Spirituality
25 Jan 17
25 Jan 17
This guy is a physicist and a bit of a hippy. He's on YouTube explaining his 'Big TOE' (theory of everything) - I can't remember if I'm allowed to post youtube links here so I won't, but it's an easy one to find, just google the thread title adding 'youtube' to the search field if you're interested. There's quite a lot of it, but it's broken down into small pieces, and you can get the gist pretty quickly. I'd be interested to hear anybody's views on his views.
26 Jan 17
Originally posted by Great King RatYeah that's a pretty dodgy equation alright. I do find the simulation hypothesis beguiling though, despite my scepticism.
[youtube]fT8LaMrn_MM[/youtube]
18 minutes of non-sensical hippy wishy-washy claptrap. I gave up after "love and lower entropy are mirror images".
26 Jan 17
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatIt is one of those hypotheses that cannot be falsified so it is not real science at this point in time. For instance, if we were some kind of computer code, the pixels would have to be on the order of the Planck size, 10 ^-35 cm or better so it will a long time if ever that we could have direct evidence of such a situation.
Yeah that's a pretty dodgy equation alright. I do find the simulation hypothesis beguiling though, despite my scepticism.
This Big Toe does not also cover the idea there are possibly multiple dimensions, such as the current drive to measure the inverse square law at smaller and smaller distances apart for two masses. If a divergence of the inverse square law is found, it could be construed as evidence for a kind of rolled up extra dimension that would not normally interact with our dimensions. So far no dice but they continue to push the distance smaller and smaller, now about 100 microns, trying to sniff out 50 and 40 micron separation of masses. Anyway that's my 2 shekels worth.
26 Jan 17
Originally posted by sonhouseAlways a valued 2 shekel's worth, although I daresay that if evidence for multiple dimensions were found it could be incorporated in what appears to be a pretty woolly sort of theory of everything such as this. I wouldn't dream of posting this particular theory in the science forum, because it's just not scientific, but it did put me in mind of a few er... spiritual paradigms which i've encountered over the years. Interesting, I thought.
It is one of those hypotheses that cannot be falsified so it is not real science at this point in time. For instance, if we were some kind of computer code, the pixels would have to be on the order of the Planck size, 10 ^-35 cm or better so it will a long time if ever that we could have direct evidence of such a situation.
This Big Toe does not also co ...[text shortened]... ns, trying to sniff out 50 and 40 micron separation of masses. Anyway that's my 2 shekels worth.
27 Jan 17
Originally posted by avalanchethecatWell, Campbell was clearly pushing his book. As far as spirituality goes, it is just as true or false as any other religious set.
Always a valued 2 shekel's worth, although I daresay that if evidence for multiple dimensions were found it could be incorporated in what appears to be a pretty woolly sort of theory of everything such as this. I wouldn't dream of posting this particular theory in the science forum, because it's just not scientific, but it did put me in mind of a few er... spiritual paradigms which i've encountered over the years. Interesting, I thought.
One thing I don't see from Big TOE, is predictions. What would he expect, for instance, to be a viable means of a star drive, wormholes and such? Would they be possible with human style physics, that is to say, attainable with more or less what we know now?
What would it say about life on other planets, or about evolution or genesis of life?
What would it say about the possibility of finding more advanced life than human?
Does his TOE say anything at all about any of that?
27 Jan 17
Originally posted by sonhouseNo i think you are right, after all, it's not really a scientific theory. I think what I like about it is the way it explains the double split experiment and 'spooky-action-at-a-distance' and so on, which I've yet to encounter comprehensible explanation for from a current paradigm. That said, i'm no physicist!
Well, Campbell was clearly pushing his book. As far as spirituality goes, it is just as true or false as any other religious set.
One thing I don't see from Big TOE, is predictions. What would he expect, for instance, to be a viable means of a star drive, wormholes and such? Would they be possible with human style physics, that is to say, attainable wit ...[text shortened]... y of finding more advanced life than human?
Does his TOE say anything at all about any of that?
27 Jan 17
Originally posted by Great King RatNice. I like it.
[youtube]fT8LaMrn_MM[/youtube]
18 minutes of non-sensical hippy wishy-washy claptrap. I gave up after "love and lower entropy are mirror images".
I guess it comes down to accepting that bit about conciousness being the base for all experiences, or that everything springs from conciousness. If you dont believe that then you cant really move through this stuff..
28 Jan 17
Originally posted by avalanchethecatHe may be a 'bit of a hippy', but he's clearly not 'hippy' enough.
This guy is a physicist and a bit of a hippy. He's on YouTube explaining his 'Big TOE' (theory of everything) - I can't remember if I'm allowed to post youtube links here so I won't, but it's an easy one to find, just google the thread title adding 'youtube' to the search field if you're interested. There's quite a lot of it, but it's broken down int ...[text shortened]... and you can get the gist pretty quickly. I'd be interested to hear anybody's views on his views.
His TOE is really just a TOEEG (Theory Of Everything, Except God).
I'm not calling his theory bunk, just because it leaves out God. Science doesn't really concern itself with God, and it does a remarkably good job of describing a universe without God, because that is why we have free will, after all.
Maybe I'm just nit-picking the name, because it's clearly NOT a Theory of Everything if it leaves out God. I just want to be clear on what it is.
28 Jan 17
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseCorrect. A real ToE should be able to predict these things, but it might need another 'big idea' guy (like another Einstein) to ferret them out.
Well, Campbell was clearly pushing his book. As far as spirituality goes, it is just as true or false as any other religious set.
One thing I don't see from Big TOE, is predictions. What would he expect, for instance, to be a viable means of a star drive, wormholes and such? Would they be possible with human style physics, that is to say, attainable wit ...[text shortened]... y of finding more advanced life than human?
Does his TOE say anything at all about any of that?
The biggest ideas always come from the shoulders of giants.
28 Jan 17
Originally posted by SuzianneWhile some people believe there is a god, there is really no reason for a theory of everything to take the existence thereof as a given. In fact, it seems to me that if the existence of god is accepted, the rest of the theory is kind of redundant anyway.
He may be a 'bit of a hippy', but he's clearly not 'hippy' enough.
His TOE is really just a TOEEG (Theory Of Everything, Except God).
I'm not calling his theory bunk, just because it leaves out God. Science doesn't really concern itself with God, and it does a remarkably good job of describing a universe without God, because that is why we have free ...[text shortened]... clearly NOT a Theory of Everything if it leaves out God. I just want to be clear on what it is.
30 Jan 17
Originally posted by avalanchethecatAnd such a god, if it exists at all, is clearly hands off for humans, 3 yo dying from cancer is not my idea of a compassionate god and all the atrocities of the past, the latest one I heard about was King Leopold of Belgium buying up the Congo like 130 odd years ago and then a holocaust much greater than the Jewish ones of WW2, like 10 million africans dying from starvation, worked to death. Not much a compassionate god to allow that sort of thing, the clear message, even granting a god, it cares a rats ass about the fate of humans, much as the religous set adores it and thinks it is so wonderful and loving.
While some people believe there is a god, there is really no reason for a theory of everything to take the existence thereof as a given. In fact, it seems to me that if the existence of god is accepted, the rest of the theory is kind of redundant anyway.
I say BS to that, 500 million dead from disease and war is not compassion to me, it clearly strikes as uncaring if there is some kind of god in the first place.
30 Jan 17
Originally posted by sonhousePreaching to the converted my friend. The god of the bible is too ridiculous for words.
And such a god, if it exists at all, is clearly hands off for humans, 3 yo dying from cancer is not my idea of a compassionate god and all the atrocities of the past, the latest one I heard about was King Leopold of Belgium buying up the Congo like 130 odd years ago and then a holocaust much greater than the Jewish ones of WW2, like 10 million africans dyin ...[text shortened]... ompassion to me, it clearly strikes as uncaring if there is some kind of god in the first place.