[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao The more things change the more they stay the same or no change. If you look now it changed and if you look again it really had not changed and look again it changed ...

This doesn't make sense. Things change more if they change more, but you are correct if what you mean is that constant change looks from the outside like constant staticity. But still the things are changing. Which version of the world is false: the one that human nature is static and doesn't change (only the forms in which we apply it change), or the one that the human nature can variate (as Russell believed)? That is a metaphysical question, and metaphysics is dead together with science (the classical science).

[Guille]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Guille; If you have achieve this type of insight, you must start the study of wave mechanics. I'm not sure you realize how well your reasoning ability is. Yes the vibrations are within vibrations within vibrations. The only limitations is the system that confines the wave. The universe is one limitation to maximum wavelength and the finite diameter of particles are also a maximum wavelength limitation of its matter. Understanding constructive wave interference and destructive wave interference will provide the answers to the interactions that produce the forces. The full explanation is too extensive for a post.

Thanks for the compliment. And yes, I think I'm not really consciouss about my reasoning ability. I'll search on the web (wikipedia will help) about wave mechanics.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Benedict Broere I try. And to me, art seems to give a good way in, into this reality.

Certainly true. Art is insight, and thanks to Kandinsky, Pollock, Picaso... It is insight not only of the world, but also of the individual, of the introspective sub-consciousness.

Originally Posted by Benedict Broere Is there progress? Is there morality? Is there growth in quality? What is going on? How do we link 'the Holocaust' with with what is there - world?

These are all metaphysical questions. Should we be trapped in the prisosn created by thinker in history like Aristotle, Hobbes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Marx, Stuart Mill....? No. We must go over metaphysics, this the meaning of posmodern philosophy. And, is there more to it? I use the term 'neomodernism' to the believe that a new type of metaphysics must arise, instead of a total abandonment which is what Deconstruction and postestructuralism want (Derrida, Foucault and Deleuze). Habermas is a clear neomodernist, and in this forums, I think we can include LLoyd Gillepsie in the set of neomodernists.

Originally Posted by Benedict Broere I think thinking of this TOE needs imagening how this world came to be out of this TOE. Maybe this TOE needs first thinking almost mythological. Maybe this TOE needs to overcome the load of science, to later on connect the myth with science. Maybe this TOE needs at first brute imagination, and than thinking it into science. And maybe science is to limited to grasp what really is going on.

"Kwoledge is the best way to defend and Faith is the best way to attack" Me. I mean by this, that if you want an agressive TOE, in the sense that it imposes it's laws to the world, on top of previous science, of philosophy, of art... Then you need a mythological (not necessarily of myth, but in the sense of which it uses the weapons of legend) TOE. But if you want a defensive TOE, on that can justify itself against the attack of previous science, of philosophy, of art... Then you need a neoscientific (this is just another term that I give to my theory that to arrive to the true TOE we need a new relationship between science and philosophy, with none on top or under the other (contradicting what Wittgenstein said in the Tractatus, that one must be under and one on top), which I call the 21st century Natural Philosophy).

Originally Posted by Benedict Broere This TOE is something out of which a world can be, invented, can be made for real, with us, trying to understand.

Einstein was very imaginative, but he didn't relly on myth or religion or spirituality in his creation of special and general relativity. I believe we can be creative and not closed when dealing with science, even though there are few scientists who actually were like this (Godel, Kepler, Faraday, and Einstein himself).

[subversion]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> Einstein was very imaginative, but he didn't relly on myth or religion or spirituality in his creation of special and general relativity. I believe we can be creative and not closed when dealing with science, even though there are few scientists who actually were like this (Godel, Kepler, Faraday, and Einstein himself).

Actually Einstein said that God does not play dice with the universe, and this was his basis for discrediting quantum mechanics. Therefore his scientific theories were influenced by his innate beliefs, and I think whether these beliefs were "spiritual" or not does not matter, as long as it leads one to the right conclusions. In this manner, it may be constured that the end result is only natural if it justifies the meaning.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by subversion Actually Einstein said that God does not play dice with the universe, and this was his basis for discrediting quantum mechanics. Therefore his scientific theories were influenced by his innate beliefs, and I think whether these beliefs were "spiritual" or not does not matter, as long as it leads one to the right conclusions. In this manner, it may be constured that the end result is only natural if it justifies the meaning.

I agree with you, I believe that spiritual thoughts (if it helps to achieve theories,) they are good. I just think that the spiritual thoughts won't help or that won't be developed to help achieve theories. But I don't put my atheism on top of my scientific positivism.

On the other hand, the belief that Einstein rejected QM just because his innate belief in god told him that god does not play with dice is absurd, he was a scientist and as such he didn't interfere with religion, and it is a proof of ignorance to belief that. Einstein did agree with Planck's work, he didn't agree with Bohr's, Shroedinger, Heisenberg... Because the maths of these, he observed, was too far away from gr's math, and gr was the only theory of the time which gave the sensation of being true.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE But still the things are changing.

Change is observable and measurable if you are not back at the starting point. If you reached the starting point then you won't know that you have been somewhere else unless there is a decrease in internal energy content.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao Change is observable and measurable if you are not back at the starting point. If you reached the starting point then you won't know that you have been somewhere else unless there is a decrease in internal energy content.

So you believe in Godel's theory (he was already mad when he developed it) that time is circular and the universe is constatly rotating, so you can go back in time if you rotate in contrary to the universe's rotation?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE So you believe in Godel's theory

The research I'm doing is based on double rotations, double time, and double accelerations at the local infinitesimal region of spacetime not at the global region of one universe but two (a positive and a negative universe).

[Benedict Broere]

Guille,

I think you're right in pointing on the traps we can fall into while considering the TOE. But I think a plausible TOE can be reached out of integrative thinking while considering a scenario in which out of this TOE via variation this world can be thought. Than the best scenario I can think of is given by art, how art comes to be. And ofcourse, art expresses consciousness, maybe deep archetypal ideas, maybe ideas that close in on the actual stuff this world is made of.

Considering this latter possibilliy, the TOE becomes an even more ambitious project than we first might thought. Because than the TOE not only must describe in a most general way how this world is organised, but it also must explain what lies behind all our different interpretations of this reality: animism, boeddhism, materialism, etc. In other words, brain and consciousness, different modes of thought, different worldviews, culture in general, are included in what is there to be explained by the TOE.

This also seems to me quite natural because we as this world interpreting organisms are part of what we are trying to interpret. This TOE needs to explain the whole of subject and object. In a most general way.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao The research I'm doing is based on double rotations, double time, and double accelerations at the local infinitesimal region of spacetime not at the global region of one universe but two (a positive and a negative universe).

And in the 'other' universe there is negative time, space, speed, gravity... right?

Then what about double acceleration. We ahve both negative and positive acceleration in this universe, so what are there in the other universe? Are they just the same two (deceleration and acceleration) but in the opposite proportions between them than in this universe? (what we have positive, they have negative, and what we have negative, they have positive)?

Notice about entropy. Here it increases, and it's logical opposite would be that it decreases in the other universe. But this idea of 'double' as in negative and positive, impplies that here entropy is positive (whether it increases or decreases), whiles there it is negative (whether it increases or decreases), right? In that case, what does 'negative entropy' mean (notice it's not decreasing entropy, it's another thing)?