[Guille]

And indeed from your post, it can't be solved...true.

This is just because it is wrong (as I have already posted). Zeno's paradox was wrong, and the say they have "solved" it, althouh I don't believe in that proof, so, I guess my paradox is simillar to Zeno's one: wrong, but impossible to dispute/solve.

[Fredrick]

Hi Guille,

I am most interested in the subject of nothing, and yet when I open up my mouth and say something about nothing then I already ruined what was a perfect nothing.

The subject matter of nothing is very interesting, but it must be discussed to be fully understood. It is therefore also ruined. What I am trying to say is that when I want to understand nothing I end up with something that is more than nothing itself.

One of the aspects of nothing is that it is a position, even when nothing takes place in that position. I can theorize about that position, I can create an abstract about that position, while at that position actually nothing is taking place. The beauty about any abstract is that it can capture reality on some level and delivers an overall view, but the abstract itself is not the full reality: it is something we are capable of doing in our minds.

So, how do you solve capturing nothing?

[Al Schneider]

My two cents.
You have a paradox created by circular thinking.
A TOE of a TOE. I encounter this sort of thing in my programming all of the time. It is resolved in two ways. First, instead of saying this gives that which gives that which ...; consider the whole thing a system. Then it resolves. The other way to resolve it is to understand that you do not understand it. Once understood the existance of any paradox that is present becomes clear. Then there is no paradox. My conclusion here is that such a discussion is important to consider but not dwell on. Let's continue our quest.

[jimscarver]

It is correct that not all questions are answerable in any system of static logic by Russel's paradox and Goedel's incompletness. So if ywe demand that all questions be answered we need not bother to try.

But suppose we accept the fact that the Law of the excluded middle, that a proposition must be true or false, and there is no "middle" or other possibility, is contradicted by the existence of questions that are not answerable. Then our theory of everything need only identify what questions are not answerable in what logical contexts.

But proof by contradiction must incude proof of decidability as a prerequisite, and many of the theorums we believe are true become susspect.

Humans lack the power to dictate the nature of truth, instead it must be our quest to discover its nature.

Dynamic universal logic systems exhibit the set of all possible logical systems. They do not abhor absurdity, but they do distinguesh between realizable systems and human fantacy.

Truth is relative to logical context. There is no absolute truth. But when the context is defined the truth may be absolute within that context.

If nature is the only criteria, and the relative (not arbitrary) nature of truth within contexts is applied, then an objective model of everything is possible.

Jim

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Al Schneider My two cents. You have a paradox created by circular thinking. A TOE of a TOE. I encounter this sort of thing in my programming all of the time. It is resolved in two ways. First, instead of saying this gives that which gives that which ...; consider the whole thing a system. Then it resolves. The other way to resolve it is to understand that you do not understand it. Once understood the existance of any paradox that is present becomes clear. Then there is no paradox. My conclusion here is that such a discussion is important to consider but not dwell on. Let's continue our quest.

This are the sort of proofs I wanted to read. These kind of "proofs" of paradoxes are wrong solutions. This is beause it's just taking the case of, not caring about it. It's like putting god to explain everything just because you are too tired to explain them yourself. Saying that the paradox is wrong because of this system thing and because we/I analize it or look at it wrongly, is ilogical and irrelevatn to the solution of the theory.

[Fredrick]

Hi Guille,

It appears that the answer has been given in this thread by now. I just wanted to add a different way of approaching your 'paradox.'

What I see as the reason for the paradox is that a theory is 'only' an abstract attempt to explain what is going on. As such it does not exist by itself. A common example of something abstract that can be added but does not exist all by itself would be your name 'Guille.' Your name is given to the whole of you but a name is just a tag.

A theory of everything needing to have that theory of everything being included in it as well and then being a new theory is like asking you to come up with a new name for yourself that includes you plus the name that you already have, because before you had a name you were less than now with your name. This new entity of you should then be given a new name. As you can see, to add a second name is a little bit weird, because a name does not really deliver anything extra to who you are; it is an abstract that is very handy (other people can use it to call you or gossip about you behind your back). To have two abstracts for you with one abstract including the other abstract, does not deliver anything extra, and would actually be unhandy.

A theory of everything needs to include the ability to add a tag, or to distill something meaningful about the whole. People tend to forget this and that can sometimes create confusion.

Overall approaches like in science, use and play with the tag, for instance when theorizing — this means taking in a position without delivering the proof/evidence that what is placed in this position truly exists. In religion there is a similar place, where without having to prove that god exists, one can make that claim nevertheless.

In this position of the abstract, what is said to be possible or true is not proven, but the position to make that claim really/truly exists. That's why the position of nothing is important: it delivers a position, while in that position nothing extra needs to be delivered. In science, and in religion, a position of nothing exists where one can theorize or place a belief. A theory of everything should include the position to create an abstract.

A theory is a theory; it is a specific abstract about reality and the abstract behaves very much like zero. It is the reason why one name is sufficient; one times zero or two times zero (or a hundred times zero) does not matter. The answer is still zero. The abstract remains just an abstract. But, hey, that position where nothing is taking place exists; it really is there.

[jonnyflashbang]

richard feynman equated the theory of everything to learning the rules of chess.......

after three moves on a chess board, there are more possible moves than there are hydrogen atoms in the universe.......


therefore, just because you have a formalised theory of everything.....you just have the underpinning rules of the system.....but that doesn't mean you instantly understand all the possible interactions and possiblities that those rules allow....

[subversion]

Guille, I don't think your paradox is impossible to solve.

This is how I would solve it: by considering that the theory of everything IS it's own theory. Another way to look at this is that a theory of the theory of everything would be irrelevant and redundant because the theory of everything is already the ultimate theory which describes itself perfectly.

I think it is very important for us to keep in mind that the TOE is perfect and omnipotent. The TOE does not lie; it will describe everything.

I will be sure to include your paradox and it's solution, if you consider that my solution is correct.

best regards, SubVersion

[baudrunner]

Thesis is to postulation as antithesis is to argument as synthesis is to theory. They are part of the process of dialectic. Neither thesis nor antithesis are true or false in any respect unless they are proven to be one or the other, therefore theory is the precursor to proof. And proof should, on examination, provide the basis for establishing the truth of a theory. In maintaining a practical overview of things the broad general picture should be as apparent as the components within it.

Truth is not a management tool, neither is it a premise or theoretical, therefore enforcement thereof does not enter into reality.

[Guille]

Jim and Baud,

Something smells bad. Everyone doubts about the idea of theory, the idea of proof...etz, but you seem to assume that dialectics is correct. I'll start a thread about dialectics and give all my arguments against it. We simply tihnk it's correct because it's been so long in our society... But it's time to leave hegel to a side.