[Canute]

Originally Posted by subversion

What is the container of everything, and must everything be it's own container? If everything does not contain itself, then what does contain everything? If you believe that nothing contains everything, I can tell you that you are exactly wrong, because nothing cannot possible contain something. Furthemore, believing that there is nothing which contains everything is believing that the TOE does not exist. So again, what contains everything? If it is not everything itself, then what is it?

I feel you're confusing metaphysics with set theory but it's an interesting point. IMHO a theory of everything, in a full sense, cannot exist for precisely the reasons you give. The container cannot also be the contained if we are to avoid paradox. Max Planck relevantly commented to the effect that that we cannot construct a model of everything because we cannot include the modeller in the model. To my mind the incompleteness theorem says something similar, once translated into philosophical terms. Is this roughly what you're getting at?

Canute

[protheory]

Originally Posted by Canute

I agree that most paradoxes tend to have a lot in common. But I can't get my head around your approach yet.

I think that most if not all paradoxes share the same root really, or at least they certainly appear to be similar don't they.

I see Russell's Paradox "Is the set of all sets a member of itself" as a slightly different wording of "Is the word "word" a word or not" and similarly "Is this a question or not?"

I could go on but generally speaking I think it helps to look at them all, particularly when we're looking for a TOE.

And I understand that my approach of three possibilities takes a bit of getting used to, in fact it took me a long time to understand my own idea to be honest but when I finally understood myself I started writing and trying to explain what I see in my mind's eye to everybody else...I'm still trying

I feel the correct answer to R's paradox was given by my teeenage son, who knows almost no mathematics. He asked me one day for an example of a paradox (for a song lyric). I mentioned Russell's paradox and spent five minutes explaining it, talking about sets of all sets that do not contain themselves, whether it contains itself or not etc., and probably confused the issues more than necessary as usual. At the end he said, well, the paradox only arises because we invented sets.

I thought this was rather a good comment, and it is not far from the solution presented by G. S. Brown. Paradoxes, it seems to me, do not exist in nature, but are artefacts of errors in the way we conceive of it.

Canute

It seems to me like your son has a very good point there, we did invent "sets" I suppose didn't we, and therefore it would be logical to assume that we also invented the paradox itself too wouldn't it.

In a relative and everyday sense I find this to be a very interesting viewpoint but when it comes to a truly accurate TOE I still think that we need to account for literally "everything" that could possibly occur, even in the distant and abstract imagination.

I quote one of my posts below to hopefully illustrate exactly what I mean to communicate here.

As I previously stated, I tend to view all problems and all answers through the eyes of Pro theory so to speak and so if you can get your imagination round this quote then perhaps it will make it easier for you to understand my other answers to you in other threads

Originally Posted by Pro in my TOE thread

Am I wrong?

If somebody says to me "you are wrong" I say "theoretically I am wrong, right, and neutral simultaneously."

If that person says "I don't understand" I say "well, theoretically you do understand, don't understand, and neutral simultaneously."

If we take this extreme logic and apply it to "everything" we get three simultaneous potentials but we also don't plus neutral...and on and on.

Pro theory is a thought experiment first and foremost, I wrote it to be able to provide an answer to everything without exception, a TOE must never "fail."

The experiment came about when I questioned the ultimate validity (potential for change) of the concept of all relative (to human existence and consciousness) "definition" such as words, quantity, form, energy etc.

I was thinking of the old "what if there were no humans and no consciousness to behold everything, what would there be then?" argument which I feel must also be considered here.


Debate

Imagine a debate between myself and another person.

The person says "what does Pro theory have to say now that we've removed consciousness and we literally have nothing, absolutely nothing?"

I say "well, theoretically there is the possibility that there is nothing, something, and a neutral potential also."

The person says "well now I've got you on a technicality, for if there is literally 'nothing' then how can you possibly say that there is the theoretical potential for something, even in abstract theory?"

I say "I can state the three potentials of nothing, I cannot state the three potentials of nothing, plus neutral."

The person says "but you can't say that, we're talking about NOTHING here, so you can't say that there is the chance for something within NOTHING."

I say "well, theoretically I can say that, not say that, and neutral simultaneously."

The person says "but that's ridiculous, you can't possibly be so delusional as to believe that anybody would actually ACCEPT this as a TOE.

I say "well, it may be accepted as a TOE, it may not, plus neutral simultaneously."

Am I singularly and unchangingly right, wrong or neutral?


Talking Normally

All I'm saying is that if you want to get really, really, really literal and technical about the TOE, everything has three simultaneous potentials plus the opposite plus neutral.

Like it, or not, or neutral, this is how it is (but it also isn't plus neutral).

I apologise for my childish style of illustration here but to be understood Pro theory must be taken literally with no holds barred (plus the opposite plus neutral).

Whatever anybody says or states, I will ask them about the opposite and neutral potentials within their answer or statement, be it a TOE or otherwise.


My Site

I never wanted to write a TOE and to be quite honest I never knew what a TOE was.

I kept thinking and thinking, studying and studying, and eventually I came to the singular conclusion that "everything" was made of "atoms."

I then imagined all possible answers to my singular statement, both past and future, and I realised that in pure theory "atoms" (at least how I imagined them at the time) were composed of positive, negative, and neutral energy somehow.

I didn't take me too long to imagine that due to the three possible potentials "everything" was highly likely to follow the same pattern of formation.

At this stage in my quest I was still holding on to singularity, such as the idea of "atoms" and their "construction" of "the universe" and everything within it, you know, the usual view of the concept of a TOE at the beginning of your enlightenment.

Eventually I abandoned singularity as unchanging and applied three simultaneous potentials to "everything" without exception, all physics, paradoxes, mathematical conjectures...literally everything, past, present, and future.

I wrote my site as an introduction to this concept, simply and openly, I'm not holding anything back, I'm totally willing to share what I know with everybody.

I'm only worried that somehow I'll come across as a "know-it-all" newbie who singularly thinks he's written the TOE and will stop at nothing to prove his point, which isn't quite my actual intention nor the truth as it implies a singular assumption on my part.

This is extremely difficult for me to express in words but I hope this clarifies my stance with regards to the TOE and my own theory.

I have more to say but I need to think further about how to explain clearly in words what I see in my mind


The Crux

Summing up my points here, all I'm saying is that in pure theory there will always be the theoretical potential for three answers and/or potentials.

It's extremely simple, three simultaneous potentials, and Pro theory is a thought experiment, an exploration of pure technicalities, rather than a theory that might serve much practical everyday purpose.

Pro theory is a theory that covers the absolute and fundamental potentials of everything, it doesn't mean for example that I meet people and introduce myself thus "my name is Pro, not Pro, and neutral, pleased to meet you."

I could do this in theory if I wanted to be totally and literally "accurate" but obviously I don't need this level of accuracy in everyday conversation.

When it comes to physics and the TOE though, I do use this approach to illustrate the possible potentials, I think that we should be aware of this concept and try to realise that whatever we say or do there are two other possible potentials also, without exception so to speak.


Essays

The essays I have written on my site http://www.protheory.com/Pro%20Answers.htm are just to show how literally this idea can be taken, and to show exactly why there are no exceptions.

The same three simultaneous potentials apply to literally "everything" and the essays on my site are just to introduce you to the concept.


Accuracy

Pro theory is about the literal technicalities of "everything" and therefore the TOE also.

The "proof" of Pro theory comes when anybody states anything singular, on a pure technicality it is always theoretically possible to imagine an opposite and neutral point for any singular thing.

If you doubt this important point then try and prove me as singularly wrong.


Beauty

The beauty of my theory for me personally is that it keeps me humble for I may never unchangingly state "I have written the true TOE" as this statement does not acknowledge the theoretical opposite and neutral potential within everything.

I'm sorry if this seems confusing but I'm just trying to communicate it the best way I can.

Thanks.

PRO

I hope that after reading this my ideas seem a little clearer.

Kind regards to you Canute, and thanks again for the reply.

PRO.

[Canute]

No, I still don't get it. However, I feel you're onto something important. Again I highly recommend Brown's Laws of Form, in which he argues that it is time to stop doing metaphysics like Aristotle did it and to think differently, using complex values in ordinary logic (everyday reasoning) so as to allow statements to have four possible values; true, false, meaningless and imaginary. Here imaginary would have to equate to neutral.

The interesting thing is, and perhaps this may surprise you, Brown proposes the 'advaita' or 'nondual' cosmology (Buddhism, Taoism etc., aka the perennial philosophy), and your ideas seem to be taking you in that direction. In this view the universe does not originate in something or nothing but in 'something' which disobeys the rules of ordinary logic, thus solving your something/nothing/neutral problem.

You seem to be reinventing the epistemology of Taoism, or certain elements of it. Were you aware of this? Or perhaps I'm still not understanding your argument.

Canute

[lodestar]

Originally Posted by Canute

I feel you're confusing metaphysics with set theory but it's an interesting point. IMHO a theory of everything, in a full sense, cannot exist for precisely the reasons you give. The container cannot also be the contained if we are to avoid paradox. Max Planck relevantly commented to the effect that that we cannot construct a model of everything because we cannot include the modeller in the model. To my mind the incompleteness theorem says something similar, once translated into philosophical terms. Is this roughly what you're getting at?

Canute

Yes, I am talking about the incompleteness theorem and Russell's paradox. I can solve both of them. So you may say Max Planck said "we cannot construct a model of everything because bla bla bla..." well guess what? I say that "we CAN construct a model of everything because we CAN conclude everything in the model." Thus everything is it's own model, and thus everything contains itself. It is perfectly practical and true, and it allows us to predict everything. So I predict the value of everything is the absolute GREATEST value, 1/0, and this IS the set of all sets and it DOES contain itself. There is no question about it. There, so I answered Russell's Paradox once and for all.

[dleviwing]

Lodestar;
Guille explained your error in your former life as “Subversion”. You are not bring any more enlightenment to this thread as Lodestar. You can’t treat mathematics as a philosophy, it is simply a collection of rules that dictate the system. Paradoxes only occur when the system does not reflect the true behavior of nature.

[lodestar]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Lodestar;
Guille explained your error in your former life as “Subversion”. You are not bring any more enlightenment to this thread as Lodestar. You can’t treat mathematics as a philosophy, it is simply a collection of rules that dictate the system. Paradoxes only occur when the system does not reflect the true behavior of nature.

Listen dleviwing and it will all make sense. Everything exists. Therefore everything contains everything. Otherwise nothing exists. If you want to believe that nothing exists thats fine, you can join the "I believe in nothing" camp. But the theory of everything is all about believing in everything, not nothing. So if you believe in everything then everything exists and everything contains everything. That is the answer to Russell's paradox, plain and simple

Secondly, mathematics is philosophy brother. Why else would it be that everything is both a number, 1/0, and a philosophical idea. Just the same as nothing is both a number, 0, and a philosophical idea. The philosophy being that everything exists and nothing does not exist, that 1/0 has absolute great value and 0 has absolute no value. The meaning of the word value has meaning in both a mathematical and a philosophical sense. So everything makes sense in both senses, mathematical and philosophical. That's why I was able solve Russell's Paradox, because everything cannot exist by definition, philosophical or mathematical, unless everything contains everything. You don't have to thank me, It was cool enough just being able to be part of everything that is part of everything itself.

cheers!
-1/0

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by AKA Sub

Secondly, mathematics is philosophy brother. Why else would it be that everything is both the number 1/0 and a philosophical idea.

When you learn the difference, you will have become educated.

[lodestar]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

[/size]
When you learn the difference, you will have become educated.

Why don't you educate me then and teach me the difference between mathematics and philosophy. I always thought that nothing and everything were both mathematical and philosophical ideas. Nothing is the mathematical number 0 which philosophically does not exist and everything is the mathematical number 1/0 which philosophically forms ALL of existence. Now in order that nothing does not exist and everything does exist everything must contain itself, everything. Therefore I have solved Russell's paradox. Where is the logical fallacy dleviwing? Please point it out to me because I have done a lot better explaining myself than you have.

[protheory]

Originally Posted by Canute

No, I still don't get it. However, I feel you're onto something important. Again I highly recommend Brown's Laws of Form, in which he argues that it is time to stop doing metaphysics like Aristotle did it and to think differently, using complex values in ordinary logic (everyday reasoning) so as to allow statements to have four possible values; true, false, meaningless and imaginary. Here imaginary would have to equate to neutral.

Hi Canute, I think that even though you feel like you don't quite get it at the current moment you may soon understand, my own idea took me a long time to fully understand myself to be honest.

Your mention of complex logic in everyday life is a good one I think, as in the end we must still live our lives mustn't we.

I'm really pleased that you think I'm onto something important that's really important to me here, it's quite comforting actually as I've been struggling with Pro theory for so long.

Also, the idea you mention about four possible values I find very interesting too though I think that in reality (in my own mind anyway) the four points of logic reduce to three rather than four.

The reason that I think this is because I view both meaningless and imaginary as manifestations of neutral, rather than separate entities, in my opinion both represent a neutral potential.

The interesting thing is, and perhaps this may surprise you, Brown proposes the 'advaita' or 'nondual' cosmology (Buddhism, Taoism etc., aka the perennial philosophy), and your ideas seem to be taking you in that direction. In this view the universe does not originate in something or nothing but in 'something' which disobeys the rules of ordinary logic, thus solving your something/nothing/neutral problem.

You seem to be reinventing the epistemology of Taoism, or certain elements of it. Were you aware of this? Or perhaps I'm still not understanding your argument.
Canute

I find this both interesting and comforting too as I am familiar with the Tao Te Ching and Taoism having read a few books about the subject.

I agree that my ideas seem to be taking me in that direction, the idea of the perennial philosophy, and I think you're onto something here with regards to a description of Pro theory when you mention the universe existing "in 'something' which disobeys the rules of ordinary logic."

I think that though you said this and not me that this sums up my idea of the creation of the universe perfectly, I'm not saying something that is normal or logical in the everyday sense when I mention Pro theory to you guys, it's extremely difficult for me to explain accurately what I mean here, but I think that you have helped me a great deal by mentioning the idea of defiance of ordinary logic.

Thanks for your input.

PRO

[Canute]

dleviwing

I'm no mathematician but I think Lodestar has a point about mathematics. It's hard to see much difference, for example, between the task of axiomatising the number line and axiomatising the universe.

However, as you say, "you can’t treat mathematics as a philosophy, it is simply a collection of rules that dictate the system." This is true, but imo misleading. Mtaphysics is also constructed from a set of rules that dictates the system.

You say that paradoxes only occur when "the system does not reflect the true behavior of nature." I agree, but this idea would have far reaching implications. How, for example, would we explain the innumerable paradoxes that arise in 'Western' or 'scholastic' metaphysics?

Would we say that metaphysicians (and by implication physicists) make assumptions about Nature that do not reflect Nature? This is my view, since I agree with Buddhists, Taoists and their like about Nature, or the nature of reality. Is it also your view? If paradoxes do not occur in nature then I don't see any other way of explaining the undecidability of metaphysical questions other than by saying that the assumptions that lead to them mischaracterise Nature.

Feynman famously remarked, 'the way we have to describe Nature is incomprehensible to us'. If paradoxes are all in the mind then one has to wonder whether he was not confusing an incomprehensible and paradoxical explanation with what is actually the case.

I still think there's something in 'Pro-theory', albeit that it doesn't quite seem to be a theory yet. However, I have to say that the way it's being described is currently incomprehensible to me. I see a buried connection between the idea of a neutral truth-value and certain meanings of the phrase 'Middle Way' in Buddhism, 'advaita' (not-two) in esoteric Hinduism, and more generally the 'nonduality' so often spoken of by the mystics. However, I'm struggling to understand protheory's idea of neutrality and maybe I'm way off track.

Canute