__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
I like your theory but BELIEVE my An Idea is correct.
It does come down to getting the semantics here, Pat. There are largely overlapping aspects to theory and belief, so I understand where you are coming from, but they are not identical. The difference is quite important, and once you see it, it is obvious.
That for which there are no facts and no evidence, that can then not be used to create a theory. Theories start out with facts and actual information, but the overall perspective a theory delivers (which may be about something tiny) is itself not proven.
The easiest example to showcase a clear difference is that science does not have god in its dictionary, because god is not an entity for which there are any specifically distinguishing facts that could support knowledge about the entity, except for the overall everything there is. There are no specific facts that can help us distinguish whether there is or whether there is not a god, nor can we state anything in detail about god. I hope I do not come across as too blase, but god is not to be known, god is to be understood (to the extent possible).
In science, the largest entity/structure is the universe. In religion, the largest entity can be god or gods (or in Buddhism, understanding what the overarching principle is that guides all).
The easiest way to distinguish between religion and science (and therefore between belief and theory) is that there can be quite some wiggle room between the hearts of the various religions' matter (for instance: no god, one god, multiple gods), while in science there is no wiggle room between the facts (the Planck constant is accepted by all scientists, and it is a fundamental aspect of science).
Starting with those two different positions, beliefs and theories come about. There may be overlap (even to a very large extent), but their fundamentals are different.
Now, you for yourself may decide to combine both ways of delivering information as them being one and the same way, Pat, but then you are taking a step that confuses the matter, not clarifies the matter. I think it is inappropriate to muddy this distinction when trying to come to a scientific ToE.
Of course, thank you for liking my theory, Pat. I like your theory/belief, too. But if we cannot communicate about the fundamentals, we cannot get the essence above water. I do think your An Idea is (also) a belief, because I think it is (partially) based on the aspects of singularity and trinity for which there can be no evidence. On the other hand, I know my theory is not a belief, but only a theory. I am waiting for people to embrace it as true or debunk it. if people don't look at the basics in math I use as the reason to provide the pentaist ToE, then I don't have any communications about it. So far, I have had very few people look, and even fewer giving feedback about it, and none stating anything that supports or debunks the information (and therefore the theory). As said, mathematicians are experts and specialists in their fields, and not many want to look at the simple and very basic material I provide.
In a belief, one embraces the belief or not. When facts come about, the belief must shift to at least embrace the facts. In science, a theory is based on prior knowledge, and it stands until facts come about that either says it is correct or says that it is incorrect. If it is correct, the theory becomes knowledge (ceases to be a theory). If it is incorrect, the theory becomes junk. Naturally, a new theory may come about based on the new information, but that would be a new theory. The old theory is gone.
There are many similarities between belief and theory, only a few but important distinctions. Here is the math information: http://www.pentapublishing.com/Math.html
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
I have not considered the concept of 'space' to be important. The idea that it might be necessary to explain it never occured to me. To me it's just the 'space' which is occupied by the real world. The mechanism for this (IMHO) is the aether by whatever name you want to call it and my description of this is quite detailed. I would not wish to confuse the concept of space, which is empty, with the structure which it contains which is responsible for our existence. Einstein et al do appear to want to attribute a structure to space itself but I consider this to be a misconception.
By definition a TOE should be singular but that does not mean that it has all to fit into one neat equation. The underlying structure (the paradigm) should be a package in that it should be able to explain all known phenomena (eventually) but the detailed explanations, of which the equations form part, will be plural as each aspect of reality is explained within this overall context.
Hi Felix and Max (just making sure I cover the bases here),
With my mathematical evidence in hand that zero is always part of a mathematical system (be it binary, decimal, or other), I stake the claim that there is always 'a nothing,' be it a framework, an abstraction, a disconnection, or a location that is empty in any overall picture. That means, we can always come to a singular theory, that itself does not just contain a singular aspect, like the singular familyautomatically contains more than one person. Such 'a nothing' is therefore part of the whole picture.
Even when looking at the universe, there is such a thing as 'a nothing.' And whether we call that space (the empty entity that includes the ether or just all matter and energy) or we call it the context of the universe as a region of space which unfolded in a no longer as such existing location that originally did not have a universe, it does not matter; we cannot have the whole without a hole — there has to be a fundamental disconnection somewhere. We either have a single framework in which we can find a spot for 'a nothing' (such as with an abstraction that covers multiple parts that themselves are not a single one, i.e. there is a disconnection visible at the actual level) or we work with a complexity of frameworks (such as Space & Time) that automatically is more than one framework and these frameworks therefore having also some form of disconnection incorporated.
In as far as a belief fits in our language: if you wish, one can say that a belief is also binary, with a 1 and a 0, but on close examination the 0 is then considered as fully insignificant (such as Pat's void outside everything). Within math, the binary system has 0 and 1 as the only ingredients that are used over and over again to deliver any information. In math, the 0 is an actual position, not insignificant but valuable — even without any value.
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Now I am confused, so maybe you could answer the following, which I believe to be theories, which people either believe or do not believe.
Big bang theory - Theory or belief String theory - Theory or belief Evolution theory - Theory or belief Multiuniverse theory - Theory or belief
Again to me the above are THEORIES that you either believe or don't believe, or have no opinion on. What you BELIEVE or DON'T BELIEVE doesn't make the theory correct or incorrect. The theory may be correct, incorrect or partially correct.
I'm sorry if you think I'm mudding the waters, but if you look, the real waters are not that clear.
It is my belief that scientist have the same degree of FAITH that theist have only in different matters.
Remember Einstein didn't believe that God would play dice with the universe, and did not originally believe in the big bang theory.
Again remember most people thought the Earth was flat because that is the way the evidence pointed to. They had FAITH that it was flat.
Indeed you have FAITH that the universe actually exist when many philosophers and mathematicians could prove through logic that it doesn't.
Albert Einstein has stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
Karl Popper concluded that "most mathematical theories are, like those of physics and biology, hypothetico-deductive: pure mathematics therefore turns out to be much closer to the natural sciences whose hypotheses are conjectures, than it seemed even recently."
...science does not have god in its dictionary, because god is not an entity for which there are any specifically distinguishing facts that could support knowledge about the entity...
This is true, but that is because "science" ignores the facts available on the subject. It is a fact that evidence of ritual use of hallucinogenic fungi exists for nearly every organized religion on the planet. It is a fact that today's users of those same fungi report religious experience, including the meeting of entities that certainly fit the traditional image of gods. Just a couple of examples of facts that seem to warrant some kind of theory. Here we have a phenomenon(religion) that has seriously altered history, with evidence that it could be caused by ingestion of plants that affect consciousness directly, and nobody has the time nor inclination to look into it? Time to update that dictionary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrick
The easiest way to distinguish between religion and science (and therefore between belief and theory)...
So, it is your belief that religion is bogus and science sincere, if not entirely accurate.
In a perfect world, science would be driven by facts and theories, but in reality it is money behind the wheel with politics riding shotgun.
What is easier to believe. That somehow we got something from nothing, ( or near nothing ) and everything somehow came into being, from galaxies and clusters of galaxies, to the complexities of life forms that are somhow aware of their existence, and the beautiful diversities of life forms from whales to viruses and bacteria, ALL FROM A TINY, TINY POINT, with no explanation for this miracle.
What is easier to believe. That somehow we got something from nothing, ( or near nothing ) and everything somehow came into being, from galaxies and clusters of galaxies, to the complexities of life forms that are somhow aware of their existence, and the beautiful diversities of life forms from whales to viruses and bacteria, ALL FROM A TINY, TINY POINT, with no explanation for this miracle.
OR THERE IS A GOD !!!
For me the belief is simple and very logical:
THERE IS A GOD !!!
This is my T.O.G. ( Theory of God )
Best to all,
Pat
Yes indeed. If science has it so all together, howcome 80% of the world still hangs on to their traditional religious beliefs? Where has science gone wrong? This is one place... where religion sounds more logical than science.
Outside the context of "science", the big bang makes less sense than creationism. Is it easier to believe the earth was created in a week, or the whole universe in a nanosecond? Which is the greater leap of faith?
On the other hand, the term "god" carries so much baggage that it makes it difficult to discuss at all.
Linear Mode
