Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PrimalMinister

  1. Well I have a theory of everything that explains the origin and ubiquity of the laws of the universe so apparently science can answer the question leaving the fact that the current crop of scientists in the field of physics cannot. So science can, scientists cannot. All I did was to take a principle from holography and apply it to the universe as a whole, origin and ubiquity of the laws explained. I am unable to talk about the problem though because of the politics of the website and the prejudice that only someone with 'official' scientific training can do such a thing. Despite me always wanting to talk about the problems and how to solve them, the discussion never seems to be technical but is always full of website politics and prejudice. Science can explain the origin and ubiquity of the laws of the universe, its scientists that cannot.
  2. I think you meant to say as far as scientists are concerned rather than science because science has no concerns, science is knowledge, not a being. This is just opinion and while I am thankful for your answer it fails to answer the question. I want to know about the technicalities, not what is currently fashionable science philosophy. Why cant physicists explain the origin of the laws of the universe? What is the problem exactly?
  3. As I understand physicists cannot explain the origin or ubiquity of the laws of the universe. How did the laws of the come from somewhere unknown and get everywhere? If you cannot explain this, can you instead explain why we cant explain it?
  4. I will leave this for prosperity, from: If you don't agree with someone, don't attack them. Tell them politely why you think they're wrong, and give them evidence. Insulting people won't get you anywhere but suspended. Now the word hypocrital is defined as: "behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case." That perfectly describes the admins on here.
  5. There is evidence as I have tried to dicuss before, the main evidence being the fact it self evidently explains itself, that it does not need supporting evidence, even though there is supporting evidence for it, the whole of reality is evidence of it. My complaint is that you are critising it before you even understand it making your critisms pretty pointless because they seem to miss the point I am making. I am a self critical person and always question myself and in the post I refered to in the beginning I didnt particulary make things clear, but I thought you would somehow want to understand it so would ask questions. You didnt, maybe I just dont get internet forums and its nothing to do with the actual science. I will be honest with you, I dont believe the big bang, but not because I am religious, but rather because I have examined it critically and found it wanting. This does not mean I dismiss it, I am simply not convinced by it and would need fundamental questions answered before I was. Furthermore, I have become disillisioned with scientists because I find they are a bit like what people experience with the priesthood when asked questions they cant answer, they will answer its just to complex to fathom for our feeble minds and just trust they know what they are talking about. But I dont trust physicsts, there is this wall of ignorance they do not talk about, they will say the laws of the universe are mysterious but not really talk about why they are mysterious. In that thread someone said that asking questions like 'why is reality mathematical' is the domain of philosophy and religion however what I am suggesting, which is perfectly scientific, clearly and unambigiously would explain 'why' reality is mathematical. So the idea that questions like 'why reality is mathematical' are not questions science can answer is simply not true, science can indeed explain 'why' reality is mathematical. I have listened to people try to answer the question 'why is reality mathematical' and it ends up being philosophical because they are completely and utterly lost. They dont understand the question which is why they cannot answer it. The question of 'why' reality is mathematical is not a philosophical one, its a technical one. People are just plain wrong on this. When asking 'why' reality is mathematical, what you are really asking is 'how is reality imbued with laws', this is not philosophical, it is asking 'what is the physical mechanism by which reality is imbued with laws'. I am sorry, scientists are briliant people but they are fallable too. I mean, if you cant answer this question, if you admit you dont know, that despite all your knowledge there is a wall of ignorance you cant see beyond, if you have nothing to offer of terms of insight, then show some humility.
  6. Ok, as I understand it the letter of the law (the rules I am violating) come from the spirit of the law. If one follows the spirit of the law the letter becomes pointless, its only for people who are not following the spirit. The title of the post is 'The Spirit of Science Forums', so please tell me what the spirit of these forums are?
  7. Look admins, why do you think I come here? In my thread titled the spirit of science someone suggested going through previous posts and pointing things out to make my case. I have read through this one : Everybodies approach is the same, to jump in and start critising things before actually understanding them. There are small comments aimed at me like implying I am just making things up. This is prejudice, you are making judgements without first considering my case, I am expecting you to ask questions about it and understand it before you start critising it, otherwise your critisms entirely miss the point. But I dont think you realise you are even doing it. I will ask again, why do you think I come here, what do you think is motivating me? I am asking because I think your subliminal prejudices are causing you to draw conclusions about me that I reckon are far from the truth. Whatever you think about me you seem to entirely missing the point of why I am posting.
  8. Maybe you feel that way, I do think people are judging me and not the ideas I am putting forward. Do you want to dicuss this privately so we can we use this thread to talk about science?
  9. I have had some very interesting interactions on this site and I dont believe they are in the spirit of science. I have a framework for a theory of everything however discussion of this is not allowed. The reason it is not allowed is because the admins are too busy judging me and not what I am presenting. For example, no one has ever said 'oh yes, that explains why reality is mathematical' or 'actually, that doesnt explain why reality is mathematical'. There is no discussion about what I am presenting it is rather dismissed because an admin simply doesnt believe there is a theory of everything or some other belief or opinion. Peoples beliefs and prejudices should not stop objective discussion of facts. The admins call it my 'pet theory', but that is just them attacking me, not critising my theory, its not my pet theory it is simply 'a theory' that can be evaulated independent of my own personal beliefs. The admins ask for evidence, so well lets look at the evidence, the facts. Contempary physics does not explain the following: - The origin of the laws of the universe. - The ubiquity of the laws of the universe. - Why reality is mathematical, or rather how reality is imbued with laws. These are facts, to the best of my knowledge, and if these have been explained I would love to know. Otherwise, I think it is worthy discussing such matters because I have a rather novel idea that explains this things. Consequently, unlike string theory and other theories of everything, this one actually explains 'why' reality is mathematical. Is that not worthy of discussion? I mean, if I cant share my understanding of why reality is mathematical and discuss its merits and flaws so I can grow, can I at least hear other peoples explanations for 'why' reality is mathematical?
  10. Ok, well the implications of the my theory is that is the universe has a remarkably simple, highly sophisticated, incredibly beautiful design that is not only a marvel of engineering but is also a profound, sublime work of art. And as 'good' as the big bang theory is it does not explain 'why' reality is mathematical, it just takes it for granted. It is understood that there are laws but the origin and ubiquity of them is a complete mystery, again something taken for granted. If the universe is indeed composed entirely of units of polymorphic spacetime then that would explain 'why' reality is mathematical while also explaining the origin and ubuquity of the laws of the universe. Now you can argue with me about whether its true to or not but you may have a bit of a harder time dismissing completly (unless you are committed to the big bang and no amount of reasoning will make you think otherwise.)
  11. Well scientists give me the impression from their philosophy that the universe, incredible as it is, is just a meaningless cosmic accident and any appearance of design is just a delusion of our primitive human mind. Now I have tried to discuss how the universe and reality (the universe and reality are not the same thing, they are two distinct entities) can be reduced to a unit of polymorphic spacetime but instead of creating a warm and inviting enviroment in which to nuture a serious discussion you have basically attacked me. I will be honest with you, the big bang just doesnt make an sense and doesnt represent knowledge in the truest sense of the word because there are far to many unknowns. Now if I am right about the universe being composed entirely of units of polymorphic spacetime the consequences are very interesting. For example, it essentially explains the whole of physical reality except for one thing, the creation of stars. Now Stephen Wolfram is very close to realising what I have already done so, its only a matter of time until he does. Thus while you may think I am some crank, its going to be harder to call Stephen Wolfram a crank when he finally works it all out. Now I will apologise if I have been brash but the truth of the matter is that there is not much empathy around today, people really dont attempt to look through someones eyes and see their perpsective. I am a Taoist philosopher and polymath. I have several philosophical works in progress including: - Turning To God - The Universal Universe This is a framework for a theory of everything based on the idea the universe is composed entirely of microscopic units of polymorphic spacetime. - In Tune With Intelligence - A Global Strategy This is about the nature of consciousness and strong artificial intelligence. - Alien Economics - A Cashless Society This looks at the economy in the age of digital currency. I am also the head of three organisations. The first is a very ancient martial arts school with its roots in China and I have what would be considered in academic circles (its not quite the same) a PhD in the science of martial arts. This martial arts school has remained hidden for thousands of years but I am going to make it public in the form of The Synthesis Academy. The aim of The Synthesis Academy is to become the worlds first university dedicated to the science of martial arts. The second organisation is a political party called The Provident Party. The Provident Party is a new global political movement to combat divisive forces and bring people together in a final push for world peace to honour the sacrifice of prior generations that have given their everything so that we may live in the way that we do. The Provident Party is hoping to take the world by storm with a bold, striking, brilliant plan to end war and hunger creating nothing less than a paradise on earth. Its ultimate objective is to ensure every child on the planet has food in their stomachs, knowledge in their minds, and courage in their hearts. The third organisation is part of The Provident Party's vision for a big society and is a bank formed as a social enterprise. Its aim is to become the largest bank in the world in five years time. I looked at your profiles but all I can find is your occupations so I know little about you but I thought it might be worth trying to give you some insight into my perspective on reality.
  12. Ok, but its not wrong to say that intelligence has always existed as potential at least.
  13. So the pile of bricks that has the potential to become a house only has two possible outcomes, they become a house or they dont, they manfest as a house or they dont, regardless of what actually happens the potential is still there whether it is realised or not. Its like being at a cross roads, you have the potential to go down any path, the potential exists there in front of you.
  14. In this video, Richard Dawkins, a leading light in biology says one should remain humble and open minded. However, actions speak louder than words and despite preaching humilty and openess he is in fact arrogant and close minded. This is a serious problem amongst scientists, it hubris. Some of the people on this forum are suffering from the same thing. Please explain to me how potential does not exist prior to manfesting is some form or another. Something cannot come into being if it does not have the potential to do so, leaving the only other option, that something must exist as potential prior to becoming actual. This doesnt make any sense: Since the definition of potential requires that the thing in question not exist YET, then nothing can possibly exist as potential, and in fact, nothing does exist as potential. Please elaborate.
  15. Ok, I am not understanding this critical point. You seem to be saying to me, or this is what I am hearing, that things that dont have the potential to come into being CAN come into being? How does that work? From the dictionary, the authority on the meaning of words and the basis of my understanding, we could define potential as: latent qualities Latent is defined as: existing but not yet manifest So if potential is latent it exists prior to its existance.
  16. I am not resistance to reasoning, its just that yours is unclear to me so I am trying to clarify it. For instance, the statement: Nothing exists as potential. Is ambigious and can be interpreted in two ways: 1. Nothing (can posssibly) exist as potential. 2. Nothing (does in fact) exist as potential. So before we start arguing about stuff, lets start with what we agree on.
  17. I wasnt arguing with you, I was trying to understand your perspective, so the idea that I was throwing up a strawman is a nonsense result of your zealotry. Again, I am not trying to argue with you. If you think this is an argument it is not, its really funny how the western mind breaks things downs into different things and argue about them. The western mind seems to be oblivious to the more subtle side of reality, the sublime side, is because it is too subliminal?
  18. The dictionary definitions we could use to describe pure is: without any extraneous and unnecessary elements. or maybe involving or containing nothing else but
  19. Nothing exists as potential. This statement is correct, nothing does in fact exist as potential, that it what nothing is, pure potential than cannot only be something, it can be anything.
  20. I have tried discussing this before but my threads are always shut down. After shutting the last one down I got a message for the admins saying I should lead with the evidence. Well the first thing you need to read is this: https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful/ The big bang has had its time, everytime the data has falisfied it, its been saved by adding a modern day epicycle, inflation and dark matter being examples of this, there is no underlying reason for them they are just there to balance the equations. The LHC has produced nothing new and scientists say nature is not giving them any clues. Its about time we had a serious discussion about 'why' reality is mathematical because the theory I am proposing self-evidently explains 'why' reality is mathematical, not only physically, but metaphyscially. Now the key in the last sentence is 'self-evident' because the admins asked me to lead with the evidence, well the theory IS the evidence. If some is murdered police will gather evidence and develop a theory as to what happened, that is what scientists are doing at the moment. However, if you see or film the murder there is no need to develop a theory because you know what happened. And that is what it is like with this theory. And its a little different to current theories because if true it would not be a theory, it would be a fact, it would be the final truth about the universe and would put an end to theological and theoretical ideas about the universe. I can reduce physics to a single object, a unit of polymorphic spacetime of which the universe is entirely composed. This implements the rule Wolfram is looking for. Now you can close my thread down if you want, I am indifferent to what I consider poor attitudes towards other peoples perspectives in the scientific community. But let start here, please tell me 'why' reality is mathematical, if you cant, show some humility and open your minds to what I am presenting.
  21. Well the dictionary defines potential as: latent qualities or abilities that may be developed and lead to future success or usefulness. If we then look up the word latent we find: existing but not yet developed or manifest; hidden or concealed. So according to the meaning of words potential does exist prior to become manifest. Also, logically, something MUST exist as potential before it can become actual because something that does not have the potential to come into being, cant.
  22. So are you saying that potential doesnt exist? If my reasoning is flawed I am receptive to modifying my understanding, maybe you can enlighten me?
  23. If its wrong, explain how something that does not have the potential to come into being, come into being? How does that work?
  24. I am not a Christian. I am just interested in peoples view of intelligence. Just point out where I am going wrong and take it one stage at a time. Am I am right or wrong with this statement? For something to become actual it must first exist as potential.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.