A Theory of Everything (that Matters)

[SteveA]

I know many people have different ideas about a Theory of Everything and the idea was initially intended for physical laws, but appears to be a subject that naturally begins to encompass more and more areas of knowledge and experience.

This may not be true for everyone else but I'm certain many people have encountered a wall on this - no matter how close you come to connecting everything (known) together, there's always a loose end, paradox or an unknown etc.

I'm making a suggestion that it may be only a Theory of Everything that Matters that's needed or desired and that by making this "sacrifice" a lot of details can emerge, though what matters is something inherently personal, but there are still many commonalities between people in this regard and a subset of this similar to a Theory of Everything that Matters to Humanity may still be something not too nebulous (of course it couldn't be claimed to be precisely true for everyone but it would interesting to see if a version with some areas where people have to "fill in the blanks" themself could be created).

Anyway, the basic question though is that if it turned out that some restriction had to be placed on a Theory of Everything and only a Theory of a Subset of Everything is possible, what subset of it would you pick?

[SB_UK]

Anyway, the basic question though is that if it turned out that some restriction had to be placed on a Theory of Everything and only a Theory of a Subset of Everything is possible, what subset of it would you pick?

Wouldn't ? an idealized (perfect) Theory of a subset be possible only when framed by an idealized (perfect) Theory of the whole -

everything.

--- Aside ---

(how do people remember to use question marks ?)
I propose a solution -
if it's a question - can't we do this .... ...

(how ? do people remember to use question marks ?)
I propose a solution -
if it's a question - can't ? we do this .... ...

--- 'Aaa punc side ---

That since everything is a whole -
that it's not possible to have a correctly functioning part of the 'engine' without all interacting parts also interacting perfectly (with it).

Wouldn't work otherwise, if the perfect thingummy (for instance) didn't make contact with the imperfect in the presence of beauty wonkydoink .

Sounds quite like the Labelwench's 'nail in the soup' fable
or
the seed which begins a (chemical,protein) crystallization event.

[SteveA]

Wouldn't ? an idealized (perfect) Theory of a subset be possible only when framed by an idealized (perfect) Theory of the whole -

everything.

I propose a solution -
if it's a question - can't ? we do this .... ...

That since everything is a whole -
that it's not possible to have a correctly functioning part of the 'engine' without all interacting parts also interacting perfectly (with it).

...

or the seed which begins a (chemical,protein) crystallization event.

Yes, you gave me an idea there - ok, similar to posts elsewhere there are flows of value in interactions between people and we have various "treasures" desired in exchange for various gradations of "trash" someone is able to provide (I don't really mean it in that sense, but simply that some things people have more of an abundance of or things they don't desire as much that they want to exchange for other things - maybe a more politically correct term would be "less treasureful" - of course I'm simply referring to supply and demand but in abstract ways).

It could almost been seen similar to atoms arranging into a molecule and it may not immediately be a linear flow (though I think ultimately there still has to be the equivalent of a linear pathway of energy, but that's rather a side issue) - people interact in multiple ways. If placed this into the context of a very high dimensional space, there would be the equivalent of a network of relationships branching out in exchanges in one fashion and looping back to become exchanges in another manner etc.

As you point out, there may be only very little common to everyone, but along these pathways there are more commonalities between people at local points in this space there could be a large overlap in a Theory of Everything that Matters (between a few people) and so a better representation of a space describing a Theory of Everything that Matters in Human Societies could be possibly well described as such a multidimensional structure and it's interesting to consider the possible value of finding ways to optimize this.

Yes, I admit I tend to distrust such ideas because a lot of times someone wants to do "top-down planning", but tools that people could use for themself in this respect could be quite useful and valuable. (In many ways these already exist as a mix of various institutions or services etc. so there's nothing particularly unique to the idea except in the scope).

I'm very confident that a free society can beat out any tyrrany in the long run because billions of minds can do a much better job of managing their affairs than any elite commitee and most people prefer this anyway - it basically just takes some desire (there are a lot of people with this though there would be more with some successes to show) and time to grow (we've got plenty of that if nature or political forces don't toss out major problems) while holding the predators at bay for a while (that appears the toughest part from history).

But something to consider first would be that this doesn't mean much without people understanding for themself what things matter most to them - the likelihood of society happening to fill in some needs or desires that someone themself doesn't recognize is pretty slim, so that's really where it all begins.

Anyway, it's just an idea to consider.

[SB_UK]

Yes, you gave me an idea there - ok, similar to posts elsewhere there are flows of value in interactions between people and we have various "treasures" desired in exchange for various gradations of "trash" someone is able to provide (I don't really mean it in that sense, but simply that some things people have more of an abundance of or things they don't desire as much that they want to exchange for other things - maybe a more politically correct term would be "less treasureful" - of course I'm simply referring to supply and demand but in abstract ways).

This sounds like education

.
...........................................'yes ... yes yesyes do go onnnnn'

Albert achieved the seeming impossible by captivating his hyperactive child's undivided attention.

~*~


Tap the collective imagination.

[SB_UK]

... ...and so a better representation of a space describing a Theory of Everything that Matters in Human Societies could be possibly well described as such a multidimensional structure and it's interesting to consider the possible value of finding ways to optimize this.

This sounds similar to the construction of an Internet forum which represents each and every human endeavour which exists
- well designed fora though
- with extensive help on each to get a 'newbie' up to speed.

The existence of simple (to understand, access and find) repositories of information
- of all information a human being might ever hope to acquire

which naturally
(by virtue of their virtual nature)
'd rip through
geographical, national, xenophobia, ignorance,
... ... artificial physical boundaries

- would appear to be the solution.

~*~

Give all people access to all information,
phrased sufficiently clearly
such that the individual post-basal educational system education (at ~16)
(about to be introduced globally)
- will be afforded enough good information from which to make up his own mind.

We cannot disenfranchise ourselves by entrusting another, must bear personal responsibility for all acts performed in our name.

If there's a war being waged by your country -
- then *you* are made directly responsible.

~*~

An individual would be free to come and go as needs dictate
(the internet forum does not insist on mandatory clocking on times)

- where the best possible information would (eventually) gravitate towards these fora
- would not be scattered amongst the geographically dispersed minds

- the best possible information 'd eradicate the nonsense which currently pervades.

~*~

This system wouldn't work though if all people weren't able to access the information (would need to accelerate the 'one laptop per child' initiative
- and to open the wireless internet to one and all).

Also - this fair system does not work if secrecy or attempts to evade the system are made
- of course only occurring in an attempt to cheat people (only subterfuge) out of money.

By this I mean that there could be no more ridiculous patent law -
- there would need to be a unique ID associated with each and every product which goes on sale -
- and every person who lives

- and each and every product reviewed by an expert jury (the guys who're about to use the thing) -
and written up

- for others to consult prior to purchase.

This unique ID system associated with the actual people who cheat us under one name, bankrupt their businesses and start up another -
- who thereby effectively hide from their past misdemeanours
- would be exposed.

~*~

Net effect quality in services

(comments on poor builders,plumbers ~etc~)
and
products
(an end to ridiculous plastic children's toys)

would be increased.

~*~

In all likelihood the knowledge that people will be caught on forum for charging excessively or performing work at a sub-standard level will (most likely) be enough.

However -
- there's always the fear of unfair criticism being left and of fear of physical attack by fairly/unfairly criticised party.

The ebay system of grading interactions
- with amendment to allow comments possible post-purchase (1 month, a year)
would be necessary.

Many of the (few) items which I've bought from Ebay have fallen apart just a few weeks
albeit after prompt arrival (with a smile).

~*~

Counter-argument

Aarggghhhhh!
Too complicated.

... ... or is it simpler just to simply divorce ourselves from any purchases and to tumble head over heels into mind?

I really don't think
(that when we allow ourselves to think about it) -
- that most people actually want anything (physical).

We came into this world naked ... ... ...

Simply an upgradeable 3g enabled moving recorded sound and light relay device.


The rest of the stuff (inanimate) we own is neither here nor there - probably required - in function though alone.

If stuff could be shared (kinda' like the LHC in Cern) -
- rather than every blessed person wanting one in the basements which they don't even own.

A chair which is comfortable is a chair -
- we don't need such bewildering absence of sold as diversity of array.

Ultimately - we are going to need to realise that we're running out of E=mc^2 stuff (inanimate) -
- and head over (accordingly) into the internal domain (of mind,imagination) -
- which we'll find we're already in.

'Most disconcerting Arbuthnot.'

- that place where effectively infinite (ref:SteveA 'counting to infinity') holds sway.

In order to make it to that place -
a basal level of physical items are begrudgingly required -

- though perhaps we can get over ourselves if all physical items are freely shared.

This'd mean that most industries (the one's which destroy our world) 'd be (thankfully) put out of business over night.

Kill demand
- kill supply.

We need to aspire to a minimum set of *sustainable* physical utensils -
- a minimal set of *sustainable* tools such that every individual who lives can expect to have access to each one of these

- and comfortably.

[SteveA]

This sounds similar to the construction of an Internet forum which represents each and every human endeavour which exists

Well I can't think of a way to have all of them, but then again, that's another good idea - maybe more like a wikipedia with user creatable "subjects of interest" for collusion. (i.e. basically, "Hey, how many people want to help build a 120Vac charging electric moped?" - if you have other aptitudes for people there might even be a way to have this "targetted" to people most likely to be interested - of course, again, this is really nothing too unique except in the idea of just combining a lot of areas of things like employment, relationships, communication networks etc. and having it built from some tools to help optimize these for people - instead of things being simply 1 on 1, you could actually have groups of people coordinate better - I again admit that in many ways I tend to be very resistant, skeptical and cynical of large institutions and in some ways such a structure is almost the antithesis of things I usually encourage, but ultimately the reason I generally discourage such structures is because they can also be abused if people allow them to be centrally controlled - you gave an example of the internet and I think that's a great analogy - the internet is largely private and voluntary - people mix and mingle and are free to come and go as they like, in general, though there are some areas where government wants to step in and control some areas, but generally there's little of any need for this and people adapt and learn to handle their own "space" on the internet and I actually do recognize the benefit that people can gain by coordinating themselves better - basically a tool that helped people see "the big picture" from a social perspective would help in this - you have certain things that people desire and you have certain desires of society and seeing a large set of possibilities and having these efficiently filtered to something of manageable size along with possible coordination between multiple people could definitely assist people in finding areas where they fit in well and can work with people of similar interests and views on the things they enjoy the most. I couldn't complain about that I just can't help worrying that there could also grow a dependency on such a system and that people would seek to abuse it and manipulate people via. it ... but then again that's probably one of those things that can never be entirely avoided and if people have already seen the value then I'd assume they're not going to want a few people to drag it down for them and we can't wait forever to have something better!)

- well designed fora though
- with extensive help on each to get a 'newbie' up to speed.

Yes, that's a very good suggestion. I like it.

The existence of simple (to understand, access and find) repositories of information
- of all information a human being might ever hope to acquire

Well if it was an expandable and dynamic network or subjects that would appear to allow for quite a diversity over time. I admit that I'm thinking this basically already exists in many forms such as job search engines and MySpace or Google etc., but the most significant feature would be over allowing a dynamically definable space of interests, attributes and apptitudes along with tools to filter through and optimize networks of these interactions to find some of the best solutions. So basically, in a simple form, it could almost be like a) defining and/or selecting the things your looking for in a group, b) similarly defining and/or selecting the things you can provide to people and c) having the tools search through existing groups (likely with geographical considerations as well) or similarly new networks waiting to be formed and then showing some of the potentially best matches and it would also be nice to allow some dynamic exchanges after this - for example you could basically presonally order some of the results by a preference (for example, if it comes back with 12 of its best solutions, you could look through these and weight them as to how desirable each of these are and then others that your interactions would relate with could see this response and similarly select from the best candidates and after a couple iterations of this effectively coordinate those interests between potentially dozens or hundreds of people at a time - yes, that's not impossible at all - there could be the "easy mode" and it's basically just a search engine with the optimzation in the background that just lists options and you say which are possible and then get a go or no-go, but people wanting to "fine tune" it could pop open the advanced window and iterate/search through some possibilities dynamically with others though it could be over days of time, similar to emailing)

which naturally
(by virtue of their virtual nature)
'd rip through
geographical, national, xenophobia, ignorance,
... ... artificial physical boundaries

Yes, that's one of the beauties of it There are always niches for people but it's not always simple to find them and "success breeds success" as they say, but this is in terms of freedom of human mobility in society.

I admit I don't even have a cell phone because I'm already "wired in" enough and I don't want to carry around any more of it - when I'm out and about, it's just "me time" , but on the other hand that freedom is a tradeoff as well (if something was an emergency, it could be hard to get a hold of me).

But despite that, there's still little getting around the fact that more everyone is still "plugged in" to some social groups simply because people generally have more desires in life than simply being a hermit and trying to grow some food, but personally I think that any society that can't tolerate someone who really did want to live as a hermit alone and had to go collect various resources or require public service etc. from such an individual is the equivalent of a tyrrany - maybe only in minor ways, but if slaves cannot be allowed to run free, then society has a problem and it will drag things down not just for the slaves.

I've got to do some things for a bit so I'll have to stop there, but I enjoy exchanging the ideas with you (I assume the education you're referring to is something voluntary and not imposed by national laws ... am I correct?)

[labelwench]

Anyway, the basic question though is that if it turned out that some restriction had to be placed on a Theory of Everything and only a Theory of a Subset of Everything is possible, what subset of it would you pick?
Originally posted by SteveA

An interesting proposition, as is the title of this thread.

Everything that matters.

This works just as well for a starting point, as the basis for everything that matters will turn out to be the integral point in any unifying theory, to my mind.

What single thing matters to all living beings?

To fulfill a purpose.

That purpose is highly variable, between species and beings, but it would appear to be central to the theme.

The challenge lies in not interfering with the purpose of other species and beings, and homo sapiens, in escalating the evolution of their own kind, has done just that, and I believe we shall soon be reconsidering everything that matters.

So, to start, I would like to suggest that the theory of everything that matters lies within each of us coming to terms with what our purpose is, and as a society, developing a sophisticated framework to allow individuals the opportunity to develop their unique potential, which despite being individual, feeds back into the collective human journey.

Some interesting discussion between you on this thread. More to follow, must attend to my personal purpose for a time.

Just got off shift, so this is my 'Friday night' though it is Monday morning in Yukon. The mist rising from the Yukon river after a clear sky frosty night, the sun shing bright in a blue sky, which means that those pesky black flies (definitely know their purpose!) are not out for a few hours yet, not a breath of wind, yet the trees are 'raining' yellow leaves as the morning sun melts the frost off......beautiful end to summer.....

Regards,

Labelwench

[labelwench]

In the event that I get kidnapped by aliens (likely I would grab one of them to study, lol), or otherwise get carried along by the abundant flow of energy in today's environment, (who needs sleep anyway?) I wanted to post this song as one of my thoughts on everything that matters....

.....I'll give you a daisy a day....

...poetry, music and images that speak to something which most people and beings seek, enduring and endearing connection....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vY5mDmGQIs

[SB_UK]

I assume the education you're referring to is something voluntary and not imposed by national laws ... am I correct?

not
not
not
not
not

erm... not not ... ...sooo not imposed by national laws.

This is education for life -
not some sorta' excuse for a lawyer to lock us up.

Volitional -
explained
fun.

~*~

We're better than the law.

~*~

... am I correct?

Yes.

[labelwench]

We cannot disenfranchise ourselves by entrusting another, must bear personal responsibility for all acts performed in our name.
Originally posted by SB__UK

Personal responsibility. To hold oneself accountable.

One may not judge others, but one most certainly should hold oneself accountable for commitments made willingly.

There will be occasions where intervening circumstances may disallow a commitment to be acted upon, and circumstances beyond one's control, have always been expected and respected.

However, not honoring a commitment without giving the appropriate communication or offer of exchange, has a negative ripple effect that upsets the balance and flow, and most people are not cognizant of the part their inaction contributes.

When commitments are made, expectations and other commitments rely upon the first, which, if it falters, sets up a domino effect.

The solution is incredibly simple.

Think about the consequences, before making any commitment, large or small.

If you are uncomfortable with the potential outcomes, don't make the commitment.

The universe will compensate for unmade commitments.

Those made, are 'accounts payable.'