overall it couldn't change anything but how we appreciate. In reality free will and destiny will always exist side by side. Appreciation is what is most important. The appreciation of everything is the cornerstone of the theory of everything, though that's not necessarily the part that the "scientists" will care about.

kudos, SubVersion

[subversion]

Originally Posted by Robert Of course, it is my view that the TOE be developed and understood, i.e. explainable in clear and understandable language, as soon as possible; hence this website. Whether people believe it or not is another question. Most people prefer to be right rather than to know the truth. An ego thing I guess. Thus, if one believes in a deity, he will continue to do so, and if one is an Atheist she will continue to be one. It takes time to change ones beliefs that are so deeply ingrained in ones nature. This is one topic I'd like to bring up at this Saturday's Chat Session - Thoughts -- Where do thoughts come from? Why are we so resistant to new ideas? Why do we sometimes believe in nonsense? How our environment, religious and cultural upbringing, education have such a profound influence on our thoughs and beliefs. Let's assume that the TOE contains such conclusive evidence and is so easily explained that everyone instantly believes in what it explains reality to be. Whether the TOE makes lives better or worse will depend on what it says about reality. For example, if it says that there is a spiritual reality where we go after death and are judged on our deeds during our life, then given a new life that we reincarnate into, and suffer the negative karma of our previous lives, then we would certainly become nice, loving and generous people. On the other hand, if the TOE says that there is no spiritual reality, no intellegent design, no consequences to our actions other than what society imposes, then the only thing keeping us from becoming bad people might be our conscience or empathy for other people, but would this be enough? I think that over time, perhaps generations, this feeling of guilt would subside since we would now see each other as "stupid sacks of protoplasm" as barkster likes to refers to himself. We might still be influenced by the illusion that people are more than sacks, but we would realize it is only an illusion. I think that would be very depressing for most people -- to realize, beyond any doubt, that your life is essentially meaningless, that there is nothing more after death, that you react to life's events in a fixed way based on the neural pathways in your brain. This would be no different from waking up and suddenly realizing that you are a robot. Are we robots? Are your thoughts simply rationalizations for actions which you had no control over in the first place? Come find out at this Saturday, November 12th, at 3pm in the Flash Chatroom. Carly will entertain guests preceeding the Chat Session. Hope to see you there. --Robert

as much as I don't like to say that the TOE will uphold religion, I see that you're alternative scenario is so bleak as for me to assume the former must be the case. This is because as a rule I always assume only the best things. I think that's a good rule don't you?

Let it be known that, if my theory is correct, it means that life DOES have meaning. It means that life is profoundly meaningful. Why I can't tell you because that would give it away, but be comforted in knowing that there is a very VERY startling purpose to it all. cheers

[subversion]

wrong, according to the TOE which I have discovered we are potentially one of the most important things in the universe. Life itself is the most important and meaningful thing in the universe so whether we are the absolute most important thing or not depends on if life is unique to Earth.

[Robert]

Originally Posted by subversion as much as I don't like to say that the TOE will uphold religion, I see that you're alternative scenario is so bleak as for me to assume the former must be the case. This is because as a rule I always assume only the best things. I think that's a good rule don't you?

For the purpose of being jolly, happy, and content this is a very good rule. It is certainly no fun being around a pessimist. So, in general, I think this is a very good rule.

However, for the purpose of understanding the Theory of Everything, I think this is a very bad rule. To assume the best thing, will cloud your judgement, placing greater value on the evidence indicating goodness and lesser value on the evidence indicating badness. To want a result, or to hope for a certain result makes us see things that may not be there, or interpret evidence with a slant towards our hope. I propose a better rule, "Let us seek the truth and follow the evidence wherever that may lead, and then have the courage to believe it".

This is like going to the Doctor and the doctor discovers you have terminal cancer with no hope for recovery. Does the doctor tell you the happy news, that you will live for another 20 years? Or does the doctor tell you the truth, that you will be dead within a month. Do you want the best news or the truth. I want the truth and the courage to believe it. Of course, the truth is sometimes equivalent to the best news. See, I'm an optimist afterall

[michellemfry]

Originally Posted by <<>> Ha... It's an atractive deduction, but it's a too positivist existential view. I prefer to think that each individual human is nothing in the whole of earth and the whole of earth is nothing to the universe. So we are nothing to something which is itself nothing to everything.

I would agree with you, but I happen to love the reactions that go on. I wish I had worded that differently. Also, I notice you are full of mass...you are not this nothing that you speak of.