[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

I sincerely hope the book does not have too much religious connotations.

Don't you worry; it is all about structures. An example, the Russian number 1 is called Odin, after the Norse God of the beginning. Then I'll explain a little bit about the structure of Norse myth on how it all began, and how they got the same structure for their 'toe' as the pentaist toe (though in a less developed way).

Just religious bits and pieces on structures (no quotes), Dipayan, to deliver a better comprehension on how humans have used structure to come to overall deliveries; in the end, we are part of everything, and our various perspectives on everything turn out to be vital to get a comprehensive view on everything (and how we established our own confusion).

[dipayankar]

Hi Fredrick, As far as ToE is concerned, it is more a part of physics and how the laws are / were developed by nature over time. God is more of a creation of the fertile human mind. I really wonder how we can join the two...

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Don't you worry; it is all about structures. An example, the Russian number 1 is called Odin, after the Norse God of the beginning. Then I'll explain a little bit about the structure of Norse myth on how it all began, and how they got the same structure for their 'toe' as the pentaist toe (though in a less developed way).

Just religious bits and pieces on structures (no quotes), Dipayan, to deliver a better comprehension on how humans have used structure to come to overall deliveries; in the end, we are part of everything, and our various perspectives on everything turn out to be vital to get a comprehensive view on everything (and how we established our own confusion).

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Hi Fredrick, As far as ToE is concerned, it is more a part of physics and how the laws are / were developed by nature over time. God is more of a creation of the fertile human mind. I really wonder how we can join the two...

"I really wonder how we can join the two" are the magic words you spoke. The big explanation given in hinduism: our world (universe) is a place of result.

From our (my) perspective, that is a major breakthrough in thinking, for it declares the source of our world (universe) to not be of this world (universe). Hinduism is pronouncing an important delivery concerning physics. And while I understand that we tend to consider physics only that what we can discover in the lab nowadays, over the centuries our basic knowledge has grown through observation. Observation is a tool that has been available to us ever since our ancestors were shrewd mice.

I hope you will dig into the worl of structures, because it is fun, and it shows where our thinking is a culprit when trying to discover the toe, making us look for something that does not exist. And once we have that information, we can discovered a wonderful toe.

Have you heard about the tests with apes, sitting behind computers and asked to point out numbers flashed on the screen to earn some peanuts? From these tests we now know they have a better awareness than humans have about what is happening around us. The scientific explanation given was that humans tend to have more concepts in their minds, requiring less space by themselves, but also allowing for information gaps to occur.

Humans moved from the actual reality in front of our noses to conceptual realities that exist foremost inside our brain. That means we have the best tools in the animal kingdom, but the tools do come with flaws.

I hope you have not too much of an aversion to anything religious, because in religion the same tools of conceptualization were used. Therefore, by viewing religious structures, we can learn about our ability to conceptualize information. And that will help us understand how we conceptualize physical information.

[dipayankar]

My only aversion to religion is that Religion does not accept logic or proof..

Originally Posted by Fredrick

"I really wonder how we can join the two" are the magic words you spoke. The big explanation given in hinduism: our world (universe) is a place of result.

From our (my) perspective, that is a major breakthrough in thinking, for it declares the source of our world (universe) to not be of this world (universe). Hinduism is pronouncing an important delivery concerning physics. And while I understand that we tend to consider physics only that what we can discover in the lab nowadays, over the centuries our basic knowledge has grown through observation. Observation is a tool that has been available to us ever since our ancestors were shrewd mice.

I hope you will dig into the worl of structures, because it is fun, and it shows where our thinking is a culprit when trying to discover the toe, making us look for something that does not exist. And once we have that information, we can discovered a wonderful toe.

Have you heard about the tests with apes, sitting behind computers and asked to point out numbers flashed on the screen to earn some peanuts? From these tests we now know they have a better awareness than humans have about what is happening around us. The scientific explanation given was that humans tend to have more concepts in their minds, requiring less space by themselves, but also allowing for information gaps to occur.

Humans moved from the actual reality in front of our noses to conceptual realities that exist foremost inside our brain. That means we have the best tools in the animal kingdom, but the tools do come with flaws.

I hope you have not too much of an aversion to anything religious, because in religion the same tools of conceptualization were used. Therefore, by viewing religious structures, we can learn about our ability to conceptualize information. And that will help us understand how we conceptualize physical information.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

My only aversion to religion is that Religion does not accept logic or proof..

Dipayan,

I am happy we agree that science and religion are not based on the same grounds. It is exactly for these reasons that I mention religion next to science next to philosophy. These three actually formulate their knowledge in different and distinct concepts and structures; knowing and understanding that each formulates overall views differently is helpful in understanding what it is that scientists are doing that prevents them from getting the toe.

[dipayankar]

Again scientists are being stubborn and egoistic that prevents them from achieving the ToE. By the way you are the first member of ToE Quest that got my name right.

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Dipayan,

I am happy we agree that science and religion are not based on the same grounds. It is exactly for these reasons that I mention religion next to science next to philosophy. These three actually formulate their knowledge in different and distinct concepts and structures; knowing and understanding that each formulates overall views differently is helpful in understanding what it is that scientists are doing that prevents them from getting the toe.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Again scientists are being stubborn and egoistic that prevents them from achieving the ToE. By the way you are the first member of ToE Quest that got my name right.

I am happy to read that I got your name right; it did help getting information from my publisher.

I could call scientists stubborn and egoistic, but I don't know them all personally, so I may be wrong about one or two. I consider the fact of scientists not finding the toe a good example of how we tend to not look at ourselves to discover the larger truths that are out there. By overcoming the smaller truths into a larger and more conceptual truth (that contains opposition within that larger truth) the whole can be revealed. Yet getting a scientist to look at his or her own behavior first is mighty difficult; there are not many scientists who will immediately agree that their quest for the toe is often based on grounds similar to that of a religious structure. It is very counter-intuitive to suggest that the last major goal in science is often attempted from a non-scientific and rather religious perspective.

Singularity as an aspect of our universe is part of a theory, not a fact itself. Just the act of theorizing is based on finding a single ground for something or somethings to occur; therefore an automatic failure is included when theorizing about the whole of existence this way. Understanding the framework in which we place information is key.

[dipayankar]

You are right. Extrapolating one behaviour or a single event into the whole where we tend to fit in everything is like pushing an elephant into the rat hole. You need to dig the hole big. If you cut the elephant small, you kill the elephant.

Originally Posted by Fredrick

I am happy to read that I got your name right; it did help getting information from my publisher.

I could call scientists stubborn and egoistic, but I don't know them all personally, so I may be wrong about one or two. I consider the fact of scientists not finding the toe a good example of how we tend to not look at ourselves to discover the larger truths that are out there. By overcoming the smaller truths into a larger and more conceptual truth (that contains opposition within that larger truth) the whole can be revealed. Yet getting a scientist to look at his or her own behavior first is mighty difficult; there are not many scientists who will immediately agree that their quest for the toe is often based on grounds similar to that of a religious structure. It is very counter-intuitive to suggest that the last major goal in science is often attempted from a non-scientific and rather religious perspective.

Singularity as an aspect of our universe is part of a theory, not a fact itself. Just the act of theorizing is based on finding a single ground for something or somethings to occur; therefore an automatic failure is included when theorizing about the whole of existence this way. Understanding the framework in which we place information is key.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

You are right. Extrapolating one behaviour or a single event into the whole where we tend to fit in everything is like pushing an elephant into the rat hole. You need to dig the hole big. If you cut the elephant small, you kill the elephant.

Haha, good way of putting it, Dipayan,

Because we find ourselves within the ongoing universe, we do not consider the non-movement that also belonged to the options of the origin. To understand everything, we need to realize our path is an option that came true. To see the option then as the only truth damages the word option beyond repair.

The riddle of the ToE is easy if you can see that the universe is based on having made a choice, and that subsequently choice became inherently part of the next steps. In Hinduism, we say that the universe is a state of result; and that is saying the exact same thing. The origin is included in the result, but is not equal to the result.

The way I see our universe: every option became reality each in their own way, except for the initial option of not making a choice. We have the certainty that a choice was (or several choices were) made. Interestingly enough, not making a choice became available after creation as well if the conditions are right.

[dipayankar]

You are right there...

The first choice was whether to have inflation or not?

The second choice was when the four forces seperated.

It is as if the Universe behaves like an intelligent creature..

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Haha, good way of putting it, Dipayan,

Because we find ourselves within the ongoing universe, we do not consider the non-movement that also belonged to the options of the origin. To understand everything, we need to realize our path is an option that came true. To see the option then as the only truth damages the word option beyond repair.

The riddle of the ToE is easy if you can see that the universe is based on having made a choice, and that subsequently choice became inherently part of the next steps. In Hinduism, we say that the universe is a state of result; and that is saying the exact same thing. The origin is included in the result, but is not equal to the result.

The way I see our universe: every option became reality each in their own way, except for the initial option of not making a choice. We have the certainty that a choice was (or several choices were) made. Interestingly enough, not making a choice became available after creation as well if the conditions are right.