Variation is the key !

[Benedict Broere]

In a cynical mood I think science is doing what multinationals wants it to do, and that has to do with making money. The TOE comes out of a mind that is concerned with questions we humans have, we have had since we came to be, thinking, realising we are there, somewhere, somewhere with what, what to do? And Why? These are the questions we ask. Coming up, as a lifeform, in this universe, in the vastness of this universe. Being hardly nothing, we might be something, in this everything.

[harmonygirl]

Benedict, I agree about the nature of scientific investigation (that it is skewed towards corporatist goals), however, let's not ignore those servants of science, slaving away on their own (and largely without funding!). Incidentally, VERY poetic expression! I tend to agree with you, a proper TOE is indeed the theory of EVERYTHING, however, (also in a cynical mood) cultural explanations are relatively simple I find (just follow the power and relate to environment, history and resources). I agree that the TOE should address "why?" "what?" "how?" I am not sure about "who?" (as this presupposed there is one) "when" (as I have decided that time is irrelevant to truth) "where" (ditto with location). To do this the TOE must break free of the idiom of science alone and enter other realms.

[yogi]

Benedict, I agree about the nature of scientific investigation (that it is skewed towards corporatist goals), however, let's not ignore those servants of science, slaving away on their own (and largely without funding!). Incidentally, VERY poetic expression! I tend to agree with you, a proper TOE is indeed the theory of EVERYTHING, however, (also in a cynical mood) cultural explanations are relatively simple I find (just follow the power and relate to environment, history and resources). I agree that the TOE should address "why?" "what?" "how?" I am not sure about "who?" (as this presupposed there is one) "when" (as I have decided that time is irrelevant to truth) "where" (ditto with location). To do this the TOE must break free of the idiom of science alone and enter other realms.

In my opinion TOE should not be limiting i.e it should include everything- all possibilities ( probabilities ) and all impossibilities ( in scientific terms approaching infinite chance). At present only thing that would include everything is infinity. I suggest to all who come to TOEQUEST to watch
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...&q=god&pl=true

and movie
What the bleep do we know

sincerely, yogi

[Benedict Broere]

Harmonygirl,
With respect to this 'who' I very much tend to think according to John Searle and the quote following:

"For us, if it should turn out that God exists, that would have to be a fact of nature like any other. To the four basic forces in the universe -- gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear forces -- we would add a fifth, the divine force. Or more likely, we would see the other forces as forms of the divine force. But it would still be all physics, albeit divine physics. If the supernatural existed, it too would have to be natural."

John Searle

Mind, Language and Society

I think the notion 'God' is just overloaded with all kinds of anthropomorphic projections. But Searle cleans it off to a point where I would say: Yes, this could be. And to me this kind of 'God' could be an undeniable or let's say fruitful variable in the whole equation that leads to the TOE.

Still, I think constructing the TOE doesn't need necessarily the option 'God', at least I think. Because this TOE is challenging our cognitive function to integrate information. And with this 'culture' comes in as a source of information on different societies, mentalities and worldviews. I said it before, this TOE needs thinking on this universe, how it is organized and develops itself, but it also needs thinking about us, how we interpret this reality and ourselves.

Right now I got a telephone call and people are visiting me in a moment, so I'm a bit on hot coal. Further response will follow.

[harmonygirl]

Broderick, I left off 'who' because that inevitably leads us into a discussion about Goddess, rather than how to structure the nature of our inquiry. I have come to the conclusion that regardless of whether you experience the Goddess the same way I do, or whether you are convinced there is no Goddess, that your understanding of the universe is as valid as mine. Funnily enough, it sounds like we agree to a large extent, that the TOE doesn't need to involve the Goddess, just explain the mechanics of existence. All the other stuff is faith, philosophy, theology and ultimately unproveable...I haven't read Searle, but it sounds like I would agree with him...

[Benedict Broere]

Goddess ?
It sounds to anthropomorfic to me.
This is also the problem with what Yogi comes up with: christian explanation.
The TOE is beyond that. It will explain christianity, that is to say, it will explain religion. In general the TOE will speak of reality and how we interpret reality, because we are part of reality. It will explain theism as well as atheism. Therefor I think that when Searle speaks of God as possible the principal force of nature, he gives a nice abstract principal. Still I think you need to add creativity. Or at least an ability for generating world. This ability and ofcourse the TOE, these two in one form the source of this world I think.

[harmonygirl]

perhaps gynopormorphic is a better term? I use Goddess because it is generally more closely aligned with nature than 'God' (and also this is how I experience her!).
I think you have hit on something with creativity. Where does it come from? What powers this impulse? I have heard theories that there is a river of creation that we draw from when we create (this is just one of many, however). Also, is it the flip side of destruction? Is it powered by the same impulses? I like the direction of this inquiry, as I feel the creative force is overlooked when perhaps it shouldn't be. Is this the same instinct that drives some of us to have children? I think you have made an astute and perceptive observation.

[archetype]

Mr. Broere, I have been observing your statements and it has pleased me. To me gravity itself is like a "divine" force of destiny. I am wondering, how did you become interested in John Searle? Are you also familiar with Marcus Hollingshead?

Harmonygirl,
With respect to this 'who' I very much tend to think according to John Searle and the quote following:

"For us, if it should turn out that God exists, that would have to be a fact of nature like any other. To the four basic forces in the universe -- gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear forces -- we would add a fifth, the divine force. Or more likely, we would see the other forces as forms of the divine force. But it would still be all physics, albeit divine physics. If the supernatural existed, it too would have to be natural."

John Searle

Mind, Language and Society

I think the notion 'God' is just overloaded with all kinds of anthropomorphic projections. But Searle cleans it off to a point where I would say: Yes, this could be. And to me this kind of 'God' could be an undeniable or let's say fruitful variable in the whole equation that leads to the TOE.

Still, I think constructing the TOE doesn't need necessarily the option 'God', at least I think. Because this TOE is challenging our cognitive function to integrate information. And with this 'culture' comes in as a source of information on different societies, mentalities and worldviews. I said it before, this TOE needs thinking on this universe, how it is organized and develops itself, but it also needs thinking about us, how we interpret this reality and ourselves.

Right now I got a telephone call and people are visiting me in a moment, so I'm a bit on hot coal. Further response will follow.

[Benedict Broere]

Harmonygirl,
Why do you think the 'Goddess' is more aligned with nature than 'God'?
I know the answer. At least I know what in general is the answer. But do we know what is beneath this answer? Knowing the TOE we would know.
Is God Jupiter, Zeuss, Brahma, Kwan Yin, Maria?

Archetype,
I stumbled on Searle within a discussion I had on a Belgium discussionforum. And I think my opponent came up with this Searle-quote out of an website with quotes of important thinkers. The quote struck me. If anything, than this! This is how it is. God is nature (Spinoza), God is throughout nature. And forget 'God' anthropomorfic (or gynopomorphic). God is an urge, for world. Something deep out there, in everything, and within us. May be. I don't know, for sure! But this is it! Why world? Because, I think, I reason, I assume, I ... , What else? There's something, and therefor... world! To me, world by itself... is irrational. Is as irrational as saying this world is created in 6 days. To me materialism is an irrational option. This is what I think, right now, within my drifting mind. But this thought seems to stick. Is unavoidable. Is there. (I don't know if my Englisch is correct, I just stumble forwards, but this is it.)
I don't know about Hollingshead.

But... For instance... Brian Swimme, Peter Russell, lots...
Let's bring art into play. For instance Mozart, the 'Zauberflote', there the TOE is shimmering.

Gravity, we don't know. Electricity, we don't know. Magnetism, we don't know. What do we know? What is there we know? We really know?
We really don't know we exist isn't it?
But somewhere there's system in all this.
All in a dream, an organised dream.

[Benedict Broere]

Let me put this: this reality is out for something, something good! We are part of it. We don't know, what! But it's there, going, All by itself. If we can't link to it, we will dy, perish, fade away. But our minds are able, to find the connection. And than we will florisch, be kings, be gods, within all this!
(excuse my poor English.)