protheory.com

[protheory]

Hi everybody, I introduced myself as PRO yesterday and I must say that I am very pleased to have finally found a place to share my own ideas about the TOE and all related theories.

I would greatly appreciate any feedback you care to give

www.protheory.com A theory of everything?

Thanks.

PRO.

[protheory]

For those willing, an introduction to Pro theory.

Introduction
This is not political.
This is not religious.
This is not a conspiracy theory.

Everything
Pro theory is a literal theory of everything.

Nothing
Nothing more and nothing less.

Answer
A theory that can answer and explain literally everything.

Society
From society to socks, trees to tennis, books to basket balls.

Instantly
A theory of everything must instantly prove the accuracy of itself and all other theories.

Trust
The truth.
The whole truth.
And nothing but the truth.

Pro Theory
All that be is 123.
1. Negative.
2. Positive.
3. Neutral.
Simultaneously.

Am I wrong?
I simultaneously oppose, agree with, and neutralise all criticism ad infinitum.

My point is literal.

There is no point creating a theory of everything that doesn't work.

Predict
I predict that you will like this theory, not like this theory, or are unsure what to think.

Accepted
The accepted view of the universe is that everything is
made of atoms.

Atoms explained
1. Electrons are negative.
2. Protons are positive.
3. Neutrons are neutral.

Sub-atomic
Sub-atomic level is a fractional version of the same principle.

Literally
When we take the concept of literally everything to a logical conclusion, we are faced with a loop of three simultaneous potentials, like it or not or neutral.

Search
All we need to do is search for falsity.

PRO ANSWERS

[dleviwing]

Protheory;
With about 30 more years of studying physics while attempting to answer your own questions, you may become aware of the more simplistic nature of the universe. For the most part you are asking the right questions but are providing yourself with the wrong answers. So; “are you wrong?” ---- YES.

[protheory]

Protheory;
With about 30 more years of studying physics while attempting to answer your own questions, you may become aware of the more simplistic nature of the universe. For the most part you are asking the right questions but are providing yourself with the wrong answers. So; “are you wrong?” ---- YES.

Hi David, my name is PRO, pleased to meet you

If it's your opinion that I'm "wrong" then please could you elaborate for me.

It seems to me that if you think I'm wrong, then you could at least explain why you think I'm "wrong" or somehow "inaccurate."

As I stated on my site...

Am I wrong?
I simultaneously oppose, agree with, and neutralise all criticism ad infinitum.

My point is literal.

There is no point creating a theory of everything that doesn't work.

I would like more information regarding how you think that my three simultaneous answers are somehow "wrong" which is singular, so to speak.

I would also like you to "prove" all of the other essays on my site "wrong" too please.

Here's the link to my other essays http://www.protheory.com/Pro%20Answers.htm

I look forward to hearing from you.

PRO

[dleviwing]

Hi Pro;
It may be more appropriate for you to review the threads of other members seeking answers to the same questions you have presented. Other than myself, I would recommend reviewing threads started by: Lloyd Gillespie, tony_fleming, Fredrick, wisp, Volantis, humanbydefault, baudrunner, David Maes, and many other members. You are not alone in your quest for answers and I think you may find that many members have done much of the work already.
By clicking on the members name and then selecting members profile, you can then select "Find all threads started by member".

If you review these three, you may understand why I say “you are wrong”. You may wish to improve your comprehension of scientific terminology also.
http://www.toequest.com/forum/general-phenomena/786-philosophy-attributes-ether-3.html
http://www.toequest.com/forum/general-phenomena/908-dimensions-entities.html
http://www.toequest.com/forum/forces-nature/1329-absolute-fundamentals-3.html

[protheory]

Am I wrong?

If somebody says to me "you are wrong" I say "theoretically I am wrong, right, and neutral simultaneously."

If that person says "I don't understand" I say "well, theoretically you do understand, don't understand, and neutral simultaneously."

If we take this extreme logic and apply it to "everything" we get three simultaneous potentials but we also don't plus neutral...and on and on.

Pro theory is a thought experiment first and foremost, I wrote it to be able to provide an answer to everything without exception, a TOE must never "fail."

The experiment came about when I questioned the ultimate validity (potential for change) of the concept of all relative (to human existence and consciousness) "definition" such as words, quantity, form, energy etc.

I was thinking of the old "what if there were no humans and no consciousness to behold everything, what would there be then?" argument which I feel must also be considered here.


Debate

Imagine a debate between myself and another person.

The person says "what does Pro theory have to say now that we've removed consciousness and we literally have nothing, absolutely nothing?"

I say "well, theoretically there is the possibility that there is nothing, something, and a neutral potential also."

The person says "well now I've got you on a technicality, for if there is literally 'nothing' then how can you possibly say that there is the theoretical potential for something, even in abstract theory?"

I say "I can state the three potentials of nothing, I cannot state the three potentials of nothing, plus neutral."

The person says "but you can't say that, we're talking about NOTHING here, so you can't say that there is the chance for something within NOTHING."

I say "well, theoretically I can say that, not say that, and neutral simultaneously."

The person says "but that's ridiculous, you can't possibly be so delusional as to believe that anybody would actually ACCEPT this as a TOE.

I say "well, it may be accepted as a TOE, it may not, plus neutral simultaneously."

Am I singularly and unchangingly right, wrong or neutral?


Talking Normally

All I'm saying is that if you want to get really, really, really literal and technical about the TOE, everything has three simultaneous potentials plus the opposite plus neutral.

Like it, or not, or neutral, this is how it is (but it also isn't plus neutral).

I apologise for my childish style of illustration here but to be understood Pro theory must be taken literally with no holds barred (plus the opposite plus neutral).

Whatever anybody says or states, I will ask them about the opposite and neutral potentials within their answer or statement, be it a TOE or otherwise.


My Site

I never wanted to write a TOE and to be quite honest I never knew what a TOE was.

I kept thinking and thinking, studying and studying, and eventually I came to the singular conclusion that "everything" was made of "atoms."

I then imagined all possible answers to my singular statement, both past and future, and I realised that in pure theory "atoms" (at least how I imagined them at the time) were composed of positive, negative, and neutral energy somehow.

I didn't take me too long to imagine that due to the three possible potentials "everything" was highly likely to follow the same pattern of formation.

At this stage in my quest I was still holding on to singularity, such as the idea of "atoms" and their "construction" of "the universe" and everything within it, you know, the usual view of the concept of a TOE at the beginning of your enlightenment.

Eventually I abandoned singularity as unchanging and applied three simultaneous potentials to "everything" without exception, all physics, paradoxes, mathematical conjectures...literally everything, past, present, and future.

I wrote my site as an introduction to this concept, simply and openly, I'm not holding anything back, I'm totally willing to share what I know with everybody.

I'm only worried that somehow I'll come across as a "know-it-all" newbie who singularly thinks he's written the TOE and will stop at nothing to prove his point, which isn't quite my actual intention nor the truth as it implies a singular assumption on my part.

This is extremely difficult for me to express in words but I hope this clarifies my stance with regards to the TOE and my own theory.

I have more to say but I need to think further about how to explain clearly in words what I see in my mind


The Crux

Summing up my points here, all I'm saying is that in pure theory there will always be the theoretical potential for three answers and/or potentials.

It's extremely simple, three simultaneous potentials, and Pro theory is a thought experiment, an exploration of pure technicalities, rather than a theory that might serve much practical everyday purpose.

Pro theory is a theory that covers the absolute and fundamental potentials of everything, it doesn't mean for example that I meet people and introduce myself thus "my name is Pro, not Pro, and neutral, pleased to meet you."

I could do this in theory if I wanted to be totally and literally "accurate" but obviously I don't need this level of accuracy in everyday conversation.

When it comes to physics and the TOE though, I do use this approach to illustrate the possible potentials, I think that we should be aware of this concept and try to realise that whatever we say or do there are two other possible potentials also, without exception so to speak.


Essays

The essays I have written on my site http://www.protheory.com/Pro%20Answers.htm are just to show how literally this idea can be taken, and to show exactly why there are no exceptions.

The same three simultaneous potentials apply to literally "everything" and the essays on my site are just to introduce you to the concept.


Accuracy

Pro theory is about the literal technicalities of "everything" and therefore the TOE also.

The "proof" of Pro theory comes when anybody states anything singular, on a pure technicality it is always theoretically possible to imagine an opposite and neutral point for any singular thing.

If you doubt this important point then try and prove me as singularly wrong.


Beauty

The beauty of my theory for me personally is that it keeps me humble for I may never unchangingly state "I have written the true TOE" as this statement does not acknowledge the theoretical opposite and neutral potential within everything.

I'm sorry if this seems confusing but I'm just trying to communicate it the best way I can.

Thanks.

PRO

[protheory]

Hi Pro;
It may be more appropriate for you to review the threads of other members seeking answers to the same questions you have presented. Other than myself, I would recommend reviewing threads started by: Lloyd Gillespie, tony_fleming, Fredrick, wisp, Volantis, humanbydefault, baudrunner, David Maes, and many other members. You are not alone in your quest for answers and I think you may find that many members have done much of the work already.
By clicking on the members name and then selecting members profile, you can then select "Find all threads started by member".

If you review these three, you may understand why I say “you are wrong”. You may wish to improve your comprehension of scientific terminology also.
http://www.toequest.com/forum/general-phenomena/786-philosophy-attributes-ether-3.html
http://www.toequest.com/forum/general-phenomena/908-dimensions-entities.html
http://www.toequest.com/forum/forces-nature/1329-absolute-fundamentals-3.html

Hi David, thanks for the information

I've read a few pages of each thread listed above and I'm just starting to explore the board now gradually.

I've never met so many like minded people in one place before and as I'm used to thinking about Pro theory and the concept of a TOE by myself.

I plan to read as much of this board as possible but this will take me some time I imagine so I will get back to you on any topics of interest that I find

And I am also sorry that my knowledge of scientific terminology isn't quite up to scratch too, I try to avoid too much relative description personally with regards to the TOE as I feel that it can confuse things.

I continue to learn and study though so hopefully my general knowledge will increase over time as I browse the board.

I appreciate your time and the patience you have shown me, I realise that I am new here and it's great to be able to have an intelligent discussion about the TOE

I have posted another rambling Pro theory page above for you to read, I find it very difficult to express my thoughts in words but hopefully it will illustrate my stance more clearly.

PRO

[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.

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.

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, then either the theory or the rule is wrong.

[lodestar]

To me your theory rings true Pro because it is an infinite contradiction. Imagine this, contradiction never contradicts itself, so contradiction is always consistent, which in itself is a contradiction, that is consistent, which in itself is a contradiction, that is consistent, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. This is exactly like the incompleteness theorem which states COMPLETELY that you cannot have a complete theory unless it contradicts itself. Thus the theory is consistent via it's own rule of contradiction. It actually reminds me a lot of my theory, which is the theory of 1/0, the theory of everything.

Now I don't mean to sound high-minded, although I was probably high, but the theory of 1/0 is not really a theory. It is both true and false. True and false. Aha, another infinitely consistent contradiction! It's like the most awfully beautiful, prettiest ugliest thing you have ever seen, and it is the irony of truth. It's the irony of the truth that is the theory, or rather the reality, of everything and nothing which you describe in your theory. It's both positive and negative simultaneously. It's the limitless limit, the timelessness of time. It is 1/0.

Now you may think that an infinitely ironic, awful beautiful, consistently contradictory thing like the reality of everything, the irony of true paradox, would not be able to predict anything. And so the surprising irony arises again, that we can use it to predict everything. Literally, you can use irony to predict EVERYTHING!

Everything will come to be in time. THe moment of eternity is reached when the smallest distance expands at the greatest speed. You see? There! I just accurately predicted everything. That's how you do it.

You did a good job w/ your theory pro. Consider this, your statements of true, neutral, and false are similar to the numbers 1/0, 0/0, and 0 respectively. These are everything, anything, and nothing respectively. What do you think?

[protheory]

To me your theory rings true Pro because it is an infinite contradiction. Imagine this, contradiction never contradicts itself, so contradiction is always consistent, which in itself is a contradiction, that is consistent, which in itself is a contradiction, that is consistent, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. This is exactly like the incompleteness theorem which states COMPLETELY that you cannot have a complete theory unless it contradicts itself. Thus the theory is consistent via it's own rule of contradiction. It actually reminds me a lot of my theory, which is the theory of 1/0, the theory of everything.

Now I don't mean to sound high-minded, although I was probably high, but the theory of 1/0 is not really a theory. It is both true and false. True and false. Aha, another infinitely consistent contradiction! It's like the most awfully beautiful, prettiest ugliest thing you have ever seen, and it is the irony of truth. It's the irony of the truth that is the theory, or rather the reality, of everything and nothing which you describe in your theory. It's both positive and negative simultaneously. It's the limitless limit, the timelessness of time. It is 1/0.

Now you may think that an infinitely ironic, awful beautiful, consistently contradictory thing like the reality of everything, the irony of true paradox, would not be able to predict anything. And so the surprising irony arises again, that we can use it to predict everything. Literally, you can use irony to predict EVERYTHING!

Everything will come to be in time. THe moment of eternity is reached when the smallest distance expands at the greatest speed. You see? There! I just accurately predicted everything. That's how you do it.

You did a good job w/ your theory pro. Consider this, your statements of true, neutral, and false are similar to the numbers 1/0, 0/0, and 0 respectively. These are everything, anything, and nothing respectively. What do you think?

Hi Lodestar, pleased to meet you

You seem to have grasped my points perfectly, so to speak

Your post has really made my day

What I think about your question is that my three potentials are indeed similar to your three amounts, but then again they're also not plus neutral.

I didn't think you were being high minded either, not at all, I worry that I will be seen as the same here too as I'm new and I have a new theory.

Like you say, and I couldn't really put it better myself, the idea of Pro theory never contradicts itself but it also simultaneously does plus neutral ad infinitum...and on and on and on...

In the past I have described my theory as "a self proving loop" for illustrative purposes and I think that when it really comes down to it, how much more "accurate" could we possibly (or not possibly) be...ever?

The answer to this question when using Pro theory is that theoretically we can be more accurate, we cannot plus neutral simultaneously so where do we go from a self proving loop that predicts everything, nothing, and neutral all at once?

Is this a TOE?

Again, according to the theory itself there are three potential answers to this question in theory, so now what do we do?

Something plus nothing plus neutral?

Is this a TOE?

Can we presume or invent a better "theory" of everything?

1.
2.
3.


Thanks again for your positive post.

PRO