is this a 'real' danger in understanding a Universal Law

[arthur]

Hi,
I have been interested in the idea of the being a single universal law or a t.o.e. for a long time and since the advent of PC's have been keeping an eye out in the expectation that it might be eventually discovered. I wonder if many or even if anyone might have considered the personal ramifications of understanding such a law. A law which if understood would give the understanding of the 'why' of everything, including all of your thoughts, deeds, actions and feelings. A law which would allow you to understand your emotions, psyche and would explain consciousness and the nature of your thinking and knowledge and faith. A Law that would explain choice and might lead one to longer be dependent upon spontaneity of life which we are all dependent upon. In short, could such a Universal Law be a Pandora's box, Could the finding and understanding of this supposed Holy Grail result in complete disenchantment with life?

...arthur.

[MJA]

Yes.

=
MJA

[bottomlander]

...... being a single universal law or a t.o.e. ......

...... the personal ramifications ......

A law which if understood would give the understanding of the 'why' of everything, including all of your thoughts, deeds, actions and feelings. A law which would allow you to understand your emotions, psyche and would explain consciousness and the nature of your thinking and knowledge and faith.

...arthur.

In my humble opinion, TOE is an arena theory that takes serial steps to explain those valid and typical happenings.
Firstly about the Nature (physical world), then, prepare a nice platform for other humanistic studies/theories.

Actually, your mentioned examples like thoughts, deeds, .... can be studied and somewhat partly theorized ahead of any substantial TOE.

Personal choices/ramifications need not be decided or foretold by a TOE!


Best Regards. Bottomlander

[Profpat]

Could the finding and understanding of this supposed Holy Grail result in complete disenchantment with life?

NO!

Best to all,

Pat

[arthur]

TOE is an arena theory that takes serial steps to explain those valid and typical happenings.
Firstly about the Nature (physical world), then, prepare a nice platform for other humanistic studies/theories.

Actually, your mentioned examples like thoughts, deeds, .... can be studied and somewhat partly theorized ahead of any substantial TOE.

Personal choices/ramifications need not be decided or foretold by a TOE!


Hi Bottomlander
In another post I suggested that I might be thick,perhaps I am, for I do not understand your post. I do not know what an 'arena theory' is. I don't know which 'valid and typical happenings' you refer to, although I have,I think, maybe, gleaned an idea about the platform.

The stuff which you say can be studied and somewhat partly theorized ahead of any substantial TOE would surely only join all of the other mass of stuff which can and is being studied and somewhat partly theorized ahead of any substantial TOE?

(Personal choices/ramifications need not be decided or foretold by a TOE!)

again; Surely, if the TOE was shewn to be 'The' Universal Law and it was understood, why and how any choices were made could be explained and any ramifications resulting from the choice would only be speculation until they occurred.

Finally, ( I do feel a little embarrassed asking you to explain in easy English what I feel every one else understands) But I do not understand- (Firstly about the Nature (physical world),) I understand that this might be a bit of a chore but I would be grateful if you would explain your post in simple lay terms for me....in anticipation, thanks...

arthur.

[bottomlander]

......what an 'arena theory' is?

arthur.

I read the term "arena theory" in a book about Superstring and Theory-of-Everything.
I think it is something like an "umbrella theory" or a "nice collection of theories".

I agreed that TOE is an "arena theory" simply because of the following reasons:
1) As in p.139 of Multiple Views of Participatory Design by Henry Sanoff
http://jfa.arch.metu.edu.tr/archive/..._2/131_143.pdf , "On the grounds of equal participation and the development of consensus, Connolly (1969) coined ‘the arena theory’, ......This theory advocates the exchange of expert and experiential knowledge. The assumption of the arena theory is that there is at least one agreeable outcome to which all parties come to a consensus. However, there must be a willingness of groups to accommodate one another."
(consensus is somewhat similar to peer review or monitor thru moderators)

2) TOE cannot be a single idea or a short theory.
It is better to be supported by a group of theories (with established partial truths) while TOE points out the direction, the framework, etc.
TOE then behaves as a platform to absorb those nice preTOE theories and to build future theories.

Best Regards. Bottomlander

[bottomlander]

Theory-of-Everything means it is a Theory, not a Catchword that covers everything.

For example:
1. "God gives birth everything and guides everything." is not a TOE.
2. "Changes give birth everything and enforce everything." is not a TOE.
3. "One gives birth everything and everything is One." is not a TOE.
4. "Everything is Nothing." is not a TOE.
5. "Everything is different." is not a TOE.

Best Regards. Bottomlander

[bottomlander]

Subjective mind [that can't explain its steps of reasoning] is the real danger in understanding a Universal Law.

A simple-minded subjective mind oversimplifies or overgeneralizes the real issue. Self-interpreted desirable eye-catchy items have been emphasized while counterexamples have been overlooked.

A crackpot sidetracks his/her understanding and seldom be objective.


Best Regards. Bottomlander

[arthur]

Well Bottomlander; Yet again you have left me bewildered as to the meaning of your post, This is no reflexion on what you wrote for I am sure that folk with a greater intellect than mine would find no difficulty understanding it.
My bewilderment comes about for the following reasons,

[This theory advocates the exchange of expert and experiential knowledge]

(1) I have no idea who determines that some one is an expert in a world awash with Media designated experts who continually use the term "We" as in such as "We haven't yet found the evidence" or "We don't yet fully understand" etc.
Do you think that there is there an international centre where those expert We's go to get topped up with expertism or is it as I suspect just a load of emotional self deluded ego driven wannabes who glean their "expertise" from each other through the medium of words from 'science' magazine snippets, internet forums, TV and such during the few hours between their sleeping, eating, defecating? Of course this would only really applies to the 'armchair' experts, the ones who have become conditioned to believe that because they can articulate the noises and sounds that represent words they have an understanding that which the word represent.

(2) What on earth is experimental knowledge??
(3) If one accepts, as I do, that a theory is, in the mind of the person who created it, an explanation, how can an explanation advocate any thing? And how can it have an assumption?

It strikes me, Bottomlander, that either you have been sucked in that this "arena" idea is in fact a 'theory' or, you accept that any idea, no matter how stupid, can be called a theory (sadly, as a great many armchair theoreticians seem to)

[The assumption of the arena theory is that there is at least one agreeable outcome to which all parties come to a consensus. However, there must be a willingness of groups to accommodate one another]

You know the camel and committee story, I now have new ones 'The arena theory achieved by consensus of peers who all think the same.
Or 'popularity' could proves quality'
Or 'a theory proposed by an ignoramus and reviewed by ignoramuses (peers) and monitored might prove to them to be true.

[ [Subjective mind [that can't explain its steps of reasoning] is the real danger in understanding a Universal Law.]

Or " Because I am so clever and knowledgeable I am the one who can determines an ignoramus and because I don't understand the ignoramuses theory because they are too ignorant to be able to "explain its steps of reasoning" in such a way that I can understand I must be cleverer than them (??)
Or 'an observation made by an expert will be different from one made by a non expert.
Or, 'If your so smart how come you ain't rich'? Etc.

[It is better to be supported by a group of theories (with established partial truths)]

Are established partial truths determined by non subjective expert analysis? And could the objective analysis be interpretations of observations based upon ignorance by an expert who is completely disinterested in the outcome? (or could those questions constitute a paradox?)

As a lad I was given the following advise; 'Do not accept as fact that which based upon your ignorance is merely plausible' which I have never fully understood, perhaps you, or anyone else, could help out.

[A simple-minded subjective mind oversimplifies or over generalizes the real issue. Self-interpreted desirable eye-catchy items have been emphasized while counterexamples have been overlooked.
A crackpot sidetracks his/her understanding and seldom be objective.]

What does this mean?

So, Bottomlander I am sure that you will understand by my 'simple-minded subjective oversimplified and over generalized questions and statements' why I am bewildered by the meanings of you post. I realize that it might be considered an imposition to ask you to offer me more simplified and less scientific explanations because I do feel that perhaps I might have missed the point that you were undoubtedly making. In anticipation I also offer my best regards.
Arthur.

[Mikal]

Hi,
I have been interested in the idea of the being a single universal law or a t.o.e. for a long time and since the advent of PC's have been keeping an eye out in the expectation that it might be eventually discovered. I wonder if many or even if anyone might have considered the personal ramifications of understanding such a law. A law which if understood would give the understanding of the 'why' of everything, including all of your thoughts, deeds, actions and feelings. A law which would allow you to understand your emotions, psyche and would explain consciousness and the nature of your thinking and knowledge and faith. A Law that would explain choice and might lead one to longer be dependent upon spontaneity of life which we are all dependent upon. In short, could such a Universal Law be a Pandora's box, Could the finding and understanding of this supposed Holy Grail result in complete disenchantment with life?

...arthur.

Hi Arthur....could I suggest you check out this site and this theory....

www.mybigtoe.com

Tom Campbell is a physicist. If you go to this site and go into the discussion area...the very first forum which is "news"....has a link where Campbell's Trilology can be read on line. It is certainly a thought provoking TOE theory and I can assure you it respects the subjective as well as the objective attributes of consciousness. I can also assure you that there is nothing simple-minded or crackpot about it.



Mikal