Topic: A Theory of Everything and The Truth About God (Read 2439 times)

I knew someone would make that remark. There is no controversy here. It's just my preferred method of validating the patterns I encounter. I attempt to connect to as many sources as possible and see if there is some overlap in the information. I don't judge the sources by their appearance or their way of communication though it took me awhile to get to that state. Information itself is what matters most the rest is secondary.

It's the same with Bitcoin. You don't get the longest chain by looking at the IP addresses of your neighbor nodes and rejecting connections just because some of them are in North Korea or Iran. Instead you accept the information you receive from them first, process it and see who got the longest chain.

And by the way some of those "crack pots" have been sharing information for the last 30 years and have been very consistent at what they say.


That's the whole point of this thread!

The fact that algebraic structures (read pure mathematical) might be involved in the description of the physical reality flips the whole materialistic paradigm of modern science upside down. In materialistic paradigm the physical reality is considered primary and the consciousness is thought of as a product of complexity of material manifestation.

The opposite approach is to consider consciousness as primary and see physical reality as just one of the products of the consciousness itself. Pure mathematics is a very abstract thing and we can probably agree that it is a product of consciousness. So if physical reality turns out to have a purely mathematical structure at its core that would say a lot about its origin.

Regarding why E8 and not some other groups. It could be that E8 is just a part of the truth about our particular physical reality, but not the whole truth. Also it could be that other galaxies are based on different algebraic structures than our own Milky Way and therefore have different laws of physics. Some hints at that are given in the second to last video in my OP, but only if you are brave enough to go esoteric-crazy!

PS:

Otherwise very interesting discussion! I will watch some of the videos posted here later today...

I'm sure that would make a hell of a lot more sense in English.

What I really like in relation to particle physics are Bill Gadae's videos. They are hilarious.

He may not be qualified and his own theories aren't better, but his criticism is straight on imo.
http://youtu.be/n4iFCu4ih10

random, luck,freedom and god

satan bet with god,god agree and told job a game

two gun in a revolver that holds six rounds

    Gun NO.                A      B
    Bullet quantity       1       5
    Die probability      1/6     5/6

God:job,you must choice a gun to shoot youself.I am not want you die,i want you pass

Job was think......then he choice A

Satan:job,who is choicing? God,your freedom?

Job:Freedom

Satan:Are you choicing "God things" using your freedom?

Job cry...yes,Satan,you are right,I cannot choice life or die use my freedom.

then Job choice B

Satan:Job,are you give up your freedom?

Job cry....yes,Satan,you are right,i give up freedom the god endutd.but satan pls tell howto....
 
Satan:There are 6 coins,one is mark B,others 5 marks A.back the uncertainty to uncertainty.

Job take a coin random. The coin mark A,so he choice A and shoot himself, but "bang" he was die.
job in hell and ask satan, why i come here? why i use random number and A shoot me?

Satan:That's why you come here.

Job:I dont understand.....

Satan:You ask me this question means you doesnot accept this fruit. If you donot acdept, that's
why you come here. you doesnot accept what God did----your died.

Job in the hell again this game,then he take a coin marks B,he shoot himself and "bang"...

Job:Why bang again,sadan?

Sadan:That's why bang,Job.if any things happend you donot accept,it's the reason of "bang"

Job suddenly know the random numbers is 1 or o 100% before he flipping a coin.

Now god come and want to talk to Job,but job flipping a coin......

With regards to the higgs boson, all they can say is their model of background noise is less consistent with the data than a model that includes at least one extra particle. One problem could be that a huge, expensive machine was built and it was going to be run until it some deviation from the background prediction was detected one way or the other. Stopping the experiment when you either "get significance" or run out of money is a huge issue, especially since getting significance usually leads to more money.

You make sense: theoretical physics is theoretical, so when you discovers some math that fits and can make predictions that are later proofed with experiments, you have discovered a mathematical "truth" aswell as a real world one. But math is an abstraction in itself that only describes properties, but don't give any explanations. so the theory of quantum mechanics and it's "evolution" after Big Bang, still have to be figured out in a way that makes sense for a human mind. Naked math is not proof of anything on it's own.

That's essentially what I'm saying, yes. Maybe minus the "choose your reincarnation story" part.

Though the hardline inner skeptic and confirmation-bias hater in me still tries to refuse to accept it, fuck dude...there's "luck" and then there's "Why does all this seemingly random stuff keep lining up in my favor constantly?". Blah blah, The Secret bullshit, whatever...

What's really weird is thinking about something randomly but on a very specific topic the day before, then you find some internet article mentioning it...or a friend will randomly bring the subject up...

Well, we can nitpick and say it only applies to things you are in direct control of...or that you are actually in control of all the variables in both a conscious and sub-conscious way.

Nevertheless, I've found in my life experience that if I'm in the mindset and motions for "good luck", it seems to find me.

Well the thing I always wondered about particle physics is why do they think they are actually detecting something that corresponds to their model?
Because from the mathematical perspective they are using a very rigid concept, what if it is just random chance that they measure something and since they have specific build detectors to just measure if something specific exists and not measuring what exists.



The next thing is: Why E8 or it's subgroups?
Couldn't the universe be made of vertices which are in Coxeter groups?
Is there any reason that algebraic structures are involved at all?

Am I making any sense here?

OP might be spoofing us! and yes, I don't either have the wizz to judge if Garrett's conclusions is kosher to the standard model, but his math is good, very good, they who knows say.

Garrett is a theoretical physicist. He would fall off his surf board if knew that he has become cult with these people.

Because it is usually presented in the same context, the whole new age movement is clings to anything not easily understood by most people.
The whole thing strikes me as a joke because you have to be actually a mathematician to understand what they are saying. I am very fascinated by math and I don't have a clue.

In comparison it would be funny to write an essay how there are 92 audioactive elements in the look and say sequence (google it if you like) and there are 92 naturally abundant elements. 

I've heard about Garrett Lisi a few years ago, where there was some hype about his E8 model in the established circles as it predicted some particles in super symmetry including the higher energies for the Higgs boson.

So it might be a plausible model to describe some fundamental geometry in the universe on the quantum level, and that was that.

Susskind praised the quality of his work in the end, but it was not directly compatible to the kind of experiments that can be done in our "tiny" LHC, so it ramains on the fringe.

The same thing can be said about string theory; in the early 80'ies only 3 people worked on it, and they took quite a pounding as being too far out! No it has become main stream, thousands of people base their main work on it.

E8 has some fascinating properties outside it's "new age" appeal. The math of it sure has to do with something in nature and it will find it's niche in science one day.

Why the OP mixes Garrett's serious presentation, with a video of some NLP (talking with eyes closed) crack pots, elludes me?

The esoteric school of thought I believe baron was referring to is one where we are essentially "god" or are directly of "god": We choose our lives and the terms of our existence through whatever means before our birth on this plane of existence. Thus, any transgressions against our perceived happiness or well-being have already been accepted by ourselves, random or otherwise.

Feel free to correct me, Baron, if I am misinterpreting your statement.  

what about random bad luck (eg being in the wrong place at the wrong time)?

Such thinking gives freedom a whole new meaning--yet it is very liberating. Victimization becomes a foreign concept in such a world.  

http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.14447

Throughout history you will find people saying that we are in complete control of our existence. I do not believe they are wrong.

Oh well, I think this sums it up 

http://youtu.be/c8xUd7Myeuk

Don't need to fake it... only need to overestimate how certain you are about the background noise. I'm not qualified to say either way though.

Haha, will do! Great stuff. I've been contemplating a more simplistic view of this theory and I knew this had to be written somewhere. And I now see that is the case.

Thanks!

He used hypercomplex numbers which is a different approach. He predicted that there will be no higgs particle and nothing like it but that didn't actually work out. (Unless Cern faked their results)
That wasn't the reason for the setback though, I don't understand it enough to be able to explain it to you.

You can always watch the videos and try to explain it to me if you like however

What was the setback? Is there something demonstrably wrong about Hypernumbers?

I haven't really, I'm not in academia either, although I aim to, some day.

There also is this guy: https://www.youtube.com/user/sweetser
He attempted to actually do the things these guys just dream about, albeit he had a recent setback in his work I still enjoy his videos.

You know your math very well. Thanks for all this reading material.

The whole thing boils down to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musean_hypernumber

Basically it means an attempt to make the number spaces R, C, Q, O compatible.
Complex number: 1 + i² = 0
Quaternion: 1 + i² +j² + k² = 0
Octonion: 1 + i² +j² + k² + l² + m² + n² + o² = 0

Since it is proven that only those four normed division algebras exist (don't ask me how) it can be conjectured that the whole universe can be described using just them.

Problem is the thing isn't established in math at all an generally viewed as esoteric mumbo-jumbo since nobody has demonstrated that it works outside such brain-fucks as "proving god".
As usual when you research these things and follow them to their origin not much remains from the initial fascination.

If the universe started with a single consciousness, logically, we would be parts of that consciousness. Some say that would make us god himself.

This is has been recognized in the esoteric parts of Kabbalistic Judaism for awhile now but telling the people that they are indeed god himself will not work out so well for people in power. It may demonstrate what true equality actually is.

I see a trend for the concept of a "creator" getting more and more abstract. If this continues it is inevitable that the existence of a "creator" (for sufficiently vague definitions of creator) will be proved.

However, the proof of this creator will not have been contributed to by people who just feel a creator or spirit energy or whatever is true and then accept it.


It sounds like this lady just thought of some things (what would my passed away brother want) and now believes them to be true.

I agree, from the linear rational perspective there are still many uncertainties and details that need to be worked out, but after digging a little bit deeper into the topic I found a few interesting things which link this E8 theory to the idea of God.

Firstly, I found a conversation between Garrett LIsi and a few other physicists at the link below
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/627
where they discuss certain aspects of the theory in spring 2010 and then two years later in spring 2012 there was a message from a relative of one of the physicists stating that he had passed away and that's where it gets interesting. Below is the full message (bold emphasis is mine):

Maybe the Universe is in the superposition of "static omni-presence" and "taking a first step" 


Wow, how complex and intricate the geometric pattern must be for one single particle to look like the mess above 


Death might be considered an abrupt change in frequency, but you won't cease to exist. Remember that you are here because you wanted to be here! So if you still find yourself physical then there must be some themes you wanted to explore in this reality or you wouldn't be here to begin with. So keep searching for patterns

PS: You might wanna watch this...

The Four Laws Of Creation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcq5tcOzito

The only philosopical question in live is:" should I commit suicide or not".Anything else doesnt make sense.

Some would argue the omni-presence never took a first step and that the universe is truly infinite in all directions.

Of course human comprehension is limited in this degree. Just imagine infinity equaling zero.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Hyperbola_one_over_x.svg/500px-Hyperbola_one_over_x.svg.png

I've recently come across a nice presentation by Garrett Lisi suggesting that the whole "zoo" of particles and their interactions observable in modern particle physics can be described by a pure mathematical object called "exceptional simple Lie group E8".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V74NBEYq3tw

While the theory itself is not complete yet, the implications of what is being suggested are profound. It means that the structure of physical reality isn't just a set of arbitrary rules but rather a result of a beautiful mathematical process, which in turn reinforces the idea of physical reality being a result of consciousness itself (this wasn't mentioned in the video, but rather an extrapolation on my part).

So it seems that consciousness builds structures based on math and logic or otherwise they wouldn't hold. It also seems that it attempts to find all structures that can possibly exist so that it doesn't miss anything interesting and this is why in many spiritual teachings God is referred to as All That Is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdJ5AlxYZV0

The process of how everything started can also be described by what is called a Sacred Geometry, which is simply a set of rules on how to build structures from very simple constructs like dot, line, circle, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx31y1KKK3E

As the video above explains, in the beginning there was consciousness (they call it Spirit of God) and the void because the consciousness hasn't manifested anything yet. The consciousness had two options: either stay in this static omni-presence indefinitely or take a first step. Eventually consciousness would start creating and since there was nothing to measure time before the first step, time didn't exist either.

If we follow the process of building structures from the start we will see at some point that there are multiple ways how to proceed forward, this is where consciousness needs to split to take on multiple paths simultaneously. I personally believe, that this feature of creation process gives rise to multiple "you"s and multiple parallel timelines even though we all still derive from that one consciousness that started the process. So "you" exist because the overall consciousness needed to split at some point to explore a certain path in creation. Below is a good channeling on the topic (I like the autotune version better):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wM3doxMJ6s

PS:
For those of you who are searching for patterns compare the content of Garrett Lisi's video at the top at around 11:30 with the content of the video below at around 30:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN930nRm8No

And if you were patient enough to get to the bottom of it, here is a gift for you with some nice music and beautiful imagery:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuUb4EkVDuY
Enjoy!