what is everything?

~~subversion~~ · **what <i>is</i> everything? -** 11-08-2005, 05:08 PM

I can see all of you scratching your heads right now. "Why would he ask that?" you may wonder.

Indeed, why did I ask that?

It may seem like a trivial statement, but believe it or not, we take everything for granted. Show some appreciation for the divine creation, by giving it some thought. And then tell us what you have decided. Good luck, and God speed!

Guille · 11-08-2005, 05:12 PM

I don't understand the title in principle, that's why I can't start trying to see that proof anywhere. If you can proof god by maths, your mind is bigger than euler's, for he tried but couldn't.

mkirkpatrick · 08:38 PM

I know where you are coming from brother!What is just Is,The one is for want of many words,One-Mind-in whom we are at present seemed to be lost In,in the absolute sense there is just the One,no you or me?

kind regards michael.

~~subversion~~ · **oops -** 11-08-2005, 10:49 PM

pardon me for being so unclear. What I was asking was not about "God," but about everything. Just read the subject, "what is everything?" That's the question. So when I say "divine creation," I am simply referring to "everything." We take "everything" for granted, and I am saying we should not take it for granted, we should discuss what the word means.

mkirkpatrick · 08:40 PM

Taking things for granted seems to be pretty widespread certainly here in the uk What has impressed me is that in some countries such as Turkey,for instance, if you make an arrangement with someone they will always qualfy the arrangement with the words to the effect of "if Allah so wills"they do not take for granted that they will be here tomorrow!I try to learn from this ans adopt this idea into my own life,for I am often just taking things for granted,I can learn a lot from others in different lands.

kind regards michael.

Guille · 11-09-2005, 02:23 AM

Everything is nature.

Everything is the collection of all things.

Including no-thing.

Including everything itself.

Including including.

Including that.

And that.

That.

....

etz.

~~subversion~~ · 11-09-2005, 03:53 PM

Mr. KirkPatrick, may I just say that that's a cool last name? Anyway, I think that's a good theology to adopt, I should probably do that too. Well if there's one thing I have to say, it's that, if people in the UK take stuff for granted, it can only be secondary to the US, for we are the worst country in the world at taking things for granted.

Guille, splendid definition of everything. What I was wondering as I was walking over here to the computer lab is, what is the pure extent of everything, what is the pure extent of the TOE? Many people have suspected that the TOE will not be the ultimate theory of everything, that it will merely be the next step, and eventually another TOE will come along that we will think is complete, but is only actually complete for the time being, and yet again we will eventually find a greater theory, and so on and so forth ad ininitum. Lately though, I have begun to rethink this non-omnipotence of the imminent TOE.

You see, as I see it, the definition of everything has sort of changed over time, but the real scientific definition of everything hasn't. Traditionally, everything is everything that we know about, not what we don't know. Thus for a long time, the universe was equivalent to everything, such that you could say everything=the universe. Nowadays though, we have this idea of the multiverse, so now the multiverse=everything. Is this the last definition? I doubt it.

To effectively arrive at the true TOE, we must take the definition of everything to be literal, and to be scientific. Thus everything is quite as you've described: everything we know about plus everything we DON'T. Everything literally is EVERYTHING, which sounds redundant, but I think it is often taken for granted (along with everything else, haha that's redundant too). Thus by saying everything is, we essentially know about everything, without even really knowing about everything, and that is a dubious, although quite effective trick. This does not give away my TOE, but it speaks of it.

So I conclude that the pure extent of everything is absolute, and thus the TOE is the absolute description of existence. The TOE is true and pure, and nothing will come after it. These seems hard to believe, but I think I believe it.

ps. I think we let ourselves down by changing the definition of the universe. To me, the definition of the universe should stay pure, i.e. the universe=everything. So the universe is the multiverse, and whatever else there is. Afterall, by definition, there can only be one universe right?

-Sub

Guille · 11-10-2005, 03:05 PM

Sub,

The definition of everything, varies, as you've said, in the variation of the spacetime point, or by the kind of analysis that is being used.

Everything is, as you said, all of what we know and don't know. And anything that enters in none of the sets, or in both, or in another set, or in the et of all these, or the set of that one....This is why I conclude that everything is just like perfection, infinity, eternity...and other similar properties often given to god/nature: they are exactly what nature isn't, but what nature actually is. They don't exist, and yet, they are the only existing things. It's hard to explain, but it really make sense when one arrives to it by his own philosophizing.

david44 · **what is everything -** 11-18-2005, 01:36 AM

To me everything means to include "all that we don't know about" as well. Just as was previously mentioned (I know) but I would like to clarify a little bit more.
A person from India will never know the life of an Alaskan. A person who spends their entire life in New York will never know the life of an Australian. A soccer player will never know the life of an astronaut. A bus driver will never know the life of a coal miner and so on. And yet each and every person has their own experiences and knowledge, and so I think that everything must encompass all of those things we don't know that is a part of the knowledge of others as well, and not just from a physics point of view.

cheers David

Guille · 11-18-2005, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by david44

To me everything means to include "all that we don't know about" as well. Just as was previously mentioned (I know) but I would like to clarify a little bit more.
A person from India will never know the life of an Alaskan. A person who spends their entire life in New York will never know the life of an Australian. A soccer player will never know the life of an astronaut. A bus driver will never know the life of a coal miner and so on. And yet each and every person has their own experiences and knowledge, and so I think that everything must encompass all of those things we don't know that is a part of the knowledge of others as well, and not just from a physics point of view.

cheers David

And a being from any other civilisation, also.

And even, what doesn't exist. Fir it is part of realtiy: the part of reallity which is non-existence.

Everything is absolutelly everything. This is why, to be realistic, there can be no TOE. Becuase knowing absolutelly everything is far far far far beyond any possibility of the human race. There is a probability of 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999..... % that we dont' achieve to know everything. We won't. It is even very possible that we never manage to live outside our home.