[5589]

Flucidity Theory is a new 'theory of everything' that breaks everything in the universe down to one of four elements:

• Representation
• Potential Energy
• Measurement & Structure
• Interaction & Association

The elements can then be understood and manipulated using a simple Flucidity model.

From the first paragraph:

A Theory of Everything should explain everything, not just scientific perspectives. It should be a theory that can be applied to any and every aspect of our world and universe. It should explain not just physical occurences but social, economic, emotional, politicial, biological, etc., ones as well. And it should be able to do this using simple, non-technical terms. For a Theory of Everything to be true it must have examples of itself everywhere and be useful from any perspective.

http://www.flucidity.org/

[theunify]

Originally Posted by 5589 Flucidity Theory is a new 'theory of everything' that breaks everything in the universe down to one of four elements: Representation Potential Energy Measurement & Structure Interaction & Association The elements can then be understood and manipulated using a simple Flucidity model. From the first paragraph: http://www.flucidity.org/

Are you saying that A grand Unified Theory should bend back on itself as if language itself has been stretched to the brinks of human knowledge so that it opens up like a piggy bank overstuffed with goods?

Or are you saying that the Theory of Everything will reveal both the difficulties in describing our world and the underlying connetiveness and simplicity that we are trying to describe?

I'll read your site now and see if that answers any of my questions.

Edit* Ok I read your site and I must say I am very impressed Sir, not only with your childhood stories and trying successes but with the ease in interpretation of the coming of the new world of science, physics? All in all your theory solid but is not credible for the simple admission that you burned the rough draft when you were 16, so idea like "there is no now" simply seem out of place in a motivational theory of language.

Good advice* You have enough here for 2 books, not just one, so don't force ideas unless you are willing to "branche out" and include other persons theories which are parallel to your own; such as "Weinsteizer et al 2007" notices the same thing that there is only a past and a future in his world renowned work Pulitzer United, or something like that, the more theories you can find that match your own to some degree will earn you great dividends for figuring out what your next step should be.

[5589]

Originally Posted by theunify Are you saying that A grand Unified Theory should bend back on itself as if language itself has been stretched to the brinks of human knowledge so that it opens up like a piggy bank overstuffed with goods?

A grand unified theory is useful to those in physics, not life. A meaningful TOE would apply to all things. Otherwise it should be called a TOST (theory of some things). Everyone in 5th grade should be able to understand a true TOE.

Originally Posted by theunify Edit* Ok I read your site and I must say I am very impressed Sir, not only with your childhood stories and trying successes but with the ease in interpretation of the coming of the new world of science, physics? All in all your theory solid but is not credible for the simple admission that you burned the rough draft when you were 16, so idea like "there is no now" simply seem out of place in a motivational theory of language.

Sure, there's a now. But I believe it is impossible to know what it is.

We can only perceive what is outside of the Now. This not only applies to our sun or other stars whose image is at least 8 minutes old but to the house across the street, as well. Granted, the amount of 'time' the representation takes to get to us is miniscule, but it is still outside the 'now' nonetheless. Same applies to our noses when we look at it.

Flucidity Theory maintains that everything we perceive is a representation of its truer (imperceptible) nature.

What would happen if we tried to perceive the inherently vast and unlimited with limited perceptual tools? It would be broken down into manageable pieces, ready for consumption at our own pace.

Thus the universe.

Originally Posted by theunify Good advice* You have enough here for 2 books, not just one, so don't force ideas unless you are willing to "branche out" and include other persons theories which are parallel to your own; such as "Weinsteizer et al 2007" notices the same thing that there is only a past and a future in his world renowned work Pulitzer United, or something like that, the more theories you can find that match your own to some degree will earn you great dividends for figuring out what your next step should be.

I'm not sure why most of us assume, unreasonably so perhaps, that a true TOE is going to come out of a laboratory or university.

As we know, a true TOE should apply to all things and be applicable across all disciplines, not just the limited space of a laboratory.

I would even suggest that is the reason none has yet been discovered and made known.

Flucidity Theory can be simple or complex, depending upon what is required.

The basic elements of existence, too, can be simple or complex, depending.

[theunify]

Originally Posted by 5589 A grand unified theory is useful to those in physics, not life. A meaningful TOE would apply to all things. Otherwise it should be called a TOST (theory of some things). Everyone in 5th grade should be able to understand a true TOE. Sure, there's a now. But I believe it is impossible to know what it is. We can only perceive what is outside of the Now. This not only applies to our sun or other stars whose image is at least 8 minutes old but to the house across the street, as well. Granted, the amount of 'time' the representation takes to get to us is miniscule, but it is still outside the 'now' nonetheless. Same applies to our noses when we look at it. Flucidity Theory maintains that everything we perceive is a representation of its truer (imperceptible) nature. What would happen if we tried to perceive the inherently vast and unlimited with limited perceptual tools? It would be broken down into manageable pieces, ready for consumption at our own pace. Thus the universe. I'm not sure why most of us assume, unreasonably so perhaps, that a true TOE is going to come out of a laboratory or university. As we know, a true TOE should apply to all things and be applicable across all disciplines, not just the limited space of a laboratory. I would even suggest that is the reason none has yet been discovered and made known. Flucidity Theory can be simple or complex, depending upon what is required. The basic elements of existence, too, can be simple or complex, depending.

The mind is a laboratory, you need to make us feel the "repeatability" of your theory first, IMHO.

[5589]

Originally Posted by theunify The mind is a laboratory, you need to make us feel the "repeatability" of your theory first, IMHO.

It's evolutive, if that's what you mean.

Adding structure to a representation attracts potential energy and enables the appropriate interactions, from which new representations are born.

This process can repeat itself, ad infinitum. Thus the universe.

(perhaps the laboratory was modeled after the mind, not vice-versa)

[theunify]

Originally Posted by 5589 (perhaps the laboratory was modeled after the mind, not vice-versa)

No, I'm quite sure the Laboratory is modeled after the herbaceous species of plants.

on the prowl for neurons
theunify

[5589]

FYI for anyone who is interested in learning more. I did an overhaul of the website, organizing the information more and clarifying a few points.

You can see the newest website for Flucidity Theory here:
http://www.flucidity.org

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by 5589 FYI for anyone who is interested in learning more. I did an overhaul of the website, organizing the information more and clarifying a few points. You can see the newest website for Flucidity Theory here: http://www.flucidity.org

5589 Thanks for the detailed information on the link you supplied.
Will spend a while looking it over.

regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by 5589 Flucidity Theory is a new 'theory of everything' that breaks everything in the universe down to one of four elements: Representation Potential Energy Measurement & Structure Interaction & Association The elements can then be understood and manipulated using a simple Flucidity model. From the first paragraph: http://www.flucidity.org/

Hi 5589, I just finished reading your entire site, and I find myself quite speechless. Your section on physics, http://www.flucidity.org/flucid-physics.htm IMO, seems to have profound predictive powers. I will have to let the information sink in, though, and in the mean time, could you give a bit of background information on yourself. How much physics study do you possess? How much economics study do you possess? At this moment, I like what I see___it seems to work... I guess I'm just sort of questioning the how...?

Regards,
Lloyd

[5589]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Hi 5589, I just finished reading your entire site, and I find myself quite speechless. Your section on physics, http://www.flucidity.org/flucid-physics.htm IMO, seems to have profound predictive powers. I will have to let the information sink in, though, and in the mean time, could you give a bit of background information on yourself. How much physics study do you possess? How much economics study do you possess? At this moment, I like what I see___it seems to work... I guess I'm just sort of questioning the how...? Regards, Lloyd

Thanks, Lloyd. I don't have any formal science, math, or economics background, besides a general interest in a wide variety of topics. I suppose you can say I'm self-taught. Of course, there are many pros and cons to that.

The "how it works" part is a mystery to me. It seems to be a representation of a kind of "higher order", if you will, like prime numbers.

To me, it's as inexplicable as prime numbers are impredictable. However, I do believe that it is a stepping stone to a much grander and simpler theory. One that I am eagerly awaiting.