[WithoutMe]

Let there be...
& there indeed is nothing!

Hi All,
Half of the credit goes to GMail Ads & the rest to a host of factors unknown to me -- yes, I am talking the discovery of this site... huh! Nice one, it seems, have to wait & watch what others post here.

Btw, if there ever was a TOE, then consequently there has to be a Theory of to explain that theory, kind of Meta-TOE, & in turn a theory to explain that Meta-TOE, kind of Meta-Meta-TOE & ad infinitum. Otherwise, the TOE has to include a theory to explain its own theory, thus, refereing itself, kind of recursive theory -- a TOE inside another TOE.
Be it any of the above two, it ultimately becomes an Onion kind of archetype -- so is reality really so? Is reality really real?

Or, it is like the Buddha had summed up in his Heart Sutra: - "Reality is an Illusion. The Illusion is the Reality" (a.k.a. "form is emptiness, & emptiness is form") ???

Also, can an entity inside the Universe (or Multiverse) be ever able to contemplate on the Universe, as the entity is part of it & not the other way around?

If the Four Fundemantal Forces are ever represented by a single equatin (however complex that may be), then that would indicate the basis of this Univers/Multiverse been "balanced" on all terms, otherwise, no equation can be resolved (mark the words 'equate' in the word 'equation') ???

Finally, will the TOE bring about a radical change in the entirity of one's Being, so as to bring about a new individual, one who is at total harmony with herelf & her environment?

Enough of a joke,
wM.

PS. HUH! HUH!

[dleviwing]

wM;
Welcome to ToeQuest.
Too often people tend to view our gauge theories (mathematical theories) as defining reality. This is not a proper way to do it. Reality should define the mathematical methods used to measure it, so your meta-meta set concepts are somewhat misplaced in viewing reality and the TOE.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by WithoutMe

Let there be...
& there indeed is nothing!

Hi All,
Half of the credit goes to GMail Ads & the rest to a host of factors unknown to me -- yes, I am talking the discovery of this site... huh! Nice one, it seems, have to wait & watch what others post here.

Btw, if there ever was a TOE, then consequently there has to be a Theory of to explain that theory, kind of Meta-TOE, & in turn a theory to explain that Meta-TOE, kind of Meta-Meta-TOE & ad infinitum. Otherwise, the TOE has to include a theory to explain its own theory, thus, refereing itself, kind of recursive theory -- a TOE inside another TOE.
Be it any of the above two, it ultimately becomes an Onion kind of archetype -- so is reality really so? Is reality really real?

Or, it is like the Buddha had summed up in his Heart Sutra: - "Reality is an Illusion. The Illusion is the Reality" (a.k.a. "form is emptiness, & emptiness is form") ???

Also, can an entity inside the Universe (or Multiverse) be ever able to contemplate on the Universe, as the entity is part of it & not the other way around?

If the Four Fundemantal Forces are ever represented by a single equatin (however complex that may be), then that would indicate the basis of this Univers/Multiverse been "balanced" on all terms, otherwise, no equation can be resolved (mark the words 'equate' in the word 'equation') ???

Finally, will the TOE bring about a radical change in the entirity of one's Being, so as to bring about a new individual, one who is at total harmony with herelf & her environment?

Enough of a joke,
wM.

PS. HUH! HUH!

Welcome to Toequest! Don't mind dleviwing, he can be very confusing at times.

Anyway, your meta-theory paradox is very similar to one posted by Guille on this forum, which he calls the TOE paradox. THe solution to the paradox is that the TOE has to be recursive and use circular logic in order to maintain it's own integrity and completeness. This was proven by Godel via the incompleteness theorem which shows that a complete theory of everything must be completely and consistently self inconsistent, although Godel used the theorem to assume that such a theory was thus impossible. In other words, the TOE has to describe itself describing itself etc. etc. By definition the TOE has to describe itself continuously in order to be the complete theory of EVERTYTHING. In other words, the theory of everything must includes itself in order to exist.

Therefore, assuming that the TOE does exist, it is possible for us to describe it, not in spite of the fact that we are part of the universe, but actually because of it.

As far as harmony with oneself and one's environment, yes, hopefully the TOE will cause us to appreciate everything in such a fashion. THat's the idea at least.

sincerely, and with great curiosity and wisdom, Subversion

[WithoutMe]

If the TOE will include a theory for its own explanation, that is recursive, then the TOE already exists & its is the reality this IS, simply is!

Yes, I mean the reality is its own TOE, now what all these theorists are trying to do, is contain this in their own words, phrases, patterns, numbers & what not, - in short, verbalizing that which is far beyond any of these -- even Beyond the Beyond!

Hell! If we take Godel seriously, then such a TOE will always contain certain impossible propositions, certain usolvable queries, certain unknown of fatcs, certain things which is always beyond our very perception of it... but after all this try, & the scientific community can rattle their brains of for the next 1million yrs, what we get is a gr8 sense of AWE!

Besides, why the need for this explanation? Aint the world already enough? & if we follow the Law of conservation of Energy, then we are never really creating anything, just that our very perception changes from one thing to another, whereas in all 'it is what it always is' -- so what to discover?

[harmonygirl]

Welcome WM. It sounds like you're a fan of Godel (or the Hofstader book-GEB). I don't believe that the TOE will be necessarily recursive. My preliminary TOE is harmonic (but still in development!). As for the need for this explanation, I think it is a peculiar human trait to always question. Maybe we invented 'why?'. Possibly once we solve the mystery of marrying quantum mechanics and classical physics, there will be another important 'why?' that needs to be solved. I suspect that womankind won't be satisfied until we get to the heart of the matter.

[Guille]

hi withoutme, welcome. There are a veriety of opinions in this thread of which most are misleading. First of all, yes, buddha is absolutelly correct, and if one thinks s/he can experience objective reality or think objective reality they are simpyl stupid or mad. Second, I also came to the same conclusiont hat there should be a theory to explain the theory, and as the theory is of everything, the theory should be it's own theory. That is, the TOE explains the TOE. There is more about this discussion in my thread "The TOE Paradox". Third, if the TOE will be a new kind of existence, a sort of cross section: going from entities to beings, I don't know. But I do know we will not achieve the TOE by something which is not in our power, which is scompletelly new as tool or ability. We have science and philosophy, that's all we need. But I do believe that scientific technologies will take us to our separation from our primitive existence, our bodies will stop being symbols of our identity (both due to clones and that we will be fine with the mind), transport will dissapear, as we will be anywhere in 0 time, and anytime with 0 space, communication will dissapear as there will be telepathy... And all these are what will lead to the fundamental knowledge.

[WithoutMe]

Having a cup of coffee is much more revealing to the mind that reading a hundred pages on coffee. Only in being one with the phenomenon of being alive is life felt most intensely, not by equating or theorizing about it.

All theory, equation is based on "measure"; infact physics is the science rotating in & around measurement, wheras reality is actual, reality is immesurable... try, for instance, measuring this moment, yes, the moment that you are reading this very spot! You can try over a million ways to measure everything present in this moment, but nonetheless you will miss loads of other things, not to mention the one thing which is always beyond measure, that is the one who is measurig it -- the eye can see everything except itself, however, it can use a mirror to see its reflection, but that wouldnt be "seeing" with all its variations, rather that would be seeing the reflection of the eye, & it is the reality of the eye that is always escaping itself, coz, may be, reality receded to itself... huh!

The eye can never watch itself, but can it watch itself?

The fact of being alive, the very experience of it & not the theory or verbalizing of it, -- how can that be more true than the way it is, that is by living it, going thru the process???

Infact, there is no such thing such "life". But yes, there certainly is this thing called "living". Now, "living" is a process, is a going-thru-it, a phenomenon, whereas "life" is a noun, something which has a value, a measure, whereas, me believes, we are almost always mistaken there, mistaken at our linguistic compulsion to use words in such a fashion!

Take, for eg., "I am watching this PC", whereas in reality, as a fact -- "I really my in this experience of being in some relation to this phenomenon, which we term it as 'PC'" ... yes, it may well be a linguistic impossibility to talk in verbs only, but aint verbs the only thing that connotes mostly to reality, whereas nouns are like the "necessary mistakes" (if I can use such a word) we commit to speak.... its like the necessary mistakes making the correct ones work, that is, the nouns needed to actualize the verb, or even, viceversa!

May be, Buddha would have said it: "Nouns are crystallized verbs, & Verbs are leaky Nouns"..... huh!

Here I am, using so many words to create an idea in yuour very mind, which on contemplation would lead to a realisation, which in turn may lead you to act in a certain way, as in to reply to this, or even ignore this -- which part of all this an illusion & which part of it is a reality?

Then writing for me is a reality to me & an illusion to me (u have not experienced my very writing), whereas, reading/ignoring this or replying to this is a reality to you & an illusion to me! For me, what I have then, is the fact of checking TOEQuest & seeing the replies, & not the experience of acctually writing the replies.... Your cause, my effect! My cause, your effect!

Then what is this "consensual reality"? Something intermediate of the cause & the effect, or something beyond this cause & effect, or as Nagarjuna would have said it, something of a "co-dependent arising" sort!!!

Let me ask you, "what time is it now?" By the time, I make up this question & by the time I speak up, the "now" of the making-up-the-question has gone, & by the time you have recieved it, my making-up-the-question now has long gone, & even by the time you speak up the answer, the making-up-the-answer now has long now! So even I donot have access to my now, even you donot have access to your now!!!

By the time we get any signal from our environment, even from inside us, the moment of the birth-of-the-signal has passed, so by the time we cognize the signal as being part of an experience, the moment has passed, & trying to know how much time has passed would lead us to an ad infinitum, a paradox!

Only, in the case of "non-local behaviour" (Einstein, Podolsky wud have freaked out), will we be able to access the "now", otherwise, we are always living in the "now" of the past -- which past, now that will real back to a bottomless pit, - a dangerous paradox!!!! So, unless the Law of Non-locality is maintained, one's existence is always inaccessible... Puff!!!

Now, if the Non-locality principle is maintained, can there be a "consensual reality", otherwise, there cannot be the question of a TOE???

Regards,
wM.

PS. Can the limited be the door to the unlimited? What was Camus pointing to when he uttered: "Reality cannot be summed up"??

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by WithoutMe

Let there be...
& there indeed is nothing!

Hi All,
Half of the credit goes to GMail Ads & the rest to a host of factors unknown to me -- yes, I am talking the discovery of this site... huh! Nice one, it seems, have to wait & watch what others post here.

Btw, if there ever was a TOE, then consequently there has to be a Theory of to explain that theory, kind of Meta-TOE, & in turn a theory to explain that Meta-TOE, kind of Meta-Meta-TOE & ad infinitum. Otherwise, the TOE has to include a theory to explain its own theory, thus, refereing itself, kind of recursive theory -- a TOE inside another TOE.
Be it any of the above two, it ultimately becomes an Onion kind of archetype -- so is reality really so? Is reality really real?

Or, it is like the Buddha had summed up in his Heart Sutra: - "Reality is an Illusion. The Illusion is the Reality" (a.k.a. "form is emptiness, & emptiness is form") ???

Also, can an entity inside the Universe (or Multiverse) be ever able to contemplate on the Universe, as the entity is part of it & not the other way around?

If the Four Fundemantal Forces are ever represented by a single equatin (however complex that may be), then that would indicate the basis of this Univers/Multiverse been "balanced" on all terms, otherwise, no equation can be resolved (mark the words 'equate' in the word 'equation') ???

Finally, will the TOE bring about a radical change in the entirity of one's Being, so as to bring about a new individual, one who is at total harmony with herelf & her environment?

Enough of a joke,
wM.

PS. HUH! HUH!

Welcome to the toe,Withoutme,your post is thoughtful.
kind regards michael.

[SinJin]

Originally Posted by WithoutMe

Also, can an entity inside the Universe (or Multiverse) be ever able to contemplate on the Universe, as the entity is part of it & not the other way around?

I've often wondered this myself. It's like a gear in a giant machine trying to get a view of the entire machine, but can't since it's part of the machine and would have to cease being part of the machine to see the whole machine... but then it wouldn't see the whole machine because that gear would be missing.

Similarly, I've wondered if maybe life itself is a fundemental force. Or the essence of what makes life strive to exist. If this were the case, then we would never be able to find this force because we are that force, and therefore that force would always be missing from our TOE.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by SinJin

I've often wondered this myself. It's like a gear in a giant machine trying to get a view of the entire machine, but can't since it's part of the machine and would have to cease being part of the machine to see the whole machine... but then it wouldn't see the whole machine because that gear would be missing.

Similarly, I've wondered if maybe life itself is a fundemental force. Or the essence of what makes life strive to exist. If this were the case, then we would never be able to find this force because we are that force, and therefore that force would always be missing from our TOE.

Yes, but the idea is that you can look at any part of the machine and understand how the whole thing works. This is because the machine is recursive, in order to be infinitely perfect, i.e. one part mirrors the whole which forms another part, etc. So we don't have to see the full pattern, we just have to identify what the pattern is, then we can extrapolate to understand everything. In other words, it is a matter of principle that if you truly understand one thing, you can truly understand the big picture. You can't do this unless you're part of the big picture to begin with. Similarly, how can you understand the force of life if not from within? Indeed, being part of everything is the only thing that allows us to begin to understand it at all.