Can There be a Theory of Everything?

[N0B0DY]

You're getting us off on the wrong foot, RP. It is now just "body."

It is quite the cryptic quandary, yes, and perhaps if we were to know the right questions to ask for a change, it would be helpful.

Could you give us a few of the right questions, Michael?

[RascalPuff]

You're getting us off on the wrong foot, RP. It is now just "body."

It is quite the cryptic quandary, yes, and perhaps if we were to know the right questions to ask for a change, it would be helpful.

Could you give us a few of the right questions, Michael?

Well Everyone, as Nobody has just pointed out to me, there is indeed a need for a new vocabulary.

[N0B0DY]

New vocabulary, new math, and maybe even a new set of retinae capable of absorbing all photons.

[mkirkpatrick]

Nobody,Rascal,I am beginning to enjoy this thread,the answer to your question Nobody,
"what is the One thing made of"is of course impossible to say fully?It can be said that it is
"Life Itself" the only life THERE REALLY IS! The great difficulty is in the question again.

If we fully understand the question,it will reveal itself to us?We are looking with relative
eyes trying to understand absolute unity.It cannot be done that way.

As you well know Nobody,even the ONE is a misnomer,for there cannot even be ONe
as that is a number and thereby comparable,the Absolute IS Incomparable for the very
and absolute reason of IT being the Absolute totallity of absolutely All there ever is,was,
or will ever be. The absolute is the exception to all that we think we know of universal law. The absolute is the law,yet also transcends the law.


Further difficulty lies in the misconception of the "many"yes there is the "appearance" of
many in the relative sense,but in the absolute sense,"we do not exist"?There is no Nobody,Michael,Rascal,there is but LIFE Itself!


So that is the question,which if understood in the way I have portrayed it,sounds rather
ridiculous,that we who fundamentally and basically do not exist,are asking for proof of
the identity of the only Reality there is?

Now can we ask the question?

regards michael.

[N0B0DY]

I guess sticking with "the question will reveal itself to us" is important, because trying to answer too many questions leads to confusion and is very hard if not impossible to express in words.

Our abstract tendencies, mine and yours, still require the correct mechanics in order to allow for what is observable.

With regards to equating organic and inorganic; consciousness and unconsciousness; without a functional complex system, I think consciousness or willed intent is impossible.

To refer to the complex system as abstract, though, I agree with you there.

Good thoughtful response, Michael.

[MJA]

I think we already have theories of everything, don't we?

Is not the big bang theory a theory of everything?
What about the evolution theory, that everything has evolved from something else?
And then there is God, for many God is everything.
I am sure there are more, can you guys name any?

Would it be better to ask is there a truth of everything?
And if that were the case, wouldn't it be better to ask what is the truth?
But then first one must define truth, right?
So the real simple question of everything is: Truth?

Thats what I think!

=
MJA

[mkirkpatrick]

Thank you kindly Nobody,prehaps we could phrase the question like this,"we as thing in
temporal space,wish to understand our deeper being which transcends the temporal and
is absolute,we recognise that of our selves we do not exist,and wish to know of thing from
which we are conscious of".


In doing this,and persuing this question, pushing further into quiry,we will ultimately
answer the question with the question itself?

In other words the question is the answer,and the answer is the question!


So gentleman and ladies,let the quest for thing embark this very day.




regards michael.

[mkirkpatrick]

I think we already have theories of everything, don't we?

Is not the big bang theory a theory of everything?
What about the evolution theory, that everything has evolved from something else?
And then there is God, for many God is everything.
I am sure there are more, can you guys name any?

Would it be better to ask is there a truth of everything?
And if that were the case, wouldn't it be better to ask what is the truth?
But then first one must define truth, right?
So the real simple question of everything is: Truth?

Thats what I think!

=
MJA

Thanks MJA,You seem to like truth,so here is my take on the word;


Thing
Really
Underlies
Total
Hologram==TRUTH.

regards michael.

[austintorn@aol.com]

We don't presently know if we'll get to the bottom of thing/s, although we have reached the point where none had ever been to, in a mere century. The TOE could be found within decades or after billion of years evolution, but Nature has always be shown to be as simple and efficient as it can be.

Some of the revelations may appear to be counterintuitive at first, such as an electron being everywhere and nowhere in it's superposition, but we may eventually grow with the data and from knowing where to investigate further.

We can perhaps improve the species by aiding some of its evolution, a good side effect, among many, of our ToeQuesting, now that much of natural evolution of the fittest seems to be no more.

The quest itself promotes a being more intense since it provides a higher consciousness view of the world and its happenings.

The last two great unknowns seem to be the workings/origin of the universe and the magic of consciousness.

It wasn't even so long ago that the genetic code of DNA was revealed. Many wonders are yet to come.

[N0B0DY]

When I first came across the experiments done at SLAC where they created matter and antimatter from light, I was fascinated by it and thought about the many creation-from-light and as-light scenarios of religion. I thought I was onto answering alot of questions by literalizing the light of religion and spiritualizing the light of science, but then realized that motion was impossible and decided to give it all up. Yet, I was brought back to these forums for reasons I haven't a clue.

Then you came along to ToeQuest, RP, and eventhough you were putting out more threads than I could keep up with, I read enough to think there might be a reason for me returning after all. I thought if we could put our heads together, we could find the cause of motion that had lead me to give up on the toe.

I was thinking that "photons," created by your gravitational force, could be representative of combined positive and negative charges that would transform through photonic interactions; and from that basis, other more complex structures would form from the electrons and positrons.

At first I thought Fredrick's binary solidity/vacuity fluctuation would explain the reason your force would be a force to begin with, but stillness keeps on creeping back at that point and I'm on the verge of giving up again.