Your TOE Theory Forum - please read

[ThirdWorld]

You are welcome Mikal.


Roger

[ThirdWorld]

Only conceptual, not actual.




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.)

I will respond to this later [DV] when I get back in.


Roger

[ThirdWorld]

　
　

In my view therefore an infinite regress is not something that is impossible to conceptualize.
---End Quote---
Only conceptual, not actual.

　
*** What do you mean by "not actual"? Are you implying that the finite universe did not come into being out of nothing by the action of the infinite? If this is what you are saying then I suppose you must have a different proposal for its origin. Feel free to outline this your proposal.

---Quote (Originally by ThirdWorld)---
*** What about 'things' *existing* without ever having been made? Is that not a possibility?
---End Quote---
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.)

*** If the "stuff" was not made then its amount was not determined. It simply existed as that amount. But we are talking in a kind of coded language here having not clearly defined the terms we are using. We therefore evidently have different things in mind when, for example, we use the words "thing" and "stuff".

If you notice I put the word "things" in single inverted commas (i.e. 'things') when I used it in my original statement of the quotation above. I did this because I was not referring to created things there, as you clearly are referring to, but to eternal reality.

In my view eternal reality comprises Mind, Energy (which actually gives rise to mass), and Life whereas the created universe comprises Energy (or Mass), Length (an element of Space along with location and orientation) and Time. Time and Space are the created realities of the universe, in my view.

So maybe the sporadic manner in which we are exchanging ideas here is not the ideal way to do it: that might only lead to confusion.
　
But to continue in this vein of responding to your questions: you ask where and when is the stuff?The "stuff", that is, the eternal Energy, existed in the absence of space and time in the beginning: it is a different dimension altogether. So asking concering its whereabouts at the beginning is like asking where (or even how big) and when is a kilogram?

At present, however, the "stuff" or at least some of it, is integrated with the created physical universe as the fundamental essence of all matter and energy, in my view.
　
How is it, why the certain forms and their nature?In my view, it (the "stuff") is infinite Energy and exists as infinitely small particles (of energy of course) having infinite capacity for work. The particles are also of necessity infinitely dense, that is, they are impenetrable.

By virtue of their infinite capacity for work these particles can and so propel themselves through space with finite acceleration perpetually. They actually exist in groups and all the particles of a group accelerate toward the center of collision of the group of particles, collide elastically with each other there then rebound away from the center to repeat the process.

In this way a group of particles of Energy interacting with each other in space and time forms a tiny spherical shaped field of energy.

So my view is that such an array of these energy particles is a fundamental particle of matter and these fundamental particles are responsible for all the matter and energy properties of the physical universe.
　
　
Regards,
　
　
Roger

[austintorn@aol.com]

I would refer to the All as Totality, leaving its interior definition to vary, but at least now having a word for everything, this basically being your eternal and infinite energy of the next higher dimension, as you suggest, and my Nothing sum of the Balance of Opposites.

Particles could either be seen as actual substance or as whirling energy that grants solidity, so, we have that definition.

I am not against another dimension. The speed of light would seem to be the dimensional ratio between space and time (d/t), thus giving rise to the finite speed of light. (Actually the 4-D ratio of space’s ddd / energy’s t-dd.) Time is part of energy since Noether used time symmetry to prove the conservation of energy, and for other reasons.

Also, I would equate the one and only universe to Totality, there most likely being other outbursts of lots matter than ours (if it came from a Big Bang) or, at least, lots of matter around for some other reason. This Totality is necessarily eternal and infinite, although perhaps sparse in many places.

The two theories of Forever Energy and the Balance of Nothing have much in common in their implications, such as that there was no creation of Totality (creationists may not like this), it being forever and infinite, that any and all possible events can happen, that particles more or less have the same properties, that if our local grouping of all that we can see could happen once, at an unspecial place and time, then it could happen again, or, that it continued due to recycling, and that Totality is causeless, dispensing with cause the First, but then there being cause and effect thereafter.

I used to think that energy-mass-matter could not be infinite since we would then be packed in like sardines, but I now admit that infinite space could allow for infinite energy.

Of course, in my Balance of Nothing theory the amount of energy is not a magical, certain, specific quantity from nowhere, nor necessarily infinite, but varies, it coming and going in various positive and negative forms that always sum to zero, like the proposed quantum vacuum fluctuations. There is also no problem with where, since anywhere and everywhere, nor time, since any time, nor how, since canceling to naught, although there is more to it, nor the nature (the what), for there are only then two ways to make stable matter particles (the electron(-) and the proton(+)). (and their antiparticles) A photon would not be a matter particle, per sey, but, being neutral in charge, probably has both a positive and a negative aspect, which is why it can exist as the third stable form.

A Big Bang, of course, does not conserve energy unless, say, some reverse-time universe springs up in the other direction, for photons are their own antiparticle and no supposed photinos have ever been observed to allow for energy conservation.

My next dimension would be rather equivalent to time, time internally being the distance of space, but externally being the added 4-D hypercube distance. This hypercube “volume” is finite, although bounded by 3-D infinite space. The halves of this hypercube “volume” would be two polar-volumes (for polarity), arbitrarily called ‘+’ and ‘-’, this still nullifying all existence via the summation of charge at the overview level of the Totality of Nothing, not to mention matter and antimatter.

So, in essence, the universe could be no other way. In addition, particles cannot just do whatever they please, outside of their nature’s laws, and so there is determinism; however, any and all things happen, did happen, and will happen over and over again.

The information content of Everything is the same as that of Nothing, i.e., zippo, null, nil, and zero—kind of like you would find in a library of all possible books that could be made from the alphabet. The largest infinity and the smallest infinity are the same vacant ends of the spectrum, which is why scientists have such a hard time reconciling the macro and the micro, general relativity and the quantum. All is nothing and nothing is all.

No need for unexplained, undetermined infinite (+)energy prime mover doing everything. The universe weighs nothing, always exist, is perfect, eternal, infinite, and a balanced equation (not a cause and effect).

So, all in all, not a heck of a lot of difference between the two theories, especially after the particle form level. Your ‘infinite’ is more or less my ‘nothing’.

As for space and energy, both are 3-D, so, energy can reside in and move through space, space being physical but not material.

The next step is more interesting, which is how appearances (energy-mass-matter) moving through space lead to the qualities of Being, but that’s a whole ‘nother fat post. It has to do with space and matter being in a kind of opposition, as you say, and the transitional time that becomes of movement (past and future). We can take these four points and grow them into what it is to be alive and how they are represented in our notions.

[ThirdWorld]

I would refer to the All as Totality, leaving its interior definition to vary, but at least now having a word for everything,

　

*** Ok. I think I understand now. The fact that you are "leaving ... interior definition to vary" suggest to me that you don't have a theory but are now trying to formulate ideas for one. This is evidenced by the fact that you are not yet clear on concepts that might be key to your theory.

It seems to me that, if anything at all, what you have is effectively a work in progress in its primal stages of development. I cannot review this work in progress because it will just keep morphing in front of me each time I try to critique any part of it.


Roger

[austintorn@aol.com]

The work is finished. "Totality" is just to provide a common meaning of the OverAll for those whose interiors may vary.

In essence, both of our theories allow for countless numbers of particles to be present or present themselves. I utilize a principle, not a process.

Here's sort of a middle round between our TOEs:

THE SUPER TOE IS CAUSELESS,
THUS, THAT IS THE SUPER TOE!

Our train of thought has driven us to the answer,
Of all that borne from near ‘nothing’ onto eternity,
Of the origin of the original disorder,
The lone dawn of our trackless radix,
Via the rails and tunnels that ever ran out:

There cannot be ever more and more
Causes beneath even more extended causes;
Therefore, intuitive or not, the causeless is,
Being such as what we observe it in the quantum.

Thus, cause is only of our higher realm,
As downward thence to its root emergence—
‘Possibility’ needed no mother but itself,
An egg burst open, born without a chicken.

The causeless bottom is the potential
Of possibility that is/was ever there.

Since it’s ‘defined’ as an undefined chaos,
There’s no problem of no initial definition had,
Since it can’t have one and so it needs not any.

Things themselves become and go of ‘virtual’ potential,
Some things remaining as the rather-enduring real.
The potential is as near to simple as it gets,
Second only to the nonexistent Nothing, of course.

So, then, the potential is of no mind or ‘seeing’,
For that thought system can never be constituted,

As there are no more fundamentals upon more;
For, the Potential is already the ultimate basis.

Simple things ever combine, and further up,
And/or go must through phase changes,
Leading to more complex composites/forms.

Nothing, not existing at all,
And not even being able to,
But, perhaps threatening to,
Is the simplest state of all,
So, it must ever jiggle about,
Manifesting as loose ‘change’.

You might say, then, that, that is exactly why
There had to be the potential for things;
Otherwise… Total Nothing, forever.

We have now reached the unexpected TOE,
One that even satisfies the ongoing trend,
For, looking down, we’ve always observed
The ever descending simplicity of Nature.

Now, as such, we can’t really expect to find
An Ultimate Complexity sitting
Around there at the simplest point.

We didn’t find Mind there;
Thus, we are ever free to be.

This causeless bottom ‘fate’…
Was/is, too, a ‘magical’ state,
For anything could have become of it.

[ThirdWorld]

The work is finished.

　
*** Is it a scientific work or poetry? Have you posted it on this website? I will like to take a look at it in its entirety.
　
　
Roger

[austintorn@aol.com]

HERE IT IS:

http://gallery.me.com/austintorney#1...or=black&sel=2

You can click on slideshow (at the bottom), to see it as large as possible. Hit pause and then you can advance page by page at your leisure.

I may have more somewhere, I'll check. All that remains are the details of photon decay, which I'll put in my "Amending Immaterial Science" thread.

[ThirdWorld]

Ok. I had been assuming all along that we were dealing with physics here but this evidently is not so. Your work clearly deals with religion, not science, so I think you should promote it as such.

As I pointed out in earlier posts, my view on the physics concepts you have presented thus far is that they are flawed. I also hold that the concepts of a Sky god and mother earth etc that you now present here are also flawed seeing that human ancestors in that belief system such as Noah (also called Anu the Sky god) and his wife (called Ki the earth goddess) are being confused with the infinite eternal reality that created the universe, that is, with God himself.

In my view that belief system only serves to exploit human ignorance for gain, it is not about finding truth and it is here trying to authenticate itself by disguising as a scientific TOE.

There is therefore no common ground of understanding between us and so no point in continuing this conversation.


Roger

[austintorn@aol.com]

Ok, but I have no sky God or Mother Earth God or any God.

Also OK on ending all discussion. Will do.

(Religion says that a SuperBeing with a system of mind and planning made everything. I am atheist.)