Notices
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: ultimate theory = ultimate mind-wipe ?

  1. #1 ultimate theory = ultimate mind-wipe ? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Would an ultimate theory of space-time be so thoroughly reasoned that it would, to the human mind, represent a type of brain-washing?

    If so, why, if not, why not?







    .


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Assuming I understand you correctly, which is assuming a lot, I'd say, I hope so.

    A theory so obvious and well reasoned that anyone who read it would immediately realize it's truth and throw away all other ideas of how things ultimately work would be wonderful assuming one very important thing: it was actually true. Since nothing can ever be proven true, this basically means that, no, no such thing can exist. There will always be someone that attempts to poke holes in any theory, which is a good thing, since that's how science works.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Did did understand me correctly.




    I agree with parts of your response. But the thing is, there are people in this world who depend on lies, and who falisfy facts apparent to even themselves. An ultimate theory, I believe, would be like a clear day: some people agree with it, some people can't. Some people embrace truth, others embrace lies.

    I am thinking that the ultimate science, whatever anyone wants to call it, G.U.T, whatever else, will merely highlight those who can understand and accept truth and those who have trained themselves "not to".

    I therefore anticipate that the ultimate theory, after proven mathematically and in the lab, having tied all the strings of science together, will confound those who have been versed on not accepting truth, people who train their minds to be deceitful to others. And that should be a real eye-opener to the theroist, especially if the theorist is seeking to find an honest people to share and develop the technological aspects of the theory with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    174
    The problem though is that how will youknow if it is truly Ultimate?
    That will be difficult to prove.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    No it won't. Proof is possible. In time it will seem like child's play, child's play that needs to be very well managed.

    It's as easy as designing an experiment that, for instance, can generate an artifical gravity field via electromagnetism, with equations that are fundamental and flawless, like the equations of a circle and pi relevant to the propagation of the electromagnetic field and associated gravity phenomena of force. If you can do that, without corrupting any of the known observable laws of physics, you would have explained the link between gravity and electromagnetism. You would have every scientist on the planet at your mercy, a beginning audience.................IF of course, as I specified, they can understand "truth" (which I doubt).






    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    174
    Thus difficult. hehe
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Yes.

    Yeeeeeeeessssssss.

    (Haaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaa).












    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    The problem with GUTs and ToEs is that they are the ultimate in reductionism. They take no account of emergent properties, which is where all the interesting things happen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Yes.






    :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    No.

    I neeeed to disagree.




















    The only reductionism would be in stupidity and the reduction of wasteage of money.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    I am thinking that the ultimate science, whatever anyone wants to call it, G.U.T, whatever else, will merely highlight those who can understand and accept truth and those who have trained themselves "not to".
    I like to call it the all electron universe.

    You can see what happened to the nicest most loving unselfish individual you could ever meet. Benjamin Franklin. He would give you the shirt off his back.

    Yet he ended up having to go to war to uphold his science. That is what England was fighting. And the effect science was having on the poor, the sick, in a very good and Godly way.

    That is why I keep mentioning the political aspect in my posts. To keep it real. We truly completed science, but many could not see living with science. They much more liked to control desperate, poor individuals, usually suffering from disease, both physical and mental.

    To me if that is the game, or correct way to lead, I am thinking lets play hard ball.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    You are a patch.






    Science is a wound and you're a being a patch.







    Will, understand me here. I am not being nasty. But, if science is a distressing thing, and we try to dress that wound with our own exotic ideas, we are merely offering a patch.

    My point is that ultimately we have to honor not the people of science, but the concept of space-time itself, like it is a God. Stop addressing space-time like it is a wound. Using the electron theory is making space-time into something like a mentally retarded God, only giving it limited credit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    You are a patch.






    Science is a wound and you're a being a patch.







    Will, understand me here. I am not being nasty. But, if science is a distressing thing, and we try to dress that wound with our own exotic ideas, we are merely offering a patch.

    My point is that ultimately we have to honor not the people of science, but the concept of space-time itself, like it is a God. Stop addressing space-time like it is a wound. Using the electron theory is making space-time into something like a mentally retarded God, only giving it limited credit.

    Space is space, time is time. It is all pretty well understood by some. Time creates the appearance of mass and weight. But it is not mysterious at all.

    What is mysterious is the whole ball of wax. The more you understand it, the more complicated it gets. Until you have the whole picture. Then it is just an infinite play land.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    Space is space, time is time. It is all pretty well understood by some. Time creates the appearance of mass and weight. But it is not mysterious at all.

    What is mysterious is the whole ball of wax. The more you understand it, the more complicated it gets. Until you have the whole picture. Then it is just an infinite play land.


    I doubt anyone will quote that ever again.

    To explain what space is, and what time is, well, one needs to be consistent with "difficulty factor" already in place. To just stand back though and call it an "infinite playland" is being a little "inappropriate" when asked to define it accurately. There is nothing "accurate" about any play-land. Playlands are for children who make constant mistakes. Explaining space-time though bears fruit such as nuclear technology that requires us to be a little more adult about its management.

    Still, I digress.

    My post here was in view of my thoughts on what the ultimate theory would do to our "minds". I believe it will not be a mind-wipe, that if people want to refute it, they can. If they choose not to read about it, they won't. I think the ultimate theory would achieve this by being "very difficult to understand", so much so it would annoy most people on first reading, be really tiresome to their minds. I mean, thats a little more than saying "space is space, time is time, time creates the illusion of mass and energy".

    I believe the ultimate theory will do the greatest justice to the notion of "working hard to get results" that would do any think-tank organistaion proud.

    I also think it would be ideal if the ultimate theory were encrypted in a way to stop bad people from understanding it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    Space is space, time is time. It is all pretty well understood by some. Time creates the appearance of mass and weight. But it is not mysterious at all.

    What is mysterious is the whole ball of wax. The more you understand it, the more complicated it gets. Until you have the whole picture. Then it is just an infinite play land.
    I doubt anyone will quote that ever again.

    To explain what space is, and what time is, well, one needs to be consistent with "difficulty factor" already in place. To just stand back though and call it an "infinite playland" is being a little "inappropriate" when asked to define it accurately. There is nothing "accurate" about any play-land. Playlands are for children who make constant mistakes. Explaining space-time though bears fruit such as nuclear technology that requires us to be a little more adult about its management.

    Still, I digress.

    My post here was in view of my thoughts on what the ultimate theory would do to our "minds". I believe it will not be a mind-wipe, that if people want to refute it, they can. If they choose not to read about it, they won't. I think the ultimate theory would achieve this by being "very difficult to understand", so much so it would annoy most people on first reading, be really tiresome to their minds. I mean, thats a little more than saying "space is space, time is time, time creates the illusion of mass and energy".

    I believe the ultimate theory will do the greatest justice to the notion of "working hard to get results" that would do any think-tank organistaion proud.

    I also think it would be ideal if the ultimate theory were encrypted in a way to stop bad people from understanding it.

    I am saying that any of the three elements that make up our universe. Space, Time, and Matter. When looking at any one. They are simple as a child's toy. Time is time. It is the passing of things done or not done. You cannot go back and do or undo. That is what time is.

    Space is the physical area and volume of nothing, or volume filled with matter, an area that we will play in.

    Matter alone is the most simple thing there is. It is little particles that like to repel each other.
    Something turned the electrons into high velocity ambient radiation, and little balls we call atoms. The rest is history.

    Matter, takes all that space, and all that time and confuses it with all kinds of rules, rays, bangs, pops, vibrations, heat, lack of heat, light, lack of light, feelings that time is going to fast or slow.

    All I am saying is that there is nothing more to time, then that it is the passing of life. Space is just an empty place unless you put matter into it.

    All highly simple until you combine all three of them.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Will, I agree.

    But I think space is a measurement concept, as with time. They are coneptual rulers we use to measure fundamental activities that are apparent to our perception.

    I would say that applying the concept of space and time to what we perceive would represent a "very" complex thing, without a doubt.

    But, we're really not getting anywhere in saying that.

    "Mmmmm, big mountain" is all we are saying in saying that.










    We need to be a little more refined with our we want to make sense of what we perceive in using the concept of space and time, don;t you think, other than your "three mighty ones".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    91
    hey ophiolite


    The problem with GUTs and ToEs is that they are the ultimate in reductionism. They take no account of emergent properties, which is where all the interesting things happen.
    this seems like a contradiction to your arguement in one of your posts in the religious forums where you claim adding any creationist theory to the big bang is over-complicating and therefore redundant.

    i'm not argueing one way or the other, just bringing it to your attention.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    Will, I agree.

    But I think space is a measurement concept, as with time. They are coneptual rulers we use to measure fundamental activities that are apparent to our perception.

    I would say that applying the concept of space and time to what we perceive would represent a "very" complex thing, without a doubt.

    But, we're really not getting anywhere in saying that.

    "Mmmmm, big mountain" is all we are saying in saying that.








    We need to be a little more refined with our we want to make sense of what we perceive in using the concept of space and time, don;t you think, other than your "three mighty ones".


    Just to further on what I said, Will, I think that science allows us to use tools to explain what we perceive of reality. Two of those tools is the concept of "space" on the one hand and "time" on the other. I am thinking that if we define "space" and "time" in a simplistic fashion, our tool of investigating what is apparent to our perception is not that profound. It would lead to a complicated and entagled science, like the one we have.








    Will, if we can make our understanding of the "abstract" nature of the tools of space and time more refined, more refined, we can get better results with our investigation of what is apparent to our perception. This would lead, ideally, to a more exact, if not easier to understand, account of what is apparent to our perception in the code of an upgraded tool of space-time.

    Using a simplistic format for space and time as investigation tools of what is apparent to our perception will give us "limited" results, such as the fruits of science today.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •