WELCOME TO THE GENERAL THEORY CLUB

[Serge Patlavskiy]

WELCOME TO THE GENERAL THEORY CLUB

One of the hardest problems that the constructor of the new scientific theory encounters with is the problem of finding an appropriate cognitive environment to which his ideas may be addressed. It is well known that the main criticisms aimed at psi research is that (1) it fails to produce a replicable demonstration of an effect and (2) that there are no scientifically correct theories. As Jean Burns indicates: "There are a number of theoretical models for psi?, but there is no generally accepted theory of it." [1]. From another source we read: "No-one has as yet come up with any evidence for a theory of consciousness that will satisfy the demands of the various sceptics..." [2]. Or, as Richard Amoroso puts the problem: "Science is inadequate to complete the task of explaining consciousness without being drastically reformulated" [3]. So, the General Theory Club aims to unite the scientists who make attempts to construct their general theories. Hitherto, in the most scientific disciplines like Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc. the task was to construct one theory which must satisfy everybody. But, in case of the complex phenomena studies, we say about the necessity to form a chain of mutually compatible intellectual products of different authors which may use the different notional bases, different theoretical (knowledge) bases, different systems of proofs, etc., but such that share basic principles in their construction (see below in the text).

On the site http://www.geocities.com/spatlavskiy one may found two target articles. The key idea expressed therein is that to construct a scientifically correct theory of complex phenomena (the theory of psi-effects, the theory of consciousness, the theory of artificial intelligence, the theory of cool fusion, etc.) we have first to advance an appropriate meta-theoretical basement. The conclusion is being made that all attempts to construct the theory of complex phenomena within the frames of presently existing quantum, neurophysiologic, psychological, etc. scientific paradigms are in vain -- the task seems to be much more complex. The Theory of Everything is being seen not as one theory, but as an ensemble of applied theories, which use the common theoretical base provided by the general theory, called Nonstatanalysis. The articles are much illustrated and contain many discussions with leading scientists working in the field of consciousness studies.

One may also find there a lot of comments on the papers of the scientists who are engaged in the study of consciousness, complex phenomena, evolution, and related problems.

THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CONSTRUCTION OF GENERAL THEORIES

Let us assume that such a theory exists that regards any intellectual product as its object of study. Such a theory (I call it the Applied ADC theory; here ADC -- the appearance, development and compatibility of intellectual products) states firstly that the creation of any intellectual product is constrained by a certain approach (see http://patlavskiy.012webpages.com). Any approach consists of the two parts, viz.: the aim of approach and the criteria of approach. Secondly, the theory requires there to be four distinct levels of intellectual product that may be called:
1) the level of description (the D-level);
2) the level of generalization and systematization (the GS-level);
3) the level of applied theory (the AT-level);
4) the level of meta-theory (the MT-level).
Each of these levels has its own particular aim and criteria of approach. The General theory is a sort of the MT-level intellectual product and is being determined by its particular aim and criteria of approach (the criteria of approach are the consecutive steps in achieving the aim). In case of Nonstatanalysis the aim is formulated as two following assertions:
1) to show that there is nothing outside the integral and objectively existing Reality; wiz., that there are no parallel realities and that all phenomena belong to Reality we live in;
2) to show that the general Law of Reality exists, simultaneously as the condition and the transitional result of the process of cognition.

The criteria of approach are as follows:
1) determination of the limits of the meta-theory's field of expediency, or meta-theory's canon;
2) formation of a base of notions (prime concepts);
3) elaboration of the theoretical base of the process of cognition including basic ideas and the system of proofs;
4) level-by-level exposition of material, and consecutive exposition on each level;
5) regard of reliable results of scientific experiment as starting-points in working out the meta-theory;
6) elaboration of questions of epistemological, theoretical, hypothetical and empirical verifications of the meta-theory;
7) possibility of post-development of the meta-theory in case understanding of the extremely complex phenomena is required;
8) compatibility with other authors' intellectual products (meta-theories), created under similar criteria of approach.

Those both aim and criteria of approach are determined subjectively -- they are the author's personal ideas. So, the problem of subjectivity of the aim and criteria of approach is formulated. The applied ADC theory says that to solve the problem of subjectivity of the criteria of approach I have to investigate my criteria for compatibility with such ones, which other authors use when constructing their general theories. But the problem is that there are not many scientists in the world who undertake steps in constructing their MT-level intellectual products. Among them are Mario Bunge, David Chalmers, Ken Wilber, Evan Harris Walker. The investigation for compatibility of Nonstatanalysis with the MT-level intellectual products of the above mentioned authors is given in [4], Appendix A. If the problem of subjectivity of the criteria of approach will be solved, then those criteria could be called scientific, and the resulting General Theory will be scientifically correct (with all that it implies).

Now let us see what is the necessity in construction of the scientifically correct General theory. Suppose our task is to construct an applied theory of consciousness. The traditional scheme of fulfilling this task is as follows: "data -> hypothesis -> theory", with the only direction of movement from the piling of the experimental data to the required theory. According to the applied ADC theory, we must rewrite this scheme as: "data -> hypothesis -> theory -> existing meta-theory" since we have four levels of intellectual products. Here, the existing meta-theory (or the current scientific framework) is the "Modern Scientific Picture of the World". The existing meta-theory is basically commonsensical -- it was formed historically on the basis of the human's personal subjective experience. Such a scheme works well in Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and other scientific disciplines. But I state that in case our task is to construct the applied theory of consciousness (or, the theory of complex phenomena in general) we have, first, to replace the existing meta-theory on the above presented scheme by a certain new meta-theory which contradicts the commonsensical one, but which all the same is scientifically correct: "data -> hypothesis -> theory <- new meta-theory", and, second, to construct the theory of consciousness from two directions simultaneously. And such a new meta-theory must be the chain of mutually compatible MT-level intellectual products of different authors.

So, the authors of General Theories are welcome to join the General Theory Club. The participants' versions of the General Theory must have its own respective aim and the correspondent criteria of approach, and to be inner non-contradictory.

Best regards,
Serge Patlavskiy

REFERENCES
[1] Jean Burns, "What is Beyond the Edge of the Known World?", Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10, No: 6-7, 2003.
[2] The Editors, "The Future of Consciousness Studies", Journal of Consciousness Studies, 4, No. 5-6, 1997, pp. 385-8
[3] Richard L. Amoroso, "Greetings", The Noetic Press, http://www.mindspring.com/~noeticj/
[4] "Elaboration of the New Paradigm of Interdisciplinary Investigations", Journal of Conscientiology (ISSN 1520-4049), Volume 1, Number 4, pp. 305-36, 1999 http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00003571/ or at http://www.geocities.com/spatlavskiy, First target article, a full illustrated version, Msword formatted.

[andrei dragoi]

I think that gravity must be enterily re-defined. I boost The Cosmological Antropic Principle to its limits. Life is not an accident. Life is the result of a superinteligence that our universe poseses. Gravity isn't just a stupid form of force that atracts or rejects like the other types do. I think gravity is much more than that. Gravity is the huge intelligence, the great conciousness of this universe. That's how I sugest to redefine gravity.

data: all that is known about the universe right now.Specifically, there were some research concerning the finding of the so called gravitons, the particles of gravity, but without success.


Hypothesis: We, the living creatures, are the gravitons. Gravity is the most polarized force in the universe....it contains huge particles, like us , the living ones, and waves of practical infinte wave length like gravitational wave length...So we are built highly intelligently, and gravitation is a force that not only atracts or rejects, but who builts continuisly new creatures, which highly adapts and organises its creatures.
So gravity is Universe's cloud of maximum intelligence.


My Advice opinion: Let us rethink gravity. redefining gravity is the key of TOE, in my opinion.

Theory: Living creatures are A GRAVITATIONAL PRODUCT. All the living things emmit or absorb is nothing but gravity. Love, art, science are also Gravity. Gravity is much higher in energy contain than we think, despite that we still consider it just that residual force that attracts all to all. We, the living, are the only measure instruments of this force. All that we assemble or disassamble is because universe gifted us with this force.

Gravity's new defintion: Gravity is the force that subordonates all the other forces by putting them all work to a single huge plan, that of living, by using highly complex and structured plans of action.
Think that gravity is that inteligence that subordonates all the atoms in our body andd coordinate them all to a single scope....so that they appear to react as a single particle, or bioparticle.
so gravity biogravity, or, more completely, BIOTEMPOGRAVITY--a superforce that governs all that happens in this universe.

Imagine that, in an entropical view, Universe is a high mountain: at the base of this mountain stay the very low entropical an inteligent entities of this universe, at the top of this mountains stands the highly inteligently organised creature like us. Gravity is the force that keep the mountain high, stabile, that prevents it from demolition.

The spacial component of gravity is residual, and that we measure. the temporal vector of gravity (unmasurable, till we posses a time machine, or at the ...end of time, in the omega point) is the essence of all living. The highest force that transtemporaly binds us all...se also the Einstein-Podolsky paradox of bounded particles.

Gravity can't be measured transversally, because its spacial projection is infinitely smaller than its temporal one, which can be measured with our phisical instruments.



Theory: The living is the final scope for the whole universe. Love is a form of gravity. Conscioussness is pure gravity. We, the living creatures, are the real gravitons. Gravity is immense as a force, but it can only be measured temporally, longitudinally, maybe from an atemporal universe. Time is gravity. The fact that our universe expands is only diversion....That' just a plan of it.

So: Gravity is a conciousness, as soul, a mind, a thought. It has at least all that a human was gifted...

[Serge Patlavskiy]

[Andrei Dragoi] writes: “Life is not an accident. Life is the result of a superinteligence that our universe poseses”.

[S.P.] From my theory follows that life, consciousness are as old as the matter itself.

[Andrei Dragoi] writes: “Hypothesis: We, the living creatures, are the gravitons. Gravity is the most polarized force in the universe....it contains huge particles, like us , the living ones, and waves of practical infinte wave length like gravitational wave length...”.

[S.P.] I think that it is not enough correct to state that gravity contains huge particles.

[Andrei Dragoi] writes: “So gravity is Universe's cloud of maximum intelligence”.

[S.P.] I do not think that the Theory of Everything can be constructed with metaphors.

[Andrei Dragoi] writes: “Love, art, science are also Gravity”.

[S.P.] It is very hard for me to understand this idea.

[Andrei Dragoi] writes: “Imagine that, in an entropical view, Universe is a high mountain: at the base of this mountain stay the very low entropical an inteligent entities of this universe, at the top of this mountains stands the highly inteligently organised creature like us”.

[S.P.] I regard two “mountains” that intersect each other (see [1], Fig. 11).

[Andrei Dragoi] writes: “Theory: The living is the final scope for the whole universe. Love is a form of gravity. Conscioussness is pure gravity”.

[S.P.] Personally, I have nothing against such conclusions. But it is not enough clear what theory such conclusions stems from.

References
[1] "Elaboration of the New Paradigm of Interdisciplinary Investigations", Journal of Conscientiology (ISSN 1520-4049), Volume 1, Number 4, pp. 305-36, 1999 http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00003571/ or at http://www.geocities.com/spatlavskiy, First target article, the full-illustrated version, MsWord formatted.

[Fredrick]

WELCOME TO THE GENERAL THEORY CLUB
"No-one has as yet come up with any evidence for a theory of consciousness that will satisfy the demands of the various sceptics..." [2]. Or, as Richard Amoroso puts the problem: "Science is inadequate to complete the task of explaining consciousness without being drastically reformulated" [3]. So, the General Theory Club aims to unite the scientists who make attempts to construct their general theories. Hitherto, in the most scientific disciplines like Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc. the task was to construct one theory which must satisfy everybody. But, in case of the complex phenomena studies, we say about the necessity to form a chain of mutually compatible intellectual products of different authors which may use the different notional bases, different theoretical (knowledge) bases, different systems of proofs, etc., but such that share basic principles in their construction.

In case of Nonstatanalysis the aim is formulated as two following assertions:
1) to show that there is nothing outside the integral and objectively existing Reality; wiz., that there are no parallel realities and that all phenomena belong to Reality we live in;
2) to show that the general Law of Reality exists, simultaneously as the condition and the transitional result of the process of cognition.

The criteria of approach are as follows:
1) determination of the limits of the meta-theory's field of expediency, or meta-theory's canon;
2) formation of a base of notions (prime concepts);
3) elaboration of the theoretical base of the process of cognition including basic ideas and the system of proofs;
4) level-by-level exposition of material, and consecutive exposition on each level;
5) regard of reliable results of scientific experiment as starting-points in working out the meta-theory;
6) elaboration of questions of epistemological, theoretical, hypothetical and empirical verifications of the meta-theory;
7) possibility of post-development of the meta-theory in case understanding of the extremely complex phenomena is required;
compatibility with other authors' intellectual products (meta-theories), created under similar criteria of approach.

So, the authors of General Theories are welcome to join the General Theory Club. The participants' versions of the General Theory must have its own respective aim and the correspondent criteria of approach, and to be inner non-contradictory.

Best regards,
Serge Patlavskiy

Thank you, Serge, for starting up a new thread, using excellent scientific language. I hope that all of us here at Toequest can adhere to your request and stay within the lines you proscribe. But it is going to be a difficult task.

What I definitely like is that you use the word meta-theory because it means you understand the complexity of formulating a theory of everything that is both grounded and all-encompassing. However, I must immediately confront you with a question. Because if the universe can scientifically not be replicated, why should we insist that we deliver evidence that consciousness exists? I am here, sitting behind my computer, drinking tea, and that is reason enough for me to state that I exist, and that I am conscious enough to type and sip tea. Why insist on getting evidence for this, when the real test (of recreating the universe) can never be pulled?

And this is not to ridicule your effort, because I would definitively like to be part of that effort. My answer to some of your questions is one word (okay, actually two): self-based. Our universe is a self-based place. Yet if we want to find the overall groundwork as a unifying situation, an impossibility occurs. The overall groundwork cannot be self-based if the parts are also self-based, each self-based onto themselves. So far, the variety of self-based aspects has the clear upperhand among scientific results. Yet scientists are nevertheless looking for that single unified framework - almost like religious leaders wanting us to follow them wherever they go.

I would like to say to Andrei that I may be in his camp, too, but possibly on the other side, for I consider gravity be far too overrated (I have doubts about black holes - though not about them being holes, only strong doubts about the enormous gravitational aspects of them). But I like your language better, Serge, because it has that scientific edge.