Your TOE Theory Forum - please read

[labelwench]

*** Yes but I would think that the emphasis is on finding the answer and not just on the pursuing it.




*** I don't think so. In my view, mankind has pursued many things from the beginning of time and all that they have set their minds to they seem to have accomplished.
　




*** Well that might be the problem right there: the hindrance to finding the answer. Those who appear to be searching for the answer don't really want to know because of fear of the unknown.

My view though is that we will not proverbially fall off the earth if we reach the horizon.
　
　
Roger

1. Have you a better suggestion for 'finding' the answer than pursuit of multiple trains of thought?

2. Perhaps we have a different concept of 'all they have set their minds to'? From my perspective we have yet to resolve world hunger, a cure for cancer and communication without aggression or threat. Just my opinion.....

3. Fear of the unknown is but a healthy survival trait for any species, and may be only one of the factors making such answer elusive. Perhaps we are not yet capable of the comprehension required, or not yet looking in the right direction?

I do agree that we are unlikely to fall off the edge of the earth, lol, though we may step in our own 'doodoo' along the path to the horizon.

Very nice to chat with you this morning Roger.

Must go for now.

Regards,

Lorrina

[austintorn@aol.com]

The answer is simple, as it must be down at that level, and so it not all that interesting. I have found it. In essence, Nothing is the only possible candidate for prime mover, thus the All is a positive/negative balance of it.

So, why doesn't it all just collapse into a big fat nothing? Because Nothing is the simplest state and is thus perfectly unstable and can't occur. All this has been going on for eternity and stretches to infinity in extent, as it ever will.

Down through the ages, mankind has instead come up with all sorts of complexities as being the answer, but all this really did was make larger questions.

It is charge that nullifies existence in the overview.

[ThirdWorld]

1. Have you a better suggestion for 'finding' the answer than pursuit of multiple trains of thought?

　
*** Maybe pursuing the correct train of thought will yield better results.

2. Perhaps we have a different concept of 'all they have set their minds to'? From my perspective we have yet to resolve world hunger, a cure for cancer and communication without aggression or threat. Just my opinion.....

　
*** You sound like you have a good spirit by the nature of things you highlight as important concerns to you. What I mean by "set their minds to" is "have the will to do". It seems evident to me that there is no real will to solve those problems you highlight here.

America for example has obesity problems yet there is starvation in other Lands. Maybe the thinking is if the entire world is fed population will grow too fast in some Countries.

Also smoking is one of the things that is known to cause cancer, people smoke nevertheless. It seems to me that the world is on a suicide trip because it cannot cope with mounting psychological and other pressures caused by its own godlessness hence the reason for bringing these self indulgent maladies such as cancer on itself.

And last of all people can and do communicate without agression or threat when it is convenient but once they set their minds not to they can do that as well.
　
So in my view what we do all boils down to what we set our minds to and so far it does not seem that unlocking the secrets of the universe is really the objective of the scientific world: what is more important is who does it so that the credit might go to those who we think should have the credit.
　

3. Fear of the unknown is but a healthy survival trait for any species, and may be only one of the factors making such answer elusive. Perhaps we are not yet capable of the comprehension required, or not yet looking in the right direction?

　
*** I quite agree that being careful with the unknown is healthy and being fool hardy is not. In fact I don't even like taking the chance of travelling on an airplane because I find that a bit fool hardy. However, conquering fear is even healthier, in my view, and we do this by getting to understand the unknown so as to minimize risks in life.

I believe our problem to be that we are not looking in the right direction.


　

I do agree that we are unlikely to fall off the edge of the earth, lol, though we may step in our own 'doodoo' along the path to the horizon.

　
*** Stepping in it is not good but if we live in the journey that is all we will ever be doing. But reaching the horizon might be all that much sweeter having stepped in all that "doodoo" and that is why we should never pass up the opportunity to reach this landmark.

Very nice to chat with you this morning Roger

.

*** Same here, Labelwench.
　
All the best,
　
　
Roger

[ThirdWorld]

The answer is simple, as it must be down at that level, and so it not all that interesting. I have found it. In essence, Nothing is the only possible candidate for prime mover, thus the All is a positive/negative balance of it.

　
*** I don't know if this thread is suitable to discuss this but I ask: how do you arrive at your conclusion that "nothing" is a candidate for "prime mover"? Can nothing cause something? Is that the reality observed in the real world?

Further, why have you not considered the "All" to be a possible "prime mover?
　
In my view you have started your theory on a wrong premise so all your arguments are going to be misleading from here on.


Roger

[austintorn@aol.com]

There's no other premise, for things becoming from ever smaller things leads to an infinite regress; things already made (no beginning) without ever having been made doesn't work either, for what would have defined their states and amounts. So, "stuff" is out, it being the emanation.

Nothing left but the differentiation of Nothing into a balance that sums to zilch. We see this balance all over, right and left, phrased in many ways, even as the positive kinetic energy of "stuff" negated by the negative potential energy of gravity (although I don't employ it that way); quantum jitters producing particles and antiparticles in pairs, (true, but I don't totally rely on that alone), positive and negative charge; two and only two stable particles (the electron and the proton), since only two ways to make them, etc.

So, yes the TOE is simple and uninteresting, as it must be, toward the ever simpler; however, at the opposite end of the spectrum, on up: complexity is very interesting, that being where it's all at in terms of living and dealing with the world, as you say.

All the world can get from this TOE is that one is free to be. Some may call this "no meaning" or "no purpose", as they have invented many , but so be it. They forget that this translates to freedom (within our form).

Think of Nothing as more of something wide open, such as the physically lawless, timeless, formless, potential, or possibility, etc.

Only Nothing can be forever. Only Nothing can be boundless. Other prime movers need not apply.

The one and only boundless and eternal universe also has implications of everything possible having happened, now happening, and ever will be happening. (Duplicates of us everywhere). So, in a sense the universe retains its own history and future.

Since all is still going on now, which is not a special time or place, it ever was and will be, it having a means to recycle and "stuff" that gets decayed, not to mention the continuous emanation of new particle pairs of anti and uncle matter with opposite charges, heretofore called "virtual", but some do not cancel back but become somewhat as enduringly real as they can be.

Our finite realm must lie in the exact middle of the infinitely large and the infinitely small—another balance.

So, the All must be an equation, like 1+(-1)=0, not a cause and effect business, for cause and effect must end at the causeless, the causeless necessarily having no certain, specific order or plan to it in the first place, for there was no first place.

It's deja vu all over again (Yogi Berra).

Can't have an All without it being eternal and infinite; otherwise, 'twasn't the All.

[Mikal]

Can anyone explain to me what is the purpose and what are the benefits to an author of posting his theory here?

Roger

Hi Roger....welcome to the Toe!

I think the pertinent question here is...'do you have a theory to post'???? I ask this as an interested observer, willing to take your Toe to consideration and thought. Of course one of the benefit's for you is that you may just accomplish the enabling of another person to understand and grab insights from all your time-honored work on your theory.

Can I look forward to a new Toe theory???? ....smiles....

Regards Mikal

[ThirdWorld]

　

There's no other premise, for things becoming from ever smaller things leads to an infinite regress;...

　
*** Are you saying that an infinite regress to zero is impossible? What is zero multiplied by say 5, that is, the addition of zero 5 times? Isn't it zero? But what is 0 multiplied by infinity, that is, adding an infinite number of zeros? Is it not a finite number according to mathematics? (1/0 = infinity, => 1 = 0 x infinity).
　
In my view therefore an infinite regress is not something that is impossible to conceptualize.
　

...things already made (no beginning) without ever having been made doesn't work either,

　
*** What about 'things' existing without ever having been made? Is that not a possibility?
　

...for what would have defined their states and amounts.

　
*** Why not eternal (since there is no time); infinitely small (since there is no space to occupy), and; of infinite density ( seeing that there is no space and any mass divided by zero volume gives infinite density)?
　

So, "stuff" is out, it being the emanation.

*** In light of the above comments therefore I do not believe that "stuff" is out.
　
Therefore once again the assumptions upon which you are basing your arguments are flawed, in my view, and so your arguments as well as the conclusions you come to are all flawed.


Roger

[ThirdWorld]

　

Hi Roger....welcome to the Toe!

I think the pertinent question here is...'do you have a theory to post'???? I ask this as an interested observer, willing to take your Toe to consideration and thought. Of course one of the benefit's for you is that you may just accomplish the enabling of another person to understand and grab insights from all your time-honored work on your theory.

Can I look forward to a new Toe theory???? ....smiles....

Regards Mikal

　
*** Thanks for the welcome (back) Mikal. The fact is that I do have a strictly physics theory to post but I will like to post it where it might receive serious peer review, publication and finally recognition if it is proven to be true.
　
So if this website is suitable I will post it here.
　
Regards,

Roger

[Mikal]

Thanks for response Roger. I will look forward to viewing your Theory and it would be great for me as I am trying to grasp the physics part of all this. Hope you make a decision in Toequests favor!!

Regards Mikal

[austintorn@aol.com]

In my view therefore an infinite regress is not something that is impossible to conceptualize.

Only conceptual, not actual.

*** What about 'things' existing without ever having been made? Is that not a possibility?

That's my other, fallback, TOE, but it has severe problems, for example, what determined the amount of the stuff? (among its other qualities, such as where it is, when it is, how it is, why the certain forms and their nature, etc.)