Good TOE Principles

Discussions on the nature of being, existence, reality and knowledge. What is? How do we know?

Good TOE Principles

Postby DragonFly on July 5th, 2018, 10:42 pm 

This topic straddles philosophy (logical) and science (confirmation). We may never know everything, but all the likelihoods to theories are not equiprobable; we are ever forced to utilize probabilities both in life and for TOEs.

The proposed TOE embodiments are:

1. A progression from simple continuous functions to simple composites … unto, much later, great complexities, via some eternal fundamental method.

a. String theory, QFT theory, and posited Quantum Gravity theories begin at a simple level with simple entities.

b. The polar opposite Theology theory has a fully formed eternal Being whose system of mind at some point thought of, planned, designed, and implemented a Cosmos and life, presumably made of Himself, or of new material that He made. Much more is layered on to this notion.

2. There needs to be a fundamental eternal simple something, else absence of anything.

a. While some may hail a philosophical truth as not requiring any proof since the truth already is so, we are ever curious as to the Why and How of a What, and the proof here runs into a paradox of how a basic something can already eternally be there as made without its ever having been made, seeming to be both unbreakable (can never go away) and unmakeable (has to be existent, with no parts).

3. The basic eternal something cannot have had any inputs or design to it, for there was no such point at which this could have been accomplished. Randomness, thus, is its bedrock, making its immediate outputs arbitrary.

a. There is then no real Why and How to the simple basis.

b. 'God' would have no idea why and how He is.

4. What we call 'space' is Einstein's gravitational field.

a. There are are also particle fields.

5. From Quantum Mechanics we have that fields and particles are the same.

a. We are down to covariant quantum fields, as per Rovelli's ideas, who's events happen in spacetime.

6. All information is finite and discrete (granularity).

a. There is no infinite divisibility, else there would only be points with no extension.

b. Planck limits.

c. Field energy spectra.

d. Black hole max entropy depending on the area of the event horizon.

e. Finite pendulum information.

f. 'Infinity' of extent cannot be had as completed; such is the definition also. One cannot give 'Infinity' a life of its own as meaning an amount or a number.

g. No being or Being can have infinite power.

h. 'Space' could never have made it as infinite extent whose only quantity was volume.

i. Einstein's boundless curved spacetime is fine, as not infinite.

j. Singularities are not possible (and lead to infinities in some equations).

7. Relationalism. All is relative, since there is no outside or before Total Reality having any absolute rulers or clocks

a. There are few (being generous here), if any, intrinsic properties.

8. Emergences into approximate continuums

a. Time, space, spacetime.

b. Spacetime has to be shown to be discrete, not continuous.

8. Change is constant; there can be no Stillness, lest everything would have stopped.

a. Quantum fluctuations.

b. Energy.

c. There can be no end to the eternal (nor could it ever have begun).

9. Spacetime as events rather than as things.

a. Yes, we call 'things' things that are not really enduring things. Better described, they are events. Trees, life, rocks, and protons are long events.

b. A night dream is a real event; some worry about its degree of realness as a thing.

c. All that goes on in our universe on is likely a continuation of the one Big Event of the Big Bang; we ever have to place artificial boundaries when we try to identify as more local events.

(Not complete; more another time; these are just off the top of my head; hope that responders can add and improve.)
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2308
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby BadgerJelly on July 6th, 2018, 1:02 am 

TOE? Can you please type the words out prior to using the acronym (for the stupid and unordained liek myself.)

Thanks
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5289
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby DragonFly on July 6th, 2018, 1:08 am 

BadgerJelly » July 6th, 2018, 12:02 am wrote:TOE? Can you please type the words out prior to using the acronym (for the stupid and unordained liek myself.)

Thanks


Theory Of Everything.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2308
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby someguy1 on July 6th, 2018, 3:17 pm 

DragonFly » July 5th, 2018, 8:42 pm wrote:
1. A progression from simple continuous functions to simple composites … unto, much later, great complexities, via some eternal fundamental method.


I don't know nothin' about physics but I do know some math, and my pedantic little brain tripped over this sentence.

A simple function is technical term in math. A simple function is a function that takes on only finitely many values. For example constant functions are simple. The function that's 0 on the rationals and 1 on the irrationals is simple. But you can see it's not continuous.

In fact a "simple, continuous function" must be constant. Can you see why?

Perhaps you can define your terms. What's a simple function to you? Maybe pick a different word to disambiguate it from the standard meaning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_function

Also, what is "A progression from simple continuous functions to simple composites ..."? What is a simple composite?

And: "... unto, much later, great complexities, via some eternal fundamental method."

What are "great complexities" and what is an "eternal fundamental method?"

I stopped reading here. You're just making up your own meanings for words and phrases without taking the trouble to define them. And then piling on a lot of ... well, why don't you just define the terms you use in your first sentence and I'll withhold judgment till then.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 671
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby DragonFly on July 6th, 2018, 4:04 pm 

Hi Someguy1,

A simple event/'thing' would be that which has no parts, such as a quantum field wave or a string theory string. It seems that this would have to be very small to accord with the fundamental arts, which I might have put in my list.

Or, as in math, a sine or cosine function.

A simple composite would be a proton, having quarks and gluons, while a less simpler composite would be a hydrogen atom.

A great complexity would be a brain.

The eternal fundamental method/stuff/capability/possibility/energy would be the basis underlying All.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2308
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby someguy1 on July 6th, 2018, 4:33 pm 

DragonFly » July 6th, 2018, 2:04 pm wrote:Hi Someguy1,

A simple event/'thing' would be that which has no parts, such as a quantum field wave or a string theory string. It seems that this would have to be very small to accord with the fundamental arts, which I might have put in my list.

Or, as in math, a sine or cosine function.


I'm afraid you lost me there. The sine function has lots of parts. It consists of a the set of ordered pairs (x, sin(x)) where x is a real number. Or a complex number, you can do that too.

If you want to say a thing is simple when it has no parts, I can live with that. Although physicists never seem to find one. Atoms were things that had no parts, then protons, then electrons, the quarks. In a hundred years -- or tomorrow morning -- someone will come up with a theory in which quarks have constituent parts.

But still, I can live with your definition. A thing that has no parts is simple.

But a function? How can a function be simple? Functions are made up of parts, namely the ordered pairs that map elements of the domain to the codomain.

Consider the function defined by f(x) = sin(x) if x is nonzero, and f(0) = 47. This function differs from the sin at only one point. So clearly the sin function can be messed with at its individual components, if you think of it that way. You must have a different mental picture of the sin function than I do if you think it has no constituent parts.

But functions in general can be pretty wild. You haven't put any restrictions on them.

ps: "Change is constant." Did you miss the part in freshman calculus where they teach you that the only functions whose rate of change is constant are the straight lines y = mx + b? All the other interesting functions have rates of change that vary. Perhaps you mean "constant" as in "always" or something, but again you are equivocating standard technical terms with your own made-up definitions.
Last edited by someguy1 on July 6th, 2018, 4:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 671
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby DragonFly on July 6th, 2018, 4:40 pm 

10. Great Complexities do not come about instantly.

a. While a lot happens simply in the first fractions of a second after the Big Bang, by and large the great complexities such as life workable solar system planets, life, brains, and much higher life take many billions of years.

a1. The production of the base atomic elements by stars takes much time, as well as the production of the higher elements from supernova.

a2. A metal rich planet requires a metal rich multi generation star, which takes much time..

a3. Oxygen atmospheres require billions of years of bacteria exuding oxygen.

a4. So, Cosmic and biological evolution are very slow processes.

b. As usual, via theology, the instantness told of in the Biblical Geneses is the polar opposite of what we've found.

c. It's not that life or our 4% type of matter was an aim of the universe; however, its potential was there in the beginning.

11. Our universe is 'unnatural' in physicists' terms.

a. There are many more types of universes that would not be workable and, much less, bring forth life.

b. Some of the parameters are many orders of magnitude apart, plus some had to be very precise.

c. This seems to force a multiverse upon us, but this cannot be shown at present; however, if there can be one universe then it seems there could be another, and more.

d. Our unnatural universe is still not all that conducive to life, but more so seems to feature huge amounts of hydrogen gas, and such, plus a ginormous amount of material (2x10**76 particles), but that, also, luckily, allows the chance for millions of the right conditions to have to happen somewhere for life on a Goldilocks planet before the ten billion year star burns out.

c. Super symmetry partners unlikely?

12. Many possible quantum states to one Spacetime.

a. Similar to many arrangements of molecules to form a typical gas.

b. Emergences subsume many of the arbitrary details beneath.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2308
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby someguy1 on July 6th, 2018, 4:43 pm 

DragonFly » July 6th, 2018, 2:40 pm wrote:b. As usual, via theology, the instantness told of in the Biblical Geneses is the polar opposite of what we've found.



Isn't this a bit of a strawman argument? Saying that your theory shows the Bible is wrong? Besides, didn't the Big Bang happen in an instant, with no apparent cause? Even contemporary cosmology falls back on an instantaneous act of creation. Bit of a philosophical conundrum, wouldn't you agree?
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 671
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby DragonFly on July 6th, 2018, 5:30 pm 

someguy1 » July 6th, 2018, 3:43 pm wrote:
DragonFly » July 6th, 2018, 2:40 pm wrote:b. As usual, via theology, the instantness told of in the Biblical Geneses is the polar opposite of what we've found.



Isn't this a bit of a strawman argument? Saying that your theory shows the Bible is wrong? Besides, didn't the Big Bang happen in an instant, with no apparent cause? Even contemporary cosmology falls back on an instantaneous act of creation. Bit of a philosophical conundrum, wouldn't you agree?


It's more that in Genesis humans are created as is, immutable, not having been mutable and having evolved. There is also just one tree of life, not two, such as a separate one for the animals, either before or after the humans, depending on which chapter one reads. The Earth and the sky were also made as is. This and more puts a big dent in the human claim of divine revelation.

But my point is to use theology's unknowns as a contrast to the more known bottom up approach, for theology is a top-down TOE for many. It is curious to have such totally opposite approaches so diametrically polar.

None of the theology herein will be relevant to the TOE principles sought here, but there will always be a clash, so I identify it here and there where applicable, for completeness.

The coming from of the Big Bang remains as a mystery.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2308
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby someguy1 on July 6th, 2018, 5:37 pm 

DragonFly » July 6th, 2018, 3:30 pm wrote:
The coming from of the Big Bang remains as a mystery.


So you agree that science is ultimately founded on a mystery. "God did it" versus "The vacuum energy of spacetime did it."

If you want to build a scientific model, railing against theology sees like a weak strawman. Just state your thesis and provide some evidence or heuristic arguments. That's sufficient, if you are sufficiently clear in defining your terms (which is where you're falling short IMO). Just saying, "Oh the Bible is silly" isn't much of a scientific argument. Are you a former religious person reacting against your former beliefs? Many anti-religious types started out as believers.

By the way I still don't know what a simple function is. A simple object you did eventually define as an object with no constituent parts. But functions, at least mathematical functions, don't fit that description. Nor is most change constant. I'm not quibbling, but rather noting that I do not understand most of your post, but the parts I DO understand make no sense, leading me to doubt the rest.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 671
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby DragonFly on July 6th, 2018, 11:05 pm 

someguy1 » July 6th, 2018, 4:37 pm wrote:So you agree that science is ultimately founded on a mystery. "God did it" versus "The vacuum energy of spacetime did it."


Spacetime is being proposed as very likely to be emergent, plus its 'continuum' is the only entity not yet quantized as granular. What the quantum gravity theories have to show is that the low energy spacetime can be recovered from the high energy quantum realm.

someguy1 » July 6th, 2018, 4:37 pm wrote:If you want to build a scientific model, railing against theology sees like a weak strawman. Just state your thesis and provide some evidence or heuristic arguments.


The science of Cosmic and biological evolution dispels the Biblical Genesis story. 'Railing' is not needed, plus it would do nothing by itself.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2308
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby someguy1 on July 7th, 2018, 5:02 pm 

DragonFly » July 6th, 2018, 9:05 pm wrote:Spacetime is being proposed as very likely to be emergent,


I'm of the opinion, considered at length, that the concept of emergence is vague and meaningless. My fist is an emergent quality of my hand. A fleet of trucks is an emergent quality of a truck. I just can't buy anything along these lines. In particular the argument we see all the time that "Consciousness is an emergent state of matter," or some such. I regard that kind of argument as an indicator of lazy thinking.

Sorry you pushed my "emergent" button but when you say that spacetime is emergent, a loud voice in my head shouts, "Bullpucky!!" Actually that's not what the voice screams but this is a family discussion forum, after all.


DragonFly » July 6th, 2018, 9:05 pm wrote: plus its 'continuum' is the only entity not yet quantized as granular. What the quantum gravity theories have to show is that the low energy spacetime can be recovered from the high energy quantum realm.


I'm having a hard time referring this statement to anything we've been talking about. Anything I've been talking about, anyway. Do you think the sine function is a "simple object" by your definition? I have directly challenged you on this point and you are studiously avoiding it.

DragonFly » July 6th, 2018, 9:05 pm wrote:The science of Cosmic and biological evolution dispels the Biblical Genesis story.


It dispels Hansel and Gretel and the idea that the world sits on the back of a turtle as well. But you don't pit science against those stories. Only against the Bible. Which amplifies my suspicion that you were raised in a religious home and are now rebelling against your upbringing. Why do you argue against the Bible and not against the Upanishads?
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 671
Joined: 08 Nov 2013
Braininvat liked this post


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby DragonFly on July 8th, 2018, 2:14 am 

someguy1 » July 7th, 2018, 4:02 pm wrote:
I'm of the opinion, considered at length, that the concept of emergence is vague and meaningless. My fist is an emergent quality of my hand. A fleet of trucks is an emergent quality of a truck. I just can't buy anything along these lines. In particular the argument we see all the time that "Consciousness is an emergent state of matter," or some such. I regard that kind of argument as an indicator of lazy thinking.

Sorry you pushed my "emergent" button but when you say that spacetime is emergent, a loud voice in my head shouts, "Bullpucky!!" Actually that's not what the voice screams but this is a family discussion forum, after all.


Yes, I too, as a materialist, physicalist, reductionist, etc. also wonder if any emergences other than the obvious ones you refer to are possible. Consciousness (phenomenal qualia) is obviously structured according to what our neural assemblies form from the corresponding internals and externals, it coming forth as a product directly after the brain processing/analysis has finished. The liquidity of water would also be an obvious emergence due to so many ions moving about plus the small hydrogen rolling around the much larger oxygen atom.

Consciousness as phenomenal experience as having to be substance or property dualism due to it being such as 'hard problem' is 'bullpucky'. No amount of description can tell what a first person experience of phenomena I like, so, there is but a natural description-limit difficulty, and no real 'hard problem' causing consciousness to have to be fundamental or such as of some metaphysical other realm. Chalmers likened consciousness as fundamental to being such as mass is fundamental, but now we see that the Higgs boson accounts for mass.

So, obvious emergences are easily explained and so are not really any more than a reduction to the parts. I expect spacetime to be of this reductionist emergence type, as well, that is, it would appear as so if we could see the minuscule events going on. It's easy to imagine a jillion little discrete 'points' being so close to an actual continuum that this 'continuum' would act as so at our high level, just like we can't really see the pixels on an Apple retina screen.

DragonFly » July 6th, 2018, 9:05 pm wrote: plus its 'continuum' is the only entity not yet quantized as granular. What the quantum gravity theories have to show is that the low energy spacetime can be recovered from the high energy quantum realm.


someguy1 » July 7th, 2018, 4:02 pm wrote:I'm having a hard time referring this statement to anything we've been talking about. Anything I've been talking about, anyway.


It's still about quantizing the gravitational field, which is 'space' for Einstein. GR is background-space independent.

someguy1 » July 7th, 2018, 4:02 pm wrote:Do you think the sine function is a "simple object" by your definition? I have directly challenged you on this point and you are studiously avoiding it.


Waves, like a sine/cosine function, are ubiquitous in the universe, and so waves of something are likely to be near to or the basic fundamental simplicity. If these piled up and then exploded in a Bang, due to infinite density being impossible (as anything infinite is impossible), then they might spawn centers of oscillation or such. The wave frequency would be energy, as in physics, with, too, the amplitude being charge (crests as positive charge and toughs as negative charge, plus indicating matter and anti-matter, or I forgot how that comes in), and the wavelength being extension leading to dimension. Consider it added to the clue list. Possibly, the Bang explosion contains waves upon waves upon wave envelopes (protons) upon wave envelopes (electrons).

Or, in math terms, a '1-a cosine function' could gradually begin from nothing, but I don't like the idea of Nothing somehow being something. Math could still model real waves of something and anti-something as a starting point, although something else may underlie (but how can something with no parts be made; there is ever paradox, but ultimately there can be no paradoxes.).

A sine/cosine wave is a simple event/object because it is continuous with no parts.

someguy1 » July 7th, 2018, 4:02 pm wrote:It dispels Hansel and Gretel and the idea that the world sits on the back of a turtle as well. But you don't pit science against those stories. Only against the Bible. Which amplifies my suspicion that you were raised in a religious home and are now rebelling against your upbringing. Why do you argue against the Bible and not against the Upanishads?


I don't bother will stories that we know are made up as fiction. Braham's 'dream' gets dispelled from its theory of something like 'consciousness is everything' because we have senses that take in what's actually out there.

I was not religious but was and am exposed to it in society. Most preach/teach 'God' and more as if it is truth and fact, which shows a lack of integrity. A scientist or a philosopher saying that a 'maybe' is true would be just as guilty of dishonesty. It's just that religious preachers/teachers do it routinely. Scientists exult in mysteries being solved; the religious exult in mystery remaining as dogma carved in stone, except that humans wrote the stones. Pandora's box of truths ever opens wider and wider, ever shrinking the space for 'God' to operate in.

This thread is more about ideas that can be shown to be based on what's been found in nature, not about what is supposed in an invisible supernatural that can't be shown or known (thus, the more modern and honest definition of 'faith' being akin to hopes, wishes, and desires). Still it's good to know how to respond to the religious still all about, although ever decreasing. Lately, I'm told that the exposed geological layers turned completely upside down, not just slanted like the side of a mountain, thus showing what we thought was old is really new, and vice-versa, all having gone on during only the last 4000 years. Also, that carbon dating always fails. Such is Creation Science.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2308
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby DragonFly on July 8th, 2018, 2:18 pm 

13. The positive kinetic energy of 'stuff' balances that of the potential negative energy of gravity.

a. As in Bangstom's post: http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=34418&p=337930&sid=72e857a7f36c38b837813d3e8c69e0a4#p337929

14. Only three particles (and their antiparticles) are stable in free 'space'.

a. A beautiful and curious symmetry balance:

a1. Electron matter particle: Negative charge. Positron anti-matter: Positive charge.

a2. Proton matter particle: Positive charge. Anti-proton: Negative charge.

a3. Photon energy particle: Neutral charge. A photon is its own anti-particle.

a4. A neutron is not stable in free space; it decays in 12 minutes ors so.

b. Perhaps there are only these number of way of making stable particles in free space, as indicated in the previous post about a possible wave model of the Big Bang.

c. Is a photon made of an electron and a positron living peacefully in some out of phase manner?
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2308
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby someguy1 on July 8th, 2018, 3:01 pm 

DragonFly » July 8th, 2018, 12:14 am wrote:Yes, I too, as a materialist, physicalist, reductionist, etc. also wonder if any emergences other than the obvious ones you refer to are possible.


Completely missing my point, which was stated as clearly as can be.

I don't say that "Emergence can be applied to X but not to Y." I say, and I said perfectly plainly in my previous post, that I find the very concept of emergence to be hopelessly vague and a sign of weak thinking.



DragonFly » July 8th, 2018, 12:14 am wrote: Consciousness (phenomenal qualia) is obviously structured according to what our neural assemblies form from the corresponding internals and externals, it coming forth as a product directly after the brain processing/analysis has finished. The liquidity of water would also be an obvious emergence due to so many ions moving about plus the small hydrogen rolling around the much larger oxygen atom.


Nonsense. Vague, weak thinking. Stuff combines to make other stuff. Emergence! Why are you going on about this? You don't even know what emergence is.

If emergence means that "water plus cold turns into ice, which is different than water," then emergence must be the most trivial and sophomoric idea ever conceived. A car emerges from sheet metal and rubber tires. A book emerges from a forest of trees. A tuna sandwich is an emergent quality of canned tuna. My God, the childishness of the idea boggles the mind. Ah ... sorry I mentioned God. I mean, My Flying Spaghetti Monster!

DragonFly » July 8th, 2018, 12:14 am wrote:Consciousness as phenomenal experience as having to be substance or property dualism due to it being such as 'hard problem' is 'bullpucky'. No amount of description can tell what a first person experience of phenomena I like, so, there is but a natural description-limit difficulty, and no real 'hard problem' causing consciousness to have to be fundamental or such as of some metaphysical other realm. Chalmers likened consciousness as fundamental to being such as mass is fundamental, but now we see that the Higgs boson accounts for mass.


The Higgs boson "accounts" for mass? That's metaphysics. You are pushing scientism, not science.

DragonFly » July 8th, 2018, 12:14 am wrote:So, obvious emergences are easily explained


That's why weak thinkers like them. They're easy explanations. How does my hand turn into a fist? Emergence! Problem solved. Wow.

DragonFly » July 8th, 2018, 12:14 am wrote: and so are not really any more than a reduction to the parts. I expect spacetime to be of this reductionist emergence type, as well, that is, it would appear as so if we could see the minuscule events going on. It's easy to imagine a jillion little discrete 'points' being so close to an actual continuum that this 'continuum' would act as so at our high level, just like we can't really see the pixels on an Apple retina screen.


So there's no real continuum, just bad eyesight? Wow again.

DragonFly » July 8th, 2018, 12:14 am wrote:It's still about quantizing the gravitational field, which is 'space' for Einstein. GR is background-space independent.


I said nothing about quantizing the gravitational field. I have no knowledge of quantizing the gravitational field. I have no interest in quantizing the gravitational field. Why are you talking to me about quantizing the gravitiational field?

DragonFly » July 8th, 2018, 12:14 am wrote:Waves, like a sine/cosine function, are ubiquitous in the universe, and so waves of something are likely to be near to or the basic fundamental simplicity. If these piled up and then exploded in a Bang,


Ah ... so ... these waves of yours were floating around BEFORE the big bang? Once again: Wow. Wow, wow, and wow.

DragonFly » July 8th, 2018, 12:14 am wrote:due to infinite density being impossible (as anything infinite is impossible), then they might spawn centers of oscillation or such.


Centers of oscillation ... What?

DragonFly » July 8th, 2018, 12:14 am wrote:The wave frequency would be energy, as in physics, with, too, the amplitude being charge (crests as positive charge and toughs as negative charge, plus indicating matter and anti-matter, or I forgot how that comes in), and the wavelength being extension leading to dimension. Consider it added to the clue list. Possibly, the Bang explosion contains waves upon waves upon wave envelopes (protons) upon wave envelopes (electrons).


Possibly. Why are you telling me all this?

I note that none of the other regulars have chimed in. Am I missing something? Is this guy telling me the secrets of the universe and I'm too dumb to realize I'm in the presence of a great mind? Somebody help me out here.

DragonFly » July 8th, 2018, 12:14 am wrote:Or, in math terms, a '1-a cosine function'


I'm afraid that my math education did not include the term "1-a cosine function." I have no idea what you mean by that.


DragonFly » July 8th, 2018, 12:14 am wrote:could gradually begin from nothing, but I don't like the idea of Nothing somehow being something. Math could still model real waves of something and anti-something as a starting point, although something else may underlie (but how can something with no parts be made; there is ever paradox, but ultimately there can be no paradoxes.).


The cosine function is the cosine function. It's a mathematical object, one studied at various levels of abstraction from high school level on up. Something and anti-something? Have you considered challenging yourself to be more precise in your thinking? You're the one proposing an ontology of the world. Make yourself clear.


DragonFly » July 8th, 2018, 12:14 am wrote:A sine/cosine wave is a simple event/object because it is continuous with no parts.


Yet again not engaging with what I've said. I already pointed out that mathematically, the sine function is an uncountably infinite set of ordered pairs, (x, sin(x)). Each ordered pair is an individual part, an atom if you will, of the sine function. You didn't engage with the point. Didn't agree, didn't disagree, just proceeded to repeat your own talking point as if I hadn't challenged it several posts earlier.

DragonFly » July 8th, 2018, 12:14 am wrote:I don't bother will stories that we know are made up as fiction. Braham's 'dream' gets dispelled from its theory of something like 'consciousness is everything' because we have senses that take in what's actually out there.

I was not religious but was and am exposed to it in society. Most preach/teach 'God' and more as if it is truth and fact, which shows a lack of integrity. A scientist or a philosopher saying that a 'maybe' is true would be just as guilty of dishonesty. It's just that religious preachers/teachers do it routinely. Scientists exult in mysteries being solved; the religious exult in mystery remaining as dogma carved in stone, except that humans wrote the stones. Pandora's box of truths ever opens wider and wider, ever shrinking the space for 'God' to operate in.

This thread is more about ideas that can be shown to be based on what's been found in nature, not about what is supposed in an invisible supernatural that can't be shown or known (thus, the more modern and honest definition of 'faith' being akin to hopes, wishes, and desires). Still it's good to know how to respond to the religious still all about, although ever decreasing. Lately, I'm told that the exposed geological layers turned completely upside down, not just slanted like the side of a mountain, thus showing what we thought was old is really new, and vice-versa, all having gone on during only the last 4000 years. Also, that carbon dating always fails. Such is Creation Science.


You don't call that "railing" against religion? What do you call it? You have a bee in your bonnet about Christian theology.

The verb rail means to criticize severely. When you rail against increased taxes at a town meeting, you speak openly and loudly about how wrong the increase is and point out the problems it will cause.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/rail
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 671
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby DragonFly on July 8th, 2018, 3:43 pm 

someguy1 » July 8th, 2018, 2:01 pm wrote:
…I find the very concept of emergence to be hopelessly vague and a sign of weak thinking.


So do I. Reductionism needs to apply in all cases for a naturalist. What can serve as a continuum, such as spacetime, for most all purposes, can actually consist of discrete items.

DragonFly » July 8th, 2018, 12:14 am wrote: Consciousness (phenomenal qualia) is obviously structured according to what our neural assemblies form from the corresponding internals and externals, it coming forth as a product directly after the brain processing/analysis has finished. The liquidity of water would also be an obvious emergence due to so many ions moving about plus the small hydrogen rolling around the much larger oxygen atom.


someguy1 » July 8th, 2018, 2:01 pm wrote:Nonsense. Vague, weak thinking. Stuff combines to make other stuff. Emergence! Why are you going on about this? You don't even know what emergence is.


No, qualia are stuff made from other stuff! H2O stuff is made from H and O stuff!

DragonFly » July 8th, 2018, 12:14 am wrote:The Higgs boson "accounts" for mass? That's metaphysics. You are pushing scientism, not science.


No again. More uninformed thinking. It's physics, recently found in the LHC. Higgs is part of the standard model now.

someguy1 » July 8th, 2018, 2:01 pm wrote:So there's no real continuum, just bad eyesight? Wow again.


It's not about eyesight; it's how something can still operate as would a continuum, at large numbers.

someguy1 » July 8th, 2018, 2:01 pm wrote:You don't call that "railing" against religion? What do you call it?


Not against religion in general any more than one might rail against government in general instead of concentrating on its taxes. Specifics are addressed, not sweeping overall generalizations.

Specifically, there are no upside down geological strata everywhere to show that humans were first, as thus being deep down in the inverted strata, and that troglodytes were recent. Evolution has triple confirmation. In addition to the fossils in the strata there is DNA (and turned-off DNA) and embryonic stages in the womb showing some evolutionary stages, such as three phases that a kidney goes through from primitive to modern.


As indicated, this thread collects from all of science, via Einstein, Rovelli, Jordan, Higgs, and whoever developed the atomic elements table, the Standard Model, etc. and etc.

If I noticed some things, then fine, but I'm not personally unveiling the Secrets of the Universe here. WE all stand on the shoulders of the information discovered before. To put it all together into something more would be genius.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2308
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby someguy1 on July 8th, 2018, 6:24 pm 

DragonFly » July 8th, 2018, 1:43 pm wrote:a. There is no infinite divisibility, else there would only be points with no extension.


Counterexample: Consider the collection of finite intervals on the real line. I can take any interval and divide it in half and get another interval. I can divide that interval in half, and so forth, and each time I get another interval. I never get a point with no extension. How do you account for that?

And what's a "1-a cosine?" Why do you so rarely respond to any of the direct questions I ask you?
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 671
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby DragonFly on July 8th, 2018, 9:08 pm 

someguy1 » July 8th, 2018, 5:24 pm wrote:
DragonFly » July 8th, 2018, 1:43 pm wrote:a. There is no infinite divisibility, else there would only be points with no extension.


someguy1 » July 8th, 2018, 5:24 pm wrote:Counterexample: Consider the collection of finite intervals on the real line. I can take any interval and divide it in half and get another interval. I can divide that interval in half, and so forth, and each time I get another interval. I never get a point with no extension. How do you account for that?


What for in math with it approaching its potential infinity doesn't work in reality, which is what we're interested in; one would reach the Planck length and that would be the end. The same with Zeno's paradox that doesn't treat time as an interval; the interval is the Planck time. So, again, no space or time continuums of infinite divisibility.

someguy1 » July 8th, 2018, 5:24 pm wrote:And what's a "1-a cosine?" Why do you so rarely respond to any of the direct questions I ask you?


It begins at (0,0).

Intro:

The Rate of Change

To avoid a material infinity the rate of change at the moment of the Big Change must have been finite. Rather than an instantaneous jump from a little to a lot of something, no matter how small or ‘negligible’ that something might have been, there had to be a gradual transition at a finite rate of change. Further, the rate of change of that rate of change, the change’s second derivative, at that moment had to have been finite, and so on ad infinitum for all of the further derivatives.

The Equation (Ellman’s)

That requirement means that the form of the change had to have been either a natural exponential or some form of sinusoid. We seek the form of the change as a function U(t) , the ‘U’ being for universe.

The only possible form for the manner in which our universe began is a sinusoidal oscillatory form. Oscillations, waves, are ubiquitous in our universe because the universe began from an initial such oscillatory form. There simultaneously had to have arisen an identical-in-form but opposite-in-amplitude oscillation so that the pair balanced out.

The function must not be open-ended, that is it cannot ever have an infinite amplitude, and the function must smoothly match the U(t)=0 ‘change’ condition at t=0, as 13.57 billion years ago.

What about:

U(t)=0, for t<0 and U(t)=t^2, for t=0 and t>0, where ‘t’ is time.

Well, the first derivatives, for before and after ‘t’ are 0 (unstated) and 2t; the second derivatives are 0 and 2 (discontinuous); and the third derivative, which is the rate of change of the second derivative must be infinite at t=0 to produce the instantaneous jump from 0 to 2. That cannot have happened in the real universe, so the function fails.

One can conceive of the idea of a function for which all derivatives are non-zero and no two are alike (in a general sense analogous to the pattern of digits in an irrational number), but it is not likely that such a function can exist. In any case the more certain and more simple way to achieve all non-zero derivatives is a repeating derivative function, such as:

dU(t)/ dt = ± U(t) [First derivative = the original function] or
d^2 U(t) / dt^2 ± U(t) [Second derivative = the original function]

It is a function that might seem usable, meeting the repeating derivative function is of the natural exponent, ε, is:

U(t)=0, for t<0 and t=0
U(t)= εt–1, for t>0 = t + t^2 / 2! + t^3 / 3! + …

which does have zero value at t=0 and otherwise meets the derivatives requirement.

Of the functions that meet the requirement that the second derivative equal the original function per equation there are just a few, only one of which, as Cos(t) - 1, remains, as the others are open-ended (going to infinite value) or the tangent to U(t) at t=0 is not identical to the tangent to the function for t < 0, which is the horizontal t-axis, meaning not zero at t-0.

Well, we already knew that the conditions had to be a forced default. The other candidates were

εt - 1, Cosh(t) - 1, Sinh(t), and Sin(t).

So, combining the times and adding in a frequency parameter, ‘f’, we have

U(t) = U0·[1 - Cos(2π·f·t)],
with U0 being an amplitude parameter.

Again to maintain conservation and to avoid getting something from nothing, there is an identical-in-form but opposite-in-amplitude oscillation so that the pair balances out, so, then:

U(t) = ± U0·[1 - Cos(2π·f·t)]

The universe coming into being had to avoid an infinity of amplitude, an infinite of rate of change, and had to maintain conservation.

Why Did it Happen?

A duration is the period of time that a particular state or set of conditions persists. The duration is terminated by a change, which change also initiates a new duration. In the universe change is ubiquitous. It is the constant and continuous stream of change that makes durations able to be measurable. Before the beginning of the universe a duration was in process even though it was not able to be measurable (mensurable). The beginning of the universe was the first change and it terminated the original primal duration.

The probability of the happening of such an event as the universe beginning in the manner described above was/is extremely small. But the event was/is not impossible, since it happened. Furthermore, in the absence of that event occurring there was an extremely large duration of opportunity in which that extremely small probability could operate. In the absence of the beginning the original duration would have been infinite and that infinite opportunity operated on by minute, but non-zero, probability results in absolute certainty. The beginning of the universe could not avoid happening eventually.

Size or amount of time are of no meaning here because there is nothing to which they can be compared or by which they can be measured. Whatever amount of change occurred is what occurred. Whatever time it took, or went on for, whatever its oscillatory frequency was, is what happened. Twice as much or half as much have no meaning.

Deductions

There are now three conclusions about the initial oscillatory U0·[1 - Cos(2π·f·t)] form can now be had:
The universe of today must be an on-going evolved consequence of its beginning, of the initial oscillatory form;
The frequency, f, of the sinusoidal oscillation was, and is, very large; and
The nature of the change is one of concentration or density of the something that is oscillating.
The frequency would have to be either very large or very small, high enough so that it is not detected or noticed by us in every day life or so low that it appears to us as no change at all in our experience.

It has already that the only possible form for the manner in which the universe began is a sinusoidal oscillatory form because oscillations, waves, are ubiquitous in our universe.

If the frequency of the initial oscillation were so small that it appears to us as no change at all then it would completely eliminate oscillations playing any significant part in the behavior of the universe as we know it. Therefore, the frequency must have been very large, so rapid compared to our perception that we do not notice the oscillation at all.

The change can hardly be one of gross size if it is going on right now at high frequency as has just been concluded. One can conceive of the fundamental ‘substance’, the ‘something’ of the universe flashing into and out of existence from a zero to a maximum density or concentration in an oscillatory fashion at a rate so high that we neither detect nor notice it at all; but, it is not possible to entertain a concept of reality flashing from zero to full size, a size that includes ourselves and our environment, in such a fashion.

Besides, the reality that we know is not “flashing into and out of existence ....” Our reality is more the oscillation itself than what is oscillating and the continuing oscillation is our steady, constant reality.

Thus the interruption that gave us our universe was the starting of an oscillation, present to us at a very high frequency, and of U0·[1 - Cos(2π·f·t)] form, of the density, as the variation will be hereafter referred to, of the medium.

User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2308
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby someguy1 on July 9th, 2018, 12:16 am 

DragonFly » July 5th, 2018, 8:42 pm wrote:It begins at (0,0).

...


I'm not qualified to respond to any of this but clearly it's heartfelt.

It makes no difference to the universe whether or not I understand you. But if you will permit some unsolicited free advice from a stranger, I think you would do well to work on writing up a more clear and concise exposition of your ideas. Perhaps an "executive overview" before you dive into the details. Everyone appreciates that.

Also you might as well drop the anti-theology. It's what's called "preaching to the choir." You don't have to start a science presentation by saying, "What I'm about to tell you is way better than the creation story in the Bible." Just lay out your science. Give a brief overview, a helicopter view of the forest. Only then land and wander around the forest and get lost in the trees.

All the best.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 671
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby DragonFly on July 9th, 2018, 1:14 am 

Thanks for your visit, someguy; guess everyone went on vacation but us.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2308
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby someguy1 on July 9th, 2018, 1:54 am 

DragonFly » July 8th, 2018, 11:14 pm wrote:Thanks for your visit, someguy; guess everyone went on vacation but us.


There are a lot of sharp physics people around here, wonder why they didn't jump in.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 671
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby Braininvat on July 9th, 2018, 9:29 am 


As indicated, this thread collects from all of science, via Einstein, Rovelli, Jordan, Higgs, and whoever developed the atomic elements table, the Standard Model, etc. and etc.


It may help, in developing a sinusoidal oscillatory cosmogenesis, to collect from one specific theorist and give readers a better sense of how you acknowledge "prior art. " An abstract, in plainest possible terms, may also be useful in getting more eyeballs on the thread. Jorrie and Lincoln, alas, have mostly departed.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6504
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby someguy1 on July 9th, 2018, 1:33 pm 

Braininvat » July 9th, 2018, 7:29 am wrote:
sinusoidal oscillatory cosmogenesis


I wish I had one of those!!

Braininvat, are you saying OP is saying that the world is created by a primordial sine wave? That would explain why he regards the sine function as being indecomposable into smaller parts.

OP, where did the primordial sine wave come from?

Of course the sine function is just one phase of the complex exponential. In that sense, it's fundamental. But whether it creates the universe, I can't say.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 671
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby DragonFly on July 9th, 2018, 8:30 pm 

Ellman has a decent theory of waves of something and anti-something piling upon more such waves until a bandwidth limitation gets reached, and then this giant neutron of a cosmic egg bursts with a Bang all over, not just in one spot.

That theory is a kind of digression here, which might get looked at more later, but now I'm still collecting clues in the greatest detective story of all time. The TV show, 'The Expanse', is kind of doing the same, although perhaps for what has already come to be. Tune in next season.

15. There are a billion photons for every proton/electron.

a. So, then, one would think that there were 10**9 annihilations, this indicating there was matter and anti-matter.

b. Thus, since there was not 100% annihilation, perhaps some kind of expansion drove everything apart very quickly such that particles became widely separated and couldn't get annihilated.

c. How come most of what we see about us is matter, not anti-matter, except when we go in for a medical positron scan?

d. How come the number of electrons matches the number of protons, if it does, which it seems to?

e. I think the universe is estimated to have 2x10**76 particles.


A clarification of 'emergence': There are many types of emergence proposed, from very weak (reduction) to very strong (even downward causation). Although I might just call the one I like to be just 'reduction', I am stuck to referring to 'emergence' since that's a term that gets used a lot.

But, that's OK, because at the moment of the Bang there still wasn't anything 'here about' and so it is that the whole universe emerged, including time, space, light, particles, waves, and all, indicating a World that doesn't exist in space nor develop in time, which is what quantum gravity theories are trying to show, they having only interacting quantum fields in a network of relative and reciprocal interaction events.

It's much easier to reach a philosophical TOE than a scientific one that may take hundreds of years. As said in the OP, we have but mostly probability to go by.

The recent good news of finding gravitational waves is great, for then we can see all the way back 14 billion years, for they weren't blocked early on like the electromagnetic waves were.

16. Nature's use of symmetry and economy of means, aka Occam's razor.

a. Thus we are able to make better predictions when only having half the picture..
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2308
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby DragonFly on July 16th, 2018, 11:47 pm 

17. Matter appears to be easy to come by, given that the universe seems to be extravagantly humongous, even way beyond ginormous.

a. Mostly hydrogen gas clouds.

b. Most of it is a dangerous waste from our point of view.

c. Did such a large expanse help us to become?

d. The matter amount reflects the energy available at the Bang, I presume.

e. Is the largest so big because the smallest has to be so minuscule?


18. General Origin classes:

a. Spontaneous; truly not from anything or any place; totally causeless.

b. Ever existent energy/stuff.

c. Some possibility, potential, or capability to become, which is still a 'something', not Nothing.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2308
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby Brent696 on July 17th, 2018, 11:55 am 

>>>>>>>OP, where did the primordial sine wave come from?

Of course the sine function is just one phase of the complex exponential. In that sense, it's fundamental. But whether it creates the universe, I can't say.<<<<<<<

Someguy1,

Of course I have a hard time understanding Dragonfly but, as regards Creation, and this is using my own eye as I understand the biblical model, which is different from any I have seen proposed before.

We begin with a brane of sorts, biblically its described as "the surface of the deep" and further described as Void/empty and formless.

At this point if God (His Spirit referring to His Being) is the only Thing that exists as an Infinite self awareness, He turns to Nothingness from which to Creation, thus "the surface of the deep".

He creates by speaking, and just as if we spoke in a room over a bowl of water, so would the force (compression wave) of our breath and the particular vibrations of our words create a wave upon the surface of the water, so then does the Nothingness begins to resonate beneath the force of God's Being.

Just as the medium of air is silent, and by speaking and compressing air into waves does sound arise out of the silence, so does God's Being compress that which is nothing, and from nothing arises this Creation.

God says "let there be light" His breath takes on a particular vibration just as the word is formed, and the surface of the deep resonates into a standing pattern across the surface, this standing pattern would be the constant of Time or the limit we know as the speed of light,

He speaks again and says "let there be an expanse", and so a secondary word goes out with its own vibratory distinction and creates another wave pattern which translates into the expanding of space, like the picture of raisins in dough and the dough is expanding all around, so the space between everything is in constant expansion.

As God continues to speak, so do the wave patterns become more complex leading to patterns of interference from which matter eventually manifests. The constants are laid out first as their waves overlap, then complexity and interference brings forth matter.

What M-theory might be thinking of as the impacts from other universes transferring their particular vibrational signatures to us, thus stimulating the so called Big Bang, the bible would designate as the different word/things God speak of when creating.

One more point that is important, Creation is not a past event, that is merely an illusion as our consciousness need to be travelling on a time line for awareness. Past, present, and future are all created at once, the universe is whole, so then God is singing more than speaking as His Being still exerts the compression upon the surface of this Nothingness so as to be maintaining everything. Just as time has no value, the same with space, in short Creation did not start in a particular place and spread our like the big bang might infer.

The chicken or the egg might be a useful visual as the chicken was created in the egg and the egg within the chicken, and TIME simply pulled the future and the past apart from one another. The pulling might infer a timeline also so disregard that part of the analogy but it is another way of seeing how everything is happening at once.

As for the "days" of Genesis they do not denote a linear motion but a foundational or vertical structure, day 2 (space) resting upon the initial construct of Time.
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 76
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby someguy1 on July 17th, 2018, 2:49 pm 

Brent696 » July 17th, 2018, 9:55 am wrote:He creates by speaking, and just as if we spoke in a room over a bowl of water, so would the force (compression wave) of our breath and the particular vibrations of our words create a wave upon the surface of the water, so then does the Nothingness begins to resonate beneath the force of God's Being.


What is the medium in which God's voice resonates? The "Nothingness?" What does that mean? Is God's voice like light, a wave that doesn't need a medium? Perhaps you can walk us through the physics.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 671
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby Brent696 on July 17th, 2018, 3:54 pm 

>>>>>What is the medium in which God's voice resonates? The "Nothingness?" What does that mean? Is God's voice like light, a wave that doesn't need a medium? Perhaps you can walk us through the physics.<<<<<

It is not as if there is "space" in between the Infinite Being and the Nothingness, I use the analogy of a bowl to better visualize the resonance, but in another thread I started called "sound from silence" I addressed how silence air, when compressed, gave birth to sound. Sound shares the dynamics of a finite existence, silence and infinite one.

Drawing in even tighter to the Genesis picture, Spirit (Infinite Being) hovers over or perhaps I should say ABUTS, the surface of the deep or the nothingness. Speaking pictures the WILL to create, Breath and Word the transference of the will to make that which is nothing to resonate.

So, one may say "air" is not really nothing, and my response is, and I am not God. It is in the way that we, by our will and breath, create words, that God as Infinite Being is able to create something from that which is nothing. If you think about it we can create nothing within the creation, we put pieces together, we arrange, but the materials are already here. The closest we can come to creating something out of nothing is this ability to create sound from silence itself simply through the creation of waves.

God's voice is not the light, picture the nothingness as two dimensional, like a membrane, and to a Being who is all and Himself everything, so He must create from pure nothingness AS IF it abutted Him. Now this is difficult as we are in a 3d creation and I am trying to create visuals of a reality transcendent to time and space. So God Wills a vibration (Word) forth and that which is pure nothingness, compressed by the force of Infinite Being, begins to vibrate.

At this point a bowl of water helps as we can see a standing wave pattern form all across the bowl. This is the beginning of the big bang, we would be placed at the bottom of the bowl looking up. As the water ripples above us on the surface, the refracted light of God's Being enters into the water creating a kaleidoscope effect, this is our level of perception.

So like Hawkins I think spoke of the universe as being 2 dimensional and yet possessing all the information for our 3 dimensional reality, so the wave pattern upon the surface creates this fluctuation of light that we perceive. Remember the depth of the water above us is merely our 3d perception, everything is actually happening on the surface.

The first pattern upon the surface, let there be light, is actually the creation of a limitation, this limitation we know as the speed of light, this limit is not how fast light is CAPABLE of moving, it is a limit that restricts its movement all together. This is why a train moving at 200 MPH with a headlight, that light does not move at C plus 200 MPH.

Light relates directly to Time. This first pattern and its kaleidoscope effect within our depth perception is the apparent motion of time.

Then there is a second pattern as God creates "space", like notes that combine into chords, patterns are laid down as that which is Nothing, by the structures of compression as God's Being bears against it, the complexity of Creation arises. The first is time, then space, then on top is gravity or condensation of matter, and then life or consciousness.

Oh, so far, in the three days of creation I have referenced, that is merely the heavenly side of the creation, the archetypal layout of the forces necessary for the physical or phenomenal Universe to manifest. Its like the unseen math of the universe to which our symbols correspond.
Last edited by Brent696 on July 17th, 2018, 5:40 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 76
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby Braininvat on July 17th, 2018, 4:46 pm 

viewtopic.php?t=12180

Posts that don't follow these guidelines will be removed. This is not a mysticism forum. I am removing posts in 24 hours. You can copy any portions you wish to keep.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6504
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Good TOE Principles

Postby Brent696 on July 17th, 2018, 5:48 pm 

I edited out any reference to anything I would think you might interpret as unrelated to metaphysics and epistemology, as I have a doctorate in theology perhaps you can explain to me how I might still be in violation of any rules.

Am I only allowed to forward or parrot the work of others or am I allowed to have my own formulation of cosmology, based upon how I understand the many scriptures and religions of the world?
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 76
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Next

Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests