[Benedict Broere]

State of mind: My website was a gem, and suddenly I discover it's a mess. The past 7 hours or so I tried to figur out what's the matter. I didn't succeed. Meanwhile I'm a bit drunk - shit. To give the night - it's very dark outside - anyhow some kind of constructive turn, I propose the text below I have been preparing for quite a while. I hope I click all the buttons right. This is how it go's:



TaTaTaTaa, a different TOE !!!

Is the TOE as it is generally understood, the real TOE ?

Within the naturalistic (or materialistic) worldview the Theory of Everything is considered to give a mathematical description of the universe, integrating it's fundamental forces - gravity, electromagnetical force and the strong and weak nucleair forces - to subsequently explain everything within this universe, including for instance the human brain and consciousness and it's expression in various cultures and worldviews.

Also within this worldview it is assumed that initially the fundamental laws and constants, energy and elementary particles/waves, have come to be all by themselves, while their essentially aimless and meaningless interaction in a process of roughly 14 billions of years has lead to the complex universe we humans now inhabit.

So within the naturalistic worldview the TOE will be an essential mathematical equation, that was there with the Big Bang, all by it self, and that was able to, all by itself, make itself work within the huge outburst of energy of the Big Bang, that also is thought of as occurring by itself, so that this present universe could rise out of it. In other words: from the very beginning the universe was able to organise itself according to this TOE in such a way that the present universe could be it's result. So this universe came to be all by itself, as a cooperation of energy and information, and that developed itself into it's present state.

This is the modern worldview, dominant in circles of scientists and philosophers, intellectuals and others: reality reduced to ordered motion, and totally alien to the human experience.

To me this naturalistic worldview is as irrational as for instance the myth in which the universe is born out of an egg and rests on the back of a turtle. Why? Because as a participant of culture my mind is constantly bombarded with the notion that things - buildings, bridges, machines, works of art, etcetera - are not by themselves, but are the result of invention, effort and expression. They are the result of creativity, our human creativity.

Furthermore, being a participant of nature I see that we humans represent not the only species that is creative. On the contrary. Though in a more rudimentary form, creativity seems to be embedded in a wide range of animals: dolphins, chimpansees, termites, whales, bees, bevers, elephants, spiders, birds, etcetera.

So creativity is a wide spread phenomenon in organic nature. And because organic nature is deeply rooted in anorganic nature, it very well can be assumed that creativity is something very essential in this universe in general. Whereby we can tell a more plausible story about it's origin. That there's creativity involved, fundamental creativity, that has invented mathematics, laws and constants, quarks, atoms, etcetera. And that has made all this to evolve in ever more splendid manifestations of creation, with the present universe as it's provisional result.

Thus seen creativity seems to be at the bottom of all things. With of course next to it an idea out of which it can derive all the information it needs to express this universe. An idea that is the central theme out of which in variation this universe is expressed - like for instance the TaTaTaTaa that starts of Beethovens Fifth. And of course an idea that is understood by the Greeks as the logos in all things, the Word, Reason or Law, in modern terms: the central order, the pattern that connects, the meme of memes. It is this idea that makes me speak of a different TOE, an idea that overcomes contemporary irrationality, and that represents the real Theory of Everything.

What do you think?

[mkirkpatrick]

You could very well be onto something here mate,expand it a little,put the cork back into
the bottle,and who knows what will happen,Ta ta for now?

regards michael.

[Benedict Broere]

Hi Michael!
Nice, your response.
Meanwhile I'm quite sober again, and I've fabricated a new website. It wil present a TOE of course, my kind of TOE. The adress will follow soon.

[mkirkpatrick]

Many thanks Benedict,look forward to reading it.

take care,regardsmichael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

BB, can you think of anything outside of absolute thermodynamics___as everything___ every motion possible, every emotion possible, every object possible? Then why can't absolute infinite thermodynamics be the TOE, as well? It seems to be choice of our minds, between living and dead ideas of everything formation, that runs our egoes.

regards,

[Benedict Broere]

Apparently I can, and I have arguments to back it up.
Here's the adress for further explanation: http://aosbenm.nl/
The nature of reality is certainly not just a choice of the mind. Contrary to that, it's the nature of a certain mind that shows reality in a certain light.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Benedict Broere Apparently I can, and I have arguments to back it up. Here's the adress for further explanation: http://aosbenm.nl/ The nature of reality is certainly not just a choice of the mind. Contrary to that, it's the nature of a certain mind that shows reality in a certain light.

Einstein thought that way too___he's dead___and so was the universe at origin. Are you aware of the M theories of universes? One, by AI nuts, proposes another universe possible of pure computer computations and absolutely fake humanoids. The way most meta-thinkers think ___without defining truth to start with___I think the fake humanoids have already arrived...no offense...

I see on your web site you mention something universal, connecting everything, yet you are against motion. Here's one for ya; "All quantum/relative motion is identical to classical thermodynamic motion and entropy." Think about it, they work identically___just take thermo-hydro-dynamics up to the velocity of light, as the mass theory of relative motion, and it's easily seen. Even Hawking has discovered this. So, let's start over again, and re-define it all___and I mean all...

Just finished reading your entire site about aos. Analyses, Omega, Synthesis or syntheticism. Benedict, I too long ago thought and wrote very similar to your thinking. You can check it out at my blog, macromouse, at least the notes are still there. I was very optimistic when I had developed an economic worldview, also aided by P.T.DeChardan. I was going to set the world on fire. Like you I also realized, with all my studies, as I am also a polymath autodidact, that it may take many years, as you and I are well aware of the slow pace of real world changes. However, after trying to get my ideas accepted by a large audience, I realized I was not going to succeed, in the field of economics and culture, from the meta-scientist's perspective. The only reason I'm here at toequest is to find the big idea, to sell the ideas that are more in line with my and your thinking about omega, as I wrote an entire chapter about Pierre and the Noosphere Omega Point, to no avail, of course. I think you have mentioned most of the reasons true thoughts will no longer be accepted by society, and I came to that conclusion a few years ago. So, here we both are at toequest___I in search for the big science idea to sell economics and cultural improvement, and You?

Now, not to be rude, but as far as meta-physical opinions reaching or changing the world___I simply ask how? The other side has all the money, law and corruption. How can meta-sciences change corruption when it is owned by the materialist scientific holders of money? Corruption of this magnitude buys its own progress, any style it chooses___chooses___money is choice... It will take big scientific ideas to change this sad state of affairs. The big idea of change will have to be bigger than Einstein's. So, there you have it___I choose science to accomplish your goals... Meta-science has already failed me___I will never return... I will scientifically arrive, at meta-physical change, into the magic omega point...

regards,

[Benedict Broere]

Thanks Lloyd for taking the trouble to read my website and give your respons.
It’s a bit bitter isn’t it, what you write? Because you write you had something similar at hand, but was very disappointed about the reponse it generated. Well may be my fate is the same: scratching at a huge concrete wall and just being ignored. You see this worldview ‘naturalism’ is a kind of faith these days, that seem to block all thinking about the phenomenon ‘worldview’ in general. And especially when people see the word ‘creativity’ used in an ontological sense, they seem to think: God, means Dark Ages, means bunkers (crazy). And this while I’m just saying: THESE are the scientific data I use, and THIS is the general pattern I see in them.

‘Naturalism’ isn’t of course a scientific proven fact. It is just one of the many ways to interpret the scientific data. Subsequently it becomes interesting to find out what is behind all the different ways the world is interpreted. Hence looking at, as I do, neurology, psychology, sociology, antropology and history. What results in noticing a significant pattern in the general shift, mentally, in society and in worldview, all the way from the hunter-gatherer to contemporary man. A pattern that can be linked to an essential pattern that seems to organise the world itself, starting with mathematics, etcetera – see my website.

You also have some technical remarks about ‘thermodynamics’ and ‘motion’.

First ‘motion’. It wouldn’t be taken in view. But I speak of parts becoming wholes and wholes becoming parts. In respect to a universe that’s a lot of motion. Also I speak of direction. Then I use this word ‘omega’, as a concept of quality and aim. So it’s there: motion, direction.

‘Thermodynamics’. Things become and decay. Within my definition ‘become’ can be associeted with ‘synthesis’, while ‘decay’ can be associated with ‘analysis’.

It is may be confusing, but I use these terms analysis, omega and synthesis in a new way. I looked for words to use, and came up with these because of their traditional content. But I use them differently.

About the possibility of all these universa… This one to me is quite enough to consider.

Do I want to change things?
Power corrupts and absolute power…
I’m just looking for answers. What is going on on this planet? Why do we think what we think? Why do we do what we do? What is the meaning of all this? What is the general pattern that connects, in all what is going on, and in all our thinking and doing and searching for meaning?

If truth is bought by power, then we really are in trouble.

Regards.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Benedict Broere Thanks Lloyd for taking the trouble to read my website and give your respons. Do I want to change things? Power corrupts and absolute power… I’m just looking for answers. What is going on on this planet? Why do we think what we think? Why do we do what we do? What is the meaning of all this? What is the general pattern that connects, in all what is going on, and in all our thinking and doing and searching for meaning? If truth is bought by power, then we really are in trouble. Regards.

Benedict, I like the way you used the words and ideas in your web post. I wish you the best. I don't mean to be so crass, but I'm just one of those too honest drunken Irishmen. Many believe power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and if it takes power to change the world, then we can only absolutely corrupt the world. Linguistic problems like this emotional thinking is the very reason I don't believe or really have any use for meta-sciences, as they are far too over-full of false emotional assumptions. The world isn't emotional, it's emotional-materialism___a big difference. I'm not knocking you for using meta-sciences, but for me it's the cognitive sciences or bust. Now to the corruption and truth bought by power statement___though it may be true, there is nothing stopping mankind from fighting fire with fire___it's often the most successful way. I don't think the system can be changed with meta-science ideas, as they are usually ideas of improving human conduct. I don't think the world has any chance in hell, if this be the road taken to our future omega point___we're just asking for more of the worst. Humanity is not improving, even with the web___but, this is why I believe so strongly in thermodynamics. Most believe we are on the down side of entropy, evolution wise. I tell you logically, we are on the up side of entropy___and when the web dam of new wisdom finally bursts___we will witness the true entropy of world saving wisdom of the cognitive sciences___a true omega electrosphere of new direction for the seeming, sorry, sick planet. So, in truth, I believe in the absolute principles of possibilities, probabilities, and optomism___par excellance...

As far as to expanding metaphysical awareness of a new metaphysics, Guille and I have mentioned emotional-materialism as a new direction of study. There is really no material on it, as we dreamed it up, but I think it has potential if studied under axiology. There are old posts of ours about it, somewhere. Check mine or Guille's past posts under profiles, if you are interested. You may be, as the ideas relate closely to your ideas. Are you aware your style is similar to Hegel's thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis? His ideas have been shown by many to have major flaws, not that yours do, as you are writing in a completely different worldview style, and I agree with most of what you say___it's just the power factor of it not having that special punch of a world shaking scientific idea. I think in order for any of our ideas to attain power we must have a really big hook, in today's world.

"What is going on on this planet? Why do we think what we think? Why do we do what we do? What is the meaning of all this? What is the general pattern that connects, in all what is going on, and in all our thinking and doing and searching for meaning?"

These above questions are your own personal search. None of them apply to myself, nor have they ever. I have always wondered why people were interested in such questions. I guess that would be my question. My way of thinking has always been completely mechanical, as I have always seen the world as nothing but logic___and I mean pure logic___Heraclitean Logos. Of course, I have and use emotions also, to feel with, but I always think with logic. I have no idea why I'm different than most___I just know I always have been. I guess that's why the questions you ask don't even come to my mind. You mentioned connects___that would be the closest to my thinking, but I would be asking what cause, as I have all my life. I want to know every cause of motion, feelings, logic, and especially thermodynamic interactions of motion, as I see this as the classical explanation of all quantum/relative motion, and much more easily explained through the three laws of thermodynamics than the laws of motion. To me motion and thermodynamics are identical, when thoroughly understood. The high pressure physics of quantum/relative motion is just mass[heat]increasing as approach to light[heat speed]and Lorentzian transformation[entropy]losing mass[radiation or heat loss] as light speed is attained. The math might be more difficult, but the analogy is that of boiling water, and it has the advantage of being classically understood. I think Plank and Einstein jumped the guns with quantum and relative explanations of complexity, when there were simpler explanations possible. And, I further think all the relative bs is probably the major force of foolish meta-changes we are now paying for. Most everyone thinks we live in a relative world, when in fact, we don't, as my signature quote by Einstein, himself, proves.

Anyway, as we are really on opposite sides of the quantum river of science and metaphysics, I may not be of much help answering your questions, unless framed toward possible scientific and logical premises. So, hope some of it helped, anyway...

regards,

[Benedict Broere]

Lloyd, I think some misunderstanding is going on. You are suggesting critique that to me is hard to connect with the content of my website. Do I suggest this world is emotional? Do I take ‘false emotional assumptions’? I can’t see where.
You stress the importance of cognitive sciences. Well, what do I use a lot? Data derived from cognitive sciences.

Do I want to improve human conduct? I use scientific data and bring them in a bigger pattern in order to explain things. And I certainly do not want to set up some kind of totalitarian state.

‘Emotional-materialism’. I have to look it up, but at first glance it sounds like ‘McDonalds’.

You speak of ‘a world shaking scientific idea’. You know of course, and history shows, that the reception of new idea’s can differ a lot, varying from full enthusiasm to complete ignoration. Thomas Kuhn and consorts investigated this, with interesting result.

Some years ago I did a course in metaphysics. The first subject the professor came up with was ‘meaning’. When does it occur? Lot’s of Heidegger after that, and Gademar, Dilthey and so on. I can assure you, ‘meaning’ means a lot to people. And it generates a lot of books, that are intensely studied.
I can’t follow you on this ‘thermodynamics-subject’. But I also very much like clarity in logical connections and causes.

May I add some general remarks on this aos-project?
I introduced it with a critique on naturalism. To me it’s hard to understand that, as is suggested by naturalism, this universe generated itself – energy and order included. (It reminds me of this tale about the Baron of Munchhausen, who lifted himself up out of the mud by pulling at his hair.) So I introduced ‘creativity’. A concept in my perception, much like the concept ‘divine force’ as introduced by John Searle, unifying the main forces: gravity, electromagnetical force and the strong and weak nuclair forces.

To further explain my assumption I tell on my website a bit more. About mind and worldview and about a general pattern in that, that seems to be the same as a general pattern in this universe itself. For this I only use scientific data and general tools of mathematics.

So it’s quite simple really. While critique can break in on all kinds of places in this building of ideas I have erected. Please do. Because maybe I’m mad, blind for things, seeing them in a wrong perspective.