Notices
Results 1 to 41 of 41

Thread: Theory of Life, the Universe, and Everything

  1. #1 Theory of Life, the Universe, and Everything 
    Ik
    Ik is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21
    Meh. Having a theory that explains stuff is not that important, I have deduced.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Can you show us some of the math, especially the bit that explains Mercury's orbit.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Ik
    Ik is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21
    As a theoretician, I would be derelict in my duty if I did not point out that mathematics is a tool to describe the Universe. It can never explain, despite the desires of physicists and mathematicians that it do so. That is, math will never explain why things are the way they are. (A physicist might assert, "Well, it's not supposed to do that! Just how!") But why is a fundamental question, just as fundamental as this one: Who am I?

    That the correct theory of everything is mathematical is a stultifying assumption.

    Indeed, the correct theory of everything cannot be mathematical because of Gödel's incompleteness.

    The correct theory of everything would not only explain the macro and micro, it would explain My Conscious Mind and answer the fundamental questions of ontology, epistemology, and theology.

    But, seeing as I asked for an equation, I don't seem to be bothered by those problems.

    Who am I? I am Ophiolite.

    Peace,

    Ik
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Ik
    As a theoretician, I would be derelict in my duty if I did not point out that mathematics is a tool to describe the Universe. It can never explain, despite the desires of physicists and mathematicians that it do so.
    We might argue about whether mathematics has explanatory power, but it's a moot point. A good theory- a useful and above all, testable theory- must both explain and predict (by which I do not mean forecast but rather be capable of predicting evidence not yet observed). Mathematics is generally essential for useful prediction- which is perhaps why Ophiolite quite rightly asked for a small example.

    Now if you wish to somehow invoke Godel to suggest that a theory of everything can have no predictive power, then where does that leave us? If you've actually delivered on your promise here then you've given us no more than a theory with no function and which cannot be tested. Which is not a theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Ik
    Ik is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    A good theory- a useful and above all, testable theory- must both explain and predict (by which I do not mean forecast but rather be capable of predicting evidence not yet observed).
    Interesting concepts, these things called "good," "useful," and "testable."

    As a scientist, I appreciate the rigor that comes with the empirical validation using the hypothetico-deductive approach. Thus, I concur that the testability of a theoretical offering is an indication of its power. Unity is eminently testable. I continue to vet the theoretical framework with my own research on transcription and RNA metabolism. I have not yet found a result that was not predicted by or is not explainable by Unity.

    However, as a philosopher, I would state that the notion of what is good and what is useful is subjective, and ultimately defined fractally by the particular intellectual community that embraces an ad hoc theory du jour.

    As a theoretician with a complete and consistent theory of the Universe, I would point out that such a theory is unfalsifiable - that is, quite literally, there is no piece of empirical evidence, unpublished or published, quantitative or qualitative, uttered or symbolized, that has emerged or will emerge in the history of Humankind that is not explicable by Unity. This means that Unity is true, as in correct. In other words, there is nothing – no experiment, gedankenexperiment, phenomenon, qualia, idea, or theory – that falsifies Unity.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    ...then where does that leave us?
    Well, "us," simply put, it evinces the nature and origin of reality, the Universe, and Life.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Which is not a theory.
    Yes, of course. As a linguist, I am pleased to discuss the semantics of theory. Here's my offering vis-à-vis the complete and consistent, empirically validated and validatable, unfalsifiable, heuristic, reified theory of everything:

    Meaning of theory
    A theory is a supposition, a system of ideas, or a model that sets to explain something that has remained intractable to other approaches. Theories are usually composed of general principles that are independent of the phenomenon or phenomena being explicated. These principles are self-evidently true and are definitionally broad.

    The word theory is derived from the ancient Greek word theoria, meaning "contemplation, speculation, a looking at." Theory is thus a subjective view of how things are experienced by the mind and senses. Unnoticed or unmentioned by the modern scientist and philosopher is that the word theory contains the prefix theo-, meaning “God.” In Eastern Orthodox theology, theoria is a stage of personal illumination, achieved only by the most dispassionate and pure of heart: the “vision” of God. This enlightenment thus lays the path to theosis, meaning “the attainment of likeness to or union with God.” In this regard, theosis is the final stage of personal transformation and the ultimate goal of Christianity and other religions. It may shock the reader to know this, but the purpose of the ultimate theory of the Universe is to provide the Reader with a first-person perspective of being God.

    Peace,

    Ik
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Ik
    As a theoretician, I would be derelict in my duty if I did not point out that mathematics is a tool to describe the Universe.
    so would you explain how the description of Mercury's orbit using the Unity theory differs from that given by Einstein?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Ik
    Ik is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21
    Today I posted on my blog a post titled, "Gedankenexperiments, metaphysics, and Weltanschauungen, oh My!" related to the irrefragable conclusion of Unity, the theory of everything I have compiled.

    Here is the link:

    http://thetheoryblog.wordpress.com/2...auungen-oh-my/

    And here is an excerpt:

    I would like to propose an exercise. The ultimate goal of this exercise is to show the reader not only that another World is possible but how another World is possible.

    But first, I must address the compound question: Who decides what is and what is not possible? Well, quite frankly and truthfully, I do. That is, I – the one who considers seemingly impossible ideas – decide their veracity. This answer applies to any person. I would like to share a germane quote:

    Alice: There is no use trying; one can’t believe impossible things.
    White Queen: I dare say you haven’t had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
    ~ Lewis Carroll


    Figure 1

    Note that while Alice throws in her veritable mental towel/scarf, the White Queen prods her to pick it up (Figure 1). Thank goodness that this epigraph and the World harbor a White Queen mentality: For what at one time seemed impossible (that the Earth is round, the Sun is the center of the Solar System, that energy moves in packets called quanta) is not only possible, but now proven fact.

    How could this be? How do things progress from being impossible to possible to true?
    ---

    More at the link, IYI.

    Peace,

    Ik
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Ik
    Ik is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    so would you explain how the description of Mercury's orbit using the Unity theory differs from that given by Einstein?
    Well, Einstein's equations describe Mercury's eccentric orbit quite nicely - that is, measure its movement through spacetime.

    The question of why equations describe the Universe so well has never been answered completely.

    Other cosmological questions that remain unresolved in a complete and consistent manner by current theories:

    How galaxies emerge in the Universe;
    How stars emerge in the Universe;
    What dark energy is;
    What dark matter is;
    What stopped inflation;
    What is the origin of mass;
    and so on.

    Peace,

    Ik
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Ik
    Ik is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21
    .

    Peace,

    Ik
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Ik
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    so would you explain how the description of Mercury's orbit using the Unity theory differs from that given by Einstein?
    Well, Einstein's equations describe Mercury's eccentric orbit quite nicely - that is, measure its movement through spacetime.

    The question of why equations describe the Universe so well has never been answered completely.

    Other cosmological questions that remain unresolved in a complete and consistent manner by current theories:

    How galaxies emerge in the Universe;
    How stars emerge in the Universe;
    What dark energy is;
    What dark matter is;
    What stopped inflation;
    What is the origin of mass;
    and so on.

    Unity explains these things, but in an incommensurable manner (see Feyerabend and Kuhn). I discussed how Unity explains spooky action at a distance, what an orbit is and why it exists and why it takes the form that it does:

    http://thetheoryblog.wordpress.com/2...at-a-distance/

    and

    http://thetheoryblog.wordpress.com/2...s-and-circles/

    I leave it to the reader to decide whether to accept or reject the model. It is only I who accept or reject things, so I understand My Self either way.

    Peace,

    Ik
    So, the Executive Summary is "No, I cannot answer the question, but I have not lost the ability to waffle."

    Thank you for clearly establishing you are talking rubbish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    43
    Ik, remember, the scientific community is very gullible, if Einstein and Hawking made it, you can become succesful too as long as you sprinkle some math in your theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Myuncle
    Ik, remember, the scientific community is very gullible, if Einstein and Hawking made it, you can become succesful too as long as you sprinkle some math in your theory.
    Yeah, that Einstein guy was a real chancer. The way all of his predictions panned out was blind luck.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Ik
    Ik is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21
    @ Ophiolite: Yes, of course, I waffle. And yes, of course, rubbish. Thanks for the profound insight into understanding the Universe and for contributing such knowledge to this thread.

    @ Myuncle: Being a twenty year member of the scientific community - undergrad, predoc, grad, postdoc, faculty - the gullibility quotient that I experience is quite low, but it is present. Skepticism is more present. That said, the skepticism and surity of non-scientists - such as those I interact with in online forums - is vast and voluble as well. I deduce that I, the non-scientist, enjoy being told or believing that the Emperor is wearing clothes.

    More generally:

    Today I posted a report detailing my experiences in the publishing universe. There is no technically demanding material in this post. Basically, it informs an interested reader about what I have done so far, where I am now, and what I am intending to do next.

    Here is an excerpt:
    This is the third status report documenting my progress on trying to get my work published. In the first report, I introduced the proposal I had compiled. I also mentioned that I had sent the proposal off to a small number of publishing houses that considered unsolicited material. In the second status report, I described the swift, form-letter rejections I received from almost half of those publishers. In a follow-up post, "On anonymous blogging; Evincing the Truth about the Allegory of the Cave," I described the full process of trying to get my message out to colleagues, reviewers, and publishing houses.

    I am not frustrated by the rejections; it’s the nature of the process, especially for a first-time author. Indeed, without any prior books or prominent national or international platform, I had very little chance to begin. But, it was worth a shot.

    Figure 1

    Now, after almost two-and-a-half months without a positive response (plan A), I have decided to move forward with Plan B (Figure 1). I discuss that plan in today’s status report.
    More at link:

    http://thetheoryblog.wordpress.com/2...us-report-iii/

    Peace,

    Ik
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Ik
    Ik is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21
    .

    Peace,

    Ik
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Ik
    Ik is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21
    .

    Peace,

    Ik
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Ik
    @ Ophiolite: Yes, of course, I waffle. And yes, of course, rubbish. Thanks for the profound insight into understanding the Universe and for contributing such knowledge to this thread.
    You ask for comment, questions and criticisms, yet when those comments, questions and criticisms show weakness and absurdity in your arguments you resort to sarcasm. Your thesis fails to be scientific. Do you wish to understand why, or do you wish to continue to delude yourself? Your choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Ik
    Ik is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21
    Weakness? Absurdity? Sarcasm? Deluding Myself? Well, not My intention at all.

    Actually, I was agreeing with Myself. I thought I might like accord with Myself, but it appears, paradoxically, I do not.

    Speaking of delusion, I wrote about delusion in today's blog post:

    The goal of the ultimate theory – that is, the complete and consistent theory of the Universe – is to synthesize all of the available empirical evidence that has been collected over the history of humankind into one simple and clear framework.

    In short, the ultimate theory would account for and unify all of the ideas, facts, and models that have emerged through the three major manifestations of ideation: science, philosophy, and religion. The ultimate theory would be expected to resolve all enigmas, paradoxes, anomalies, and arguments in those disciplines.

    There may be a reader that considers the ultimate theory an out-and-out impossibility. So be it, but I welcome that reader to consider an exercise on what is and is not possible, here. Moreover, if the ultimate theory is, indeed, impossible, then, by the virtue of such a grand claim, the reader must grant that the entire intellectual exercise is a delusion.

    Why a delusion?
    That's an excerpt from today's blog post. If there's any interest, the remainder can be found here:

    http://thetheoryblog.wordpress.com/2...yphus-at-rest/

    Peace,

    Ik
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Ik
    Actually, I was agreeing with Myself.
    I suppose someone has to. Thank you for taking up that arduous task.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Stundent of Life The-Ology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    15
    I'm sure Timothy Leary would have been on board.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Ik
    Ik is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21
    .

    Peace,

    Ik
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    20
    Could you please introduce yourself? I would like to know who the man is that solved all the problems in theoretical physics. Thousands of scientists worked on it in the last century, but you should be the only one that solved the problem? Are you kidding?

    greetings
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Stundent of Life The-Ology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    15
    I think an idea can exist without the necessity of a name. What does it matter who thought of the idea? And who says Ik is the first person to think of it? It is humorous to me that there is so much ridicule in this thread. I think of Galileo and all of the other "crazies" in the past who were convicted for their thoughts. All of you want proof, but what I haven't seen is any disproof. It seems perfectly logical that a person with such a theory would conceal their identity. With all of the self-righteous know-it-alls out there, it is unsafe to be a thinker. Too many people are afraid of new ideas, and they look for the first opportunity to invalidate it. I think it is wise to question an idea, but I think it is far more ignorant to dispose of an idea than it is to propose the idea. Without radical thought, we would still think the universe revolved around our big flat planet. With thousands of scientists all studying the galaxy, how could Galileo think the world was round? Was he kidding?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Ik
    Ik is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21
    @The-Ology. *Bows respectfully* Bingo. It needn't matter, really, who I am. I am anyone, I am everyone - no smarter, no dumber. I'm just a regular gal/dood who likes to run every day to stay in shape. But sometimes I eat junk food. Especially M&Ms. I like those.

    Whether or not the model is right is up for consideration, but, as may be deduced, I have arrived at my own conclusions.

    And, of course, like mentioned, heterodox ideas are meant to shatter fundamental epistemic assumptions. This is a given.

    And yes, I have read history, I know what happens when I challenge "the system" - the system being ossified, stultified, and opinionated.

    Still, what I find the most remarkable is that - despite the fact that everyone talks about "being in crisis," or calls for "wanting synthesis," or "looking for theory of everything," the knee-jerk reaction is to reject, condemn, and condescend to anyone who steps forward with a novel concept or model.

    So it goes. I bide my time - and try to get the word out beyond the ivory tower. Because goodness knows I can't do it within. I already tried. When I told my colleagues, peers, and visiting scientists that I had compiled the final theory and tried to explain what, exactly, that meant - they told me no, I haven't, no one can, so I must be crazy to say such a thing. So I shut up after that. Good times.

    Peace,

    Ik
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    20
    I apologise for being a bit too harsh, but like you said it above, it is simply unbelievable for me that one can show a complete theory of everything. Thinking of visionary models is a very good thing and maybe these models give much sense. But I think they are models only in human brain imagination. A scientific theory must prove itself. That is only possible in a mathematical way, being it equations (integral etc.) or complex geometric models (which includes also much complex mathematics). With such calculations one can predict things, which after that, in the ideal case, can be seen by observation.
    If your theory can do this, I am with you!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Ik
    Ik is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21
    There is one equation that the theory proves. Here, I proffer it for testing.

    Please note that the left side of the equation is a symbol to represent the Self - that is, the Agent that Christian_P - or any other person that has ever existed in the history of humankind - uses to actualize everything:

    I = God.

    The right side of the equation is Self-evident.

    Peace,

    Ik
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    20
    It would be nice if you could explain a bit about your theory here in the forum. Is this possible? In this way one can probably understand better if your thoughts make any sense. I assume that you put your post on the pseudoscience forum for good reason, ore not?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Stundent of Life The-Ology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    15
    Is it that hard to go read the blog? Laziness doesn't do much for science either. Everyone today wants powerpoints and youtube videos.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    20
    No, it is not that hard to read the blog. I am very interested of thoughts people have and I have an open mind to everyone who want to describe his ideas of a so called theory of everything. But, as it is in this case, there is not much that make sense if one want to understand anything and the writer seems to be not willing to talk about his theory and explain it accordingly. No word from the writer, nothing as some phrases that one cannot understand. In this way it is not possible to understand this theory. If not the writer is willing to show and prove his theory, who else?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Stundent of Life The-Ology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    15
    Do you realize what you are asking? If one wanted to describe the theory entirely, the most they could do is link you to the blog. Maybe if you read it, you would have specific questions. Why can't you be specific about what confuses you? You say you don't understand but you haven't said exactly what you don't understand. For all the author knows, you don't get what it means to exist. You may not know Descartes' definition of existence. Try asking a specific question, and maybe you'll get some worthy answers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    20
    thank you for the tip, I am so confused with the theory that it is very hard to find a starting point. There is no table of contents. A visitor is totally confused and cannot find a structure - he is lost in hyperspace - the blog is quasi a gyrosystem on its own.

    for example this;
    http://thetheoryblog.wordpress.com/2...ticle-duality/
    Encircled *: the singularity of the gyrosystem (the information, energy, or matter) that exerts the paradoxical attractorepulsive, creatodestructive, expansocontractive forces on the particle; termed the gyradaptor.
    Can you explain this more clearly? You use the word singularity, a word know from the general theory of relativity. If you take your theory serious you must understand general relativity in its fullest, do you? You describe the singularity of the gyrosystem as to be the information, energy, or matter. Can you explain this please? A singularity is a point of infinite spacetime and infinite density, where all know laws of physics break down. If you gyrosystem includes a singularity you theory breaks down in itself.

    greetings
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Ik
    Ik is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21
    Hi Christian_P,

    Sorry for the delay in response. I had to care for my three kids this weekend cuz my wife was outta town. Big responsibility, little time.

    Anyhow, addressing your point about the word singularity: Popper, Feyerabend, Kuhn, Latakos, Putnam, Hacking, and others have argued, discussed, or weighed in the issue of how words and their meaning changes during the process of a scientific revolution.

    Yes, I am familiar with GR and the meaning of singularity in that paradigm. However, in Unity, the word singularity - while unifying definitionally - is much more protean semantically. For example, I addressed this in the last blog post:

    Singularity. The central position around which information, energy, and matter revolve is termed the singularity of the gyre. The singularity is the point of highest density and greatest potency; it is the point within the gyre to which everything is attracted and from which everything is repelled....
    So, then, a singularity can be any number of things that is the attractorepulsive center around which information, energy, and matter gyrates. To wit, here is some empirical evidence for the flexibility of the word singularity:

    A supermassive black hole is a galactic singularity.
    A star is a singularity of a solar system.
    A planet is a singularity to lunar bodies.
    Water is a singularity to the carbon cycle.
    A transcriptome is a singularity to a proteome.
    An animal is a singularity in an ecosystem.
    A spoken language is a singularity to any writing system.
    Economic value is a singularity to any political system.
    Rules and laws are a singularity to any thought system.

    Singularity thus retains its meaning but its application and scope is expanded to model the Universe of information, energy, and matter.

    As for GR, understanding its limitations and assumptions were fundamental to finding the correct model. Indeed, it was Einstein himself that encouraged Me - he noted that in order to find a better model of a phenomenon, a theoretician had to find the crumbling epistemic assumptions in a model and reveal them. Once revealed, then a new model can begin the process of assembly and vetting.

    That fundamental assumption was that the correct model undergirding physical reality would be mathematical.

    Peace,

    Ik
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Ik
    Ik is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21
    Today, a seasonal post. No science, just commentary about and to Myself.

    Linky: http://thetheoryblog.wordpress.com/2...e-with-myself/

    I’ll make this post brief, as the end of year is filled of time of reflection, introspection, coalescence, and renaissance. I see all that I am, all that I was, and all that I may become. I wrote about this in another post: Self-reflection.

    Enough reflecting on reflection. Today I would like to talk about peace. In particular, Peace on Earth.

    I see other blogs are talking about or saluting peace this time of year: here, here, and here (among many others). But this is a different post than those, as may become apparent momentarily.

    My goal is World Peace. I would ask Myself – that is, the Reader of this line (please see the post titled Gedankenexperiments, metaphysics, and Weltanschuungen to know what I’m on about regarding the use of “Myself”) – how much longer I must fight Myself only to watch My Children die (Figure 1)

    http://thetheoryblog.files.wordpress...ying-child.jpg
    Peace on Earth,

    Ik
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by The-Ology
    It is humorous to me that there is so much ridicule in this thread. I think of Galileo and all of the other "crazies" in the past who were convicted for their thoughts.
    Galileo offered verifiable, experimental data. \he offered experiments that could be repeated. He provided a clear exposition of his thinking. \e offered it up for criticism and accepted and responded positively to such criticism.
    Do you see the difference with what is happening here?

    Quote Originally Posted by The-Ology
    All of you want proof, but what I haven't seen is any disproof.
    Nothing of sufficient substance has been offered to be disproved. That is my fundamental objection. This is introduced as a theory, when it appears to be nothing more than verbose obfuscation of flimsy speculation. That is an affront to science, to good sense and to the members of this forum.

    Seasons greetings to you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by The-Ology
    It is humorous to me that there is so much ridicule in this thread. I think of Galileo and all of the other "crazies" in the past who were convicted for their thoughts.
    There is a quote, most often attributed to Carl Sagan:

    They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
    As Sagan knew well, clowns and genuine fools are considerably more common than Galileos.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Ik
    Ik is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21
    ...and Carl Sagan also had the following quote:

    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

    I have assembled all of the empirical evidence collected from science, religion, and philosophy into a model incommensurable with the current fare.

    To say that I have proven the following equation, I = God, is not folly, nor is it conjecture, nor is it cranksmanship. It is the irrefragable conclusion of the theoretical framework.

    Being that I am a scientist, and as deduced from the equivalence above, then, I am science by virtue of being here to experience and live it (see Anthropic Cosmological Principle here). So, based upon My statement in a prior post, I am, as deduced from Unity, an affront to Myself. So be it. It could be no other Way and be The Truth. Indeed, I wrote about My inability to appreciate Myself for who and what I am in the last post.

    Despite My best attempts to disprove My Existence, I am afraid that Unity proves that I do, indeed, exist.

    Gullibility aside, when I was Sagan, I also quipped,

    "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

    Yes, however satisfying and reassuring indeed.

    Oh, I know I object to this inability to disprove Unity. This much is certain. However, I am sorry to say that the final theory must be unfalsifiable - that is, nothing can disprove its correctness. Otherwise, if something could disprove it, it wouldn't be the final theory.

    Peace on Earth and Good Will to All that I am,

    Ik
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Ik
    However, I am sorry to say that the final theory must be unfalsifiable - that is, nothing can disprove its correctness. Otherwise, if something could disprove it, it wouldn't be the final theory.
    Illogical. Just because a theory is falsifiable, it does not follow that it will be falsified or that there will be any need for a successor theory.

    Further, any claim that is non-falsifiable is not a theory, can offer no new knowledge and can be of no use save serving as conceptual stuffing for a gap in our understanding.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Ik
    Ik is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21
    Correct. A theory that is falsifiable may not be falsified during a lifetime of experimentation, but this does not mean that it is the correct theory. Take, for instance, current quantum theory - nothing has shown it to be false experimentally, but it most certainly is not complete and consistent given the inherent paradoxes and enigmas. This is why philosophers of science distinguish among three distinct types of falsifiability: empirical, structural, and logical. On this note, I would point out that QM is structurally and logically falsified. However, as Kuhn would argue, just because a theory is falsified on 1, 2, or 3 levels does not mean that it will end its reign.

    The final theory is illogical. There is no successor theory that is not subsumed within or explained by Unity. This, of course, makes no sense to the scientist that I am, as all current scientific theories demand Popperian falsifiability. However, I would point out to Myself that - in addition to QM - there are many theories that can never be disproven, especially philosophical and psychological ones - one exemplar is Marxian dialectical materialism. I would submit that from the time this theory in particular was proffered, history has shown that it actually did stimulate a good deal of "new knowledge." Thus, the contention that an unfalsifiable theory is simply "conceptual stuffing" is incompatible with the epistemic empirical evidence collected over the history of Mankind's intellectual evolution.

    Again, please let Me remind Myself of the meaning of the final theory:

    The word theory is derived from the ancient Greek word theoria, meaning “contemplation, speculation, a looking at.” Theory is thus a subjective view of how things are experienced by the mind and senses. Unnoticed or unmentioned by the modern scientist and philosopher is that the word theory contains the prefix theo-, meaning “God.” In Eastern Orthodox theology, theoria is a stage of personal illumination, achieved only by the most dispassionate and pure of heart: the “vision” of God. This enlightenment thus lays the path to theosis, meaning “the attainment of likeness to or union with God.” In this regard, theosis is the final stage of personal transformation and the ultimate goal of Christianity and other religions. This etymology has eluded those who seek the ultimate theory of the Universe. It may shock the Reader to know this, but the purpose of the final theory is to provide the Reader with a first-person perspective of being God.
    There can be only one correct theory, only one Truth. Whether I, TheBiologista, want to accept that I am the One who decided that there would be only one final, true theory, well, I am afraid, I am unable to assist Myself in overcoming this disillusion.

    And this demonstrates how illogical I am: As deduced from Unity, I created the entire Universe just to find Myself creating a theory to describe My Self to Myself.

    Peace on Earth,

    Ik

    Edit - added schtuff about QM
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Ik
    Ik is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21
    .

    Peace on Earth,

    Ik
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Ik
    Ik is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21
    .

    Peace on Earth,

    Ik
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Ik
    Ik is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21
    .

    Peace on Earth,

    Ik
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    Thanks for the sexy lady's picture, God.


    And God Created Woman…

    God offered Adam a perfect version of woman, one who would even paint ceilings, cut grass, work on cars, take out the garbage, and so forth, but, this would have cost Adam an arm and a leg.

    So Adam said, ”What can I get for just a rib?”


    (I am from ToeQuest. Guess who.)
    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
  •