Challenge: A Protheory Based Question

[greenbug]

Well that’s like arbitrary or imaginary numbers. Anything can have a state that is real or unreal, true or untrue, yet our imagination let us see both at the same time true and untrue. We use facts to divide from there on out.
Something maybe on and off but the real truth is your not watching the tv. Or you can say you are and your not but then your in the same room but your not, but you are.. On and on and on.

Direction is the same thing. We are there so its up but we are not there so the direction is open. We are both there and not so the direction is up and open.

Every thing is abstract we need facts to divide to form truth or fiction, positive or negative. To a computer that computes all it will always be probability till you give it an absolute.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Prof,

If Pro Theory is proved, then my TOE of Possibility is proved.

See http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...per-toe-7.html

My proof is that: neither any real thing could have been around forever—since endlessness (things would have definition without having ever been defined) is not possible for the real—nor could the real have come from nothing, since ‘nothing’ is not there; therefore, Possibility did it.

The multiverse is all possible universes, of which one, ours, evolved consciousness, which, being an observation, brought the potential Cosmos into the real, just like the events we still see in the quantum realm.

Both consciousness and the multiverse are of the quantum realm, in which possibility rules, hidden variables having been ruled out. The wave function goes all the way up.

There can be other, separate, multiverses bubbling up ‘elsewhere’.

QED

It is proved.

[Tina]

Pro theory proves 'Potential/Possibility',
which is the TOE and the origin of the multiverse:

'Everything' is positive;

Not 'Everything' is 'Nothing', or negative;

Neither 'Everything' nor 'Nothing' is the neutral 'Possibility/Potential'.

Lets see if we can put this into Logical form....

All things = X
No things = -X

First we must find the Truth values of these statements:

But "All things" is problematic!

Do we want to say that 'all things' exist and are just dependent on the re-arrangement of matter to manifest? If so then:

X = All Things = TRUE

"No Things" is easier because there is no evidence of no thing.

-X = No Things = False

X + - (-X)

X + X

(Everything plus everything....ad infinitum) This is as good as possibility/potentiality for me.

If you want to consider All things (past, present and future) as seperate entities then:

-X + -(-X)
-X + X
= 0

Which would read as:

It is not the case that there is EVERYTHING but it is not the case there is NOTHING.

-(X) + -(-X)
-X + X
= 0

The Neutral and logical case being that there is SOMETHING.

I think for your purposes the first option is the better one.

[austintorn@aol.com]

We could use 'any thing' [real] so as not to worry about all things or everything.

This is as good as possibility/potentiality for me.

OK, the TOE is proved; all that remains are the quantum details.

I got so excited about proving the TOE that I dropped all the dishes and shattered them. Can we use paper plates?

[Tina]

We could use 'any thing' [real] so as not to worry about all things or everything.

This is as good as possibility/potentiality for me.

OK, the TOE is proved; all that remains are the quantum details.

I got so excited about proving the TOE that I dropped all the dishes and shattered them. Can we use paper plates?

Congratulations - I think

Hope you understand that Protheory is basically a theory of determining Falsity and Truth. You better read up on it.

http://www.protheory.com/

[greenbug]

Not really if any thing is proven the possibility is no longer a possibility. Perhaps if local reality is not defined the same as non local but the chance is once something was defined it defined everything else the same way and grew from there. Yet the nature is filled with loop holes, if you want to prove something then find another way around eventually you will find a definite route. With quantum physics the probability is “entangled” with actuality, it may surpass it but the real question is how or where. The way I see it.

if X -X = Z and not Q
then X -X will never = Q
Yet X -X + X -X may = Q
just depends on where you get the new X from logic or abstract.

[austintorn@aol.com]

John Somebody—his name rings a Bell, a short Irishman with red hair, proposed a theorem that he thought would show hidden variables in quantum theory; instead, the experiments that followed showed that the wave function of probability/possibility was the fundamental description of the quantum.

There is Everything real. (positive)
There is Nothing real. (negative)
There is Possibility. (neutral)

All must be true at once, especially here, since the information content of Everything, such as every possible universe, is zero, as is Nothing’s information content. Possibility either generates the real, sometimes, or generates the not real, nothing, sometimes.

Possibility, being neither some real thing nor nothing, of course, has no laws, no forms, no anything definite, for all is/was open to any and all possibility. It is the only condition that needs nothing before it. No more turtles standing on turtles all the way down. It was here ‘forever’. Any other forever stuff would have needed definiton. Also, stuff having been around forever could also not be since forevers never complete.

Our universe full of lucky coincidences was just one of a zillion paths of Possibility’s Everything. It is neither right nor wrong, but it worked, as may have some others, but a lot of universes flopped and went nowhere or were inert to begin with.

Time to get out the paper cups and party, Tina, my beloved logician.

[Tina]

.... Yet the nature is filled with loop holes, if you want to prove something then find another way around eventually you will find a definite route. With quantum physics the probability is “entangled” with actuality, it may surpass it but the real question is how or where. The way I see it.

if X -X = Z and not Q
then X -X will never = Q
Yet X -X + X -X may = Q

just depends on where you get the new X from logic or abstract.

If you want to take (X -X) symbolically then:

if X-X = Z ^ -Q
then Z ^ -Q
but Z + Z = Q or -Q
Therefore 2 Z = Q or -Q

This suggests to me that 2Z opens the way for chance in obtaining Q.

But if you want to take (X-X) mathematically/literally (which is how I take it) then:

X-X = O = Z
then Z ^ -Q
then Z + Z = Z
therefore Z = Q or -Q

This is a Contradiction to your original premise:

if X-X = Z and - Q
then Z will never = Q

Because of the Contradiction you would really have to work hard to produce a loophole around this one.

[Tina]

Hi Tina;

So is there going to be an actual answer to this. I'm somewhat in agreement with protheory, that positive, negative and neutral is what makes the world go round.

Well no answer that I can think of. The challenge is to come up with something that does not fall within this dynamic between pos/neg/ neutral.

So if a dynamic between pos/neg/neutral explains/answers everything what does this say about the TOE?

[Tina]

Time to get out the paper cups and party, Tina, my beloved logician.

I'm very happy for you Austin - but I'm not sure that

There is Everything real. (positive)
There is Nothing real. (negative)
There is Possibility. (neutral)

is the most convincing way to express your argument

Let's see what the other's have to say.