The missing link of The Theory of Everything.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Missing Link?

Of the Groundstate of All?

The link is not missing.

The groundstate existed always
Since not anything could have become of Nothing.



(Next time: The Curse and the Blessing:
How imagination fabricates)

[Mohan.C]

The laws of physics are not a mental construct. Even if human's were not here, still the laws of physics would've been operating. But, that cannot be since we are here, and hence we are also a part of that law which explains everything. So, we are a product of that law, and we are trying to understand that law, based on the little observable facts that we can get.
Science is limited in the sense that, it only tries to answer how everything works. Not who made everything work.
And 'the other pursuits of human mind 's limitation is that it doesn't answer how everything work, but why everything works.
And spiritualities limitation is that it doesn't answer how everything works, but tries to answer "who made it work?"

Things which are unchanging cannot be attained, since everything is relative.Things which are unchanging are called 'ideal states' which are used only theoretically and are not practically attainable. I can't guarantee though, may be someone has managed to attain 0 Kelvin, in some laboratory. In case, I am mistaken, then please do indicate which unchanging entity it is that is present in the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Constructs describing concepts, does not a winning argument make.

Cognition describes real concepts, not constructs of. Constructs are meaning, not self-supporting, imo. Concepts, on the other hand can be 1+1=2, written on a page, that anyone can cognize the facts of, thus is an absolute fundamental law of mathematics, progression or even the life system, that allows one to cognize the simplest of concepts, 1+1=2. Tis the 'I' of pure being that is the cognizer, but can not exist without the pre-existing fundamental progression of it's simplest form; 1+1=2 evolution of, no matter how formal or simple one wishes to take it__The universe of geo-structure of us, pre-exists us, as the formal structure of physics and maths, so is the absolute fundamental function of all 'I' cognizers__A simple scientific fact__just look up at night__Hello...!!!

The self-'I'-cognizer can not conflate this fact away...rrr

[Graybeard]

The universe of geo-structure of us, pre-exists us, as the formal structure of physics and maths, so is the absolute fundamental function of all 'I' cognizers__A simple scientific fact

The laws of physics are not a mental construct. Even if human's were not here, still the laws of physics would've been operating.

............. edited by Mod

If I was not here, and therefore by default, had no thoughts .... the Laws of Physics would still apply.

cool bananas ... greg

(check and mate .... rotflmao)

[labelwench]

There.

I think I have slapped a thank you on every post on this thread.

Surely I have read them all three times.

Perhaps, Greg, it is less your words that I object to than your supercilious and sarcastic manner which tend to leave me feeling mocked, and I observe this is your manner on other threads and to other posters as well.

You are a very intelligent man and there is a time and place for humor.

I come to learn and willingly acknowledge my lack of depth in the sciences.

Others respond to my less than sophisticated questions with considerably more tolerance and expertise.

I expect better from you as you have a greater responsibility on this forum.

And just what kind of an intelligent posting was #15 on this thread?

[Graybeard]

I am humbly and deservedly abashed. Robert has mentioned that he may have to sack me.


cool bananas ... greg

[labelwench]

I am humbly and deservedly abashed. Robert has mentioned that he may have to sack me.


cool bananas ... greg

You are a dilligent Moderator, Greg.

[Graybeard]

Number 15 post was an admission that I was stumped by Steve's argument ???

cool bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

[quote=labelwench;104799]You are a dilligent Moderator, Greg.


............... Edited by mod

[SteveA]

With regard to some of the other comments, it seems rather difficult to claim that the laws of physics exist in some form other than what we observe them to be, and truly it's really an individual that observes the "we" also.

If only two people spoke French and they were able to communicate in that language, would the language still exist in any tangible form if they were not there speaking it? I don't think so and claims to the contrary would appear to be just hypothetical mental abstractions without any ability to verify them.

In a similar sense, someone might experience the universe in such and such a manner and communicate with people or objects etc. in various ways but this is ultimately a subjective experience and that perspective does not impose itself outside the observer.

So ultimately there's really no way (in my opinion, of course, but that's the valid one for me) to prove that physics exists in a manner outside of what one observers it to be. If someone is blind, that does not destroy light, nor does someone seeing light create it as a reality for anyone/anything else.

"Objective reality" can't be know or experienced to be more than a subset of ones own subjective experiences and claiming that such subjective experiences holds validity or imposes itself beyond that is just something the ego likely prefers to believe, but it's not "science", nor logic etc. in my book.