[subversion]

I appreciate the statements Omni. You have to understand, I believe in destiny, and that means I don't believe in regret, or mistakes. Therefore I can not be mistaken, I can only be wrong or right. What dleviwing has done is accused me of being wrong and he has done so without justification. It's not that I really care what he thinks, afterall, I know he's wrong about me. It's just the matter of principle that gets to me. Afterall, why would you automatically assume that your brother is wrong? Such apprehension and pessimistic appraisal of the world around you draws great concern for me, because I know what it leads to --------> ignorance

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Omni

@subversion: I don't know what you're supposed to be lying about (about having a TOE or about your statement that's it's the right one, in which case you're not lying, but mistaking), but when someone accuses you of something which you know isn't true then ignoring it is the right thing to do, when they're not to be convinced by your word. It's the other persons thought, not yours. Just my look on the matter.

+

Why are you so much in favour of Sub? Have youe ver seen anything of value in his posts, his thought, his talk... Subversion, all that you ahve put in these forums has been the excrements of your life, that is, all that which you have eaten, you vomit here. I don't think Robert intents to make toequest a vomit place. You might ahve made a few posts which were interesting, and created discussion, but I believe the best thing of your existence in this web has been that the rest of us have able to see what not to do, what not say, what not to think, and what not to be. As I know what your TOE is, and in fact it isn't at all yours, it's in fact mine, I recomend you to leave these forums. We are all too tierd and occupied to waste our time and energy.

[Omni]

@subversion: "mistaking" must indeed be changed into "wrong" and that's because of the fact that whatever TOE you have you can never be sure it's right. That's just a fact of life and not a shortcoming.

@<<<Guille>>>: I'm not in favour of anyone. I'm just giving my opinion about this "case". It doesn't say anything about what else I'm thinking or about who's posts I "like" or "dislike".

ps: I kinda like my own posts

[subversion]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>>

+

Why are you so much in favour of Sub? Have youe ver seen anything of value in his posts, his thought, his talk... Subversion, all that you ahve put in these forums has been the excrements of your life, that is, all that which you have eaten, you vomit here. I don't think Robert intents to make toequest a vomit place. You might ahve made a few posts which were interesting, and created discussion, but I believe the best thing of your existence in this web has been that the rest of us have able to see what not to do, what not say, what not to think, and what not to be. As I know what your TOE is, and in fact it isn't at all yours, it's in fact mine, I recomend you to leave these forums. We are all too tierd and occupied to waste our time and energy.

Are you giving me conflicting signals Guille? All that I have put in this forum has been excrement eh? Yet you go on to say that some of it was interesting and created discussion. So which is it!

Allow me to remind you exactly what I have contributed so far
1.the incompleteness theorem proves not that truth doesn't exist, but that it is consistently inconsistent, and this means that scientists won't figure anything out unless they view things with the greatest of optimism. In other words, we have to realize that the incompleteness theorem is really the completeness theorem.

2.it is theoretical impossible to prove that things are impossible unless you live for an infinitely long amount of time. Therefore valid theoretical laws must only state that which is possible, not that which is impossible. The outcome of this is that everything is possible! So now we can look at laws which state what is impossible and realize that these laws are irrelevant.

3. as such the laws of thermodynamics are all irrelevant, because they attempt to state what is impossible. Let's take a detailed look at all of these laws
1). matter cannot be created or destroyed. This law is proved irrelevant by the existence of the big bang
2). perpetual motion cannot exist. This law is proved irrelevant by the continuous nature of time itself
3). the arrow of time cannot reverse. This law is proved irrelevant by the fact that the universe is expanding faster and faster

4. I have stated that gravity is the universal force of destiny. It has two opposing halves, gravity and dark energy. Gravity is attempting to pull us back into the past and dark energy is the force that carries us into the future. Therefore the arrow of time is directly linked to the universal forces of destiny.

5. In fact, the arrow of time will reverse whenever two points, seperated by less then a planck distance, begin to expand away from eachother at greater than lightspeed, due to the universal force of destiny. This is a real conclusion of the TOE!

6. Evolution is meant to bring about the theory of everything, and as such Humans are progressing along a natural path, because we have a secret duty to perform for the universe. We are evolving from animals to beings to deities.

7. I have theorized that at the most fundamental level, something is nothing more than what it contains, and thus I have replaced Russell's Paradox with a more complete and accurate version that exemplifies both halves of the Paradox. It is stated as follows
We know that everything must contain itself, but we do not know if it contains what it is not. Similarly, we know that nothing must not contain what it is not, but we do not know if it contains itself.

8. I have stated that it is possible to send something faster than TSOL and I have asked for ya'll to brainstorm how it can be done, but nobody has taken me seriously.

9. I have introduced you to the Hutchison effect which demonstrates the Theory of Everything.

So why don't you take a closer look at all these things I've been willing to show you Guille, and consider it's worth a second time. Using everything I've told you above, you should be able to figure out the TOE for yourself. But of course, you have to think about it, and take it seriously.

regards, subv

[subversion]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>>

+As I know what your TOE is, and in fact it isn't at all yours, it's in fact mine, I recomend you to leave these forums.

Oh so you think you know what I know huh? THat's marvelous, and I believe you, so what is it!

[subversion]

And for the record, I really really really want to tell you all the TOE, but I will not tell dleviwing the TOE unless he is already considering the possibility that it will make him think, because he has told me specifically that he thinks I'm wrong and that I'm too stupid to know the TOE. Since dleviwing is part of this public forum, he must come forth and open up his mind as to the possibility of everything, or else the forum will suffer as a result. The only reason that open forums like this work is because people are willing to invest their belief in one another. I have invested my belief in dleviwing, but he has never returned the favor. If dleviwing cannot do that, then I say he is crippling this quest and this forum. So I would appreciate it if dleviwing would come forth and issue a statement on his behalf, so we can know whether he is prepared for me to reveal the TOE or not. Dleviwing is just as important as everybody.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by Omni

@subversion: "mistaking" must indeed be changed into "wrong" and that's because of the fact that whatever TOE you have you can never be sure it's right. That's just a fact of life and not a shortcoming.

But how do you know that one can't be sure of the TOE if you've never discovered it? You can not make a law that says it is impossible to realize you know the TOE. You can only make a law that says it is possible to realize you know the TOE. In other words, the ability to be wrong does not prove that it is impossible to be right. Similarly, the ability to be right does not prove that it is impossible to be wrong. As such we can only ascertain what is possible, not what is impossible. THat is a law of defintion.

Originally Posted by Omni

ps: I kinda like my own posts

Rock on dude! Me too

[dleviwing]

Subversion is the name you chose; Subversion is the game you lose.
I only apologize when I'm wrong about someone. You have proved me right in every evaluation I made of your character. You are also the kind that will take credit for the work and efforts of others, just as you are doing here in your contribution list. I expect you will publish a book called "Mian TOE". Sub; "just shut up and go away" for "I don't really care".
BYE BYE SUB

[Omni]

Originally Posted by subversion

You can not make a law that says it is impossible to realize you know the TOE. You can only make a law that says it is possible to realize you know the TOE.

It's the other way around. "Everything" is infinite, i'm 100% certain of that. That leads automatically to the fact, or law if you will, that you will never have a TOE which you can be sure of to be right. It might be right, but you will never know that for sure. For instance I can say my TOE is right. I can say there's space and vacuumspace and that's it. Let's say that covers the observable universe, then the logical question is: " And beyond the observable universe that's still true?". "I don't know and I will never know, because the universe is infinite." the answer without a doubt would have to be.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by Omni

It's the other way around. "Everything" is infinite, i'm 100% certain of that. That leads automatically to the fact, or law if you will, that you will never have a TOE which you can be sure of to be right. It might be right, but you will never know that for sure. For instance I can say my TOE is right. I can say there's space and vacuumspace and that's it. Let's say that covers the observable universe, then the logical question is: " And beyond the observable universe that's still true?". "I don't know and I will never know, because the universe is infinite." the answer without a doubt would have to be.

You pose a very good point Omni, and I commend you on your theory. However, I have to maintain that the theory of everything is about everything, and therefore there is nothing which it does not cover. Nothing which is does not cover... Which is kind of funny, because it brings us to the question, does nothing form a meaningful part of everything? An analogous way to ask the question is, is nothing full of itself, and is everything full without nothing? And that question, is the one question we will never know. However, we know that the answer is unknown. That is the question that Godel predicted. So I guess now that I think of it I have to agree with you, I'm not sure if the theory of everything is complete, and indeed I cannot be sure. But that question I consider to be irrelevant, or at least, I can't tell if it's relevant or not. Cheers

So in other words, the only part (of the TOE) that you can't be sure about, is nothing. Which confirms my theory that any law which says what you can't do must be a law which is referring to nothing. So in other words, it may be true that you can't know everything because you can't know nothing. But if you can know everything besides nothing, than that is all that matters, that is all that we know must be relevant. The theory of Relevancy!