My theory of everything

[Cerpin Taxt]

Existents that are related do not lose their identity.

That's great and all, but you haven't shown that spacetime is an "existent."

The fact that we observe a relationship between space and time does not mean we delete the constituent concepts.

There aren't "constituent concepts." You cannot speak meaningfully about one without speaking about the other. Again, this was the whole point of Einstein's relativity. Motion through space dilates the time dimension because they two are parts of the same singular manifold.

So, when you drag your azz out of bed in the morning and shuffle across your mobile home to the 1/2 bath to empty your bladder, that stuff you went through to get there? That was space.

No, the stuff I went through was a brazillion air molecules, each with their own spacetime coordinates.

And the seconds that ticked off during the journey? That was time.

Where are they? Where did they go? You keep insisting that space and time exist, so show them to me. What are they made of?

The contractors who are proposing to install my garage space heater want the dimensions of the space that I will be heating so they can estimate the time it will take to perform the installation.

That you can speak about space and time separately in common language has absolutely nothing to do with the reality of the singular spacetime manifold.

Or, perhaps I should make believe I am an academic who has abstracted himself into oblivion and provide the measurements in meter-years.

You're doing a great job of playing an ignoramus that is incapable of grasping arguably the most fundamental model in all of physics.

The only problem is, I DO want the job done.

None of this refutes relativity, but it is really amusing to watch you double-down on your own ignorance. Feel free to continue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

 

[piasabird]

Looks like gibberish. Time does exist. It is more of construct or a way of describing our current condition an a condition that either already happened or will happen in the future.

Take the concept of history or a brighter future. You cant describe either one without the concept of time. So did you tell your history teacher she is teaching something that doesn't exist?

We use this to describe the "truth": "that which is, that which was, and which will be."

I guess you can describe you ideas any way that you want.

Reminds me of Star Trek, Deep Space Nine. You are either Linear and exist in all times, or you are corporeal. However, if you consider your memories, you can exist in many different times at once.

 

[moonbogg]

Looks like gibberish. Time does exist. It is more of construct or a way of describing our current condition an a condition that either already happened or will happen in the future.

Take the concept of history or a brighter future. You cant describe either one without the concept of time. So did you tell your history teacher she is teaching something that doesn't exist?

We use this to describe the "truth": "that which is, that which was, and which will be."

I guess you can describe you ideas any way that you want.

Reminds me of Star Trek, Deep Space Nine. You are either Linear and exist in all times, or you are corporeal. However, if you consider your memories, you can exist in many different times at once.

No it doesn't. How could it? The question of "how could it" is very important. The universe collapses into absurdity the moment you think time is real.
You end up with stupid ideas, such as the universe being a certain age, but nothing happened before it started and then time was created because the universe was bored or something. Right?
Know what time is? Its a way to measure the relativistic changes that take place in the emergent, illusory world, while the most fundamental aspects of nature never change and cannot change. They can't start to exist either. Makes no sense for time to come into existence, since your idea of time is based on cause and effect, and time can't be effected into existence without itself already being there.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

I like the "theory" that absolute nothing is unstable. There is no single essence or whatever, it's just that alternative (absolute nothing) cannot be. It is also a paradox. When I think about it, it makes sense to me, though I cannot put into words why. And if this is indeed true, that would explain why our universe spawned into existence from nothing. But wouldn't explain why our universe the way it is. The solution to that would be, if something can come from nothing, you get an infinite number of something. So our universe is just one out of an infinite number of universes.

But what threw me off about this is if there are an infinite number of universes, mathematically the chance that I am experiencing this exact one right now should be zero. Yet here am. And then it hit me. This one is simply the most probable one. Mathematically, this is now completely possible.

I haven't quite got the next step figured out yet figured out (for myself) as I haven't given it much thought in a while. That is, are we all forming the most probably universe together, or this a lone wolf journey each of us are making. That is, the moonbogg that existed at the time I made this post is now in a different universe than "I" am in right now because his is more probable for him than the one that is most probable for me. It is fun to think about once in a while. ^_^

 

[moonbogg]

I like the "theory" that absolute nothing is unstable. There is no single essence or whatever, it's just that alternative (absolute nothing) cannot be. It is also a paradox. When I think about it, it makes sense to me, though I cannot put into words why. And if this is indeed true, that would explain why our universe spawned into existence from nothing. But wouldn't explain why our universe the way it is. The solution to that would be, if something can come from nothing, you get an infinite number of something. So our universe is just one out of an infinite number of universes.

But what threw me off about this is if there are an infinite number of universes, mathematically the chance that I am experiencing this exact one right now should be zero. Yet here am. And then it hit me. This one is simply the most probable one. Mathematically, this is now completely possible.

I haven't quite got the next step figured out yet figured out (for myself) as I haven't given it much thought in a while. That is, are we all forming the most probably universe together, or this a lone wolf journey each of us are making. That is, the moonbogg that existed at the time I made this post is now in a different universe than "I" am in right now because his is more probable for him than the one that is most probable for me. It is fun to think about once in a while. ^_^

I get what you are saying, but I have an issue with nothingness. There is either nothingness, or everythingness, and one or the other is true forever, not just sometimes. I'm going with everythingness. You can't have nothing and then have something. Because, after all, nothing really means nothing. It means no laws, no dimensions, no particles, and most importantly, no potential for something.

 

[Dessicant]

That's great and all, but you haven't shown that spacetime is an "existent."


There aren't "constituent concepts." You cannot speak meaningfully about one without speaking about the other. Again, this was the whole point of Einstein's relativity. Motion through space dilates the time dimension because they two are parts of the same singular manifold.


No, the stuff I went through was a brazillion air molecules, each with their own spacetime coordinates.


Where are they? Where did they go? You keep insisting that space and time exist, so show them to me. What are they made of?


That you can speak about space and time separately in common language has absolutely nothing to do with the reality of the singular spacetime manifold.


You're doing a great job of playing an ignoramus that is incapable of grasping arguably the most fundamental model in all of physics.


None of this refutes relativity, but it is really amusing to watch you double-down on your own ignorance. Feel free to continue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

Laugh harder as I triple down. :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

You are so lost in your quantum mechanics that you fail to realize that all of what you are spouting is theories and mathematical models of phenomena that are multiple levels of indirection from observability or direct measurement. Black holes, dark matter, composition of neutron stars, unknown subatomic particles that solve a logical dilemma. It's all fabricated, invented, and postulated to answer the questions being asked. None of it is real, yet! Centuries of innovation and exploration separate us from calling any of this knowledge, and not a theory.

Come back to Earth from Diaspar. Walk with me through space. Enjoy the time spent on the journey.

 

[Dessicant]

I get what you are saying, but I have an issue with nothingness. There is either nothingness, or everythingness, and one or the other is true forever, not just sometimes. I'm going with everythingness. You can't have nothing and then have something. Because, after all, nothing really means nothing. It means no laws, no dimensions, no particles, and most importantly, no potential for something.

Correct. Everythingness. And Forever. Stretching infinitely backward, infinitely forward, and negating the need to postulate the beginning of the Universe, and conveniently disposing of the need for God.

Well done. Now if we can get the other children on board...

 

[witeken]

Is it that difficult to grasp that the universe doesn't give a single care about what you think is sensible?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Laugh harder as I triple down. :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

You are so lost in your quantum mechanics that you fail to realize that all of what you are spouting is theories and mathematical models of phenomena that are multiple levels of indirection from observability or direct measurement. Black holes, dark matter, composition of neutron stars, unknown subatomic particles that solve a logical dilemma. It's all fabricated, invented, and postulated to answer the questions being asked. None of it is real, yet! Centuries of innovation and exploration separate us from calling any of this knowledge, and not a theory.

Come back to Earth from Diaspar. Walk with me through space. Enjoy the time spent on the journey.

Thank you for admitting defeat.

 

[Dessicant]

Thank you for admitting defeat.

Wise decision.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Wise decision.

Are you incapable of a complete and coherent sentence?

 

[Craig234]

moondogg, I want to encourage you considering this, your enthusiasm, and enjoying it.

I don't much agree with your current theory, but I'll leave it at that.

 

[inachu]

We call it time because we see the universe expanding and somehow gravity is to tied to it?

All bs. time is a myth and even gravity or the idea of it is a myth. mass is a heatsink ths creating a field of negative ground. the universe of areas that has no particles is full of charged particles. negative mass getting larger creating more mass and more gravity and NASA says time is slower in outerspace than at ocean level and has to resync satelites time clock because of gravity of mass.

Observational science lies when we deal with the world of 3d and we have not done any of the math for a 4D space to explain time.

 

[moonbogg]

moondogg, I want to encourage you considering this, your enthusiasm, and enjoying it.

I don't much agree with your current theory, but I'll leave it at that.

Thanks. Its all in good fun. I don't take it too seriously.

 

[SunburstLP]

We call it time because we see the universe expanding and somehow gravity is to tied to it?

All bs. time is a myth and even gravity or the idea of it is a myth. mass is a heatsink ths creating a field of negative ground. the universe of areas that has no particles is full of charged particles. negative mass getting larger creating more mass and more gravity and NASA says time is slower in outerspace than at ocean level and has to resync satelites time clock because of gravity of mass.

Observational science lies when we deal with the world of 3d and we have not done any of the math for a 4D space to explain time.

No. Just no. The compensation of satellite clocks is to compensate for relativistic effects.

Also, here's a little more fuel for the time/entropy/thermodynamics discussion courtesy of Sean Carroll and sixtysymbols:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkC6QCR_xoc

Moon, like the poster above, I won't critique what you're saying because, frankly, I'm not in touch enough with physics and philosophy to participate meaningfully in the discussion. I do disagree with your theory and appreciate you putting it out there though.

Remember folks, being enthusiastic and perhaps even well-versed-for-a-layperson doesn't make you an authoritative figure on a given subject. Y'all be cool.

 

[witeken]

BTW, I'd rather call this a philosophical view instead of a theory.

 

[moonbogg]

So... where are the equations?

Here they are.

moonbogg x Dessicant + witeken = moonbogg x Dessicant

also

Cerpin Taxt + moonbogg x witeken = witeken

 

[witeken]

Interesting indeed, those might very well solve the climate change problem!

BTW, I think the solution to the second equation should be Cerpin Taxt.

 

[moonbogg]

Interesting indeed, those might very well solve the climate change problem!

BTW, I think the solution to the second equation should be Cerpin Taxt.

Yeah maybe :\

 

[Muse]

OP, your view is reasonably consistent with that of enlightened people throughout history. Some observations:

--> Life widespread and common can be deduced, but may be impossible to prove. So what?

--> I'm not convinced that consciousness on earth will ever evolve beyond humans and their evolutionary progeny. As has been observed, computers are an extension of the brain, just as the wheel is an extension of the foot, but consciousness itself may always exist in the human nervous system itself, or that of intelligent of extraterrestrial biological forms (whose existence can only be deduced by us and never proven to exist by any sensory evidence, we have none so far AFAIK), whereever they are.

--> Time, it has been famously observed, is the invention of man, it doesn't actually exist, so you're right about that.

--> Currently, the Big Bang seems to have the stamp of approval of the theoretical and otherwise science community. I think you have some explaining to do.

BTW, I'd rather call this a philosophical view instead of a theory.

Yes, you're right there.

 

[Muse]

Btw OP, all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. We're all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we're the imagination of ourselves.


/anyone?

Can't argue with that.

In high school I took the notion to wear a pin that I made myself. It was a large button (like a political button, a big circle), with a handmade slogan I worked up with a black pen, saying:

I am God!

I meant it. I walked all around the crowded high school campus that day prominently wearing that button on my shirt, but noone, I mean no one seemed to notice or care in the least.

I was really really good in physics, and went on to major at the U in it, looking for the answer to what all this was about. Upper division physics dissuaded me from pursuing that tack further.

 

[Craig234]

It's been fun watching astronomy advance.

Oh wait, there are these things black hole and light can't escape.

And looks like every galaxy has one in the middle, turns out.

Oh, look at that - apparently 90% of the matter in the universe is 'dark matter'.

Perhaps the biggest astronomy question is, what was there before the big bang?

 

[disappoint]

Here is my noob TOE. Its a simple description. I will outline it first for those of you who won't tolerate the tl'dr, but i'll explain a little more below.

Proto-consciousness is the most fundamental thing in existence. It is eternal and never changes. All things are shaped by it.

Time is an illusion. Time = change and proto-consciousness never changes.

I haven't read your whole post yet because I only got this far before I had to disagree.

Time is not an illusion. Time is the fourth dimension of the universe you live in. It will exist whether consciousness does or not.

Also I don't see how all things are shaped by proto-consciousness.

Furthermore I think it would have been helpful if you had included a definition of proto, or secondary consciousness so your readers don't end up googling it and possibly wind up reading and accepting a definition you might not agree with, or a definition that differs from one you might have in mind. In other words, what you mean by proto-consciousness may differ from what others define it as, and it would be helpful if you'd clear that up.

Just wanted to post that before I go on to read the rest of your post.

 

[Muse]

It's been fun watching astronomy advance.

Oh wait, there are these things black hole and light can't escape.

And looks like every galaxy has one in the middle, turns out.

Oh, look at that - apparently 90% of the matter in the universe is 'dark matter'.

Perhaps the biggest astronomy question is, what was there before the big bang?

That has certainly occurred to me. Alan Watts said that you could take a leap of faith that what's happened once can happen again. However, he may have said that before the Big Bang theory was hatched. Evidently, scientists don't consider this a problem. There was nothing before the Big Bang, period.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

That has certainly occurred to me. Alan Watts said that you could take a leap of faith that what's happened once can happen again. However, he may have said that before the Big Bang theory was hatched. Evidently, scientists don't consider this a problem. There was nothing before the Big Bang, period.

Unless the multiverse turns out to be true. We'll probably find out by 2050.