looking for fellow final theory lovers!

[final.theory.chick]

Hi there, I'm a young girl in my twenties, totally into Final Theory and physics. Travelled to Switzerland to work on large Hadron Collider and am a MTI student.I'm new to joining forums like this but toequest seems like a great place to start...anyone heard of a book called Nature's Watchmaker by John Thomas? stumbled across some info, it seems like its pretty good stuff and he's suprisingly on the ball! desperate to get some opinions! here is some general info on the book:

In Nature’s Watchmaker John Thompson seeks to provide an answer to the enigma that has been engaging scientists and philosophers since the study of time began: a complete description of all the physical processes governing the universe from its creation to its ultimate destruction.

His new theory confronts the major issues currently faced by scientists including gravity, the perplexing dark matter and even more baffling dark energy. It explains why particles exist, why they have their specific properties and predicts exactly the values of certain constants previously only obtainable by experiment. The theory shows that despite the universe apparently expanding at an ever-increasing rate it will eventually enter a contraction epoch. Unlike current theories it combines all the effects found in both the microscopic (atoms) and macroscopic (stars, black holes, galaxies) universes in one simply derived equation.

Intriguingly, this new theory even answers the ultimate question: why does anything exist in the first place?

hit me back with some thoughts and more links if you're interested!

[sillysally]

Intriguingly, this new theory even answers the ultimate question: why does anything exist in the first place?

hit me back with some thoughts and more links if you're interested!

Hi, it would be nice to read something other than this same post 10 times over from you.

But anyway, why does anything exist in the first place? Can you please give us the answer since you have already read it.

[Weir]

Hi there Final Theory Chick,

Thank you for your interesting post. You are obviously very motivated. Personally I question that science can write a new bible for all people for all time, any more than religion can. There are too many assumptions implicit in the language of science that slip by unnoticed. Does anyone really believe that this whole vast universe with hundreds of billions of galaxies has expanded from a spacetime bubble many orders of magnitude smaller than a single proton? Late in life Einstein himself doubted that physics could be based on the continuous field concept in which case quote “… my castle in the sky amounts to nothing but so does the rest of modern physics.”

There is however a non-linguistic way to delineate the structural dynamics of the creative process that encompasses all possible varieties of phenomenal experience. The methodology both requires and facilitates direct intuitive insight into the dynamics of the cosmic order. It is not possible to intuitively conceive of anything outside it. It is a universal methodology that must find direct confirmation in phenomenal experience of some kind. There are several physics articles at www.cosmic-mindreach.com that should interest you. In line with Einsteins doubts a discontinuous universe is necessarily required by the way the methodology works. Space and time are quantized. They are not an assumed a priori continuum with curvatures conditioned by gravitational mass. Space and time are perceived a posteriori from the synchronous projection of atomic matter.

If you are interested in how this works have a look at the website article Gravity, Quantum Relativity & System 3. The Lorentz transformations derive directly from a system of Historic Coordinates related to the methodology. You may also be interested in the article Unified Theories, Fantasy, & Cosmic Order. It explores the philosophical underpinnings of physics, including the relationship between Epistemology and Ontology, in arriving at the structural dynamics of the primary hydrogen atom. I can send more on the early mathematical development of atomic theory and quantum mechanics if you are interested and send me an email. You will find my address on the website.

Good luck in your studies and best wishes,
Weir (Bob).

[SteveA]

It's definitely an interesting subject and does appear to be an enigma, though it could basically arise from learning/growth itself.

Consider that if there was some perfect computer that could the answer to anything, it's answer could not change - it would have to be a single conclusion or result that didn't change from moment to moment (then again, I may be completely wrong and that there is some perfect answer that always changes ).

In this case, there should be no time occurring, though let's say that we happened to be part of that computer ... it might be that the perfect answer to everything is still being computed - of course also consider that if the "problem"/question/motive behind the computations changes, then the universe could be computing perfectly every moment in time, but that people keep asking different questions and we're seeing pieces of all the possible answers to them.

Basically though, with finite limits, logic appears unable to work with infinite things - objects begin and end - changes can go on forever.

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

As a quick sidenote, consider that in order for something to be seen as "changed", then this implies there exists something that was/is unchanged. In the case, change itself is measured relative to something that does not change and in a sense is ideal.

For example, if space is described as "bent" by mass, this implies that there exists some unbend thing to measure space by in order that this bend can be known to physically exist - what is that unbent version? (It appears to be a mental construct that isn't tangible or in the case of a changed object, the unchanged version is also an intangible memory).

So similar to trying to understand how infinite change can happen we could also ask how/why something should exist that has never changed - the only real common reference available for all these changes is the observer themself - whereever you go, there you are. In that sense, there is a constant reference for what is not changed by time and similarly a ruler by which "external" changes in time can be measured - though this could imply that memory is not necessarily a record of past experiences but instead a measurement of the differences between the current moment and a record of self that spans across time.

In any event though, it still doesn't seem like logic can tie it all together and there could always remain some element of faith involved - the precise of some model is only as good as the tools its build with and I think most physical theories are in most respects identical in that they all rely fundamentally on a very small set of logical operations to construct them (for example, we could have a diverse array of computers or even people performing some computation by hand or even someone just thinking about some deterministic relationship and all of these computations could be mapped to a space of connected transistors or logic gates or simple arithmetic computations or a (deterministic) neural network etc. M-Theory unifies string theories - "Universal Computation" unifies all possible deterministic theories - it doesn't describe the conscious qualities of experience, though those could be similar to the form of input and output to these computations so that's not too hard to add to this, but what it doesn't appear able to do is just the basic in information that you figuratively can't get something from nothing and there is no explaination for all the information we see "floating around", despite the fact that this computation may end up able to describe natural laws and even provide a natural representation of quantum mechanics and statistically describe Relativity and classical mechanics - it appears unable to explain how the program got there in the first place nor how the program runs over time (I use that example, but it's really just an analogy - any system of deterministic rule based transitions is effectively identical in properties and we could mirror it to the flow of a fluid within a confined volume or a vortex of interactions in a (confined/finite) light speed space), even if every instruction can be verified to execute perfectly, as long as there's something "beyond" that, then there are constantly "new" instructions/objects added and these can even be seen to effectively alter the rules of interactions as well (for example, gravity could be altered via. changing electromagnetic properties and adding the equivalent of monopoles to matter).

It's definitely an intriguing subject especially considering how significant and pervasive its influences are, but it appears to still be a work in progress, or it may be constantly completing vast histories in each moment and it's simply not understood, or it could be a book waiting to be written or a computer in an idle loop waiting to be programmed or any and all of these ... if there exists some "space of all possibilities" then I'd assume it would be rather large - probably larger than anything seen in a single moment, but then again it may also precisely fit into a single moment - it all depends on the context and whether or not it's predetermined on some scale, it looks like there's some freedom to consciously "paint" it in different ways and that may ultimately be where time arises - if there was something that had already created every possible relationship between things but these things were just rigid logical relationships without intangible conscious qualities, then consciousness could be much like exploring this terrain and living on the surface of it - adding details beyond what it could construct, though it's also interesting to consider that conflicts and limits could arise to these additions because if they're fundamentally not restricted to only stable forms of interrelationships between components, then conflicts can occur if the space is constrained because two different things could be trying to exist in the same space - and that could be why time exists in order to allow two conflicting definitions/properties to both exist at the same point within some space, but not simultaineously - so a ball could be green and a ball may be blue, but if the ball is to have a single color, then it can't be both green and blue at the same time, but the time inclusive action of "painting" it allows for the ball to exist over time as both green and blue in order to satisfy conflicts in the possibilities of everything. (What I want to know is how to find that spot of the "unchanged" tree that's "just right" and doesn't need to be repainted! )

[Weir]

This old question of permanence and change is bogged down in language based logic. Think for a moment about clouds in the sky. They are created in endless forms and they dissipate to form anew. They are forever changing but the process by which they change never changes. The process itself is timeless. The process is not a physical thing existing in space and time, like a tree. A tree like a cloud is determined by a timeless process that transcends and subsumes it. The process is a universal pattern of change that applies to all trees, or to all clouds.

Space and Time do not preceed creation. They derive from it. They are not a priori. They are a posteriori. We have difficulty getting over this stumbling block because of the way we identify with language that identifes physical things in space and time. The cosmic order is timeless and it specifies the structural pattern of all change everywhere, always. It has no beginning or end in space and time. See www.cosmic-mindreach.com.

[timeparticle]

Hi, f.t.chick. Is the L.H.C. repaired yet? I heard it won't be operational until later this year. Have any of your particle theorists friends spoke to you about time particles? (My tag name)

This site has plenty about the subject you are interested in. Have fun. Check out my theory at "Your Toe Theory", then, "Time Particle Theory".

[austintorn@aol.com]

Seems that John Thompson's book of 'Nature's Watchmaker' comes out on October 10.