[theunify]

One of the things it lacks 1. A clear inventor, time of invention, method of discovery
In science if it's not written down, it didn't happen.

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick It seemed such an elegant theory at first,what happened! regards michael.

[mkirkpatrick]

I think with the string theory there were several claiming varying versions of the theory
which eventually caused some confusion.




regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

You may all be missing something very important about string theory. Though its physical and demensional constructions don't add up, it is a valid meta-math system to use in other places, and its ideas can be cross-corresponded to the sub-quantum advancement of our necessary understanding. If we look over our entire history, we will find many ruminations toward absurd ideas, from the first of the two infinities to the most recent of sub-quantum realities, but are they absurd? Are these the possible fragments of knowledge systems trying to build themselves into new languages, to describe itself? After long contemplation of these ideas, I see the possibility of a new sub-quantum language being developed from the fragments, and pieces of many areas of language. Just take the guage theories of -h, +c, and -0k, now, these are all pieces of a possible new sub-quantum logic language, that has been trying to develop ever since the Upanishads discussions of the primordial atom, to Zeno's paradoxes, to our present day Russell, Whitehead, and Godel schemes, or even Heisenberg and Einstein, etc. There is an entire history of humanity trying to develop and advance new languages, or linguistics, and I say the most important new language, that must be thoroughly developed is a new language of sub-quantum logic, or a new metaphysics, as that's what it is, of physics; then maybe we can describe the new philosophy of a TOE, compatible to the yearnings of all spiritists and scientists.

I say a new sub-quantum metaphysical logic language can be developed, compatible with all parties' yearnings, to unite spirit and science...

Regards,
Lloyd

p.s.
We must learn from all the absurdities, just as much as from all the facts and fads...

[bottomlander]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie There is an entire history of humanity trying to develop and advance new languages, or linguistics, and I say the most important new language, that must be thoroughly developed is a new language of sub-quantum logic, or a new metaphysics, as that's what it is, of physics; then maybe we can describe the new philosophy of a TOE, compatible to the yearnings of all spiritists and scientists. I say a new sub-quantum metaphysical logic language can be developed, compatible with all parties' yearnings, to unite spirit and science... Regards, Lloyd p.s. We must learn from all the absurdities, just as much as from all the facts and fads...

May be Lloyd experienced a "quantum jump" today.

Regrads. bottomlander

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by bottomlander May be Lloyd experienced a "quantum jump" today. Regrads. bottomlander

No, just the recognition of the sub-quantum nature of many guage theories, and other ideas and theories...

Regards,
Lloyd

[dipayankar]

We cannot prove or disprove any system or theory because it cannot be proven today. However the concepts in string theory is too complex for us to decipher. If it cannot be deciphered by a normal average human being, Then it is a difficult theory to be proven..

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie You may all be missing something very important about string theory. Though its physical and demensional constructions don't add up, it is a valid meta-math system to use in other places, and its ideas can be cross-corresponded to the sub-quantum advancement of our necessary understanding. If we look over our entire history, we will find many ruminations toward absurd ideas, from the first of the two infinities to the most recent of sub-quantum realities, but are they absurd? Are these the possible fragments of knowledge systems trying to build themselves into new languages, to describe itself? After long contemplation of these ideas, I see the possibility of a new sub-quantum language being developed from the fragments, and pieces of many areas of language. Just take the guage theories of -h, +c, and -0k, now, these are all pieces of a possible new sub-quantum logic language, that has been trying to develop ever since the Upanishads discussions of the primordial atom, to Zeno's paradoxes, to our present day Russell, Whitehead, and Godel schemes, or even Heisenberg and Einstein, etc. There is an entire history of humanity trying to develop and advance new languages, or linguistics, and I say the most important new language, that must be thoroughly developed is a new language of sub-quantum logic, or a new metaphysics, as that's what it is, of physics; then maybe we can describe the new philosophy of a TOE, compatible to the yearnings of all spiritists and scientists. I say a new sub-quantum metaphysical logic language can be developed, compatible with all parties' yearnings, to unite spirit and science... Regards, Lloyd p.s. We must learn from all the absurdities, just as much as from all the facts and fads...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by dipayankar We cannot prove or disprove any system or theory because it cannot be proven today. However the concepts in string theory is too complex for us to decipher. If it cannot be deciphered by a normal average human being, Then it is a difficult theory to be proven..

I'm not advocating any proof of string theory, as I thought I alluded to. I am only interested in its use as a piece of sub-quantum logic, which overall, may be of use in creating our very necessary sub-quantum logic language, to describe the metaphysical philosophy of a physics/spirit TOE.

regards,

[Max™]

As I've been studying this problem for a couple of decades now, I ran across String Theory and it's iterations once or 10 ^500 times.

It has potential, a lot of it actually, and I think it is pointing in the correct direction of a single theory to describe everything.

It's just being held back by one little problem, the strings themselves. :P

I'll explain better elsewhere.

[Farsight]

No, String Theory is wrong.

[Max™]

It has too much predictive ability to write it off completely.

If you took the strings out of string theory, it would look a lot like what I've been working on.

The insistence on some indivisible slice of matter is what is holding it back.