Consciousness holds the key. to the T.O.E.

[mkirkpatrick]

T.O.E.requires,that the four fundamental forces of the universe be unified. These forces include gravity,electromagnetism,the weak nuclear force,the strong nuclear force,the fundamental forces must be unified to explain in principle,all physical phenomenon in the universe,from birth of the universe to its demise,and range from the smallest subatomic particle to the vastness of the cosmos.Well that is it laid out by this forum,Toequest. I want to call on you all now,for your help,I believe that all these questions can be answered by the theory that,All is mind and mind is all.I believe that we can as a united front answer all these four fundamental questions about these forces by using the theory of all is mind=energy.Even if some or most of you do not accept this idea,or theory,can we put aside these differences for a while and try to join forces to unite all these four fundamentals into one united theory using mind and consciousness as the key to open pandoras box?If we tackle this together maybe we will suceed!Are you Game fellow Toers?


I am counting on all your support to try and make this theory work,I need all your help. Guille, Antonio, Harmony, Michelle, Baud, Dave, Robert, Sub, HBd, and all the rest of you toers,lets us all united solve this Theory of everything.

kind regards michael.

[Unreal Zelta]

I am incredibly curious to know:

Why do we have to unify the four fundamental forces, what do we get out of it? Is it the human nature to unify theories? Or are we not intelligent enough to describe them separately?

And another pointer: How can we be so certain that there are only 4 fundamental forces, which operate this universe? (perhaps we need more to fill up the imcompleteness/errors of those field theories)

[Mohan.C]

Hi Michael,
I do believe in the idea mind=energy. Or should i say i have my own idea of it. I think we exist as the least possible energy for our existence. We have our body like this because it is the most confined state we can be there. I am also putting the idea that all is elementary to itself . As i think that enegy the elementary. Our body has energy, so it must be elementary
to itself. The universe is elementary to itself. All the new sub-atomic particles we dream of are the make-up of this elementary including me and you.

I don't know whether I am uninvited guest here. I hope this idea is sane.

[Guille]

I agree with unreal zelta's points, that we can't be sure there are only four forces in nature and that we might not have to unite them. Maybe the maximum point of possible unification, at least in the physical world, is having these 4 forces, maybe the mathematical language can make connections, relationships... etz, and that would help, but I doubt it is sensible to make all forces 1. There is nothing that tells us this. Just like with energy, we have kinetic energy, potential energy, mass, heat... We know the mathematical relationships, and the physical connections, but we don't unify them in one, we just know they all form part of one same concept. The same with force.

I just consider MEFD (Matter, Energy, Force, Dimension) the concepts which are not to be pondered by science. They are purelly conceptual, in reality they are abstract analogies between different objects of the world: energy is an abstract analogy between heat, mass, ke, pe... Force is an abstract analogy betwee em, gravity, wnf, snf... Matter is an abstract analogy between liquid, solid, gas, plasma... Dimension is an abstract analogy between space1, space2, space3, time, possibly other dimensions of space or time...

Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Feynman... They tell us how forces work, how they interact with matter, how they interact amongst themselves, the cause and consequence... But they don't tell us the 'being' of the forces. This is because that is a philosophical question. And here is an important point from me: I've always stated the TOE needs both science and philosophy. By science I didn't mean the classical idea of science, and by philosophy I didn't mean the classical metaphysical idea. The philosophy which is requiered in the TOE is that which must talk about the natural concepts, and mixed with the science that talks about the natural concepts, we can acheive the TOE. This will be the new form of natural philosophy, which is the old name for physics, it is what is needed for the TOE.

Now, mkirkpatrik, I will help you (or at least try to). In fact I never think or say that a principle/idea is not correct, or not good, or not for the TOE or of the TOE, I always assume it to be true and work forward, until I can't, it doesn't work, it fails. I hope someday one doesn't fail.

'All is mind and mind is all' is neither a metaphysical especulation nor a scientific law. It is a statement which forms part of the Natural Philosophy I spoke about in the above post. Before trying the puzzle of nature with it, I need you to tell me a few things:

1. What does 'all is mind' mean? Is it that everything there is is simply the mind, or that everything is in itself mind, or that mind is in everything... or any other posssibility?

2. What does 'mind is all' mean? Is it that mind is in all things, or all things are in the mind, or that all things=mind, or that nothing but my mind exists (cartesianism, it would then be)... or anything else?

3. What do you mean by 'all'? Is it all the things (objects), or all the thoughts/ideas, or all the possible things that exist (then it would be like Wittgenstein, that all that can be thought of has the possibility to exist), or all including existence, non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence... or anything else?

4. What do you mean by 'mind? Is it all thoughts/ideas, or is it simply imagination (that everything in the world is imagination?), or is it both conception and perception.. Or anything else?

Please clarify these. I know it might seem like I'm a stupid kid not knowinh the meaning of anything, but if we are really going serious about trying har dwith your principle (and I am serious), then I need all this 'processing data' state.

[harmonygirl]

Michael, great idea! before we unite the way forces are viewed (and I have thought that there are just 2 fundamental forces, with "waves" being the result of an on-going balancing act), don't we need to talk about the "wavicle"? I think that matter is just energy slowed down, so what are the implications for light, etc.?

[dleviwing]

Michael;
Though universe consciousness is an appealing concept and one I've pondered in the past, I remain steadfast to the scientific methodology of measurement in order to qualify it as known. Until then, we can only create a philosophy or belief of this concept. If we allow belief systems to be included in science, then science becomes just another religion. We are too close to that scenario now with Relativity, QM, and M-theory. I can only support you if you can demonstrate a method to measure it.

[Marko]

......
Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Feynman... They tell us how forces work, how they interact with matter, how they interact amongst themselves, the cause and consequence... But they don't tell us the 'being' of the forces. This is because that is a philosophical question. And here is an important point from me: I've always stated the TOE needs both science and philosophy. By science I didn't mean the classical idea of science, and by philosophy I didn't mean the classical metaphysical idea. The philosophy which is requiered in the TOE is that which must talk about the natural concepts, and mixed with the science that talks about the natural concepts, we can acheive the TOE. This will be the new form of natural philosophy, which is the old name for physics, it is what is needed for the TOE.

Again great thoughts from you Guille!

I agree with this, and I would like to add – I dont think that unified forces would lead to the TOE. At least not to the my definition of the TOE.
The main problem is that all this unification is based on our values of the constants (G, h, c) which are taken for granted. Similar is with evolution.

And since the science can get only 10^-43 after the Big Bang it is clear that we cant rely only on pure science, because I dont think science will ever get much closer.

All this results in some kind of the mistification of the Big Bang, and in theories that God created the universe, or how lucky we are to be here – since they are trying to explain why are the constants like this.

What they can do is to explain this particular universe better and better. More information about our Big Bang, our evolution.
But there is no "real first cause" in this explanations, no "being".
I think that is mistake to think that this evolution is something special, and this Big Bang and universe also.

I think that our universe and our evolution are just one of the billion of billions possible combinations in the „Big Lottery“. They are very ordinary on the great scale, but they are very important for our existence.

Tools I am planning to use are probability,chaos and some philosophy (since I have no choice if I am trying to go before the Big Bang- pure science is in stalemate position there).

I have to work this out better, but this is my main idea: real process of creation begins when virtual energetic potencial, or nothing if you like, faces a drastic transition. Nothing is not perfectly stable, and symmetry breaking occurs. This symmetry breaking can be represented by the Big Lottery – process in which constants (G, h, c) are randomly formed. All processes are governed by pure chaos.

I think that values of the constants are deductable to some finite intervals, since some limitations exists –

For example, maybe it could be shown, than under 10¹ºº times greater G then ours – universe would face the immediate Big Crunch –and hence immediate return to the nothing- and no matter how we try to „invent“ greater value of G- there is no more extra effect, no new states.

But surely there are billion of billions possible combinations and values of the constants.

And the rest of the explanation can be found in the probability theory +chaos.

And surely there are the universes without the stable proton, extremely uniform and lifeless, full of gigantic black holes, with hydrogen only ..etc – when the constants are different.

So, I could use here some kind of the weak antropic principle, which states that constants must be in a narrow band to allow the development of stars, life and very complexed life like humans.
But this is in universe in which we live, in which we are able to make the observation.

These sets of constants that could support life are just one small part of the possible outcomes of constants.

In a way , I could define a universe as a temporary and very short phase of the unstability of the virtual energetic potencial, or nothingness – which is nearly perfectly stable. A small distortion of this potential.

The proof for the unstability of this virtual energetic potencial is our existence. If it were perfectly stable- it would always stay like this and we would never be here. But we are here.

So I can conclude that this virtual energetic potencial has the capability and possibility to produce the universe and us.

This is my opinion about what was before the Big Bang.
And the return in the nothingness is inevitable, no matter what are the values of the constants. I think that this is in accordance with the entropy law.
There is no such thing as steady-state!

It is enough that something can happen- and eventually it will happen. So, even if the universe like ours, with the "proper constants" is very rare event - with the probability analogy it can be shown that this event will happen infinite number of times - since it seems reasonable that the return to the nothingness is inevitable - and we can apply the probability theory+chaos.

And similar things can be applied on the evolution. I think there are many tipes of evolution, many different paths, but our is probably most advanced and successful.

But there must be at least sillicon-ammonia molecules that are on a boundary between non-organic and organic - on other planets.

And there should be a huge number of carbon based evolutions- but with different amino-acids, and with different building blocks, higher rate of mutations, blind roads...etc.

This is partly testable in the future, because telescopes of the next generation could be able to detect the earth-like planets around the other stars, and they could be able to „see“ the chemistry and potential biology of this planets.

Note that these are just some basic thoughts, there are plenty more things to discuss here!

regards

Marko

[mkirkpatrick]

Hi Michael,
I do believe in the idea mind=energy. Or should i say i have my own idea of it. I think we exist as the least possible energy for our existence. We have our body like this because it is the most confined state we can be there. I am also putting the idea that all is elementary to itself . As i think that enegy the elementary. Our body has energy, so it must be elementary
to itself. The universe is elementary to itself. All the new sub-atomic particles we dream of are the make-up of this elementary including me and you.

I don't know whether I am uninvited guest here. I hope this idea is sane.

Mohan C.I am sure that I speak for all,and say,not only are you.
welcome here on this quest,you are absolutely vital.We need all of us to
try and solve this problem.
kind regards michael.

[baudrunner]

The essence of theoretical physics is first to come up with a good idea and then see if the idea holds merit, sometimes through quantification, other times through the sheer logic of presumption. I don't know what makes mathematics anymore valid than logic, since it is not applicable in all areas. We believe in photons, I personally don't know exactly why we do, since they are entirely based on theory and the only way that we have been able to measure them is by way of the energy required to produce the purported evidence. They don't exist by themselves and do not appear spontaneously. They have been established as having no mass and all sorts of inane rationalizations have been presented to explain certain logical inconsistencies, like --- since photons travel at the speed of light they should have infinite mass and exist in a place where time stands still - so they theorize that their acelleration rate from rest to c does not exist, that their acelleration occurs instantaneously, I mean, what an absurd idea! And yet the majority of people still believe in photons. Why? Because light is obvious and darkness isn't? No, because most people are afraid to think!

[mkirkpatrick]

Michael;
Though universe consciousness is an appealing concept and one I've pondered in the past, I remain steadfast to the scientific methodology of measurement in order to qualify it as known. Until then, we can only create a philosophy or belief of this concept. If we allow belief systems to be included in science, then science becomes just another religion. We are too close to that scenario now with Relativity, QM, and M-theory. I can only support you if you can demonstrate a method to measure it.

David,thank you for your reply,and I respect your opinion,I ask that,what would be your suggestions,that would make this theory more acceptable to you.I am sure that we can find a way to measure this theory,in such a way that you will be able to work with it,If we all put our thinking caps on,maybe we can solve this?

Michael, great idea! before we unite the way forces are viewed (and I have thought that there are just 2 fundamental forces, with "waves" being the result of an on-going balancing act), don't we need to talk about the "wavicle"? I think that matter is just energy slowed down, so what are the implications for light, etc.?

Good question,Harmony.not sure at the moment,we will of course have to include this,at present,have used the four main forces,gravity,eltromagnetism,weak,and strong nuclear forces,
these I took from the statement of the Toequest,Quest,from the home page.
If this thread continues,as I hope it will,we will all find a way to explain and
include them.And I indeed agree with you that matter is just energy toned
down.

Guille,amigo,
Many,many,thanks,for your kind interest,and the serious way that you are
looking at this,I am grateful for your support.Now I will try and answer your
questions.1,what does "all in the mind mean"To me it means that the "Whole"
of manifested manifestation,the absolute total of the totality of the entire
universe is a product of mind,which is consciousness Itself!
2,What does mind in all mean?Are all things in mind,or is mind in all things?
Or is the all thing mind?Or nothing but my mind exists?Simplicity I feel is the answer here,there are no "things" in this theory,there is just the one THing
which is Mind,consciousness,there are many expressions of this one thing,and
although it may "appear" to be different,look deeply within it and mind will be
present!energy,force,matter,mind,all equal the one thing in this theory.Your
mind exists Guille,but do you really "own it"?Or are you just a "point" of cons-
ciuosness,anchored here in three dimensional space?3 What do you mean by all?The answer to this question is,absolute inclusiveness,the all mind,
intelligence,we all live and move and have our being,the entire universe I
mean here,all on manifested manifestation,is within this All!
4,What do you mean by mind?Good question!To me it means "Creative intelligence" Intelligent energy,mind.That from which we have beingness!
I hope this will assist you Guille,together we can all make a difference!

I am incredibly curious to know:
Why do we have to unify the four fundamental forces, what do we get out of it? Is it the human nature to unify theories? Or are we not intelligent enough to describe them separately?

And another pointer: How can we be so certain that there are only 4 fundamental forces, which operate this universe? (perhaps we need more to fill up the imcompleteness/errors of those field theories)

Unreal Zelta.
You have made some interesting points.the home page for Toequest is where I got the four fundamental forces from,it is a starting place,we may well find more.I invite you on this quest to try and answer the toe,with the
theory that I have suggested,that all is mind,and that mind is all.Will you help
us,we need all the help we can get.

The essence of theoretical physics is first to come up with a good idea and then see if the idea holds merit, sometimes through quantification, other times through the sheer logic of presumption. I don't know what makes mathematics anymore valid than logic, since it is not applicable in all areas. We believe in photons, I personally don't know exactly why we do, since they are entirely based on theory and the only way that we have been able to measure them is by way of the energy required to produce the purported evidence. They don't exist by themselves and do not appear spontaneously. They have been established as having no mass and all sorts of inane rationalizations have been presented to explain certain logical inconsistencies, like --- since photons travel at the speed of light they should have infinite mass and exist in a place where time stands still - so they theorize that their acelleration rate from rest to c does not exist, that their acelleration occurs instantaneously, I mean, what an absurd idea! And yet the majority of people still believe in photons. Why? Because light is obvious and darkness isn't? No, because most people are afraid to think!

Baud,we need your input,can we make this sucker work! I have faith in you,we need all the help we can get,if this is to work!
kindest regards michael.