An Idea

[dipayankar]

Hey neutralino... where do I get to read your this idea???

Hi neutralino;

First let me thank you very much for taking the time to peruse my Idea. As you know I value your opinion.




Well again thank you muchly for your time and effort Neutralino.

Very best,

Pat

[dipayankar]

I am trying to be more imaginative positively...

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Albert Einstein

It can lead to many new ideas!

[neutralino]

Hey neutralino... where do I get to read your this idea???

What do you mean? Are you asking whether I have my own pet theory of everything? If this is the case then, no, I do not.

Pat, thanks for you comments. I'm not ignoring them, but will comment later when I've read your idea through again, with the explanations you've given me, and have something further to add.

[neutralino]

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Albert Einstein

I don't think this quote should be taken too literally, since obviously a new theory cannot be born with absolutely no knowledge. Einstein could say this, though, since he clearly had a large amount of knowledge!

[NotStein]

Hi Jeff;

Thank you so much for your post. My grandson is eurasian, his father is Chinese and his mother ( my daughter ) European. (1/2 Irish and 1/2 German ). I believe that is why he has what I call a universal face, which I find to be very beautiful. ( But I'm his granddad and a bit biased ).

I agree with you Jeff, I have been a little disappointed with the responses. I had hoped we could talk about polarity ( I believe there is 4 poles ), strong and weak nuclear forces ( I believe it may describe both the strong force by positive and negative space in my proposed particle, and the limits that this bonding would suggest ).

I also have a a Venn diagram with an additional area interfacing the other 3 in the Venn Diagram. I haven't presented that yet because we haven't explored the 3 dimensions adequately yet. But it does enclose back on itself, and is very interesting.

I would love to see a computer simulation binding the particles to see how many could be bound together. Also my Idea really is positive and negative charges reducing the color force ( QCD ) to really a form of EMR.

It was my thought that my G.U.T. was really explaining all forces ( except gravity which my idea doesn't address ) Through EMR in an understandable way. And that is just the external side. The internal side is a seperate discussion.

So thanks again Jeff'

Pat

Wow, I expected more likely to have my socks blown off for that post. Say, I'm great at computers & programming, and good at geometric visualization, but admit I lack the discipline and patience to do my math 'homework'. I would love to try to computer model Venn diagrams and a TOE, and maybe throw my 2 (hey, where'd the cent sign on this keyboard go?!?).
I wonder how many others are also computer and/or math competent? Many of us, I'll bet. Let me propose an experiment/thread based on another site I used to frequent:

I like recording multi-track MIDI music (where you record from a MIDI keyboard; lay down a bass line, then brass, then guitars, keys, etc. to make a song). I joined a site called the MIDI cafe; they had what they called the 'Interactive MIDI cafe'. One guy would lay down a bass line & then check the song in to the 'common' area. Someone else would check it out, and add say a horns section. Someone else would add lead guitar. You ended up with a collaboration with several people's 2 cents in it.

Maybe we could do the same with a TOE theory and the software to graphically display it in realtime. Check out/check in the theory and software program representing it.

Sound interesting to anybody? the 'Interactive TOE cafe'?

Jeff

[NotStein]

Hi Jeff,

In all fairness Jeff I think you have quoted me out of context. I do not understand why you have taken rather vehement offense that really amounts to the religious rant that you accuse me of. I do not subscribe to any traditional religion. I have a science education and have studied hard science in depth all of my life. I seek the same thing as you, a pragmatic theory of everything that can lead us out of the wilderness of conflicting biased opinions and unsubstantiated assumptions that underlie the current flaws in our understanding of the universe and our appropriate role in it.

I think your obviously highly spirited remarks are off the mark. I am promoting neither a religious diatribe nor one exclusively based on mathematical physics either. Both sides of these mutually exclusive perspectives come down to biased beliefs entrenched in culturally conditioned dogmatic positions. There are powerful emotional commitments to both sides and neither side is just going to disappear. We need a new paradigm that can bridge this fundamental gap in our perceptions in a way that translates into pragmatic science without arbitrarily dismissing the emotional energies that are obviously spirited in nature and that animate us and fuel our thoughts and actions. We can not just dismiss the human condition from the equation without divorcing ourselves from our own understanding.

I agree that the primary focus in this forum should be on science based on phenomenal evidence. But that should extend to documented phenomenal experience of a spiritual nature where it is relevant to the nature of the human mind. That should reasonably extend to so called OOBs but only where they can find some degree of consistent relationship to the nature of mind. I did not introduce this in the discussion but only responded to the comments of others where I thought it might be helpful.

I first came to this thread because of a post that Pat made on another thread. I saw that he was making an effort to bridge this gap between science and religion in a kind of amorphous recipe that he introduced just as a tentative idea. He introduced factors such as the Void, the I Ching, and so on that are associated with the Eastern Philosophies and religions. That is the theme of his Idea post. I do not see how Pat’s approach can possibly lead to pragmatic science but he at least recognizes a need to bridge this gap between East and West. More than half the world is a spirit culture. Western science can’t reasonably just dismiss it any more than we can dismiss half our brain.

I do not think that an all embracing TOE can be found exclusively in left brain language, including the language of mathematics. There must be a more fundamental structure to the cosmic order that we must be able to access if there is ever to be a meaningful and comprehensive approach to a Theory of Everything. That must include some underlying structural basis to physics and mathematics of course, including cosmology, but current models are fraught with problems and a broad variety of mutually exclusive interpretations as you must know. None of them can find direct confirmation in phenomenal experience of any kind apart from very tenuous threads to very isolated fragments of obscure experimental data that are inherently controversial. They are conjectures much like Pat’s recipe for what he sees as a tasty soup just as others do of their pet theories. I can not see how any of them with the possible exception of the Bohm Interpretation and de Broglie’s pilot wave can provide a convincing basis for meaningful discussion toward a Theory of Everything.

The Bohm interpretation as an extension of de Broglie’s pilot wave at least recognizes that there are universal non-local factors involved in the physical universe and it provides a pragmatic mathematical basis to make some limited headway. There is a recent science article under Toe News entitled “Non Locality of a Single Particle Demonstrated Without Objection.” This clearly indicates that there is a universal component involved in the physical projection of atomic matter. If you have a look at my website or see my TOE article “Gravity and the Void: Tip of a TOE Iceberg” you will see that my work does provide a structural basis consistent with this empirical evidence that is mathematically consistent with special relativity and de Broglie’s pilot wave. On my website it also extends to a pragmatic and highly disciplined approach to how the human nervous system meaningfully integrates sensory experience synapse by synapse consistent with the factual evidence. This can not be called a religious rant.

Whether you can see anything constructive in my work or not, I do share your distaste for pseudo-sciences concocted from blind religious convictions, spiritualism gone off the rails, and aberrations of a similar kind that are based on blind beliefs. The methodology proposed in my work to explore the structure of the cosmic order is not a belief system. It can only be understood through patient intuitive reflection and persistent questioning of how it relates directly to phenomenal experience.

I hope that you will not take further offense at these remarks. I am perhaps wasting more bandwidth but I think you are prejudging my comments related to Pat’s thread without appreciation of the main body of my work or its potential value. My comments on his thread are admittedly out of context with the overall approach taken in my work.

Please believe that my words here are offered with respect and in good faith that we share a desire for some universal basis of understanding that can enrich, not impoverish, the incredible diversity of the human condition.

Best wishes,
Bob

Bob, I do apologize for the bluntness of my response, but you started the 'rather vehement offense' yourself. How? AS you state:

"The physical and biological sciences as they have developed in the last century and a half and especially in the last few decades, would have us believe that the evolution of life can be reduced to a fortuitous series of molecular and atomic accidents going all the way back to the Big Bang. Does anyone seriously believe that a collection of molecules can accidently organize themselves into a conscious intelligence?"

Yea, I believe that may be the case, and the way you word it implies that anyone who doesn't must be an idiot. It smacks of the 'superior than thou' attitude that you 'who believe' foist on us who are still open to all possibilities. We have a fundamental divide in our beliefs that cannot be bridged while we still walk the earth. We seek a TOE that explains all via logic and mathematics. You're telling us our quest is impossible. If we succeed, faith is unnecessary; As you continue to rub it in:

"So some scientists actively preach the blind belief that it all happened by accident."

That's enough to piss me off - another 'thou's dumber than me' statement by implication. Do not skirt the truth here. The only truth here is that which can be reproduced in a lab or mathematical theorum. We cannot accept anything on faith, or our (TOE) quest is defeated. So, give me a step-by-step explanation of how (maybe even why) He did it. That's scientific. So, gosh, you'll say we're just humans, we can't begin to understand Him. We'll never know that until after we die. What a cop-out. You're telling us to roll over & play dead, that one of our core drives is impossible to achieve. Sorry, won't happen.

Post the proof.

Jeff

P.S. I'm not saying He doesn't exist. Just that if he does, just how are you going prove it, as well as how and why He created it (prior to the Big Bang)? We have no tools up to the task. After the Big Bang, maybe He did it logically, mathematically consistent, and beautifully (we'll, maybe threw some ugly in, too) just to help us pass the time.

[everymansmedium]

Hello Bob:
I agree with you post totally. However I see that the very same enthusiasm that I feel when I am on the right track tend to frighten people away from you in this arena. Your post looks like many that I have made myself only to be beat over the head with my own words. I can not see the beginning of life as the result of a random set of circumstances. To me it portrays a religion based on a higher level of faith than the idea of intelligent design. Is there something wrong with the thought that it can happen at random but with all of our knowledge and time trying we can not do this as a result of our own desire and effort. This thought and many more like it are totally ignored. I believe that this is the result of the current capital system of education causing either a conscious or unconscious brain washing effect on all that pass through this system.

Could any capital education institution agree with the knowledge of the existence of anything that they know little or nothing about. This would be terminal to the institution. To accept this idea at the top level of our sciences would cause a situation 1000 times worse than the situation that was the result of the curing of Polio. It would not only disrupt the financial system globally but would disrupt all of the systems globally.

The global capital system can NEVER let this happen. It has nothing to do with making anybody believe you. It has to do with the waves that are caused buy the truth. Remember the first act of Christ was to chase the money lenders out of the temple. We can all think what we want as long as we do not organize this thought. The idea to organize these ideas is always the goal to bring people together for the common good of mankind. However what do you think was learned by the system when we cured Polio? They learned never to cure anything. What has been cured since then? We almost removed the mosquito totally from this earth so as to cure all of the problems that are spread by this creature. At the last we stopped short of this goal. And let them all come back on us with all of there methods to make money change hands. The killing of the people that they kill is incidental to the profits that are made buy the many companies that rely of this problem to survive. The people that died did not pay any of the lobby to effect the laws that could control this for the purpose of the people as opposed to whoever has the money.
It is the sad reality of global uncontrolled capitalism.

This is the difference between theory and practice.
We should talk.
John

[dipayankar]

Sorry Neutralino, this post was meant for ProfPat...

What do you mean? Are you asking whether I have my own pet theory of everything? If this is the case then, no, I do not.

Pat, thanks for you comments. I'm not ignoring them, but will comment later when I've read your idea through again, with the explanations you've given me, and have something further to add.

[Profpat]

Sorry Neutralino, this post was meant for ProfPat...

I thought you had Dipayankar it's at:
( http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...03-idea-4.html ) you'll have to scroll down 8 posts to post # 40.

Let me know your thoughts,

Thanks

Pat

[Bob Campbell]

That's enough to piss me off - another 'thou's dumber than me' statement by implication. Do not skirt the truth here. The only truth here is that which can be reproduced in a lab or mathematical theorum. We cannot accept anything on faith, or our (TOE) quest is defeated. So, give me a step-by-step explanation of how (maybe even why) He did it. That's scientific. So, gosh, you'll say we're just humans, we can't begin to understand Him. We'll never know that until after we die. What a cop-out. You're telling us to roll over & play dead, that one of our core drives is impossible to achieve. Sorry, won't happen.

Post the proof.

Hi Jeff,

I can not see how this comment or others of yours remotely relates to anything that I have said. I am not a religious fundamentalist. I do not subscribe to any formal traditional religion or otherwise blind philosophical tradition or belief system.

But let me talk about science. First let me say that I do not think there is convincing evidence that there ever was a big bang. There are philosophical contradictions inherent in the idea of a beginning in space and time to space and time. And alternate explanations for the red shift and background radiation present themselves in a discontinuous universe. And I am not actively promoting any religion including a blind belief in God. There is simply strong evidence to indicate that galaxies are cells of creative reflux of their stellar populations. Many galaxies have very high rates of stellar formation. In Arp 200 for example it is currently high enough to replace its entire stellar population in less than a billion years. This is a process that need have no beginning or end in space or time. You tend to strongly invest my words with meanings and feelings that I do not intend. You project your feelings into them.

I think you are still taking me out of context and misreading my intentions. I am not trying to objectively prove the existence of God. I have no strong reaction to how physics and evolution theory has developed over the past couple of centuries. In fact I think it has been necessary in order to establish the empirical groundwork for a more meaningful TOE. It is only in recent decades that enough evidence has been accumulated to indicate a new paradigm. I am not foisting blind beliefs on anyone. I am offering a complementary methodology that renders the dynamics of the creative process transparent to anyone in a way that can find direct confirmation with the scientific evidence and encourage independent insight.

This too is limited in its subjective experiential reach but at least it encourages and does not preclude the possibility of direct private experiential insight into the nature of reality. Mathematics has a place but it surely does not deserve to hog the whole show. The immense complexity of biologically living processes can hardly be reduced to mathematics and this body and brain that we use to do math and build theories can surely not be excluded form any realistic TOE. I do not think that you have fully considered or really believe some of the things that you say. Math is a human creation, a language on this little planet Earth, and I fully acknowledge its place. It is just not an all consuming religion with me.

Current interpretations of the cosmic order generally accept both general relativity and quantum mechanics even though the two theories are mutually exclusive. For example the Big Bang is generally accepted as well established fact in the cosmology community even though it remains fraught with serious flaws despite many patchwork measures. It is nevertheless preached as gospel to the public. And if you read Richard Dawkins he fervently preaches that evolution is exclusively the product of rare random mutations that invest DNA sequences with survival advantage. He explicitly states that this exclusive view has an absolute majority in the academic community, and that the survival of DNA sequences is the ONLY value. This proclamation is made without confirming evidence. In fact there is solid evidence to the contrary. You can review some of it on my site. This view from our academically elite rather leaves us bereft of human values. Dawkins is a very high profile scientist that promotes himself as spokesman for all evolutionary biologists with the reputation of Oxford behind him. Why doesn’t this “holier than thou attitude that he would foist on us all” offend you? Isn't this a bias on your part? This has a serious impact on our educational institutions which may be responsible for your bias. I do not deny the evidence in the fossil or natural record that biological evolution is a reality, but belief in this sole mechanism is a bias as fervent and exclusive as any religious view. Nor do I promote intelligent design as a vague optional belief system. If you study my website a bit you should see this.

I do maintain that mathematics is limited in its ability to encompass the whole cosmic order. It is based on axioms assumed to be true but some of these have been drawn into question in recent years. The early Bohr Theories of the atom and their descendent theories, for example, are based on non-mathematical assumptions that are not consistent with logic and yet it has structural meaning that has extensive mathematical implications. Mathematics is a valuable tool but it can only reach so far. That part is essential to our understanding too but I would be surprised if anyone really believes that their personal life including everything they think and feel and do can be reduced to a set of mathematical equations. In your heart of hearts do you really believe that? Post the proof! If it is just a blind belief is that not what you object to in traditional religion?

There are limitations to how far mathematics can reach that become structurally apparent when one investigates the requirements implicit in the nature of universal wholeness that is sought in a TOE. This is not easy to do, but a reasonable start is outlined on my website. It takes time and a lot of reflection to see into the dynamics of the creative process. Human intuition is not something that can be fully reduced to mathematical equations. This does not mean that mathematics does not have an important role to play. There are nevertheless difficulties associated with the compound nature of identities that mathematics has not found a way to fully encompass. If you are a student of mathematical physics you should appreciate that. The approach suggested on my site is intended to complement traditional efforts not oppose them.

I admire your fervor but I think you misinterpret me completely. There is a lot on my website that you can not possibly absorb quickly and none of it is based on blind belief. There is one article on an initial personal insight that came uninvited but I am just being honest about the source of my work. Although intellectually self-consistent my work is more than just an intellectual contrivance of mine, but I do not expect anyone to just believe me. The methodology introduced on my site is intended to facilitate direct intuitive insight into the structural dynamics of the creative process for anyone interested. And the methodology does encompass all possible structural varieties to experience in a way that requires confirmation in phenomenal experience. This is science. My efforts are to promote intensive question to get to the root of the matter.

Faith is rooted in right brain intuitive quest. Reason is founded on left brain linguistic belief. The intuitive quest should lead reason, not vice versa. There is solid scientific evidence that the brain is organized this way. Think about it.

I really do not mean to upset you. I find it a bit surprising that you should get so emotional over my comments.

Best regards,
Bob

www.cosmic-mindreach.com