Theory of Everything, A Final Theory of Everything

[bochen2]

In Penrose's The Road to Reality : A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe he talked about the mysterious trinity that is the

phenomenological world, the physical world, and the mathematical world. If we ever hope to progress towards a true (strong) Theory of Everything we must take into account the subjective human consciousness (strong version of the "hard problem of consciousness") and how it is incorporated into, and what roles it plays in the foundational ground of the totality of existence. We must also reconcile all three seemingly disparate and categorically distinct "existences" into one holistic unified expression of a larger more encompassing existence that is truer and deeper than any of which we have current understanding of.

 

Many scientists trained in the current paradigm believe that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of material evolution. Quantum mechanics has produced strong evidence that it is wrong. It may even be that consciousness is a more basic aspect of reality than matter and energy or space and time. If so, we are more likely to be able to successfully explain the material universe in terms of consciousness, rather than the other way round as most scientists have been trying to do.

 

The Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) paradox was a thought experiment designed to demonstrate failure of the uncertainty principle in the case of the creation of a pair of twin particles and the subsequent determination of certain physical characteristics of the particles at some distance from the point of their creation.

 

In the delayed-choice experiment (vs classical two-slit experiment), we can decide, after the fact, whether a photon behaved as a wave or as a particle. This demonstrates the fact that elementary phenomena like photons do not exist as localized particles or waves until they register by impacting upon a receptor.

 

If quanta do not exist until they register as effects on a receptor, and we have no way of knowing of them until evidence of their effects is received in our consciousness via a chain of quanta and receptors, how are we to know whether they exist or not, without the presence of consciousness?

 

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics requires that a moving elementary particle has no localized form until it impacts upon a receptor. And information is carried from the object to the observer by a series of sources, particles, and receptors. But what is the final receptor? If it is a physical structure, it is by definition made of elementary particles, and if the energy of the incoming quanta is absorbed by physical particles, how can we account for the image of the object of observation that arises in consciousness? Thus the quest for the first receptor becomes an infinite regression in time and space. But time and space are finite in the physical world and there is, therefore, a "bottom" to physical phenomena, the infinite regress or descent is impossible, and we have a logical contradiction. Conclusion: the final receptor and the images it perceives are not composed of quanta of matter and energy.

 

If consciousness is actually the ground of all phenomena, rather than an abstract epiphenomenon or emergent property of matter, then this finding is perfectly natural and would have been expected, if we had not assumed mind and matter, consciousness and energy, to be separate in the first place. If we accept the similarity of the features of quantum reality and consciousness revealed by empirical evidence and the logic of infinite descent to be more than coincidence, we begin to see reality as a unified whole, something that includes both subject and object, something that manifests as a spectrum ranging from non-quantum consciousness to quantized energy and matter. This "something" is the root of all phenomena, the ineffable potential from which all forms are selected by the drawing of distinctions.

 

Seen in this new light, the "hard problem of consciousness" can be satisfactorily addressed by using a nonreductive explanation. Although many phenomena have turned out to be explicable wholly in terms of entities simpler than themselves, this is not universal. In physics, it occasionally happens that an entity has to be taken as fundamental. Fundamental entities are not explained in terms of anything simpler. Instead, one takes them as basic, and gives a theory of how they relate to everything else in the world.

 

Other features that physical theory takes as fundamental include mass and space-time. No attempt is made to explain these features in terms of anything simpler. But this does not rule out the possibility of a theory of mass or of space-time. There is an intricate theory of how these features interrelate, and of the basic laws they enter into. These basic principles are used to explain many familiar phenomena concerning mass, space, and time at a higher level.

 

A theory of consciousness should take experience as fundamental. We know that a theory of consciousness requires the addition of something fundamental to our ontology, as everything in physical theory is compatible with the absence of consciousness. We might add some entirely new nonphysical feature, from which experience can be derived, but it is hard to see what such a feature would be like. More likely, we will take experience itself as a fundamental feature of the world, alongside mass, charge, and space-time. If we take experience as fundamental, then we can go about the business of constructing a theory of experience.

 

Of course, by taking experience as fundamental, there is a sense in which this approach does not tell us why there is experience in the first place. But this is the same for any fundamental theory. Nothing in physics tells us why there is matter in the first place, but we do not count this against theories of matter. Certain features of the world need to be taken as fundamental by any scientific theory. A theory of matter can still explain all sorts of facts about matter, by showing how they are consequences of the basic laws. The same goes for a theory of experience.

 

So how do the the elements of the trinity fit together: the "phenomenological" world, the "physical" world, and the "mathematical" world? On the assumption that the principle underlying ultimate reality is radically simple, it will here be conjectured that these three realms are one-and-the-same under different descriptions.

 

Penrose's Platonic-Physical-Mental worlds dilemma can be dealt away with simply by realizing the true unified, nondualistic and superpositional of reality and existence. Instead of positing that the platonic world exists within the mental world and mental world exists within the physical world and the physical world in the platonic world, we need to see all three primary phenomenon as different expressions and manifestations of the one same essence. In place of Penrose's Platonic-Physical-Mental Trinity should be something of a 'qualia wheel'.

 

If we are ever to come to a true Theory of Everything then it must be necessary to be able to finally reconcile all the seemingly different "existences" into one unified holistic entity and singular essence. Every experience, every sensation and emotion is just like a different color on the continuous color wheel of the infinite qualia. No emotion or state of existence is objectively better or worse than anything other one, love and hate are just a phase shift away from each other on this wheel of experience and the totality of impressions. Seen in this new light, "perfection" and "imperfection" can exists within the one same reality, juxtaposed beside each other and right next to "contradiction". Here on the continuous continuum of the "qualia/toelia color-wheel/sphere" we have different primary colors each representing a different phase of existence. In our illustration and example we have RED standing for the Mental world and Qualia, BLUE for the physical world as-we-know-it, and GREEN for the mathematical and abstract platonic realms.

 

All the infinite varieties of colors in-between imply the places where each of the "primary worlds" intersect. For this we can consider patterns as foundational: consider the universe as being made of patterns. Consider there as being a set of elemental items, and then patterns among these elemental items. Assume each elemental item has a finite set of finitely-describable properties. Suppose ours is a dynamic universe, in which new patterns are continually occurring. Thus when a new pattern pair appears in the universe, a quale is automatically associated with it. There is a one-to-one mapping associated for each pattern/information in the platonic world to the mental/qualia realm. The unique planar intersections between the abstract platonical and canonical qualia realms are what gives rise to the so called "physical" world.

 

Indeed, while Evolutionary Darwinism perfectly and satisfactorily explains all life on earth and modern chemistry and biology can explain the happenings in our brains, but were it not for qualia (micro/macro consciousness-awareness) that runs perfectly parallel to the physical world (especially for complex physical structures such as brains) we would just be zombies and would not have the subjective personal what-it-is-likeness of individual distinct experiences and the intimate inner world unique impressions of pleasures.

 

In order for any TOE to hold water the fundamental dichotomy between existence and non-existence needs to be reformulated. Namely, why does anything (existence) even exists at all instead of nothing at all? Again here we will do as we have done before and take zero and infinity, nothing and everything, existence and nonexistence not as fundamentally distinct or different positions but as simply two sides of the one same coin, we will look at the whole universe and indeed the omnium multiverse(s) and the totality of all grand existences itself as a single pure 'entangled' state - an unimaginably vast holistic and holographic superposition where "no-thing", "something", and "everything" are really all always meaning the same "thing". So instead of asking why does an universe exists instead of nothing at all, or instead of (not)-asking why does nothing exists instead of something/anything at all, we see clearly that what IS is simply everything-nothing just is-ing.

 

I like the color wheel analogy a lot because if you think about it, in the very "center" you have "white" (figurative for the unification of all forces/existences..) and as you spread out from the center the distinctions become more apparent (just like after the big bang as the universe cooled and expanded the four forces came into being, etc) but at any one time if you look at it from the perspective of the whole and sum up all the "colors" they still sum up to "white". (just like how in mathematics the sum of all infinities - starting at negative infinity and going to positive infinity - is zero). Not only is the total informational content of the universe zero also in the universe as a whole, the conserved constants (electric charge, angular momentum, mass-energy) add up to/cancel out to exactly zero. There isn't any net electric charge or angular momentum. The world's positive mass-energy is exactly cancelled out by its negative gravitational potential energy. Paradoxically, "nothing" exists. However even more ironically this "nothing" is also "everything" at the same time! All the "relatives" in the world add up to become the ONE ABSOLUTE, and the absolute cannot exists without each and every "relative" playing its vital part in the summation that becomes the absolute. The Absolute is both nothing (as it cannot be any particular "thing" because only relatives can be "things" as they are relative again to every other relative "thing") and everything (summation of all the "relatives") all at once! So the final questions begs why does the absolute have to consists of the many relatives instead of simply being the singular homogeneous absolute itself? Perhaps this is like asking why is there something instead of nothing at all, in which case the answer is there is only ever "nothing-everything" (or can be thought of as both something AND nothing at all!) So perhaps again the absolute is at once both singularly absolute and "split". This is just like how the center of the color wheel is white as well as the color wheel in its entirety when all the colors have been added up together. And the center of the color wheel can be "split" again to become another color wheel with another center which again can be thought of as the summation of its perfectly symmetrical distinctions, ad infinitum. So when you "zoom all the way in" (so to speak) there is "nothing" and this "nothing" can actually be thought of as everything while if you zoom all the way OUT you have an "everything" that adds up again to nothing. Perhaps the "world" exists because of the split of zero. Form / Pattern is essence, thus anything (even qualia on a qualia-wheel) can only be said to "exists" if it is relative.

 

So in a sense zero and infinity are really just different ways of saying the same thing. Zero can be "split" symmetrically to become "something" and "something" that all together always adding back to "nothing again". (perhaps the universe "borrowed" and bootstrapped its way into existence from "nothing" and will pay it back at the end and thus there is no real violation of the law of conservation..) Just as white light can be split into all the different colors on the color wheel using a prism, white light can be created again by combining all the colors of the color wheel back together.

 

 

So to recap: At the very worse, we can at least have a valid and current piecewise functional understanding and explanation for life and existence. At the top most level I would say nonduality explains best the true essence of the deepest reality..

A complete physical "Theory of Everything" must take into account of "qualia" and perhaps making "consciousness" as fundamental an aspect as space, time and energy itself! Something along the lines of Zero Ontology seems to be in the right direction.. Likewise Quantum Mechanics and Relativity explains the purely physical aspects of our universe quite well (on the micro and macro scales respectively), while Newtons Classical Laws still hold sway for most "classical" physics pertaining to motion, gravity, etc...

Further down we have the many well established disciplines of such as "Evolutionary Darwinism" and biochemistry... These explain the "life" in all its glory...

[Doctordick]

This thread has been here for six days without a response so I read it to see what the problem was (I usually don't read “TOE” threads because I think they are all pretty well based on foolish propositions). Please let me point out a few subtle issues in this thread. The first “difficulty” with any TOE is that English is far too primitive a language to express a theory of “everything”. “Everything” just simply consists of more relationships than a common language can express.

 

You use a lot of words to express very little. Within this document, you bring up “fundamentals”, “elementary phenomena”, “qualia” and, of course, “ontology”. All of these words have to do with the basis standing behind that TOE.

A complete physical "Theory of Everything" must take into account of "qualia" and perhaps making "consciousness" as fundamental an aspect as space, time and energy itself! Something along the lines of Zero Ontology seems to be in the right direction.

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that you had discovered a correct theory of everything. If that theory could not be communicated to others, the whole accomplishment is relatively moot. It follows that your first task is to communicate it. To do that, you must communicate the exact nature of the basis upon which your theory is built. Until you have done that, the structures you build using that basis are pretty meaningless.

 

Now, the words; “fundamentals”, “elementary phenomena”, “qualia” and “ontology” (among others) are mere labels and it is necessary for you to communicate the meanings of whatever labels you use. This being the case, in order to assure that I do not make an erroneous interpretation of these labels (and the labels of the actual cases you have in mind) suppose I simply use “numerical” labels (I can assign actual meanings once I understand your explanation). The issue then becomes, how do I know that I have understood you? Clearly, I do not know the true answer to that question. The possibility that I have misinterpreted something always exists.

 

So we fall back to, “you and I both appear to think I understand you.” That is perhaps an achievable goal. At what point is such a situation achieved? To answer that question, I fall back to the “Turing test”. We will both presume understanding when our reactions to communications seem to be within the bounds of our expectations consistent with that understanding. When you make a comment or ask me a question and my response is within the boundaries of what you would expect if I understood you; likewise, when I make a comment or ask you a question and your answer lies within my expectations. Well, the answer to that question is clearly a simple yes or no for any possible communication. As the answers converge to “yes” our opinion of our understanding grows.

 

Therein lies a very fundamental observation. Yes and no can be represented by “one” and “zero”; and the communication can be represented by a set of numerical labels. That means that that “understanding” can be seen as a mathematical function: the answer, 1 or 0, is a function of a set of numbers (the numerical labels used to represent the communication). It turns out that this mathematical function must obey some rather simple rules. See if you can understand my paper “A Universal Analytical Model of Explanation Itself” which is exactly the subject under discussion it most all of my posts here.

 

What I am getting at is the “fact” that, whatever the answer to the "hard problem of consciousness" happens to be, the explanation of that answer will be based upon the same fundamental entities and interactions which underly modern physics phenomena.

 

By the way, purely as an aside, many years ago I read an article entitled, “A computer program has finally be written which passes the Turing Test, and It's Paranoid!” I read the article and realized what they actually proved was that paranoids didn't think and that happens to be the major problem with the idea of the Turing test itself: telling the difference between a human being and a computer can not be used to define “an inteligent program” as there are a lot of human beings who don't have the first inkling of what intelligent thought is.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[drdws]

To Bochen2,

Thanks very much for your thread. A very thoughtful expression of the points at issue. Please communicate the following message to DoctorDick

 

10001001101001111001100111101111011001101010111001110011110001

101010110110101110010011100010110010010100100101

and furthermore!

100101000110001011000101

 

1100110010,

11001001

[lawcat]

We have theory of everything. It may be incomplete, but nonetheless it is our theory of everything, and it consists of physical sciences, which lead to life scences, which lead to social sciences. That's everything right there.

[Little Bang]

English is to primitive a tool to explain everything until someone does it. My opinion, if we can't explain it using English we don't understand it.