An Idea

[austintorn@aol.com]

Prof,

The sun is actually already an exploding hydrogen bomb that has about 5 billion years and one day of exploding yet to come, according to my very accurate scientific predictions.

Sometimes, after many rainy days, the sun appears and I say "What the heck is that bright thing in the sky, a nuclear furnace?"

[Fredrick]

Fredrick;

I have no intentions of attempting to undermine your theory or any ones theory for that matter. I am only sharing some thoughts and quotes with you and others as I see fit.
Please don't take it personal, because it wasn't meant that way.

Best,

Pat

Thanks, Pat, for a friendly reminder. But no offense taken; I truly enjoy receiving feedback that tries to come closer to what the pentaist ToE in a scientific reality delivers. I have been craving this for years. And that's also why I was trying to provide a guideline for you guys on how to come closer and either agree or deliver information why you disagree with what you see. I actually do not dislike the general information, but the value of general information only goes that far.

I believe once you and Jim can let go of the demand to have unification within science that you can then indeed see that there is a pyramid of positions. And that this set of positions exist in everything, even in our communications (much like Jim already mentioned he observed throughout his life time).

I claim that the concept of positions is applicable to every overall delivery, except for religion in which so much freedom is available to the extent one can always disagree on every fundamental aspect (that's why science is easier to navigate, for it must function within its parameters).

I have no qualms if science is limited, but within this package of gathering and viewing information, a concept of positioning can be found.

I know it bumps into your singular-dual-and-trinity delivery, Pat, but I believe that's mainly the case because your delivery includes the religious options, where mine does not. If you take the religious positions out of your delivery, you pretty much end up with my concept of positions.

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick;

I too feel your frustration, wishing for confirmation or even rejection, some form of feedback, regarding my theory by capable theoritical physicists.

They say waiting is the hardest part. That and uncertainty are my nemesis. I have a feeling, that all of us who have a theory, share in the same frustration.

Best,

Pat

[insomniac]

Howdy Fredrick,

Gees, i'm not trying to undermine your theory, how can i without getting it?

Mathematics is not my strong suit. Hell, it took me a decade to get a grasp on Bateson's Information Theory. I understand that if you are going to get your theory even looked at, it has to be in the scientific context. If it contains too much outside the current paradigm it won't get much attention.

So, i'm content to listen and learn. Sorry if i've added to your frustration. The best of luck, or whatever, on your efforts.

cheers,
jim

[Fredrick]

Thank you, guys, for very nice answers, but I would say that communicating about ideas on ToeQuest is already taking some of my frustration away. To have a scientific community listen to my delivery, or yours, Pat, always starts out with having someone to talk to, not necessarily an entire community at once; just a few people here at ToeQuest is already doing the trick. So, don't be afraid to communicate, I already appreciate it!

Yet that also means I consider our ToeQuest platform an important platform, because here we get to learn about communicating ideas, here we can ping our ideas onto each other, and discover how easy or hard they are to capture/deliver. I hope you don't mind my taking communication seriously therefore.


The pentaist pyramid is built up quite easily, Jim. When there are basically two streams of options -singularity and duality- then the pyramid is the outcome of these two almost-impossible-to-combine options. To make dualism and singularity compatible with each other in a single field is only possible at the overall level that includes everything. Each has a particular view on everything, and we can therefore only expect specific information from that overall level where both fit. Here we go:

In dualism, we end up having four parts to get the 'everything' of dualism. When starting out with A and B, then the outcomes of these two are: AA, AB, BA, and BB. As you can imagine, there is probably already space to quarrel about the real difference between AB and BA sometimes, but from a structural conceptual perspective these two do also exist as such.

To bring monism up to the overall level, we do not have to do anything; it is already there.

If you wish, we can change monism into 1 and dualism into 2, and then each of their squares delivers the overall outcome of everything from that specific perspective. 1 x 1 = 1, so that is easy. 2 x 2 = 4 (okay, also easy). Twice we find the full overall perspective, and together they are a pyramid.

Again, it is important to notice that the pyramid only exists for that overall level. It does deliver specific information about positions, but only from that overall level. As soon as we delve into other specific information, the view whether there is a monist or a dualist reality behind these positions will make finding the truth truly difficult. A limitation exists therefore what we can use the pyramid for: we can only use the pyramid for overall perspectives.

The four bases are grounded bases, but the single spot in top (though based on the four bases) hangs in the air. A generalization that fits in top as a singular entity is something that indeed is singular, but at the same time it is only singular when removed somewhat from the grounded bases.


Let's use an example, because that can clear things up quickly:
A nuclear family, of four human beings of father, mother, daughter and son already do the trick. They can be placed at the four bases and we can have 'family' or 'human beings' in top. The top position of human being is and is not real. We all know what is meant with the word, yet when asking about the human being in specifics, we have to use an answer from the bottom of the pyramid. The general information can reside singular in top, but the specific information resides at the bottom.

If we take the word child, then we can see how AB and BA are both the same, though in this case we are actually creating a top position on top of two specific positions (daughter and son), or we are using a position that exists in a duality with parent, and not in opposition to father and mother. I know this is silly linguistical stuff, but read on for it has major implications.

Your remark, Jim, that the delivery needs to be as scientific as possible for others to even pay any attention, is well understood. Yet at the same time, it is important to understand that scientists must also use language as a communication tool, so if a complexity exists within language that affects the scientific outcome, it must be addressed. As you also said, that a theory of everything must encompass everything, that remark already makes it impossible to come to a meaningful ToE as such, because we always have general language and specific language that do not function the same way. To have a general delivery and expect a specific outcome is truly tricky from a linguistic perspective. The linguistic perspective is fully valid while scientists are not expecting it to be important at all; it is not on their radar screen. Language resides inside our head, though it provides tools (words) for the outside world. The source of confusing science in the search for everything starts out with language.

That's a lot of information, so let me stop here and wait what particular questions you have, Jim. But I bet that if you get the hang of it, you can see how your own words fit in it quite nicely, and that you yourself already appear to have created a pentaist pyramid as the final delivery with all its specific abilities and shortcomings, without you even knowing it was called that way.

I wouldn't mind, Pat, if you use what is after all your own thread for describing your delivery again here, so we can set them side by side, and possibly even see why they are different in light of one incorporating the positions allowed in beliefs and the other delivery not incorporating the options of beliefs. I bet together, they make a lot of sense.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The Big TOE



'Nothing' had a big opposition with 'potentially something',
but 'nothing' could not be.

All things appeared, in potential,
many workable, many flopping,
one path leading on up to consciousness evolving,
which then actualized our universe into being.

QED

[dipayankar]

Thats the beauty of science. Dictatorship or dictates are not accepted. Only proven (or can be proven) laws are accepted.

Exactly my point! It also leaves out all the "nonsense" of anything else that doesn't come in measurable chunks.

The real problem is that the scientific community lacks overall consistency. When something comes along, a theory or fact, that doesn't fit in with the overall paradigm, like quantum mechanics or systems theory or homeopathic medicine or gaia theory or biocommunication, it is assigned a new discipline, given a new language(jargonized) and further developed in relative isolation. So, although the new discovery casts doubt on the old system, that "fact" is effectively concealed. A great debate ensues as the new discovery gets its appropriate spin, hoping that it will satisfy the critics. If that isn't working, they split the discipline again, cutting out the troublemakers.

Hey, i'm not trying to start trouble. I offer this as information that might help you understand what it looks like from the outside. "Science" is under attack on several fronts. Rather than get up tight about it, science should be asking why so many people just don't "get it". Blaming religion and calling 80% of the world stupid won't illuminate the problem. Science has got to look back on itself and clean up its act.

The internet has blown the cover off compartmentalized knowledge. The whole world can see the dirty laundry, while science stays in denial.

Do you know the history of revolution on this planet? Do you know that intellectuals are one of the first targets of mob violence during social upheaval? Why do you think that is? From here i would say that it is a lack of credibility.

I'm just trying to help... honest.

cheers,
jim

[insomniac]

Thanks Fredrick,

Yeah, a really good discussion is hard to find, but often worth the effort.

I get your drift. The pyramid model can be adapted to many situations, for sure. It certainly represents a solid relationship. It also represents the prime organizational structure used in social, financial, political and military organizations. When you include the branching tree, outline structure that also we use to organize our concepts, it could be said that this is the structure of civilization.

I like to take the same elements a break them out of the solid structure and think of them as a dynamic flow of excited gas... a hologram. The singular point at the peak becomes Whole and the base is all of the excited particles.

cheers,
jim

[insomniac]

Howdy Fredrick,

I was in a bit of a rush last post... wwell, still in a rsuh.

For me it works like this: I get a crazy idea and post it on some board or other. The feedback stimulates me to work on the idea, to make sure it fits into my overall model, and how to better communicate the concept.

My explanations end up being modified only slightly in my manuscript. My harshesed critics get the best work out of me. And i hope i have stimulated somebody along the way.

Besides direct discussion, i get a lot just reading on a site like this. Our human conceptual models are both a blessing and a curse. Places like this help us all make the most of our emerging intellectual and technological skill set.

Thanks to all.

cheers,
jim

[Fredrick]

Thank you, Jim, for showing how those people — who seem to oppose an idea or concept the most — may be stimulating us to get the best delivery possible. I like how you describe that the "singular point at the peak becomes Whole and the base is all of the excited particles." I almost immediately recognized in your words that you were communicating already much like the model I describe.

It is important to say again that the pentaist ToE is just a framework, and that it has severe limitations for it does not allow too many accurate steps away from this general model. But in the end, I think the ToE only needs to be the general framework; it doesn't have to be the delivery from which point forward we now know every little thing (and that is good because it would be a bit boring I think). Specialists will always exists in every imaginable field, and only in general terms do we all fit in one and the same framework.


Austin, thank you for another beautiful visualization. And while we are very much in agreement most of the time, I have a problem using the word consciousness as you do in your display, as if consciousness was the source of our materialized universe. Or am I reading this not as you intended?

I also feel you are too quick with placing the phenomenon of nothing and not giving it enough importance, but here too I may be reading it incorrectly. For me, the notion that nothing always exists means, for instance, that the Weak Nuclear Force and the Strong Nuclear Force can be their own entities that at some vital level have nothing in common with one another. The phenomenon of nothing allows each to be self-based without communal agreement. That means that they are each built up on different grounds.

Nothing refers to a position that one side, for instance, does not take in (leaves empty) where the other side does, and vice versa. As such, having the extra position ensures having more than one outcome while using the same building materials.