You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Some time ago I presented my possible TOE here in a thread, but it doesn’t seem to generate much response. Maybe I used the wrong words, so let me try again, I’m just looking for some feedback.
Traditionally TOE is expected to explain ‘everything’ out of some kind of formula that unifies the most general forces. This with the thought that out of this reductionist Buttom-Up-point-of-view it is possible to explain the whole hierarchy of complexity all the way up to let’s say human consciousness. But meanwhile it has become well-known that because of the phenomenon ‘emergence’ this approach is way to optimistic. Of course the whole undertaking is very exciting and any success in integration of the general forces will be a giant leap forwards, but it hardly can be expected that it will give an explanation of the more complex phenomena. Therefore an alternative to consider would be the opposite Top-Down-approach, that starts with looking at the complex phenomena themselves and their behaviour. What will mean integrating the very general patterns and forms of order we see occurring in the scientific disciplines and mathematics. It would mean of course a kind of enterprise in the sense of ontology, although we know for sure it won’t give us certainty concerning the true nature of reality, because we haven’t got an absolute view on reality that would enable us to check it. But still concerning human behaviour in the context of nature and universe in general, it would give us something that certainly is open for refutation. I would like to present here an idea in the latter meaning, a possible essential order I call aos. And estimating it will be controversial, I would like to ask you: “What do you think of it?”
I read about emergence and I lean toward the epistemological, only because something has to come of the influence of the parts of the emergent new complexity—and I can't claim ontological if I don't know everything involved (since perhaps someday we will). But, any which way, higher complexity does bring about new and unpredictable features.
Although explainable perhaps by Hydrogen atom movement, who would have thought that H gas and O gas could make the slippery liquid of H2O? Wetness emerges.
I started a thread that, very generally, tries to decompose complex being into the simppicity of elementary matter in motion. I got the idea from Fredrick's pyramind of Matter opposing Space (although one may be a less/more dense version of the other) and Past transitioning from the Now and the Future. It can also be expressed as What going Where from Then to When.
Going one step lower shows Movement (time) of Appearances (Space/Matter)—or Matter in Motion through Space.
Going higher generates concepts such as Wishes (Where-When), Remembrance (Where-Then), Progression (What-When), and History (What-Then), and more, but it certainly needs a lot of emergence to happen in between my giant steps.
I think you web page design is fantastic. Someday perhaps I will try to model one of my own just like yours. It is also full of thought, as well as thought provocation, my favorite.
That said, you asking for comments, as usual I have a view.
In your summary you state: It seems quite impossible to know the true nature of reality, I believe this premise is incorrect. There is reality in nature, you just haven't seen it yet.
I particularly like the Marx quote: Important is not explaining the world it is changing the world. Perhaps if we change our view of nature we can explain it too.
Regarding coherence, unity is the solution to which you seek. Free will allows you to choose cohesion or division. Which do you choose?
Physics relies on complex mathematical solutions to obscure or hide the simplicity of nature's reality. Much like the legal language of law, mathematics is only another form of communication that many can't speak.
P Davies: A law of nature that leads to the birth of information. Mankind's knowledge has gone full circle, and we are pardon the phrase, born again.
Kaufmann: In the beginning there was the Word - the Law. There was only the truth before words and laws.
Emergence my friend will take us forward to square one.
I was not able to read beyond the first page today but hope to continue soon.
I like your work a lot. Have you had it published?
Some questions or comments are:
1) is AOS similar to Hegel's Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis?
2) Did you answer your question as to the Meaning of Life?
3) When you mentioned the 6th century BC philosophers who were addressing duality, you left out Zathustra ( Zoroaster ) and his good and evil, twin Gods, and Pythagoras and his positive and negative numbers.
4) You asked why suffering under the WHY title. According to the Buddha is due to our desires, which though difficult to end, must be ended to end suffering. The problem of course is that you have to end your desire of love, and even the desire of not desiring.
5) I am in full agreement in the unity or harmony of opposites and in the following on your site;
In referring to respectively Augustine, John Kepler and Athanasius Kircher, the professor in philosophy characterizes this view on the world as follows:
"Man and world are designed on the same basic plan but on a different scale: they are ruled by the same laws, know the same properties and where completely tuned in on each other."
"The whole world was, as the platonic way of thinking held out, the realization of a divine idea, a divine archetype."
"The whole world in all her aspects ... was the result of a harmonious symphony of interconflicting forces: a concordia discors."
(Max Wildiers, De vijf vreugden van de geest, p. 153 e.v.)
As you pointed out the TAO Diagram and I believe my Idea Venn Diagram, represents just that, the harmony of opposites.
Hello MJA, Thanks for the compliments ! This website, its quite easy but loads of work.
But let me go into your comments:
>”That said, you asking for comments, as usual I have a view.In your summary you state: It seems quite impossible to know the true nature of reality, I believe this premise is incorrect. There is reality in nature, you just haven't seen it yet.”< Well, that might be, but we haven’t got an absolute view on reality to check it – this true nature of reality.
>”I particularly like the Marx quote: Important is not explaining the world it is changing the world. Perhaps if we change our view of nature we can explain it too.”<
We can’t, not in a definitive way. We can try though.
>”Regarding coherence, unity is the solution to which you seek.Free will allows you to choose cohesion or division.Which do you choose?”<
We need both, the analytical and the integrative view on what is there, presenting itself as world, in trying to understand it.
>”Physics relies on complex mathematical solutions to obscure or hide the simplicity of nature's reality. Much like the legal language of law, mathematics is only another form of communication that many can't speak.”<
Well, I think that physics par excellence is showing the simplicity of nature. All matter is a variation on the up-quark, the down-quark and the electron. To me, that’s really showing the simplicity of nature.
>”P Davies: A law of nature that leads to the birth of information.Mankind's knowledge has gone full circle, and we are pardon the phrase, born again.”<
The quote is by Manfred Eigen, one of the ‘fathers’ of chaos-theory. But yes, he looked deep, generalising his research. My whole website is a trial to fill in this law of nature that leads to the birth of information.
>“Kaufmann: In the beginning there was the Word - the Law.There was only the truth before words and laws.”< Maybe. I don’t know. I can’t know.
>”Emergence my friend will take us forward to square one.”< Reviewing everything we know, we think we know, all the time has been the first step in inventing a completely new paradigm.
Hello Profpat, Nice to see you’re interested, and nice to meet such broadminded ness. Well, to go into you’re remarks:
> “I like your work a lot. Have you had it published?”<
I mention it in the text, but to be complete, I developed this philosophy in an array of about 40 articles starting in 1996 in the periodical GAMMA of the Dutch Association of Teilhard de Chardin, and this text on the internet is a review and integration of these articles. I want to publish it in a book of course, but given its rather revolutionary character I thought it would be best to first do a bit of try-out on the internet. The reactions on the articles were quite positive, but well, right now I’m telling the complete story. >“Some questions or comments are:1) is AOS similar to Hegel's Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis?”<
Yes and no. I give definitions of Hegel's Thesis - Antithesis – Synthesis and of Analysis, Omega and Synthesis and its easy to point out the differences. But in general we share this notion of dialectics.
>”2) Did you answer your question as to the Meaning of Life?”<
Well yes, especially in the concluding chapters. But, and this is very important to notice, I present my answer as a suggestion, a possibility, not with certainty, not as some kind of truth.
>“3) When you mentioned the 6th century BC philosophers who were addressing duality, you left out Zathustra ( Zoroaster ) and his good and evil, twin Gods, and Pythagoras and his positive and negative numbers.”<
Well, the examples I give are just there to illustrate the general story in trying to make it more comprehensive. But yes you are absolutely right, and I think that if we look further, than other examples will emerge. It concerns here some kind of archetype, something deep down in human thinking - and possible in reality in general.
>“4) You asked why suffering under the WHY title. According to the Buddha is due to our desires, which though difficult to end, must be ended to end suffering. The problem of course is that you have to end your desire of love, and even the desire of not desiring.”<
There are many answers and the discussion goes on and on on this. I try to describe its context, the human psyche, as it develops itself in the social, cultural and geographical environment. For that I focussed on the line of development from hunter-gatherer all the way up to modern Western society, because of the high contrast it shows in self- and world view. Other lines of development and respective belief systems are therefore not that much looked upon. But they also emerge out of the (biologically) same human brain, only in different expressions.
>”5) I am in full agreement in the unity or harmony of opposites and in the following on your site; In referring to respectively Augustine, John Kepler and Athanasius Kircher, the professor in philosophy characterizes this view on the world as follows:
"Man and world are designed on the same basic plan but on a different scale: they are ruled by the same laws, know the same properties and where completely tuned in on each other."
"The whole world was, as the platonic way of thinking held out, the realization of a divine idea, a divine archetype."
"The whole world in all her aspects ... was the result of a harmonious symphony of interconflicting forces: a concordia discors."
(Max Wildiers, De vijf vreugden van de geest, p. 153 e.v.)
As you pointed out the TAO Diagram and I believe my Idea Venn Diagram, represents just that, the harmony of opposites.”<
I don’t know what is meant here, but I do know that the ‘harmony of opposites’ isn’t all that easy to fill in. With this aos I try to give a general definition, but I realise that further research is necessary, at least where possible, for instance on the level of society. As a kind of first trial on this latter, I therefore add this survey of countries and dimensions (see LINKS and SURVEY) to look for the most beneficial kind of society. But I expect also this will give rise to lot’s of discussion.
Linear Mode
