[lodestar]

Yes that is a very good question. What are we to make of consistent contradiction? Is it consistent, or is it contradictory, or is it both? Or is it simply what we choose?

The answer, my friend, essentially lies in your last statement, "thank you for the positive post." In other words, we should always choose the most positive of all possible solutions. In other words, by giving us a consistent contradiction, the reality of everything is essentially forcing us to choose, whether we want to be optimists, or whether we want to be pessimists.

Of course, our language has already answered this question of whether we want to be optimists or pessimists. You see, in the english language we say that the arrow of time moves in a "positive" direction. Now it is no coincidence that the word "positive" also means good. So by saying that the direction which our time moves in is the POSITIVE direction, we have already affirmed that we are optimists, for it is the positive side of reality which we have named ours.

So now imagine it this way. According to the irony of truth, the truth is both true and false. So a pessimist will tell you "even though the truth is true it is still false!" Whereas an optimist will tell you "even though the truth is false it is still true!" You see both the pessimist and the optimist will be right in a technical sense, but only the optimist is looking at the "right" side of the equation, the side which leads to happiness.

So do you get it? Whenever we reach a realization of the irony of truth, it is like our spirits are being tested. We simply employ optimism in order for us to stress what is most important to us. Truth or false? Positive or negative? We consider that positive is good, negative is bad, truth is right, and false is wrong. That is how we arrive at our answer.

So to apply this to your theory, your theory proposes right and wrong answers. Now just because one of the answers is wrong does not mean that it is not technically right, just that we consider that it is not as meaningful to us as the answer which gives us meaning. So we select our answer in order to be in line with our optimistic spirits and to stress what is most meaningful. For it is our optimistic spirits that decided in the first place that we live on the positive side of the number circle, not the negative side.

Hopefully you will find this is as beautiful and enigmatically profound as I have seen it to be. It is the principle of optimism.

So according to the principle of optimism, your theory is correct, not false or neutral. Actually it is all three, but we can freely choose. Come to think of it, it is a lot like the Axiom of Choice.

So as far as my choice is concerned, I will follow the principle of optimism, and always choose the smiley face

kudos

[protheory]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Hi Pro;
I understand your quandary for it is very difficult to translate what we visualize in our mind to the limited verbalization of those thoughts. One of the physicists I worked with put it in a unique way. He stated “If you cannot explain your ideas to a seventh grade high school student and have him understand what you are saying, it is quite likely you do not know what you are saying either.” This is just another way of saying “keep it simple if you want people to understand you.” There are very few members who truly comprehend formalized scientific terminology.

It should not require a mathematical equation to state why something will fall to the Earth when dropped from a height above it; Stating that these unknown causes are fundamental properties or forces of nature are not real answers either. The TOE must be able to explain it simply enough for that seventh grader; otherwise it is nothing more than intellectual gibberish. The current trend of science is to add to that pile of gibberish. I would hope that ToeQuest members would have a goal to reduce that pile.

Well said, I totally agree.

I understand your point about simplicity and I’ve actually tried to keep Pro theory simple.

The actual theory proposes “All that be is 123” which I think is about as simple as we can get really, within the boundaries of relative words anyway.

It was just the most simple and clear way that I could communicate my idea when I wrote my site.

I've taken all you've said on board even if I don't appear to have done from my current posts, I'm not used to talking about this idea to people who actually understand and so I'm still taking it all in you might say.

I just thought I'd better explain lest you think me ignorant

I can only imagine that your concept is a derivation of the principals of probability and uncertainty, but these only state that these three condition exist only before the observation (experiment). The experiment, if properly designed, will reduce these to only one KNOWN condition within the limits of uncertainty which is usually a Planck’s quantum unit scalar.

I understand the concept of Planck’s constant and the associated rules but for my own purposes of the creation of an “accurate” TOE I still wonder about the other two possible potentials.

Again, this is very difficult to put into words in the right way, I’ll keep trying though.

It is important to understand that scientific theories are not science; they are only the best guess based on presumed logical assumptions. Science is the process of performing measurements to test these ideas. Any time a theory requires exceptions to the rules of physics, the either the theory or the rule is wrong.

I agree with the exceptions thing, well, I don't know how to explain really, what I meant when I mentioned the word was just that in my opinion Pro theory answers "everything" with no exceptions, this was a way for me to say how literally I think my theory works.

Also, I would like to ask your advice please if I may.

I've been reading quite a few threads and I've noticed quite a few that I would like to post on but I don't want to just suddenly post in lots of threads in such a short time and annoy people.

I've noticed a topic about Russell's Paradox for example, I would also love to post about Black Holes and The Big Bang but I've already posted in five or six topics already so I'm not quite sure what to do, I don't want to spam the board or to seem like that is my intention.

I honestly think that I have something valuable to add to these discussions, and I would love to post in them but I just thought I would ask your advice here first, and also let others know that I may post my ideas there too.

Thanks for your help.

PRO

[lodestar]

Now I don't mean to intrude but I would like to give you my opinion. Post as much as you want.

And as far as Russell's paradox, I am the one who started the thread on Russell's paradox. I realized that the definition of everything is that every thing is a part of everything. So in other words everything contains every thing, and it would have to be that way in order for the theory of everything to be correct. Now of course you could always say, ala your theory, that the theory of everything is incorrect and thus everything contains nothing. But remember, that is why we select the most meaningful option as right. This is called optimism.

So everything contains everything, and this is the number 1/0, which is the set of all sets. So in other words there is nothing that does not contain itself. So the set of all sets that do not contain themselves is simply the empty set, 0. And whether or not the empty set contains itself is a meaningless question because the empty set has no value.

Now of course you could always say the opposite, ala the irony of truth, that everything contains nothing, and then you would be implying that everything is really nothing. This is true in theory, but wrong in spirit. To say that everything contains everything is true in theory and in spirit. So everything contains everything, for that is the most meaningful defintion, and whether nothing contains nothing is not a meaningful question to ask. That is because nothing is undefined, whereas everything is the most meaningful of all definitions.

WHat do you think?

Originally Posted by protheory

Well said, I totally agree.

I understand your point about simplicity and I’ve actually tried to keep Pro theory simple.

The actual theory proposes “All that be is 123” which I think is about as simple as we can get really, within the boundaries of relative words anyway.

It was just the most simple and clear way that I could communicate my idea when I wrote my site.

I've taken all you've said on board even if I don't appear to have done from my current posts, I'm not used to talking about this idea to people who actually understand and so I'm still taking it all in you might say.

I just thought I'd better explain lest you think me ignorant

I understand the concept of Planck’s constant and the associated rules but for my own purposes of the creation of an “accurate” TOE I still wonder about the other two possible potentials.

Again, this is very difficult to put into words in the right way, I’ll keep trying though.

I agree with the exceptions thing, well, I don't know how to explain really, what I meant when I mentioned the word was just that in my opinion Pro theory answers "everything" with no exceptions, this was a way for me to say how literally I think my theory works.

Also, I would like to ask your advice please if I may.

I've been reading quite a few threads and I've noticed quite a few that I would like to post on but I don't want to just suddenly post in lots of threads in such a short time and annoy people.

I've noticed a topic about Russell's Paradox for example, I would also love to post about Black Holes and The Big Bang but I've already posted in five or six topics already so I'm not quite sure what to do, I don't want to spam the board or to seem like that is my intention.

I honestly think that I have something valuable to add to these discussions, and I would love to post in them but I just thought I would ask your advice here first, and also let others know that I may post my ideas there too.

Thanks for your help.

PRO

[protheory]

Originally Posted by lodestar

Now I don't mean to intrude but I would like to give you my opinion. Post as much as you want.

And as far as Russell's paradox, I am the one who started the thread on Russell's paradox. I realized that the definition of everything is that every thing is a part of everything. So in other words everything contains every thing, and it would have to be that way in order for the theory of everything to be correct. Now of course you could always say, ala your theory, that the theory of everything is incorrect and thus everything contains nothing. But remember, that is why we select the most meaningful option as right. This is called optimism.

So everything contains everything, and this is the number 1/0, which is the set of all sets. So in other words there is nothing that does not contain itself. So the set of all sets that do not contain themselves is simply the empty set, 0. And whether or not the empty set contains itself is a meaningless question because the empty set has no value.

Now of course you could always say the opposite, ala the irony of truth, that everything contains nothing, and then you would be implying that everything is really nothing. This is true in theory, but wrong in spirit. To say that everything contains everything is true in theory and in spirit. So everything contains everything, for that is the most meaningful defintion, and whether nothing contains nothing is not a meaningful question to ask. That is because nothing is undefined, whereas everything is the most meaningful of all definitions.

WHat do you think?

No worries on you offering your own opinion here Lodestar, I appreciate all the positive discussion and feedback that I can get

I looked at the Russell's Paradox thread the other day so I wasn't sure whether or not to post my own ideas there as I've already posted quite a few of them in different threads around the board.

I didn't realise that it was you that started the thread, but I know you will be a worthy opponent in this intellectual discussion.

I can totally see your point here about optimism, the most positive possible option available in life, and I agree that we should try to follow this principle above all in daily life.

I understand that whether or not the set of all sets contains itself (is a member of itself) this is somewhat meaningless in the grand scheme of all things.

I also understand your excellent point about how everything means something and is positive and how nothing contains nothing and means nothing, is meaningless, as a philosophy of life this is one of my own beliefs too.


Regarding the TOE

While I accept and agree with your points about choosing the most positive option/s in life for practical purpose, I also think that when it literally comes down to the true TOE we need to use three simultaneous answers to account for all possible and/or not possible occurences within everything and nothing.

I'm not suggesting that this (Pro theory) should or will serve any kind of practical purpose, such as being positive towards others might do, but what I am suggesting is that in pure abstract theory Pro theory is still the most ultimately accurate theory that there can be in my opinion (plus opposites plus neutral, just to cover myself here).

Basically, what I'm saying is that even though the concept of a TOE, Russell's Paradox etcetera, are ultimately useless and perhaps even meaningless in the ultimate stakes of the universe, in pure theory I still think that we should know exactly what is and is not possible regarding everything and therefore a TOE too.

I think that for the sake of clarity we should be aware that there are three possible and theoretical potentials within "everything" even though this serves no practical purpose in real life so to speak.

Intellectually, I just find this technical approach to the TOE interesting, after all, this place is called toequest isn't it and I came here to explore my own TOE and hopefully to get it recognised as a TOE, which I believe it is (plus the opposite plus neutral).

I really, really appreciate your positive attitude and positive approach towards this discussion, it's refreshing to meet someone that understands my own theory and explores it but is still postive too

PRO.

[protheory]

Why I think that Pro theory is a theory of everything

So why and how do I think that my theory is a better TOE than others on offer?

According to my theory there are three simultaneous possibilities, plus a theoretical opposite and neutral potential simultaneously, I know I've already stated this many times but I feel it warrants further explanation here for the sake of truth and clarity.

Although my theory cannot be singularly "proven" as right, wrong or neutral, I still believe that, in an everyday reality sense, it is a theory of literally everything.

The loop proposed by Pro theory proves itself, simply and accurately, and it seems to me that even though in pure theory the opposite to this statement is also possible plus neutral, in the interests of an ultimate and accepted theoretical framework for "everything" we can't really and truthfully get any more "accurate" so to speak.

I apologise if this seems contradictory but Pro theory's contradiction is also its proof, I really and honestly cannot see how we could manage to get a more "accurate" theory of everything, when my theory predicts all things and also all potential changes within itself.

It's a pity actually that I have to write this way because it doesn't exactly allow me to be open minded about the ideas of others even though I claim to be open minded and open to others.

The truth is that in real (non-TOE) life I am often the first one to say "oh dear, sorry about that, I was wrong" or "I am mistaken."

I have no problem accepting a more accurate answer than my own, and I think that for me to try and ignore the possibility for this occurence would be silly of me as my own theory proposes changes within itself.

It's only when it comes to the TOE and whether or not I've created it that I am like this, as in saying "I think that Pro theory is the most accurate theory of everything possible."

Also, I think that if and when a TOE is accepted by society at large (proven as true) that eventually it will retreat into the background of knowledge again somehow.

What I mean by this is that a TOE is great if you want to know about the ultimate accuracies or lack thereof within the universe but when it really comes down to real life and the need to make a decision, it might not be of any practical value.

Pro theory is saying only that when taken absolutely literally "everything" is a self proving loop of three possible potentials, so to speak.

It's simple

I think that once this idea has been accepted it won't necessarily mean the "end" of physics, or the end of philosophical enquiry, I only think that the TOE will serve as a kind of background knowledge.

I suppose I mean that equations are still going to be useful if you actually want to measure things, and words will still be just as important as they are now, the only difference that I would like to see is people being aware of the possibility for opposites and neutral potentials within "everything" when taken literally.

Obviously, the TOE (Pro theory or another) is an extremely interesting concept for those who are actually interested but in real life if we're faced with a question like "did you turn the oven off before you left the house?" it's not really any good saying "well, theoretically I did plus the opposite plus neutral."

Hopefully you guys can see the difference here, according to the literal possibilities of everything that last three pronged statement was "correct" with regards to the theory of everything but in real life it is only that...a theory...an idea...I see it as a theoretical framework but only for those purists that take things literally in their mind's eye.

Basically, I think that when we finally accept the TOE for what it truly is, we will be able to move onwards through practicality.

I mean here the difference between having a TOE in the theoretical and abstract sense as opposed to the equations that define the real capability for space travel, the difference is the practical reality and usability of each idea.

Now that hopefully I've explained my points more clearly, perhaps you will see that I mean no arrogance when I ask questions such as "Am I wrong?"

I ask such questions only to illustrate that there is a loop of three possible potentials, no other reason, I could have said "Am I right?" instead but at the time of writing I felt that the former would have more impact on the reader of my site.

My hope was to show that no matter what singular statement you were to make, such as "You are wrong" or whatever, this still leaves me with the chance to state the opposite and neutral points to this as well, thereby proving my previously stated three simultaneous points, again I must say 'so to speak' but this is just to cover myself.

I think that Pro theory is the most accurate TOE that can possibly be created, in an everyday sense, and I don't think anybody can "prove" a better and more "accurate" theory to be totally and intellectually honest.

As I say, I'm not holding anything back here, I'm sharing this idea with everybody, freely and happily, as I think that this is the TOE, I try to live a positive life towards others at all times, and every day I try to improve on any negative energy I find within myself, but this is still a self proving loop of a TOE in my opinion, like it or not or neutral ad infinitum.

I really don't like writing like this but as I feel that I've written the TOE I feel duty bound in a sense to say so.

I hope you understand me as fellow humans here, peace and love to all is my intention, not self effacing pride or achievement (TOE).

Thanks again for your time.

PRO

[protheory]

I apologise here in advance for my comments but I make them in the literal (non-egotistical) interests of truth and knowledge, not from some kind of personal "I'm singularly correct" view on my part.

What I'm wanting to say is this...

I am totally willing to challenge anybody, any physicist, philosopher, thinker or otherwise, to a TOE competition.

I mean literally anybody, I would like to challenge them to "prove" a more "accurate" TOE than my own idea of three potentials looping plus the opposite plus neutral.

I'm scared that by saying this I might offend people and so I've been holding back until now to be honest but now I am saying "I challenge you...bring on your best" and we'll debate whether or not Pro theory is or can possibly be a/the true theory of everything.

Like I say, it's not that I think I'm singularly "correct" when speaking in ultimate and literal theory, but I cannot understand how much more "accurate" anybody could possibly or not possibly be regarding the TOE.

I don't know what to do here really, I want to be positive, polite, and sensitive towards all others, I want to praise the ideas of others too, but when it comes to the true TOE in an everyday sense, I think that Pro theory is it, I really do.

I don't think that anybody can "write" or "imagine" or "create" a "better" theory of "everything" though I admit that I often wish this wasn't the case.

Pro theory causes me constant guilt, particularly here, as I feel like I must write this way about it, my only solace is the fact that I'm being totally open and honest about it for the common good of all humans.

I suppose it's not like I'm saying "I've written the true TOE but I won't tell you..."

Or "you're definitely wrong but I'll explain why later..."

All I'm saying here is that I'm as "confused" as anybody else, I've had this vision of everything and I don't know what to do about it.

At the current moment in my life I can only hope that you guys will see my openness and purely positive intentions towards the TOE, I only called my idea Pro theory as "Pro" has been my nickname for a long time and I needed a name to call my idea, no other reason.

I have also said before that I never meant to write a TOE either, I didn't think it was possible, nor did I consider the fact that I might stumble upon it myself, I just couldn't stop thinking about things and eventually I discovered what became known to me as Pro theory and www.protheory.com

I don't really know what path to take with this now, I understand positivity as the nucleus of the human soul (in an everyday sense) and this is wonderful, truly wonderful, but yet I need to get this out of my own head and into public awareness for my own good as it's driving me mad...but it also isn't plus neutral...ad infinitum...you see what I mean here, I think this is a TOE and I don't know what to do about it

Thanks for your time again everybody, I really appreciate it.

PRO

[protheory]

Originally Posted by lodestar

Yes that is a very good question. What are we to make of consistent contradiction? Is it consistent, or is it contradictory, or is it both? Or is it simply what we choose?

The answer, my friend, essentially lies in your last statement, "thank you for the positive post." In other words, we should always choose the most positive of all possible solutions. In other words, by giving us a consistent contradiction, the reality of everything is essentially forcing us to choose, whether we want to be optimists, or whether we want to be pessimists.

Of course, our language has already answered this question of whether we want to be optimists or pessimists. You see, in the english language we say that the arrow of time moves in a "positive" direction. Now it is no coincidence that the word "positive" also means good. So by saying that the direction which our time moves in is the POSITIVE direction, we have already affirmed that we are optimists, for it is the positive side of reality which we have named ours.

So now imagine it this way. According to the irony of truth, the truth is both true and false. So a pessimist will tell you "even though the truth is true it is still false!" Whereas an optimist will tell you "even though the truth is false it is still true!" You see both the pessimist and the optimist will be right in a technical sense, but only the optimist is looking at the "right" side of the equation, the side which leads to happiness.

So do you get it? Whenever we reach a realization of the irony of truth, it is like our spirits are being tested. We simply employ optimism in order for us to stress what is most important to us. Truth or false? Positive or negative? We consider that positive is good, negative is bad, truth is right, and false is wrong. That is how we arrive at our answer.

So to apply this to your theory, your theory proposes right and wrong answers. Now just because one of the answers is wrong does not mean that it is not technically right, just that we consider that it is not as meaningful to us as the answer which gives us meaning. So we select our answer in order to be in line with our optimistic spirits and to stress what is most meaningful. For it is our optimistic spirits that decided in the first place that we live on the positive side of the number circle, not the negative side.

Hopefully you will find this is as beautiful and enigmatically profound as I have seen it to be. It is the principle of optimism.

So according to the principle of optimism, your theory is correct, not false or neutral. Actually it is all three, but we can freely choose. Come to think of it, it is a lot like the Axiom of Choice.

So as far as my choice is concerned, I will follow the principle of optimism, and always choose the smiley face

kudos

Lodestar, this post has had a really profound effect on me which is why I've not replied until now.

It seems to me that we are very alike in our human views about positivity and the choice we all make deep within ourselves.

And I can definitely say in reply to you that "yes, I absolutely do find this is as beautiful and enigmatically profound as you have seen it to be."

Well said.

[lodestar]

With all due respect I have got to say this about your theory PRO, and I think you will agree with me, that your theory is wrong. Your theory is right, and your theory is neutral, but your theory is also wrong. You will also agree with me.

As a theory of anything your theory can be neutral, and as a theory of nothing your theory can be right, but as a theory of everything it is wrong. The reason your theory is wrong as a theory of everything is because the theory of everything is always right, not wrong, even in theory. That is the definition of the theory of everything!

Now you will both agree and disagree with me on this definition. I know that your agreement is the only thing that is meaningful however. For if this were not true, then time itself would flow backwards. Right?

-1/0

[protheory]

Originally Posted by lodestar

With all due respect I have got to say this about your theory PRO, and I think you will agree with me, that your theory is wrong. Your theory is right, and your theory is neutral, but your theory is also wrong. You will also agree with me.

Hi Lodestar, I don't mind at all that you think I'm wrong, that's fine with me, I put Pro theory online for all opinions to be explored, right, wrong and neutral.

No worries

As a theory of anything your theory can be neutral, and as a theory of nothing your theory can be right, but as a theory of everything it is wrong. The reason your theory is wrong as a theory of everything is because the theory of everything is always right, not wrong, even in theory. That is the definition of the theory of everything!

I understand what you mean here I think, and I think that the only real difference between us is that we have different definitions of both "everything" and the "theory of everything."

My own concept of both everything and the TOE is that by definition the true TOE should answer and explain all three things within the universe, and my idea of everything includes anything, nothing and also everything within itself, or at least this is how I intend it to be.

Now you will both agree and disagree with me on this definition. I know that your agreement is the only thing that is meaningful however. For if this were not true, then time itself would flow backwards. Right?

-1/0

LOl, you're right that I both agree and disagree with you here, but I also claim a neutral potential too, I totally understand that we need to make a choice in life and knowledge, be it positive or other, but I think personally that before we make that singular choice we need to understand the true TOE first as it stands, namely we need to understand the three potentials within all things.

Once we understand the possibilities of what I mean when I say "everything" I think we can move on and choose the most likely outcome of an equation for example, or the best way to live our lives, but I only advocate such an approach after the fact of the TOE.

I suppose that what I'm saying is that we should try to prove (as such) and explain everything through the true TOE first, then later on we can make the informed choice between the three potentials.

I have been writing some general points about Pro theory and so I will post some soon and try to explain my idea further.

I really appreciate your compliments and feedback towards me in this and other threads, thanks very much, it means a lot to me that someone actually sees what I see without just saying "well you can't say that..." as so many others have said to me in the past when I approached them with this concept.

Thanks.

PRO

[protheory]

This is just a rambling post about Pro theory in general

Practical implications

The practical implications of my theory may not seem particularly important to you, as it does not actually appear to answer anything under the disguise of definite fact.

I must argue that this is not the point.

Why did I write Pro theory?
By constructing this theory I hope to lay the foundations for the future of human knowledge and its progression into a new era of understanding.

Cliché as this may seem, it is the truth.

Time
I think it is about time that we were literal and honest about the universe and the whole process of change.

Everything
Everything is opposites and neutral.

All "details" are relative.

Example
1. Man and woman create a baby which is either male, female, or a combination of both.

2. Every answer is false, true, or not relevant.

3. I can claim the opposite and neutral point between for everything I have just typed.

Ultimate accuracy
This is the most accurate description of "everything" that can be realistically achieved.

Apologies
I must apologise for my writing style.

I write this way because, as I have often stated, there is no point creating a theory of everything that doesn't work.

Everything must be answered
I must answer everything at all times to be totally and pedantically accurate.

Opposite plus neutral
This is why I write all the "plus the opposite plus neutral" stuff.

Absurd as it may seem, I consider it absolutely necessary.

No compromises
I will not compromise absolute and unobstructed accuracy for the sake of trying to "make sense" or to write "correctly."

A note about words
I have written these words to describe what I see in my mind.

These "words" should not be regarded as unchanging or in any way complete as a description of my theory.

Words cannot talk
Words cannot talk back to you.

Once written, they cannot change.

Remember...

My theory is not words, it is merely described by them.



EDIT - I'm sorry I'm not seeming to make much sense at the current moment, I'm just finding it really difficult to put this idea into words