Philosophy Now Forum

Many believe that the universe we have is it and disbelieve in a multiverse. On this basis we should have a single explanation for it. But we don't.

We have the theory of general relativity and we have quantum mechanics, two theories that are needed to explain our universe. All attempts at reconciling the theories have failed and all attempts to synthesize them have failed. Why?

So I'm suggesting we have at least two universes coinciding. If not, prove me wrong and show me the two theories are really one. Where is that Grand Unified Theory?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:33 pm Many believe that the universe we have is it and disbelieve in a multiverse. On this basis we should have a single explanation for it. But we don't.

Or there is one that you just have not be exposed to of yet.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:33 pmWe have the theory of general relativity and we have quantum mechanics, two theories that are needed to explain our universe.

They are NOT needed. They are just two 'theories' that are used.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:33 pm All attempts at reconciling the theories have failed and all attempts to synthesize them have failed. Why?

All attempts that you are aware of may have done that. But you are NOT aware of ALL attempts.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:33 pmSo I'm suggesting we have at least two universes coinciding.

What do you base that suggestion on?

Just because there are two theories?

If there were three theories, then would you be making the suggestion that we have at least three universes coinciding?

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:33 pm If not, prove me wrong and show me the two theories are really one.

What actually IS is not about showing you that two seemingly opposing theories are really one. Looking at what actually IS is where the one and only truth IS, and is found.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:33 pmWhere is that Grand Unified Theory?

PhilX

Every thing has an opposite, with it ALL sitting in equilibrium. That is where the GUT (Grand Unified Theory) of Everything IS, and is found.

The Universe is infinite, eternally and in eternity. There always has been and always will be one single Universe, existing in the NOW.

The Universe is made up of two basic things; physical matter and a distance between all particles of matter, namely space. These two basic fundamental things have co-existed in harmony together in equilibrium for ever. That is the basic GUTs of It ALL.

In order for a Consciousness to be aware, of the Universe, the Universe could not be any other way than being made up of these two basic things. Whatever shape and form the Universe IS, at any given point, is what (It) IS. There could not be any other. Any other way, any other story, or any other thing else. The Universe is the way It is, and that is It. At least two things are needed in order for this single Universe to exist.

There could be a Universe made up of only one, or the other, thing, namely infinite space or infinitely compressed matter, but then a conscious being could NOT have come into being. We, differing levels of consciousness beings, exist. Therefore, this one and only single Universe is ALL-THERE-IS.

If this is NOT correct, show or explain how it could not be correct.

General Relatively and Quantum Mechanics are currently the best explanation for how the universe functions though they are not totally accurate
A theory of Quantum Gravity will be more accurate but that is currently beyond the reach of physics. And as far as Multiverse is concerned it also
is currently beyond the reach of physics. This universe may be the only one or there may be others but either way there can only be one Universe

ken wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:05 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:33 pm Many believe that the universe we have is it and disbelieve in a multiverse. On this basis we should have a single explanation for it. But we don't.

Or there is one that you just have not be exposed to of yet.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:33 pmWe have the theory of general relativity and we have quantum mechanics, two theories that are needed to explain our universe.

They are NOT needed. They are just two 'theories' that are used.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:33 pm All attempts at reconciling the theories have failed and all attempts to synthesize them have failed. Why?

All attempts that you are aware of may have done that. But you are NOT aware of ALL attempts.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:33 pmSo I'm suggesting we have at least two universes coinciding.

What do you base that suggestion on?

Just because there are two theories?

If there were three theories, then would you be making the suggestion that we have at least three universes coinciding?

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:33 pm If not, prove me wrong and show me the two theories are really one.

What actually IS is not about showing you that two seemingly opposing theories are really one. Looking at what actually IS is where the one and only truth IS, and is found.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:33 pmWhere is that Grand Unified Theory?

PhilX

Every thing has an opposite, with it ALL sitting in equilibrium. That is where the GUT (Grand Unified Theory) of Everything IS, and is found.

The Universe is infinite, eternally and in eternity. There always has been and always will be one single Universe, existing in the NOW.

The Universe is made up of two basic things; physical matter and a distance between all particles of matter, namely space. These two basic fundamental things have co-existed in harmony together in equilibrium for ever. That is the basic GUTs of It ALL.

In order for a Consciousness to be aware, of the Universe, the Universe could not be any other way than being made up of these two basic things. Whatever shape and form the Universe IS, at any given point, is what (It) IS. There could not be any other. Any other way, any other story, or any other thing else. The Universe is the way It is, and that is It. At least two things are needed in order for this single Universe to exist.

There could be a Universe made up of only one, or the other, thing, namely infinite space or infinitely compressed matter, but then a conscious being could NOT have come into being. We, differing levels of consciousness beings, exist. Therefore, this one and only single Universe is ALL-THERE-IS.

If this is NOT correct, show or explain how it could not be correct.

I go with mainstream physics. The two theories I pointed out are the most important ones in physics - can you find more important ones in physics?

So what is it I'm supposed to know to understand this universe except I already know the most important thing - the most important theories can't be combined. This leaves the door open to a multiverse. To ask you a question, do you hold a PhD in Physics?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:12 am

ken wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:05 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:33 pm Many believe that the universe we have is it and disbelieve in a multiverse. On this basis we should have a single explanation for it. But we don't.

Or there is one that you just have not be exposed to of yet.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:33 pmWe have the theory of general relativity and we have quantum mechanics, two theories that are needed to explain our universe.

They are NOT needed. They are just two 'theories' that are used.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:33 pm All attempts at reconciling the theories have failed and all attempts to synthesize them have failed. Why?

All attempts that you are aware of may have done that. But you are NOT aware of ALL attempts.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:33 pmSo I'm suggesting we have at least two universes coinciding.

What do you base that suggestion on?

Just because there are two theories?

If there were three theories, then would you be making the suggestion that we have at least three universes coinciding?

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:33 pm If not, prove me wrong and show me the two theories are really one.

What actually IS is not about showing you that two seemingly opposing theories are really one. Looking at what actually IS is where the one and only truth IS, and is found.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:33 pmWhere is that Grand Unified Theory?

PhilX

Every thing has an opposite, with it ALL sitting in equilibrium. That is where the GUT (Grand Unified Theory) of Everything IS, and is found.

The Universe is infinite, eternally and in eternity. There always has been and always will be one single Universe, existing in the NOW.

The Universe is made up of two basic things; physical matter and a distance between all particles of matter, namely space. These two basic fundamental things have co-existed in harmony together in equilibrium for ever. That is the basic GUTs of It ALL.

In order for a Consciousness to be aware, of the Universe, the Universe could not be any other way than being made up of these two basic things. Whatever shape and form the Universe IS, at any given point, is what (It) IS. There could not be any other. Any other way, any other story, or any other thing else. The Universe is the way It is, and that is It. At least two things are needed in order for this single Universe to exist.

There could be a Universe made up of only one, or the other, thing, namely infinite space or infinitely compressed matter, but then a conscious being could NOT have come into being. We, differing levels of consciousness beings, exist. Therefore, this one and only single Universe is ALL-THERE-IS.

If this is NOT correct, show or explain how it could not be correct.

I go with mainstream physics. The two theories I pointed out are the most important ones in physics - can you find more important ones in physics?

I have not looked for any before, and without looking my answer would be i do not know.

Also, 'important' can be a very subjective terminology. So, how do you propose those two theories are actually the most 'important' ones in regards to physics?

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:12 amSo what is it I'm supposed to know to understand this universe except I already know the most important thing - the most important theories can't be combined.

You are not supposed to know any thing in particular, including what to know to understand about this Universe, I would say. The only thing you are supposed to know I suggest is what the body needs in order to continue living and surviving.

You, yourself, decide what it is that you are "supposed" to know or not know. I will not decide that for you.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:12 am This leaves the door open to a multiverse.

Before you open a door to a relatively new assumption, which appears to based solely on your assumption that those two theories can not be combined, why do you not just remain open and wait? For that matter why do you not just remain open and wait before you jump to any conclusion, which could be totally, or even just somewhat, wrong?

If you can not find and see the truth by yourself, then why not just wait till the truth is revealed to you before you go looking at or for things that could be totally inaccurate?

By the way those two theories can very easily be combined to form one truly accurate view of the Universe, which by the way has already happened.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:12 amTo ask you a question, do you hold a PhD in Physics?

PhilX

No.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2017 3:10 am General Relatively and Quantum Mechanics are currently the best explanation for how the universe functions though they are not totally accurate
A theory of Quantum Gravity will be more accurate but that is currently beyond the reach of physics.

So, if a theory of quantum gravity is currently beyond the reach of physics, then how do you already know that it will be more accurate?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2017 3:10 amAnd as far as Multiverse is concerned it also
is currently beyond the reach of physics. This universe may be the only one or there may be others but either way there can only be one Universe

How can there be more than one universe and at the same time also only be one Universe?

Ken asked:

"Also, 'important' can be a very subjective terminology. So, how do you propose those two theories are actually the most 'important' ones in regards to physics?"

Because they're the theories used to explain the universe and no others have been used. These are the ones supported by mainstream physics (you can Google Wikipedia to check this out and I've studied physics in college). As far as waiting goes, what would I be waiting for? I have what I need.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:33 pm Many believe that the universe we have is it and disbelieve in a multiverse. On this basis we should have a single explanation for it. But we don't.

We have the theory of general relativity and we have quantum mechanics, two theories that are needed to explain our universe. All attempts at reconciling the theories have failed and all attempts to synthesize them have failed. Why?

So I'm suggesting we have at least two universes coinciding. If not, prove me wrong and show me the two theories are really one. Where is that Grand Unified Theory?

PhilX

Any theory would be relative, and that would only misguide us away from what it is we are trying to look at directly. We need to go deeper and throw away all our theories and look at this from an intuitive direct experience.

This is what I came up with .. >

The SOURCE and everything that has sprung forth from SOURCE are the same (IS-NESS)....or put another way the same ( ONE-ness )

If we think of this question in terms of is there really a single original source; then the answer is obviously yes.
A simple analogy of what I mean would go like this ..> > (the sea opens up burping forth great tidal waves; it's all just water )

As soon as a question arises about the EVERYTHING, the source is ignored completely, and the main attention is on the content. The IS-ness becomes divided into illusory conceptual parts. The EVERYTHING then becomes in relationship with it's source.

However, SOURCE is never in relationship with itself...relationship is mental activity, therefore illusory, an appearance of source.

To understand the nature of the external world of things including the distant stars and galaxies etc...we need to understand the essential nature of IS-ness or Being or Awareness that knows of such ideas...

An observation is not 'the Absolute Truth', it depends on the observer...

Physics and science is pure assumption, pure unexamined objectivism/materialism...It forgets to examine 'the supposed subject', the 'I'. Who is the 'I' that questions reality?

As long as it is not 'absolutely sure' about the subject, the examinator, the observer, the judge, etc...then ALL it's conclusions are speculations, assumptions.

And I can honestly say to you now, that that day will never come, because it would have come by now, and it hasn't come yet, since we are still asking questions... the day the subject is seen through (by no one) as just another story, the subject will fall away and with him/her ALL his/her beliefs aka knowledge and finally the whole world...because...

I am the world and the world is me.

.

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
General Relatively and Quantum Mechanics are currently the best explanation for how the universe functions though they
are not totally accurate. A theory of Quantum Gravity will be more accurate but that is currently beyond the reach of physics

So if a theory of quantum gravity is currently beyond the reach of physics then how do you already know that it will be more accurate

Because it will remove the incompatibility between General Relatively and Quantum Mechanics though it is not necessary to know
what it actually is to know that it is the next step towards unification and a greater understanding of how the universe functions

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
This universe may be the only one or there may be others but either way there can only be one Universe

How can there be more than one universe and at the same time also only be one Universe

Where one is a subset of the other as in multiple universes comprising the Universe

ken wrote:
Also important can be a very subjective terminology
So how do you propose those two theories are actually the most important ones in regards to physics

Because between them they account for the behaviour of observable phenomena at both the quantum and classical levels
For they are the twin pillars of twentieth century physics and so their importance cannot be denied even if it is subjective

ken wrote:
By the way those two theories can very easily be combined to form one truly accurate view of the Universe which by the way has already happened

Maybe in some philosophical sense but not in any way that would lead to a greater scientific understanding of how the Universe actually functions

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2017 7:08 am

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
General Relatively and Quantum Mechanics are currently the best explanation for how the universe functions though they
are not totally accurate. A theory of Quantum Gravity will be more accurate but that is currently beyond the reach of physics

So if a theory of quantum gravity is currently beyond the reach of physics then how do you already know that it will be more accurate

Because it will remove the incompatibility between General Relatively and Quantum Mechanics

If a theory of quantum gravity will remove the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics as you propose it will, by the way the incompatibility has already been removed, anyhow, HOW DO YOU KNOW that what removes the incompatibility will be called a theory of quantum gravity?

What is shown that actually removes the perceived incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics might actually be called some thing else. WHY do you propose a theory of quantum gravity will be the actual thing that removes the incompatibility?

A GUT grand unified theory and/or a TOE theory of everything might in fact remove the incompatibility, without the unnecessary theory of quantum gravity.

All things can be done a in a slow, hard, and complicated way. Or, they can be done in a much quicker, easier, and simpler. The choice is yours.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2017 7:08 am though it is not necessary to know
what it actually is to know that it is the next step towards unification and a greater understanding of how the universe functions

But HOW DO YOU KNOW that a theory of quantum gravity is the "next step"?

Also, to Me that is just an unnecessary step in order to gain a much greater understanding of how the Universe functions.

By the way what is it that you do not understand about how the Universe functions?

To Me, how the Universe functions seems already pretty obvious. There is nothing incompatible in My view of how the Universe functions.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2017 7:15 am

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
This universe may be the only one or there may be others but either way there can only be one Universe

How can there be more than one universe and at the same time also only be one Universe

Where one is a subset of the other as in multiple universes comprising the Universe

Well if you are going to do that, then you are going to have to change the definition of 'universe' or change the name of the subset of the other. so it is much easier to understand.

The word 'other' gives a clue that it is not the same, therefore it makes it much easier to understand with a different name.

I know what you are trying to describe. If you just come up with another name, and define that clearly, then we can discuss this far easier.

Once you have done that, then we can proceed in looking at how that subset inside or within the Universe probably could not possibly be anyway. But until then the discussion will be to confusing if we are using the exact same word.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2017 7:23 am

ken wrote:
Also important can be a very subjective terminology
So how do you propose those two theories are actually the most important ones in regards to physics

Because between them they account for the behaviour of observable phenomena at both the quantum and classical levels
For they are the twin pillars of twentieth century physics and so their importance cannot be denied even if it is subjective

But, to Me, they are so old and out of date that any importance they had has already been diminished.