The Grand Unified Theory of everything.

[Paradroid]

Todays science is quite advanced.
We have law of physics,the relativity theory and the quantum theory.
But one thing is still missing:
The Grand Unified Theory of everything(GUT)
That one final theory to unite all theories and to explain the whole universe.
Scientists have been unable to create such a theory.
But luckily we have the Illuminati.
Here is what they have to say about this subject:
http://www.armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-Genesis-Singularity(1886319).htm

R>=0
The Grand Unified Theory of everything.

Read through that article and tell me what do you think about it.

 

[Cognisant]

I'm really enjoying this, still don't know what to make of it though.
*keeps reading*

The answer to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is that the state of nothingness is impossible. It is not even definable.

Huh, it works.

 

[Anthile]

Todays science is quite advanced.

That's exactly what people thought one hundred years ago. And two hundred years ago. And that's exactly what people will think hundred years into the future.

We have law of physics,the relativity theory and the quantum theory.

So? Science will never be 'over'.

But one thing is still missing:
The Grand Unified Theory of everything(GUT)
That one final theory to unite all theories and to explain the whole universe.

Who says such a GUT is possible? It's hunting for unicorns and I find it despicable that some people try it to sell as something mystical.

But luckily we have the Illuminati.

Wat.

http://www.armageddonconspiracy.co.u...1886319).htm

 

[Puffy]

Haha, that picture never ceases to make me laugh :P

I've only read half of it, I'll finish it this evening. It's interesting I just find it a bit funny. I'll post a detailed response another time.

 

[Paradroid]

Anthile wrote:

Who says such a GUT is possible? It's hunting for unicorns and I find it despicable that some people try it to sell as something mystical.

If Einstein had thought like that,then we would not have the general relativity theory today.
"Who says such a GUT is possible?"
I for example say that it is possible.
In fact it is only logical that such a theory,or should I say law,exists.
In the world of science everything is connected to everything.
So there must be a law or a rule system which explains this connection between everything;The Grand Unified Theory of everything.
That theory is offered in the Illuminati website,and it explains everything pretty well in my opinion.
The formula is called:
R>=0

Just read the article everybody,it's quite long,but worth your time.

 

[imchristinak]

it definitely has to be possible but i think the statement of its existence is enough. i think even saying that 'everything is connected' does a great job. personally what i think is impossible is that there can one day be an explanation for the universe. i think there are just too many things left to be discovered and if a day when everything left to be discovered has been discovered, then it'd be the end and i picture everything just zipping up to start all over again.

if i can provide a statement for the theory of everything, it would be '(because) it is.'

 

[Marbas]

First things first, are you talking about GUT or TOE? You're probably talking about TOE. A GUT is a specific type of theory regarding subatomic particles that unifies the forces that characterize their interactions into one. While with a TOE, that is also unified with General Relativity.

So there's an enormous chance that yes, a GUT is a pipedream.

Zero and infinity are two of the most obscure topics in mathematics and, because of their mysterious nature, both arrived on the scene much later than ordinary numbers such as 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. It wasn't until Georg Cantor's work of the late nineteenth century that infinity became a respectable subject of study. Moreover, zero is simply the inverse of infinity, and vice versa: 1 divided by infinity = 0, and 1 divided by zero = infinity. Science will never be complete until it is able to fully incorporate zero and infinity.

There's so much wrong with just this paragraph. The rest of this article is probably equally dreadful.


For example, with regards to the real numbers, zero does not have a multiplicative inverse. Any field, for that matter, does not have a multiplicative inverse for its' additive identity element. That quantity, (1/0)is not defined. When you see (1/0)=infinity it's in the context of limits. Without a limit, you have a multiplicative inverse of zero, which as was mentioned before, cannot exist. No, that's NOT a problem, that's actually very important to the way addition and multiplication work.

There are other ways that the expression can work too, certain projections make it meaningful in certain places. But these are very special and specific circumstances.

Get your mystical bull pucky out of my field of study.

Furthermore, even before Cantor's work with infinity, projective geometry was still a respectable field. People were working with infinity in the 1400s and doing fine.

Etc etc.

Equally, dimensional matter can be transformed into dimensionless mind, and this is the process that take place at a black hole singularity where r = 0. Which paradigm is the more logical and consistent? Which does not require something to spontaneously arise from nothing?

Your paradigm is just as vulnerable to the skeptic's regress and on top of that, is empirically unsupported.

Scientists have never asked themselves the most basic question of all: why should dimensional entities (r > 0) be privileged over non-dimensional entities (r = 0)?

Actually that question has been asked many times and the answer is simple: the physical sciences concern themselves solely with observable and testable phenomenon.

At r = 0, the centre of a black hole, gravity is infinite and time itself stops: all of the mass of the black hole is contained within an infinitely small point where the concept of space no longer makes any sense.

What you're doing right here is a common mistake people make. You're assuming physics is perfect. Mathematical singularities in theories generally indicate a flaw in the theory, and until they are taken care of, physical interpretation of them is a futile endeavor. The reason the singularity in black holes exist is once again due to the conflict of GR and QM. Since the matter in the problem has been compacted to such a small size that QM style interactions should matter, things get all wonky.

Physicists, so blindly and irrationally wedded to materialism, have never taken their own equations to their logical conclusion. What their equations actually point to at the limit of r = 0 is a different aspect of existence - mental rather physical, dimensionless rather than dimensional, outside of space and time. Rather than face up to that, physicists would prefer to futilely search for a new theory. But they have nowhere else to go. They will always run up against exactly the same problem: that the universe of dimensions, of space and time, coexists with another universe of no dimensions, outside space and time. Reality can never be comprehended if either aspect is ignored.

New hypothesis, you're an idiot.

Science says the Big Bang arose out of nothingness

Science says nothing about what happened before the Big Bang. Ask a physicist, and they'll either say "That question is meaningless" or "That question can't be answered."

There is no such reason. It is blind, irrational prejudice that causes scientists to ignore the r = 0 universe. They suffer from "group think".

There's a word for people like you: Crank.

Yet no scientist can provide any legitimate scientific or philosophical reason why dimensionless existence is not every bit as real as dimensional existence

Burden of proof.

"Entropy" - the basis of why perpetual machines seem impossible - is an extremely complex concept, which is nowhere near being fully explained by science.

Entropy's actually pretty simple dude. The universe is expanding. Things are getting farther away from each other. Thus energy has to travel farther and thus diffuses more. Thus less energy for everyone. The calculations can get a bit raunchy, but thermo's very simple conceptually.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (and quantum tunnelling which logically arises from it) amounts to a mechanism, within conventional physics, for continually recycling useful energy and defying entropy.

Explain.

Would you like to explain where the energy for all of these parallel universes comes from?

Sure:

Conservation of energy is not violated since the energy of each branch has to be weighted by its probability, according to the standard formula for the conservation of energy in quantum theory. This results in the total energy of the multiverse being conserved

Google's your friend.

The point of this is to demonstrate that the whole of 3D-space, from zero to infinity in any direction, can be mapped to a single point - the projection point

THAT WASN'T DEMONSTRATED AT ALL

we hope we have succeeded in demonstrating its revolutionary implications and how it overthrows, in a perfectly rational, scientific and philosophical way, the prevailing scientific paradigm based on absolute materialism.

Logic is dead.

 

[ashitaria]

It was very very interesting. One of the links of the site explained what the soul was actually made out of, and how the universe was created.

They claim that light is what our consciousness is made out of, because light is weight-less and does not interact with other molecules, even in a quantum vacuum. It's the only substance that can enter the Higg's field and still manage to retain it's form while mass-weight isn't able too. Also, bodies can be created completely by photons, thus they have come to the conclusion that light is everything, especially this part, "Mass-matter can exist only where the Higgs field is present. It is not present in the kingdom of light: no mass-matter can exist there. Light, on the other hand, can exist in both kingdoms and can travel back and forth. That is the basis of "angels" and "souls". Do you see? Light can exist in two, entirely different universes. Light is the key to everything. That is why the Iluminati chose that name for their secret society. That is why their religion is called Illumination. Light - illumination - is the secret of life. Light is knowledge. Light is thought. Light is gnosis. Matter, faith and Satan are the darkness that must be dispelled. Turn to the light."

I don't really know what to make of this yet, but it is a very interesting theory.

http://www.armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/Did-an-Angel-Create-Earth(1449296).htm

 

[Marbas]

I don't really know what to make of this yet, but it is a very interesting theory.

Unfounded speculation mixed with poorly done science makes a very bad theory.

 

[Anthile]

Unfounded speculat[/FONT]ion mixed with poorly done science makes a very bad theory.

Or to say it with Spock:

 

[BigApplePi]

Marbas. Perhaps to explain what it means to say the limit approaches zero.

 

[Abraxas]

I know nothing on this subject. All I'm saying is that quantum physics is not simple and logic(that we know) sometimes doesn't walk hand in hand with it.

The probability of someone actually KNOWING about this topic and also taking part in this conversation is ~0.

My point is that those scientist that have dedicated their lives to finding out about these matters, still know nothing, they only make assumptions.

 

[Niavmai]

Actually, I'm well versed on this subject, and I can definetely tell you the GUT (or TATLTUAE), is 42.

 

[Abraxas]

Actually, I'm well versed on this subject, and I can definetely tell you the GUT (or TATLTUAE), is 42.

Deep Thought?

 

[Niavmai]

Deep Thought?

Ultrasentient pan dimensional hamsters.

 

[Mary]

Actually, I'm well versed on this subject, and I can definetely tell you the GUT (or TATLTUAE), is 42.

YES.
So much goodness in that sentence I cannot even describe.

 

[Marbas]

I know nothing on this subject. All I'm saying is that quantum physics is not simple and logic(that we know) sometimes doesn't walk hand in hand with it.

The probability of someone actually KNOWING about this topic and also taking part in this conversation is ~0.

My point is that those scientist that have dedicated their lives to finding out about these matters, still know nothing, they only make assumptions.

The basics of quantum mechanics are quite simple. You just need a solid understanding of linear algebra and differential equations.

Marbas. Perhaps to explain what it means to say the limit approaches zero.

Ahh, yes. When we have a function mapping from some space to the reals, assuming we're using the real numbers here, what we have when you see "As the lim x -> 0 f(x) = infinity" is that for every number, we can find another number, who we shall call Mr. Sparkles because it amuses me, where, if the absolute value or norm of what we're putting into our function is less than
Mr. Sparkles, the value of our output will be greater than that number.

 

[Mary]

Ahh, yes. When we have a function mapping from some space to the reals, assuming we're using the real numbers here, what we have when you see "As the lim x -> 0 f(x) = infinity" is that for every number, we can find another number, who we shall call Mr. Sparkles because it amuses me, where, if the absolute value or norm of what we're putting into our function is less than
Mr. Sparkles, the value of our output will be greater than that number.

From what I understand, 1/infinity is always approaching 0 but never reaches it.
ONE MORE, MR. SPARKLES, ONE MORE!

 

[Abraxas]

Ultrasentient pan dimensional hamsters.

Those rodents rule the world, whether we like it or not!

The basics of quantum mechanics are quite simple. You just need a solid understanding of linear algebra and differential equations.

Ok. I wasn't actually underestimating any of you, but just making a point: Knowing the basics of everything makes one a master of nothing. But also, recardless of ones knowledge, if one is absolutely certain that they're right, one remains so until proven wrong.

Obviously you know a lot more than I do on the subject so correct me if I misunderstood the article:

After reading the article about the GUT, I (think I) understood the basic idea behind it. Photons are God or are manifestation of God in our dimension? And God is actually a dimensionless entity, that is everywhere and nowhere at the same time?

Scientists have never asked themselves the most basic question of all: why should dimensional entities (r > 0) be privileged over non-dimensional entities (r = 0)? What is the sufficient reason for existence to exclude dimensionless entities and be wholly based on dimensional entities? There is no such reason. It is blind, irrational prejudice that causes scientists to ignore the r = 0 universe. They suffer from "group think".

This is just logic talking here, but a dimensional scientist probably could never prove empiristically the existence of a non-dimensional entity. Unless one could see into a non-dimension. Sounds like something a religious cult would desperately try to prove.

 

[Anthile]

Protip: Science and theology simply do not belong together. You can tell a fool or a charlatan when they try to do that. Whenever any religion tries to justify, it falls flat on the face.
It is the understandable but eventually pitiful attempt to have some certainty about one's belief but it fails to realize that any form of religion is absurd by definition. Would it really be belief if you had some kind of proof?

Whether any form of supernatural powers exist is simply not the department of science, ask a theologist instead.

 

[Marbas]

From what I understand, 1/infinity is always approaching 0 but never reaches it.
ONE MORE, MR. SPARKLES, ONE MORE!

When considering a limit, that value that's being approached is the value of the limit. That's why you write lim x->0 (1/x) = infinity. The same thing for lim x-> infinity (1/x). As x grows without bound, 1/x shrinks to zero.

1/infinity is actually a meaningless expression without context! Much like 1/0.

 

[Puffy]

Would it really be belief if you had some kind of proof?

It's called Testimony

 

[Paradroid]

Protip: Science and theology simply do not belong together. You can tell a fool or a charlatan when they try to do that. Whenever any religion tries to justify, it falls flat on the face.
It is the understandable but eventually pitiful attempt to have some certainty about one's belief but it fails to realize that any form of religion is absurd by definition. Would it really be belief if you had some kind of proof?

Whether any form of supernatural powers exist is simply not the department of science, ask a theologist instead.

"Whether any form of supernatural powers exist is simply not the department of science, ask a theologist instead."
So in other words you are admitting that todays science is not perfect;the paranormal aspect is still missing.

The Grand Unified Theory offers science that missing piece.
The non-dimensional universe co-exists with dimensional universe.
We are all non-dimensional entities(souls) who are living in dimensional shells(bodies).
Brains do not think.
Souls do.
The brain is simply a tool used in the thinking process.
It is not the source of thoughts.

Logical.

 

[Dogod]

It's called Testimony

Testimony is very easy to fake or misinterpret. (accidentally or on purpose)
Most of what's in the Bible and other holy books was from someone's memory of events 30 years earlier or was passed down orally through generations.
Recounting an event that happened 30 years earlier, anyone is bound to have many mistakes. The various people might agree, but it's because they collaborated. For the older stories, most were handed down orally from generation to generation before they were written down, and stories that are handed down like that always get more exciting and unrealistic over time, just because it's a human characteristic to make things more exciting than they really are.
Then there's the problem of mistranslations from language to language. One example of this is that Jesus swam, but because of a mistranslation, it came out as he walked on water.

 

[Marbas]

Those rodents rule the world, whether we like it or not!


Ok. I wasn't actually underestimating any of you, but just making a point: Knowing the basics of everything makes one a master of nothing. But also, recardless of ones knowledge, if one is absolutely certain that they're right, one remains so until proven wrong.
.

Well, the more advanced aspects are quite a bit more difficult but nowhere near impossible. They require a thorough knowledge of more abstract branches of mathematics, like tensor calculus or lie group theory.


Not there yet, but I will be someday.

"Whether any form of supernatural powers exist is simply not the department of science, ask a theologist instead."
So in other words you are admitting that todays science is not perfect;the paranormal aspect is still missing.

You're assuming it needs one.

 

[Paradroid]

Yes,science needs a paranormal aspect.
That would make our society better.
Think about this:
If science could prove that non-dimensional entities(souls) exist,then that would bring a change into our whole system.
In schools they would teach children that are actually souls living inside a body.
That would change everyones perspective on life in general.
Nowadays everyone just serves their body,and that creates our consumership-insanity that we have today,and many more things.(greed,money as the goal number 1 etc)
But if the focus would change from the body to the spirit,then the whole world would change.

 

[Latro]

When considering a limit, that value that's being approached is the value of the limit. That's why you write lim x->0 (1/x) = infinity. The same thing for lim x-> infinity (1/x). As x grows without bound, 1/x shrinks to zero.

1/infinity is actually a meaningless expression without context! Much like 1/0.

Nitpick: lim x-> 0 (1/x) does not exist, because on the right side the limit is +infinity and on the left side -infinity.

 

[Marbas]

Nitpick: lim x-> 0 (1/x) does not exist, because on the right side the limit is +infinity and on the left side -infinity.

You're absolutely correct. Whoops.

Let's do 1/(x^2) then.

Yes,science needs a paranormal aspect.

Once again, what you've shown is that it would be really nice if we had proof of souls and such. Not that science actually needs any changes.

 

[amorfati]

A unified theory of everything could be achieved (actually it has been numerous times in the past, Hegel for example) and it would still just be a theory. How could one test that theory out to verify its truth but by experiencing everything? I hope the unified theory of everything includes the theory of how one being can experience everything so as to verify the truth of the theory of everything.

 

[menaceh2k]

Oh wow. Great movie plot. Matrix meets Da Vinci code. Don't we have a spot for for stuff like this in the movie or literary section. Gents (well the rational ones) I understand that we should be open minded to all who climb on the podium, but this is ridiculous. This is half-bakery and not science. Mr Paradroid, you appear to be an intelligent fellow. Do not get seduced by pseudo science. Science is meant to be boring/grueling/evidence based. As an avid David Icke reader, I was seduced by the easy answers in my formative years. But if you read Icke and all the rest, you start to see a pattern. A pattern that is apparent in the links provided. There are no magic bullets in science. If it where to turn out that I am wrong, well sign me up to prevent the assassination of god.

 

[Paradroid]

A unified theory of everything could be achieved (actually it has been numerous times in the past, Hegel for example) and it would still just be a theory. How could one test that theory out to verify its truth but by experiencing everything? I hope the unified theory of everything includes the theory of how one being can experience everything so as to verify the truth of the theory of everything.

Yes,the GUT has been achieved previously by Hegel,he was a grand master of the Illuminati according to the ArmageddonConspiracy-site.
And yes the testing of a theory like this would be problematic.
But it expains paranormal phenomena,and the true nature of our minds.
How would you test imagination for example?
Prove that it exists.
Quite hard,right?
Imagination,thinking etc. simply exist.
You can't test them because they are located in the non-dimensional universe.
Electricity and chemical reaction in the brain are simply physical level manifestations of a non-dimensional activity(thinking).

 

[JUN]

Hm...