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.
I've had another look at your idea since I've got a few minutes free, in an attempt to try and understand it and, if possible, make any constructive comment! However, there are a few things I don't understand about your idea (some of them are fundamental things I believe!).
On the page entitles "Creation's first partial second" you show how dimensions are formed. My problems come in dimension 3, volume and the venn diagram on the next page (which I think is fundamental to your theory).
1.How does the Venn diagram relate to a particle. For example, how would I "see" a proton on that page? I know you say that it's in the very centre, since it has positive charge (what I think you represent with ___ and negative as - - -), but why?
2. How do quarks fit into this picture? You state on the first page there are "3 quarks" but where do they come into play? Or, are the three quarks the three colors R,G,B? (I know that the standard model tells us there are 8 quarks, but if you decide to only consider protons neutrons and electrons, then I suppose you can only use three).
3. The electron is a "projection from the proton." How does this projection work? If all particles are members of some set of the "inner sanctum," how can one of the most fundamental ones not be?
4. Then, there's the question of how do particles interact; which forces do you still have in your model? It appears to be only the color force; do all particles interact under this? I guess this question can be left until I understand the above ones.
That's all for now. Hopefully I'll be able to better understand your idea if I understand how these questions are answered.
~neutralino
If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day - John A. Wheeler.
The Following User Says Thank You to neutralino For This Useful Post:
First let me thank you very much for taking the time to peruse my Idea. As you know I value your opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutralino
Hi Pat,
I've had another look at your idea since I've got a few minutes free, in an attempt to try and understand it and, if possible, make any constructive comment! However, there are a few things I don't understand about your idea (some of them are fundamental things I believe!).
On the page entitles "Creation's first partial second" you show how dimensions are formed. My problems come in dimension 3, volume and the venn diagram on the next page (which I think is fundamental to your theory). Yes it is, in fact it would be my theory on a T shirt.
1.How does the Venn diagram relate to a particle. For example, how would I "see" a proton on that page?The whole Venn Diagram is the proton, not just the center. Together they is a net + charge. I know you say that it's in the very centre, since it has positive charge (what I think you represent with ___ and negative as - - -), but why?The I Ching represents ___ as male, and - - as female. If you look at say area #4 ( the BLUE area }You'll see 1 convex curve ___ and 2 concave curves - -. Multiplying pos x neg x neg = positive ( or a positive area ) Remember this is in total agreement with the mathematical octants on the following page. Also the 3 outside Primary colors, are the I Ching sons and the 3 inner colors are the secondary or complementary colors are the I Ching daughters ( coincidence? )
2. How do quarks fit into this picture? You state on the first page there are "3 quarks" but where do they come into play? Or, are the three quarks the three colors R,G,B? Yes. Those would be the 3 quarks.(I know that the standard model tells us there are 8 quarks, but if you decide to only consider protons neutrons and electrons, then I suppose you can only use three).Yes. I am only dealing with 3 quarks here, and discussing only the Proton/electron Neutron. ( This is an Idea in progress, and I realize there are many subatomic particles not addressed here, and your area of interest gravity not addressed.
3. The electron is a "projection from the proton." How does this projection work? If all particles are members of some set of the "inner sanctum," how can one of the most fundamental ones not be? Well it is and it isn't. I believe it was Dirac who had a theory of negative space. Additionally I think I read that electrons can be viewed as point particles anywhere in space. And so when the proton projects its beam, it manisfest the electron, which than becomes a ripple or field in space. ( This is why I think the electron can be viewed as both a point particle and also as a " cloud ". Further I think this explains the remarkable coincidence that for every proton there just happens to be an electron to 10 to the 80th power. Quite a coincidence.)When the proton is enfolded in a spherical shape all positive and negative areas are balanced.
4. Then, there's the question of how do particles interact; which forces do you still have in your model? It appears to be only the color force; do all particles interact under this? I guess this question can be left until I understand the above ones.Actually that is the force Gell-Mann and others proposed. I have no trouble with that but actually I think it's are old familiar EMR in operation here. Positive and Negative charges or areas.
That's all for now. Hopefully I'll be able to better understand your idea if I understand how these questions are answered.
Well again thank you muchly for your time and effort 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
If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day - John A. Wheeler.
"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!
~neutralino
If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day - John A. Wheeler.
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'?
Linear Mode
