Is the Theory of Everything Incomplete Without Including God?

[Erck]

:-) Thought you might.

 

[sol2]

INfinite Potential in a point?

What probabilties could then be expressed from it, and how would any pathways choosen, had come from expressions of higher dimensions?

Let's assume you have a mathematical structure that could detail for you in consideration, such expressions as that of Pascal's triangle. Then what in these higher dimensions would signal which pathway?

http://mathforum.org/workshops/usi/pascal/images/base.gif


http://mathforum.org/workshops/usi/pascal/mo.pascal.html

FRom the idea of Planck length, all has become energy (it had become problematic in physics research?), so if I said it's strength and weakness, then at this level, patterns would have to mean something.

We recognize Nash for his principal of negotiation (beautiful mind ) its inception from inside the bar. Then could such perceptions, have revealled something from this realm? You can't ignore such PARADIGMAL CHANGES NOW HAVE CHANGE PERCEPTION AND VISUALIZATION?

If we had accepted a "paradigmal change," to what has always been considered in particle reductionism, what has then happened, that we could not assume such expressions could exist? Or could they?

http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@195.gCmPbCsYRU3.0@.1dde532a

Emergence and Lauglin:)

 

[tabloid]

"toe" was always there long time back.we are just trying to refine it into something else(the same thing) to gain a better understanding of things.anyways,its the scientists to say...my job is to learn

 

[Erck]

Infinite potential in a point?

Yes and no.

The substance of every point/wave is relative.

It will suggest "everything" yes, but it will also suggest no-thing.

The true substance in a point is "relationships."

The TOE might be more subtle than we think.

 

[Dlanorrenrag]

Regarding Subtleness

Within the balance of existence, what relative exchange accounts for manifestation of an arrow of time? Is a dissipation of heat and energy exchanged for something more than spatial expansion, perhaps a categorical *accumulation of history and information*?

Do survivalist processes allow basic category patterns of string vibrations to manifest material fields that become ever more adept at "anticipating" how to survive, co-opt, align, magnetize, polarize, unite, or repulse more massive or dense field patterns?

Do we have imagination enough to even guess what might result when a pattern becomes adept enough to relate to a universal membrane with enough information (regarding leap, location, direction, speed, acceleration, momentum, rotation, spin, frequency, amplitude, intensity, vibration, oscillation, wobble, irregularity, charge, balance, polarity, density) to be able to outlast any pressure that might be brought to bear by any other existing field pattern?

At such a diffused point of aesthetic imagination, might we intuit a basis for bringing Occam’s Reductionist Razor to bear, in order to join a physical theory of everything (TOE) with a universal philosophy of values (POV)? As a matter of aesthetic faith, might ultimate string vibrations reasonably or metaphorically be considered, on one side of the coin of existence, to constitute the wiring of Nature and, on the other side, the synapses of a "God" Membrane, as sort of ultimate building blocks of a TOEPOV?

 

[pelastration]

Catalan numbers in Pascal Triangle!

Hi Sol,

Thanks for reminding me the Pascal's triangle. So - especially for you - I checked my pelastratic approach and it's relationship with the Catalan numbers ... with the Pascal triangle.

And indeed there is a relationsship never done or shown before. I hope it will appeal to you. You will not find it on the website you referred to.

I found out that for every Catalan number an 'exclusive' number of the triangle is used. Fun! And strange. Check the image on http://www.mu6.com/holons/catalan_pascal.jpg.

There is not yet a real 'visual' pattern and I just checked it for the first six or seven layers of combination (till the Catalan number 4862). The white spots left open will be used by following catalan numbers.
To me it confirms that the pelastration approach is found in the natural systems. I see that John Baez goes in that direction to with Category theory and Hilb, but it's noncommutative and it seems to me he is still inversing in the commutative way(?).
Just think about the envelop of SST and all becomes clear. ;-)
d

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Selfadjoint is right in his pointing out the nature of Science, seen as 'sticking to the physical' ergo "extrinsic provability" what remains as 'intrisic' is subjectively accountable only, ergo not acceptable in scientific proofs of things...but I'll tell you when you get to certain places, certain things, you cannot proceed any further, it is impossible, hence we MUST follow beliefs, if only as a construction of, and from, a basis of "Extrinsic Objective Proof" and the math helps somewhat to verify, but it should be noted! it too! can mislead...if the logic isn't 'suitable'...

There need not be an argument of "Science V Religion" as the two endevour to discover the same thing proper description of the truth, Science just sticks to what it can prove "extrinsically" and hence concordant with "Current Scientific Theory/Thought"

Religion allows certain latitudes for the Mysterious in nature, as yet Scientifically un-explained mysteries...sorta

 

[amp]

I think that a major problem is not many are willing to consider that the universe and 'everthing in it' is a subset of 'God', in fact it is entirely contained with-in 'God' and even as that is true one should realize that 'God' permeates the entire reality of we perceive as the universe

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Well, sort of agree, God would be the "Infinite" though, so neither Science, nor Religion, can prove, dis-prove, 'do anything' about it, not mathematical either, although the sign/symbol is needed in understanding 'limits', but it is an impossibility to prove, or dis-prove, hence No One side can Win the arguement...

 

[Erck]

Should god as "infinite" necessarily be a given?

 

[JesseBonin]

to "understand" anything we must understand its limits. This is the basic human flaw. We assume that there are boundries, and we can define thoes boundries in any words we like. Even if we use terms like "endless, infinite, everything, and nothing" we still limit the idea by defining it. To define something gives it a "definate" that limits the possiblities of the ideas. I like the term "zero, zed, 0" most of us quickly forget that thoes symbols are the representation of that whice we choose NOT to define, these do not neccisarirly represent anything. Remember your grade school teacher telling you that 0 was not a number, but the absence of a number? what's the difference between saying "nothing" and representing nothing with a 0? the word nothing has an absolute definition, meaning the "non-existance" of whatever it is we are considering "something" whereas 0 represents that which we wish not to define, there could be something there we are just unwilling to, or unable to define whatever it is 0 represents. The term 0 gives us an opporitunity to incorperate a lot of things into the "math" we use to define our reality.

there is another misunderstood number 1. Why? 1 represents more than just the singular. A mathmatical analogy ... you have 1 apple, we can deduce the number of apples you have by concluding that the "1" represents a singular entity. in this scenario we do not account for "possibility" similar to basic relativity. Now let's look at the "1" in a different way. If we say we "start" with 1 apple, we now have a number with more than just it's singular meaning. we now see one not as a singular entity, but as a "beginning" or "starting point" . We have 1 apple, but as that apple dies its seeds are spred and grow ten trees, from which a thousand apples grow. In this scenario the possibility of our 1 is 1000

"I knew that, but it doesent really give the number 1 any more meaning" doesent it? try to look beyond your own basic "human flaw" and try to look outside of the definitions. If you truly want to theorize "everything" you have to start from the beginning. To find the beginning you have to find the one thing in nature that can reproduce both examples of "1" at the same time. It has to be a "singular" thing and it has to possesses the potential to be "all things"

With all that in mind, the only thing i could come up with is light. Why light? split any atom and the result is brillint light of every spectrum. Heat as a by product? heat as a primary function, you cannot have one without the other they are one and the same at the smallest level. although they are two very separate measurements.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Should god as "infinite" necessarily be a given?

Hence the entire reason for belief, the requisite of the need for faith, belief, the practice of spirituallity, as by way of (organized) religion(s)

The infinite need not be 'seen' as God, but then again, it cannot be 'seen' soooo...we simply cannot prove it...ever...accept, profess, believe in whatever you like, God gave you that right, and I am not the one who will be 'seen' as being guilty of taking it away from you, you have to do that all for yourself...

C:Ya!.*

 

[Erck]

Can the infinite be contained within a finite?

 

[sol2]

Can the infinite be contained within a finite?

I like what Mr. Parsons is saying. That if at some level the logic runs out we might indeed call this belief.

What might we call Planck length, and in that infinite potential, expressive in such a point?

It is difficult to know what might be expressed in these probabilities. Can they exist here? In the early universe such expansion potentials are recognized in discrete things, as the universe cools.

This does remove other potentials within this universe, Suns die and new ones are born:)

Compaction of a singularity, assumes critical density and when at the same time such compaction reveals other possibilites?

I am open to corrections

 

[Erck]

I like what Mr. Parsons is saying. That if at some level the logic runs out we might indeed call this belief.

Maybe our logic just isn't sufficiently critical yet?

 

[sol2]

Maybe our logic just isn't sufficiently critical yet?

This would then be part of the desire then for a new math?

How shall that arise in a supersymmetrical world?

If it's born in thought, and philosophy is its base, then it must arise from a cognitive state( mathematical foundation) similar to supersymmetry?

Hence this would have to include topological features, supermetric points in supergravity etc.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Can the infinite be contained within a finite?

It cannot be, but the Infinite can hold the finite, at leat the appearance of "finite-ness" hence we encounter the illusion of time (it is really just 'motion', and how we meter that) followed closely by the illusion of 'solidity' that is enscounced within the appearance of time...

But all is EMR...Light(?) sorta, and as I had posted once before, In metaphysics, we find that "In an ininity, the center(s) can appear as everywhere/anywhere"...even in the middle of a Neutron Star flooded with EMR energy in between the spaces between the centers right down to the very core of it, "pressuris extremis" YIKES!

 

[pelastration]

Can the infinite be contained within a finite?

The problem of definitions and semantics.
Can a finite person (a mother) infinite love her child.
I think she can.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

The problem of definitions and semantics.
Can a finite person (a mother) infinite love her child.
I think she can.

, :tongue: , , ,

 

[sol2]

M is all Inclusive

The problem of definitions and semantics.
Can a finite person (a mother) infinite love her child.
I think she can.

Mr. Parsons,

If M is a bubble then the pelastrian considerations would make sense and so would mother:) The geometrodynamics would also make sense from this standpoint and why it was introduced.

From my perspective, the dynamics of pelastrian are from a heighten perspective? A graduation of sorts to hyperspace, where you move Reinmannian curvatures to dynamics situations

This is part of the vision for some of us beginners


Visualization of Superstring States

Of course in order to really understand this one has to acquaint oneself with the required formalism. But I think it is a fun exercise in physics pedagogy to try to come up with semi-heuristic mental pictures which provide the layman with more information than the general statement above while avoiding a complete mathematical development of the theory.

http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/string/archives/000334.html

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Infinity cannot have time, soooooooo...all the rest is, well...having Fun yet?

 

[Erck]

There's all the time in the world...

 

[pelastration]

Mr. Parsons,

If M is a bubble then the pelastrian considerations would make sense and so would mother:) The geometrodynamics would also make sense from this standpoint and why it was introduced.

From my perspective, the dynamics of pelastrian are from a heighten perspective? A graduation of sorts to hyperspace, where you move Reinmannian curvatures to dynamics situations

This is part of the vision for some of us beginners


Visualization of Superstring States

Of course in order to really understand this one has to acquaint oneself with the required formalism. But I think it is a fun exercise in physics pedagogy to try to come up with semi-heuristic mental pictures which provide the layman with more information than the general statement above while avoiding a complete mathematical development of the theory.

http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/string/archives/000334.html

Indeed Sol, ... A graduation of sorts to hyperspace, where you move Reinmannian curvatures to dynamics situations
Dynamic thanks.

 

[sol2]

Indeed Sol, ... A graduation of sorts to hyperspace, where you move Rienmannian curvatures to dynamics situations
Dynamic thanks.

Thanks D,

Doesn't matter who saids it:)

Rienmannian revelations help us to see the world different and Einstein grasped onto this? Gauss helped to prep us to these ideas and Grossman's introduction to Einstein also helped.

Here's a further link and final one.

Quantum Rienmannian Geometry

I'll be watching the threads, after all, good information can come from here as well:)

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Gentlemen, your assertion includes time, no doubt, right?...cause if it does...well...

 

[sol2]

Gentlemen, your assertion includes time, no doubt, right?...cause if it does...well...

It's always been easy on a cosmological scale to understand these application of GR. What was difficult is to marry it to the small world.

Time dilation and length contraction have to be undertsood in this dynamical world of the small, so how shall we do this?

Somebodies developes a new theoretcial language ( shall we call it math) and covers all the bases? Such conceptual frames once adopting these new persepctive allows one a different view on the world, and now we realize it just is not stargazing we are doing:)

It helps us undertand the dynamical nature of the very small.

So what's left? Simulatneity? How shall we incoporate this idea in a dynamcial world where we've changed our perspective? Some undertand the current trends of coputerization has to look very different then it does now?

Reductionism has run out of room, for its definition. GHZ entanglement in light of these new concepts? How will they explain what in undertood in those metric point considerations. We need more room? Numerical relativity and computerization based on these mathmatical defntions has to incorporate the language of LIGO?

Just thinking out loud.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

The marriage of the small, to the large, is simple enough, if you know how...

 

[Erck]

Just stand one of them on a stool while they say their "I DOs." :-)

Or is that not what you meant?

 

[sol2]

Javier is very clear in his discriptions

And quantum fields are what you get when you marry special relativity with quantum mechanics. Again, we don't know *why* quantum field theory should describe nature, but its predictions are well tested, so as far as we have seen it *does* describe nature.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=196081&postcount=9

 

[quddusaliquddus]

There is no proof of God. TOE doesn't need something there is not proof of?

 

[n0n]

Their might not be a god but the idea behind it is genius when comparing it to mind evolution. If no one said a god ‘is’, or better, ‘an answer of some kind’, we very well could have de-evolved. But to accept something that has a potential to make sense, is the breading ground for 'learn all you can' cause what else are you going to do. We just kind of took a roundabout way, and made the potential idea of it as an absolute truth (to some, or most people, I don’t know anymore). If I look at it from a conscious stand point, the universe was created in a week or day (would it have really mattered), every night you fall asleep and from out of nothing comes the experience of something. And so I think that’s were the whole religious thing comes from, just comparing life to experience and writing it down. I mean really what would we be doing differently 10,000 + years ago that would have allowed this to be absolutely correct? Nothing, it’s all speculation, word of mouth, and couldn’t even pass in a court room. So what is left; existence, all of it, not some conscious being, but just being? And if you can’t love just being then yea, find a god, cause that's going to be the only other way. I'm happy with who and what I am, and everything existence is, is totaly great. What about you?

 

[n0n]

Wow, I just answered that poll. The majority of you don’t think spirituality should be apart of it? I feel this is wrong, and is understandable I guess. My own definition of spirituality is probably very different from the rest of yours. To me spirituality understands a concept, feeling or being the music, realizations of truth. Things that make you go (like) “wow, I didn’t even think of it that way” only you did. For thoughts of you who have felt that before, defiantly know spirituality. I mean raising ones hands and shouting out random noises (speaking in tongues) , I’ve done it before, it don’t make one bit of sense, its a placebo to spirituality, not the truth of it. Religions do so many other things to keep the placebo going to, communion, gospel music (which is undoubtedly the closest thing to spirituality in religion), prayer meetings, the call of people to the alter, casting ‘holy’ water on people. What’s spiritual about that?

 

[Erck]

There is no proof of God. TOE doesn't need something there is not proof of?

Are we sure a proof of god is not possible?

If there is a god, it would certainly be in god's power to allow proof, if it decided it was the time to do so.

 

[selfAdjoint]

And it would also be in god's power to set it up so that no proof (or even strong empirical evidence) was possible. A god to whom it was important that people turn to him of their free will, rather than by coercion, even the coercion of irrefutable evidence, might choose to set things up that way.

 

[Erck]

Yeah, it could go either way.