T O E

[pastor Jeff Otterman]

a TOE is the (sub) of set point a and set point b.

My theory of everything is the (sub) of set points naught (0) and One (1) conversely naught (0) and negative one (-1); set points naught (0) and Ten (10) conversely naught (0) and negative ten (-10); set points naught (0) and one hundred (100) conversely naught (0) and negative one hundred (-100).

[Guille]

Hi, welcome to toequest.

What I do understand is the theory, and it's math (simple), but what I don't see is it's connection to reality?

[pastor Jeff Otterman]

What I do understand is the theory, and it's math (simple), but what I don't see is it's connection to reality?

Ah and a TOE as I am proposing is the ability to accept all forms of ideas, thoughts, connection in all fields of study. Be the idea simple, complex, fundamental, chaotic, illogical, logical, monstrous, or good, the idea for TOE is to take all knowledge, wisdom, understanding and create as part of a larger TOE without a need to see a connection and just because a person doesn't see a connection doesn't mean that an other person or computer won't see the connection being made. A TOE seen through finite human eyes, mind, and brilliance is always going to be limited. Maybe because of the many paradigms we are not willing to hear or understand do we find an inability to find a connection.

I see simple connections using math and higher math symbols, theories, strategies, and then faith as a means to trust that TOE comes in many shapes, forms and questions. Simple math is a way to say in shorter concise language what I really understand about life and yet your question will cause me to delve further. Though I should probably write my sermon for sunday.

So a TOE in my opinion can be simple and yet very complex. With or without a need to be seen as connecting. But if the TOE has to fit a certain principal or rule then is a TOE even possible? Or is TOE untenable? The expectations placed on what a TOE might actually be, might not ever find its place because we are so narrow in our understanding of what a TOE should be.

The connection to reality is understood in all the associations, principles, theories, abstractions, finite and infinite realities, the knowledge and wisdom of all living beings, that is translated in a simple way that all apply in everyday life can use as a referent point for thinking about life, existence and everything.

From naught (0) humanity has developed certain kinds of theories that have hurt or helped life but a TOE shouldn't have a value judgement connected with the theory. When we seek connections, that which is earthy are we not creating a value judgement instead of creating a theory of everything?

Just the same for those folks who study in the natural number field with all the primes between naught and one hundred many different ideas and ideologies have formed throughout the ages; both valid and invalid theories relating to finite realists and their need to have something concrete or constructive.

A Theory of Everything seems to me a call to include without judgement all ideas, philosophies, theorems, theories, beliefs, known and unknown quantities and utilize planet earth as the model of applying everything by way of numbers to create a theorem of practical application.

[Guille]

A bravo to your wisdom words. I agree completely. Most people believe the TOE should be simple, but there is nothing that impplies that. There is also nothing that impplies the TOE be a physical theory, it should be of all sciences, philosophies, and mathematics. I really think all of what you said is correct, and in fact a post as such was needed here.

Religions need more people like you. And the fact that I'm atheist doesn't impply that I start disagreeing with you from the start, as you see.

What I actually mean by my question, well, I know that the TOE doesn't have to be understood my be, but it is a theory of nature (=everything) so it should explain and predict, know and understand, define and derive, unify and specify.

Now, I know the importance of the numbers you included in your paragraph. -1 is the square of the unit of the imaginary numbers. 0 is the addition identity. 1 is the multiplicative identity. 10 is the base of our numbers. 100 is the sqaure of the base. -10 is the inverse of our base.

But what does this tell us about nature? What doe sit explain or predict, give us knowledge or understanding about? And are these, for you, the only important numbers? Because if so, you are wrong, due to the fact that because all numbers are spcial, the only special ones are those that are not special. I know it is paradoxical, but as the great french mathematician (and very christian, he made the wager that bares his name) Blaise Pascal once said:

Contradiction is not a sing falsity, nor the absence of contradiction a sing of truth.

[michellemfry]

I'll bet you are a wonderful public speaker. When asked to elaborate upon your theory, you gave us as good a basis for a theory of everything as I've ever read. The more you say, the more I understand, therefore I hope you say more.