[jim barlow]

boocterluny booboocrap

[SB_UK]

candescence, luminescence, fluorescence, phosphorescence

she said the light shone out of her choo choo
- silly gullible he, me - thee

*I* looked

- tumescence -
I think not

poo poo
yes

- rather.

I shifted rapidly in my stance -
no light at the end of that tunnel

thereafter gained I
my release
from implanting dreams of nestling into (admittedly warm)
supposedly 'highly desirable' patch of real estate

- an all mod con
- sample the - Zeitgeist -

in absence of holistic dream -
Melanie allures
- wholly entices_the needy
promises to guide us gently in.

BottomLander bears scars.

[SB_UK]

Originally Posted by jim barlow

booboocrap

in the woods

boocterluny

tunies

- that's all (there is to it) folks!

couldn't be easier

BottomLander secures rapid re-entry trajectory.

[melanie]

Originally Posted by jim barlow

Hi Rufus

very curious about the Melanie thing. Could somebody give a link to it?
Or will try to locate it if no other way.

I agree with the previous post. I see the search for the theory as a boys' game chasing the ball around some special goal keeper.

This can be seen with almost everybody's favorite: the god thing. It doesn't lead very far but it's fun doing whatever they're doing.

I suppose the game's the thing to catch the conscience of the king.

Jim,

If you want to locate my thread. (Mechanical Awakening)
Go to ''Your Toe Theory'' forum
You will find it on page 2
then scroll down 10 topics.

melanie.

ps.. It's my personal thoughts shared, it does not advocate that this is the way it is.
It's how i see my personal reality.
We live in multi-dimensional worlds, worlds within worlds.
Paradoxically it's all sprung from out of one source.

[melanie]

While i am appearing on this thread which incidentally i've only just discovered.
Didn't even realize rufus had implied the quest was over because of my thread.

My thoughts are that A ''Toe Quest'' doesn't have to be solved.
A 'Toe Quest' is a game of discovering and sharing ideas.
What's to be solved when everything is complete and whole in each moment.
No-thing can ever be lost, i mean where can it go.
So no-thing needs to found.
If we are suggesting there is something to be found, via a quest.
Then it obviously implies there is something missing.
We can work out how things work etc etc.
It keeps us amused.
But the laws and mechanics are already working they are already in motion, they are working all by themselves.
We are not doing any of it.
We are only the witness.
All we are doing is wondering how did 'I' get here.
Yet Impossible to know.

Everything is complete and how it should be,
unfolding moment to moment.

Look at the ''Presence'' in which the i-dea of 'you' arises.
Everything is already perfect in that moment and not one single thing is missing.

That's all there is.

There is only all-one-ness .....alone-ness ..... one all alone.
perfect aloneness.....oneness, we are alone, all-one, one

The eternal alone-ness of 'death' .. 'appearing' 'alive' .. 'appearing' 'happening' to no-one.

Lost in time and space.

A Strange unsolvable mystery ? ..... it's all a 'matter' of perception.

melanie.

[EvanEjk]

There will always be thery. We can't discover everything.

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by EvanEjk

There will always be thery. We can't discover everything.

You may be right, but we can always try. Such is our nature.

Best to you and welcome to the forum,

Pat

[Sentient marine]

Originally Posted by Profpat

You may be right, but we can always try. Such is our nature.

Best to you and welcome to the forum,

Pat

Even if the Knights of the round table had found the Holy Grail it is still but a carpenter's cup. The quest is always just starting for what do we really know of the Owner and how much more is there to find with each important new discovery as we step along the path.

[GodofReason]

Originally Posted by Robert

We might also discuss what the definition of solved is because it might have a different meaning for different people.

Hi, Robert. Awesome site, by the way. I just took the poll and noticed that the smart money is on "never" for the solution to the TOE It's an old story, really, and your observation of the definition of "solve" as pivotal to the issue cuts right to the heart of the matter. Since the universe and our perception of it has always become more and more involved as our investigations range farther and farther afield, we might presume it will continue in this manner until we see compelling evidence to the contrary. And there is no such evidence in all of history.

Looking back, Newton already discovered the TOE. His equations were totally seamless at the time and comprehensive of all then-contemporary data. Only after Maxwell's equations came along could Einstein recognize a new area for a more general description of reality. We may well consolidate our current set of questions with a TOE that relates the four forces, but it almost inevitable that it will in turn pose more questions.

"Solving" this dilemma is a matter of taking Godel's theorem to heart. In an infinite universe our investigations will always be dwarfed by uncertainty. We cling to the notion that we are capable of fully characterizing our lot as humans and our universe, but history says unequivocally that the odds are stacked entirely against our suddenly devising some final answer. In a thousand years we most likely will see the world in a dramatically more involved, more sophisticated manner than we are capable of imagining today.

However, accepting this view by carefully, humbly and deliberately presuming a virtually infinite task at hand, advances the argument to another level. The TOE becomes NOT a solution, but the most accurate depiction of the question. The truth is the truth, even if it is open-ended and inherently unknowable to the human circumstance. Knowing that and accepting it's implications actually allows you to best shot at characterizing your uncertainty as it relates to what you have managed to determine as certain.

I will submit what I believe to be the best characterization of our certainty in cosmological, psychological and even spiritual terms as it more accurately relates to our uncertainty in one your forums as soon as I decide where it might best be posted. It will be at least 30 pages, so I'll either post it to the Author's forum or break it up into the three categories and link them. Once again, awesome forum, Robert.

-Mike Harmon

[Hucknallite]

Have to agree that what constitutes a theory of everything really does need to be defined. Physicists often portray this as something which is in their domain. Of course it is not. Physics is a subset of philosophy so by definition can only comment on those matters within its own subject area.

Science by definition insists on keeping the experimenter out of the experiment and also predetermines what type of thing is scientific or not. This is a problem for any theory of everything within science.

For example, Though in understanding the world we have to adopt the scientific stance that teleological processes are not explanatory, when it comes to the universe itself we are forced to accept that there may well be a teleological element involved.

From a situation of nothingness, there has to be some restriction or some precondition on what is possible to come into existence.

For example, think of the acorn which turns into an oak. The growth into an oak tree is a causal process from the acorn. But there is a sense in which the oak tree is present within the acorn. The oak is determined by the initial conditions.

The universe is an even more pure example of this teleological perspective. Not only must we concern ourselves with the intial conditions, we also can ask what are the possible initial conditions? If those initial conditions are nothingness (and what else could they be) then we can readily conclude that nothingness will lead us into a universe exactly the same as this one.

To deny it is probably to deny causality and to deny the usefulness or possibility of science.

Anyway, I digress. Science is too narrow a subject area and too strongly defined to give us a theory of everything. Philosophy is the only discipline with the lack of discipline to not pre define what a theory of everything might be like.