The Evidence for and the Theory of Incompleteness

[Fredrick]

Much information is available that either directly supports or points to an overall Incompleteness. This does not mean that completeness cannot exist; it only means completeness is not the standard for the overall framework of our universe.

The intention of this thread is to share knowledge and information about incompleteness at the overall universal level, and to point out where we are already acknowledging this incompleteness.

As guidance, three frameworks should be mentioned for our understanding of the reality in which we exist, though some could argue there are four.

The Universal Framework is the framework at which the ToE resides. As we know since Hubble, universal matter as a single overall collective is moving outwardly. Matter is not moving inwardly at that level nor is there a single collective focal point for all matter.

The Galactic Framework is the framework at which a single collective focal point for matter is found. A galaxy moves in unison through space, in an overall balance, though not necessarily all peaceful in all spots nor does this mean there is no interaction with other matter within the 'immediate' environment of a galaxy.

The Solar Framework is the framework at which a central position is taken in by a star around which planets circle. Though there are other options for the Solar Framework (think of double stars), we reside in a solar system of a star and planets.

To communicate with one another, we have learned to use words that can fit in one of these three frameworks.

A fourth framework can be mentioned as the Planetary Framework for we live on a planet, not on the star around which the planet circles. Individuals may state an independency as part of their character, even while acknowledging that for the whole of existence no human being is independent. This framework can be seen as part of the Solar Framework, though the part is distinct.

To reach the ToE, we can use all these frameworks, yet the ToE will only reside at the overall level of everything, not at the individual parts even when the indiviual parts can be considered part and parcel of the ToE.

This thread is open to all, but when asked to substantiate or clarify one's words, each individual must do so to the best of their knowledge. Where there is no additional information available, a person can always claim the Planetary Framework as his or her position, one that is untouchable to others. Contributors are expected to follow regular ToeQuest rules.

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick;

I think it's a fact that it's incomplete. I haven't heard the fat lady sing yet. As long as our universe is still moving it's not complete. Actually I think completeness will come with a big crunch.

As far as your frameworks, I think our sun essentially governs our solar system, the milky way, probably a black hole, our universe?

Best in your quest,

Pat

[Fredrick]

Hi Fredrick;

I think it's a fact that it's incomplete. I haven't heard the fat lady sing yet. As long as our universe is still moving it's not complete. Actually I think completeness will come with a big crunch.

As far as your frameworks, I think our sun essentially governs our solar system, the milky way, probably a black hole, our universe?

Best in your quest,

Pat

Thank you for your acknowledgment, Pat. I am happy to see your quick reply and to see you fully support that incompleteness is found at the overall level. A lot of information has been gathered that our universe is incomplete. With the ToE residing with the Universal Framework, we can then try to distinguish how we are communicating.

You correctly point to the sun being at the center of our solar system, yet you then take the Solar Framework (SF) and try to apply the structure of the SF to the Galactic Framework while then also placing a SF question mark at the Universal Framework. Naturally, applying a specific framework to other frameworks is a possibility, something an individual can do. But that step belongs to the Planetary Framework, where you can always have your own individual and independent position.

You can share this position with others, of course, but there is no convincing in the position itself to the extent that all humans will support that. I already disagree that one can correctly use one framework as the framework for the other realities (even when one can try applying it), but we can amicably disagree about this at the specific individual positions; as such our disagreement at the Planetary Framework confirms the incompleteness as found with the Universal Framework.

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick;

As long as we are still expanding we are not complete. I guess you need the entire solar system to keep it in balance. Well maybe we don't need Pluto, but don't tell that to the astrologers.

Best,

Pat

[austintorn@aol.com]

This thread is open to all, but when asked to substantiate or clarify one's words, each individual must do so to the best of their knowledge. Where there is no additional information available, a person can always claim the Planetary Framework as his or her position, one that is untouchable to others. Contributors are expected to follow regular ToeQuest rules. — Fredrick

Good, and so I’ll ignore the usual TQ definition of “alternative” as meaning non-science, such as mind trips aboard alien spacecraft, taking it, rather, as a non mainstream scientifically backed separation of all, rather than the mainstream idea of hoping for a scientific unity of all material and forces.


So, would the clear opposition of the weak and the strong force surely indicate that the twain shall never meet in the area of the forces?


Added to this separation, it could also be that we may never know all of the details of an origin that is long gone and, so, based on that separation, I’d say that we are free to exist, with no strings attached.


As for the sun, it fuses hydrogen, this process freeing a bit of energy over what goes in, this energy then continuing to shower out everywhere for another 5 billion years or so, after which I may have to move from my current planet framework to another planet.


Pluto, now demoted and under-worlded, can now attend to its ironically cold rule and habitat; whereas, Hell, it if actually existed, would be in the heart of the sun, while purgatory would be on Venus, with Heaven on Earth. (Oops, lapsing into poetical alternative non-science.)

[austintorn@aol.com]

Living in Interesting Times

Eighty five years ago our universe
Consisted of a single galaxy, our Milky Way.
Now we know there are over 400 billion galaxies!

The three pillars of the big bang, are
(1) The Hubble Expansion,
(2) The existence of the CMB radiation, and
(3) Observations of the abundance of light elements.

Because of cosmic acceleration,
All galaxies outside of our
Own bound cluster will disappear.
With no galaxies there will be
No tracers of the Hubble expansion.

Interestingly, with no such tracers,
All evidence of the existence of dark energy,
And an accelerating universe will also disappear.

The only period when dark energy is detectable is now.
At much earlier times it had a negligible effect upon the expansion,
And at late times it drives out all tracers of the expansion.

The CMB becomes unobservable even in principle,
As the peak wavelength is driven
To a length larger than the horizon.

The final key bit of evidence for the Big bang
Rests crucially on the fact
That relic abundances of deuterium
Remain observable at the present day…

But, by then, both the QSOs and the Lyman- Systems
Will have redshifted outside of the horizon.

What will observers of the far future infer then?
Their picture of the universe
Will not be significantly different
Than that which Einstein had
When he developed general relativity:
A static universe in which our galaxy
Was surrounded by eternal empty space.

[labelwench]

Hello Frederick,

I can only speak from a very small piece of the Planetary Framework, for this is all that I have experience of and any confidence in, even allowing for the subjective nature of that experiencing.

Still, from years of observing that there is an order to things, a system of interconnectedness as one looks inward and toward the micro-scale upon which the system appears to operate, it is only natural to use the 'reverse angle view' to look outward and extrapolate that perhaps the same system is operating on the exponentially increasing macro scale.

My personal experience has been diverse and textured, yet on a very small scale even from a planetary perspective, it being predominantly in remote settings with limited populations, and much from solitary pursuit in the wilderness. Though I have little to offer on the broader frameworks, in my mind's eye, I can imagine great distances and limitless potentials, yet how can one identify the point of perspective on infinity?

If all is still expanding outwards, as believed, from what vantage point has outwards been determined?

Earth is our vantage point, and the center of 'our' universe, but is it likely to be the center of 'the universe'?

Trying to imagine an open system such as infinity is challenging to my mind, as everything I have experience of has limits, or parameters, though they may be incredibly large. From traipsing 1600 km on a dog-sled, not once but three times, I have some understanding of scale and time.....

Will be following this thread......

[Fredrick]

So, would the clear opposition of the weak and the strong force surely indicate that the twain shall never meet in the area of the forces?


Added to this separation, it could also be that we may never know all of the details of an origin that is long gone and, so, based on that separation, I’d say that we are free to exist, with no strings attached.


As for the sun, it fuses hydrogen, this process freeing a bit of energy over what goes in, this energy then continuing to shower out everywhere for another 5 billion years or so, after which I may have to move from my current planet framework to another planet.

Hi Austin,

Thank you for posting on this thread as that is much appreciated. I like your support, questions and ideas.

To understand the forces we have to see them for what they are: they are not entities onto themselves, they belong to an entity or entities. Even when the entities are the same, there may be two forces coming out of them, just like a person can have a love and a hate relationship with someone else. Can we declare both emotions as one? Probably without a problem, but the spot where they really unify is within the person.

The forces are Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force, Magnetic Force, Electric Force, and Gravity. As you know I claim gravity to just be a complex delivery of the other forces combined, and we can then call that an effect. But there is no problem calling it a force either, because a combination of forces is then still just that.

So, while the question is a good question, the answer lies one level below, with the origin of the forces: the entities of matter. Do love and hate meet and remain love and hate, or do love and hate meet and become something else? Once connected, they become something else (or are diluted).

Of course we are free to exist any which way we see fit, but surely only given the frameworks in which we find ourselves. It is not going to be possible to live on a star nor on a planet circling a star whose light we see today that has petered out in real time.

As far as the future concerns are concerned, I am certain that those in the future will have their own sets of thinking and tools and can figure it all out just like we can with our thinking and tools and just like others have before us with their thinking (and fewer tools).

[labelwench]

Incompleteness.

On the psychological level, it is a sense of 'incompleteness' that motivates all lifeforms to compete for the resources of life, and does not seemingly allow for an existence without this exchange of energy expended.

There is also a mathematical explanation, a summary......

In 1931, the Czech-born mathematician Kurt Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms ... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical system of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules.

Gödel's Theorem has been used to argue that a computer can never be as smart as a human being because the extent of its knowledge is limited by a fixed set of axioms, whereas people can discover unexpected truths ... It plays a part in modern linguistic theories, which emphasize the power of language to come up with new ways to express ideas. And it has been taken to imply that you'll never entirely understand yourself, since your mind, like any other closed system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying on what it knows about itself.

[Fredrick]

Hello Frederick,

I can only speak from a very small piece of the Planetary Framework, for this is all that I have experience of and any confidence in, even allowing for the subjective nature of that experiencing.

Still, from years of observing that there is an order to things, a system of interconnectedness as one looks inward and toward the micro-scale upon which the system appears to operate, it is only natural to use the 'reverse angle view' to look outward and extrapolate that perhaps the same system is operating on the exponentially increasing macro scale.

My personal experience has been diverse and textured, yet on a very small scale even from a planetary perspective, it being predominantly in remote settings with limited populations, and much from solitary pursuit in the wilderness. Though I have little to offer on the broader frameworks, in my mind's eye, I can imagine great distances and limitless potentials, yet how can one identify the point of perspective on infinity?

If all is still expanding outwards, as believed, from what vantage point has outwards been determined?

Earth is our vantage point, and the center of 'our' universe, but is it likely to be the center of 'the universe'?

Trying to imagine an open system such as infinity is challenging to my mind, as everything I have experience of has limits, or parameters, though they may be incredibly large. From traipsing 1600 km on a dog-sled, not once but three times, I have some understanding of scale and time.....

Will be following this thread......

Thank you for contributing to this thread, Labelwench. Your thoughts are sincere and your perspectives always interesting. Your question about the center of the universe spikes especially my interest, because if we take just the Universal Framework and ask that question again, then we know there is a fallacy to the question: it is the lack of an actual center that is the operative mode at this level. So, our brain works around that no-there-there. A way to consider something as the center of the universe is then found, for instance, by following the Solar Framework and imagining all matter as one reality, place that matter spatially, and subsequently view that what is the 'geographical' center as the center of the universe. Or, we can follow the Planetary Framework and declare ourselves the center of the universe, no matter how awkwardly we are spinning within the large Universal Framework. We can view the center of the universe as something real, because our brain allows us to use different frameworks when there is a gap in the actual framework. The blind spot in our eyes is an excellent example of how the brain corrects the lack of input of a specific spot. But that is basically what it comes down to: there is no center of the universe, because in the Universal Framework the lack of a center is very important, while declaring what can then still be considered the center is of no importance.

Since Hubble, we know about the universe containing matter that moves outwardly from one another. We can reverse the information and come to a location where the transgression must have taken place. We cannot know with certainty how large that area was, but we do know that there cannot be an eternal moving backwards in our minds because inward motion has an automatic stop to it — when matter is confronted with matter and when space had become a premium reality. In reality, there was plenty of space to share for forever, but clashes do not occur in remote places. For instance, only when a remote location has something important to offer (gas, diamonds, lumber) do humans move in, and within a certain time frame tensions move up when there is a battle taking place about the resources. If we battle, then we invest, we focus, we give it our all. Yet in the process it is no longer about space all by itself, it will be about that peculiar part of space that contains whatever it is that we desire to call our own. Space is futile, it is everywhere, it is quite unimportant (unless it contains something valuable). Yet at the beginning of our universe a process had been put in place that led to just such a battle; somehow something important (other than space) was being considered. We are bound to battle, because battling belongs to matter, and we cannot be separated from matter (no matter our spiritual being). The Universal Framework points us to who we are: incomplete — even when we are fully completed onto ourselves.

To identify the point of perspective on infinity, we must bring it back to the starting point. What is the starting point from where we can end up moving towards an infinite reality? If I start cutting an apple in half, and next cut one side in half again, and continue that forever, then there will be a moment I cannot cut the apple piece in half anymore (I only end up with apple sauce) even when in mind the cutting can continue infinitely. So, there are two frameworks involved with infinity: the actual and the conceptual framework. In the actual framework, the term infinity has no real meaning, except that infinity is allowed to have its starting point with the actual framework. We absorb the real information to process it, but when processed we no longer hold on to the actual framework, but move onto the conceptual information. Once the apple has been eaten, the stomach basically turns it into food that must be digested, and once digested the energy is used in our body to do other things, for instance, to think about stuff. We know for certain that the apple as we saw it will not return; once eaten, it is gone.

Conceptually, we can place the apple in a full circle of recycling within nature and view that as an eternal process. However, that is only infinite in time, not in place, no longer the apple we are talking about. The apple can appear and reappear as an apple we eat every day, but each of these apples are not eternal themselves.

Infinity from a perspective of place has very little meaning. Our planet has very little to contribute to a galaxy moving in our opposite direction. Our mind going to that spot somewhere far away is not what created the infinity's conception, it was earth, or our solar system, or our galaxy that was the basis for which we conjured a system that contained infinity. Yet only our mind maintains it. When there is nothing left for real, our mind can still see it going as if it were real.