Can There be a Theory of Everything?

[RascalPuff]

"The whole evolution of our ideas about the processes of nature, with which we have been concerned so far, might be regarded as an organic development of Newton’s ideas.

But while the process of perfecting the field theory was still in full swing, the facts of heat, radiation, the spectra, radioactivity, etc., revealed a limit to the serviceableness of the whole intellectual system which today still seems to us absolutely insuperable, in spite of immense success at certain points.

Many physicists maintain - and there are weighty arguments in their favor - that in the face of these facts not merely the differential law but the law of causation itself - hitherto the fundamental postulate of all natural science, has collapsed. Even the possibility of a spatial-temporal construction, which can be unambiguously coordinated with physical events, is denied." - Albert Einstein, ESSAYS IN SCIENCE, 1934

[mkirkpatrick]

Great question Rascal,the simple answer to me is no,unless there is a reduction from "every" to just "thing",or by realising that all is energy-singular-not plural,and that this
is motioned by an inner force which is consciousness,the outer "appearence" is energy,the
inner "driver" is consciousness,one of the same.


When "ALL" absolutely "ALL" of manifested existence can be finally reduced to ONE basic
primary "Thing" then we can all forget about "every" for it will be found to be,what it always was,an illusion!

Then the main thrust of science will be able to penetrate far deeper into the mystery
and puzzle of life-itself,and grasp the real depth of consciousness.



regards michael.

[N0B0DY]

Picture someone you care most about, and they will pass away. Before they do they ask a bunch of questions about life that you have no answer for, and then they pass away.

In honor of that special person, you spend years searching for the truth that may have resulted in that person stll being here, asking millions of questions to find the answer, but to no avail.

So you conclude there is no answer, and attempt to make people understand that it really doesn't matter if you know all the answers because the answers are already known unbeknownst to you. Save yourself the years of frustration.

Sort of like that castle we build in the sky that comes crumbling down, or like the man who picks up the gun after saying he wished he had lived a life happily in ignorance, than to have lived a life burdened by too many damn questions.

I think if the toe can be realized, it will be you who will realize it. But I wouldn't want to be you.

[RascalPuff]

Picture someone you care most about, and they will pass away. Before they do they ask a bunch of questions about life that you have no answer for, and then they pass away.

In honor of that special person, you spend years searching for the truth that may have resulted in that person stll being here, asking millions of questions to find the answer, but to no avail.

So you conclude there is no answer, and attempt to make people understand that it really doesn't matter if you know all the answers because the answers are already known unbeknownst to you. Save yourself the years of frustration.

Sort of like that castle we build in the sky that comes crumbling down, or like the man who picks up the gun after saying he wished he had lived a life happily in ignorance, than to have lived a life burdened by too many damn questions.

I think if the toe can be realized, it will be you who will realize it. But I wouldn't want to be you.

______________________

Not wanting to be someone else is understandable, Nobody.
But thanks for the oblique compliment.
On the other hand I don't think I'll approach a solution to the central question of this forum any closer than what relavant submissions I make in posts, threads or articles, which are only portions of the collective resolution.

The theme of this thread ('Can there be a theory of everything?") is an interrogative, not a capitulation. Michael's flexible response is certainly tenable.

To my way of thinking, everything there is to know will not be known, and all that is to be answered will not be answered. Whereas, generalised solutions applicable to everything seem to be culminating as a matter of course - on this forum and certainly elsewhere.

There are questions:
Can it be done?
Will it be done?

Again, Michael's response seems to me, to be appropriate.

Again, I do not think that there will ever be a ledger of answers to every question accessible to mortal reference.
Yet, already there are generalised references - the I Ching, for one. There are others but I don't think any known reference of knowledge and understanding surpasses the I Ching. The Western education - and mentality - generally excludes it, and in so doing excludes many opportunities to understand what is still unknown or enigmatic to Western Civilization?

Summarily (for the moment), any expedition to formulate a theory of everything, automatically redeems itself in what it does uncover, and what it strives to reveal...

Michael might say, something to the effect that to know everything requires that you be everything, and until further notice, 'we' don't understand how 'we' - individually and collectively - are everything.

I think it was Arthur C. Clarke who said that 'if' there was a computer that could store enough information, it would automatically become self aware.

My thoughts on that include that, if a given person or collective of persons are interconnected to and with everything, then, access to everything is already potentially available.

The interrogative of this theme is presented with the hopes of stimulating more answers and insights.

The I Ching indicates that it will be advantageous to cross the great stream, and to be firm and correct. (So the implication that there can be a theory of everything, is there. The I Ching also alerts us to watch for and translate several numbers, especially three, and sixty four...)

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks Rascal,another problem I see is in the nature of the question itself,the question
assumes (quite wrongly I feel) that there are many things,and then follows up with the
idea of forming theories about all these "things" that are (wrongly included in "every")

Surely it follows that if we ask the wrong question,we will always receive the wrong
answer!




regards michael.

[N0B0DY]

Then I guess I'll remain to proclaim that the one is equated with the none, as outlined by Michael.

It requires an observer and that which is observed. If all "selves" are one, and the unification of all selves results in one Self, in what fashion would that Self be aware of its Self without observation that would divide it?

The Eastern concept of one has been pondered for millennia, and is now being relatively considered by modern Western theoretical science. String Theory has been called a plausible candidate, and has lasted this long imo due to Einstein's theoretical work that was later confirmed.

Yet there is a big difference to what Einstein's work has lead to, and what String Theory would lead to. Could String Theory or one like it ever be empirically confirmed?

I had given you a direct compliment, but it had nothing to do with empiricism. Only to say that regardless of the frustrations you've been through in your work over the years, what matters it that you realize you have done it.

[RascalPuff]

Thanks Rascal,another problem I see is in the nature of the question itself,the question
assumes (quite wrongly I feel) that there are many things,and then follows up with the
idea of forming theories about all these "things" that are (wrongly included in "every")

Surely it follows that if we ask the wrong question,we will always receive the wrong
answer!

regards michael.

_____________

The following quote seems to correlate your premise, Michael.

"All things come out of the one and the one out of all things." - Heraclitus

Does that sound right to you?

Regards,
- RP

[N0B0DY]

I would ask as well, what is the one thing made of?

[mkirkpatrick]

_____________

The following quote seems to correlate your premise, Michael.

"All things come out of the one and the one out of all things." - Heraclitus

Does that sound right to you?

Regards,
- RP

Yes Rascal it does.What we really need and basically yearn for is to "Know"to feel
totally safe and absolutely secure,to do that we need a fundamental theory of "thing"?

Now I put it to you Rascal,with all your years of expertise,to start us off on a new theory
of "Thing" leave every behind in the closet,where it belongs!

regards michael,

[RascalPuff]

Well Michael & Nobody (and everybody):

It sounds like we're in need of some new wax to polish off the dominant paradigm of local and international ninja turtles...

We may also be talking around the need for a new vocabulary for what is already known.

The realm of the microcosms has presented a challenging obstruction to generalisation, no?

- RP