[Guille]

Originally Posted by Masa Hiryuu There is nothing in the universe that is not of nature... It is impossable for anything to be unnatural

true, that's why the "theory of everything" mus be a "theory of nature". but some things that nature creates can create new things, like language, and this is natural, and it is imperfect. all natural is imperfect. all "artificial" (for me everything that man creates should be considered natural because man himself has been created by nature) is imperfect. that's why languages have mistakes and this paradox is created.

[dleviwing]

Guille;
Once you sort through and discard those things created by man all you will have left is that which has always existed. This is what TOE needs to explain and it can be taught in high school. Unlike the "Index Book of the Library of Congress", TOE will not need to reference itself. No real paradox exists.
You have great potential but I think you need to ask harder science questions that can't be found in textbooks.

Best regards;
Dave

Ps: Did God create man or did man create God? I accept the latter.

[Robert]

Many mathematicians have spent considerable effort to rid systems of self-reference. One way of doing so is to create a meta-language where one can speak of the system from outside the system. But this leads to the meta-meta-language that is used to describe the meta-language that speaks of the language used internally within a system.

I highly recommend the GEB Book (Godel, Esscher, Bach -- An Eternal Golden Braid) since it covers this very topic. It's listed in the Book Discussion Forums but hasn't generated a lot of traffic yet. It's main topic is the strange loop; the exact paradox you mention and many other similar paradoxes. It's a classic and a fascinating read. I'd love for several of use to get this book and start some threads in the GEB forum to discuss its contents.

Regards,
--Robert

[Guille]

I was wondering how come I had less posts than before: I asked my self if maybe I had travelled back in time, or if I had seen the future writing my other posts. But now I know: you (Robert) eliminated the non-themed posts of this thread.

I think this could be a solution to my paradox:

We admit, from the paradox, that TOE implies TOE. Now, for the TOE to imply the TOE, this second implied TOE should imply the TOE. but as TOE=TOE, or TOE is identical to TOE, then the TOE that the implied TOE implies is the TOE that implies this TOE and so, implies itself. So it would have has to be impplied to imply, and if it implies, it has to be impplied. but as what it implies is what it has been implied, then it can never impply without being impplied and can never be imppplied if it doesn't implly. So it never starts to impply and be imppplied because it would need one to form the other, the other to form the one, and both to form both.

[pelastration]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> I do want to know what you think about my paradox and how to solve it?

First you have to give a definition about what you understand under a TOE. IMO it's a theory.
A theory is the result of a state of mind and consiousness. There are many theories. The TOE is one of them.
When you can explain or find the hidden mechanisms of mind and consciousness and relate them with physics you will have a TOE.
So there is no real paradox because a TOE will explain how human minds can create theories, and a TOE is one of them.

The problem for a TOE is that it will be very hard to prove (cfr. observations on Planck scale ... will be possible one day?).

[Guille]

Originally Posted by pelastration First you have to give a definition about what you understand under a TOE. IMO it's a theory. A theory is the result of a state of mind and consiousness. There are many theories. The TOE is one of them. When you can explain or find the hidden mechanisms of mind and consciousness and relate them with physics you will have a TOE. So there is no real paradox because a TOE will explain how human minds can create theories, and a TOE is one of them. The problem for a TOE is that it will be very hard to prove (cfr. observations on Planck scale ... will be possible one day?).

although in a first look it does seem there is no paradox because of your points, even your own post leads to a paradox:

The TOE should explain how we create theories (you say), so then, it should explain how we create the TOE, but have to explain how we create the TOE explaining that the TOE explains that TOE is understanding how we can create theories, or the TOE........and so on for infinite.

[pelastration]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> The TOE should explain how we create theories (you say), so then, it should explain how we create the TOE,

we create or will create a TOE by using our brains. That's all.

[wildtangent420]

Perhaps the paradox lies only in perspective, taking account certain limitations, paradox, is the only resonable conculsion we can recieve at this perspective. But if the perspective changed, would the TOE still be a paradox?

[Guille]

Originally Posted by wildtangent420 Perhaps the paradox lies only in perspective, taking account certain limitations, paradox, is the only resonable conculsion we can recieve at this perspective. But if the perspective changed, would the TOE still be a paradox?

no.

Now I am the questioneer: how do you "change" this "PERSPECTIVE"?

[wildtangent420]

If we view perspective on a reality scale, although indeed individually the perspective still apllies, then there is no way of changing it.

It's the question....
"Which came first the Chicken or the Egg?" In speaking of TOE, ok, Mr. Big Bang what happened before you were, and then before that and then paradox after paradox.

This unanswerable question leads me to believe that we are all part of a hindered perspective based on a limited reality, whether that reality is limited by our minds, or our nature. When I speak of perspective, I speak of not only what is percieved, but also what is capable to be percieved, but just because it's not capable of being percieved doesn't mean it is non-existant. Of God and Metaphysics I will never prove, but I feel mathematically any false-reality will be able to be proven.....false.

So inherently, in this perspective, your paradox, can never be solved....truly.