Forums > Social Discussion > The Ultimate Theory of Reality.

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...678
onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:As promised in the 'Superultimate Question' thread: -



http://www.homeofpoi.com/ubbthreads/show...ll/fpart/1/vc/1
br>


I've put together my proposed answer to the question- 'why is there something rather than nothing?'.



It's here: -



http://www.geocities.com/combatunicycle/utor/utor.html
br>


Please note before adding to this thread that quantum physics, cosmology, Hawking, the 'Big-Bang', Einstein and Schrodingers cat are almost certainly off-topic due to the fact that the 'nothing' refered to in the question is philosophical nothingness (absolute emptiness) rather than the physical 'empty space' nothingness covered by physics.



(For more on this check out the first link above where this point was extensively discussed)


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete Topic

simian
simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London
Member Since: 11th Oct 2002
Total posts: 3149
Posted:hmm it seems rather convenient that THIS me is the one who happens to have the perfectly ordered experience of reality, especially as this would be an extreme minority in the infinite collection of all the possible mind states i would be experiencing.

 Written by: owd

Taken in isolation, we see that there is no actual connection, physical or otherwise, that connects it to any other instant


i used to reckon this too smile it caused me a lot of confusion over the nature of identity\continuity of existence.

now i think that to think of "a single instant" is a handy mental construct we use, but time isn't made of connected up instances. It is simply a continuum, that cannot be sliced into parts by any means but our imagination.

by a similar token, i think to seperate the human mind from the human body, while making apparent sense, is in fact a language confusion. It's like imagining that we can take as our subject a bowl of cereal, then remove the milk, the cornflakes and the bowl, but somehow still have the 'breakfast' left behind.


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: simian


now i think that to think of "a single instant" is a handy mental construct we use, but time isn't made of connected up instances. It is simply a continuum, that cannot be sliced into parts by any means but our imagination.



Max Plank would disagree.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

simian
simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London
Member Since: 11th Oct 2002
Total posts: 3149
Posted: Written by: owd

UToR, in contrast, postulates the existence of the exact same two states of consciousness, including their feelings towards each other and their feelings of 'being connected' (to the other).

so when two minds converse, they each keep up their own half of the conversation through 'coincidence' (as each half of the conversation is a series of necessarily existing possible mind states)?



 Written by: owd

To me, it's those 'feelings' that are important and it doesn't seem that ratifying them with intervening matter, is either necessary or useful.



well it would explain how they could actually interact with each other (physical laws), rather than independently keeping up opposite sides of an interaction, which seems a far more elaborate construction.


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

simian
simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London
Member Since: 11th Oct 2002
Total posts: 3149
Posted: Written by: jeff(fake)


 Written by: simian


now i think that to think of "a single instant" is a handy mental construct we use, but time isn't made of connected up instances. It is simply a continuum, that cannot be sliced into parts by any means but our imagination.



Max Plank would disagree.



Would he? i'm not disagreeing that time can be measured, or that there is a theoretically smallest unit possible, but that it is a category error to conceptualize time as being constructed of a sequence of those units, like a line of blocks. This leads onto questions about how one has continuity to the next, which is a misunderstanding of terms.


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: simian


 Written by: jeff(fake)


 Written by: simian


now i think that to think of "a single instant" is a handy mental construct we use, but time isn't made of connected up instances. It is simply a continuum, that cannot be sliced into parts by any means but our imagination.



Max Plank would disagree.



Would he? i'm not disagreeing that time can be measured, or that there is a theoretically smallest unit possible, but that it is a category error to conceptualize time as being constructed of a sequence of those units, like a line of blocks. This leads onto questions about how one has continuity to the next, which is a misunderstanding of terms.


You may well be right.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: simian


hmm it seems rather convenient that THIS me is the one who happens to have the perfectly ordered experience of reality, especially as this would be an extreme minority in the infinite collection of all the possible mind states i would be experiencing.




It's not convenience or coincidence, each of those infinite (or many, depending on whether differences in consciousness are granular (yielding a finite number of variations) or continuous (yielding an infinite number) will similarly consider themselves to be the real 'you'.

Every possible version of you is enacted- one possible version is you you, here and now, thinking 'how convenient it is...etc'- as a possible version, according to UToR, it is therefore real, by definition, with no convenience/co-incidence.


 Written by: simian


by a similar token, i think to seperate the human mind from the human body, while making apparent sense, is in fact a language confusion. It's like imagining that we can take as our subject a bowl of cereal, then remove the milk, the cornflakes and the bowl, but somehow still have the 'breakfast' left behind.




I don't see it as language confusion- if you can provide proof or reasons why mind cannot be seperated from body, then do state it, because it will show UToR to be false.

(Bear in mind though, that UToR, whilst maintaining that matter/bodies are not relevant to conscious reality- it does encompass the fact that we experience, what we feel to be, bodies and matter.

i.e. if your proof relies on the minds being disembodied to the extent that they cannot percieve sensations of their legs, eyes etc, then that wouldn't affect UToR at all).

As for your breakfast example, the UToR analogy, would be more along the lines of

bowl=physical world
milk=ones body
cereal=consciousness

in which case there is no problem with taking away the bowl and milk, whilst leaving the cereal.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: jeff(fake)


 Written by: simian


now i think that to think of "a single instant" is a handy mental construct we use, but time isn't made of connected up instances. It is simply a continuum, that cannot be sliced into parts by any means but our imagination.



Max Plank would disagree.



Get him in here then- so he can tell us why smile


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: simian



 Written by: owd

UToR, in contrast, postulates the existence of the exact same two states of consciousness, including their feelings towards each other and their feelings of 'being connected' (to the other).

so when two minds converse, they each keep up their own half of the conversation through 'coincidence' (as each half of the conversation is a series of necessarily existing possible mind states)?



 Written by: owd

To me, it's those 'feelings' that are important and it doesn't seem that ratifying them with intervening matter, is either necessary or useful.



well it would explain how they could actually interact with each other (physical laws), rather than independently keeping up opposite sides of an interaction, which seems a far more elaborate construction.





In some ways in may be seen as more elaborate.



However, in other ways it is far less so-



Postulating physical matter the explain interaction involves the need to explain what that matter is and, especially, where it all came from.



That involves a lot of explanation- cosmologists/physicists have been on that one for some time and, most of them would agree, the end is not in sight smile



(indeed, many of them consider that question to be, in principle, unanswerable by physics).



So, on balance, I would say UToR is a great deal less elaborate and less contrived- bringing 'Ockams Razor' into it (that, all other things being equal, the simplest explanation is best), I would say that UToR is ahead of the physicalist explanation.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

simian
simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London
Member Since: 11th Oct 2002
Total posts: 3149
Posted: Written by: onewheeldave

I don't see it as language confusion- if you can provide proof or reasons why mind cannot be seperated from body, then do state it, because it will show UToR to be false.





well if you're discounting evidence of the physical world, then i can only attempt to provide a priori grounds, which can only produce trivial arguments (you can't have a square circle) or arguments based on misunderstanding of language, such as this one which i believe takes the proposal that all possibilities in a weak sense 'exist' and then prescribes an unneccessary property of "being" to them also.



So i can only produce occams razor really. We're faced with the possibility of a) only the physical realm existing, b) your ontologically real mathematical realm existing, c) both of them existing, or d) neither. We are faced with convincing circumstantial evidence of the physical world through our experiences, which i believe makes a) the simplest explanation for this basic evidence. It is also the method by which i have predictive power over the things i experience (to blatantly steal from Douglas Adam's Man in the Shack - if i appear to drop what seems to me to be a thing called an apple i predict that it will appear that it is falling in a direction that it pleases me to call downwards) whereas your theory provides no predictive power since surely all possible possibilities are equally likely of being true in UToR?


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

simian
simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London
Member Since: 11th Oct 2002
Total posts: 3149
Posted:hey, you got a preemptive occams razor at my throat first! eek



so erm, where did the mathematical realm come from?


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

quiet
quiet

analytic
Location: bristol
Member Since: 15th Sep 2004
Total posts: 503
Posted:Dave - a weakness of your theory:

 Written by:

'In short, the reason we feel we are in a sequence of connected instants, is because those feeling are a possible state of consciousness and, UToR shows that all possible states of consciousness are necessarily real.'



Unfortunately, that doesn't provide any sort of explanation at all - that is, your claim that 'the reason we feel . . .etc' just doesn't follow. This is because there is no explanation of why we have access to only those states of consciousness which are in temporal sequence. All that follows from UTOR is that the appearance of temporal sequence is a possibility; it doesn't explain why it obtains.


ture na sig

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: quiet


Dave - a weakness of your theory:

 Written by:

'In short, the reason we feel we are in a sequence of connected instants, is because those feeling are a possible state of consciousness and, UToR shows that all possible states of consciousness are necessarily real.'



Unfortunately, that doesn't provide any sort of explanation at all - that is, your claim that 'the reason we feel . . .etc' just doesn't follow. This is because there is no explanation of why we have access to only those states of consciousness which are in temporal sequence. All that follows from UTOR is that the appearance of temporal sequence is a possibility; it doesn't explain why it obtains.






Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I should have been and I think a misunderstanding has arisen.

Where the individual 'instants of consciousness' (that make up the life of a being) are concerned, each individual state only has 'access' to itself.

Going back to the trad physicalist view- if state 'a' at time t, involves a memory of state 'b' at time t2 (ie t2 is in the past); the only 'connection' is via the memory feeling of state 'a'.

So, even on the trad physicalist view the two mind-states are connected only by a chain of causation- ie at time t2 state 'b' comes into being and this, via causation, influences the later mind state 'a'.

UToR, on the other hand, claims that states 'a' and 'b' exist, not through 'causation' but by sheer logical necessity (as do all other mind states of this, and all other possible beings).

To UToR, state 'b' does not cause, influence or have connection to state 'a'.

However, just as in the physicalist view, where state 'a' has a feeling of memory (of state 'b')- on the UToR account, state 'a', being, by definition, identical to state 'a' on the physicalist view, must also have that feeling- of being a 'memory' of state 'b'.

Essentially, according to UToR, there is no more real connection between past mind states of 'me' than past mind-states of 'you' (or anyone else)- there seems to be a connection, but this is purely because all mind states are simply logically necessarily real copies (I use the term lightly) of the states that would be real if the physicalist account was actual.

In anticipation of the question 'Why, given that UToR denies the need for physical reality, do the mind states it proposes are necessarily real, co-incide so conveniently with those that would be there if the physical world was real?'

The answer is that, because UToR claims that all possible mind-states are necessarily real- obviously, the mind-states of the physicalist view are a sub-set of the set of all possible mind-states.

Additioanally, given that we make sense of our existence via the concepts of the physicalist world-view, an explanation of UToR is best achieved by using those very concepts.

The problem though, is that there is a tendency to attribute to the UToR account, attributes of the physicalist view that it doesn't use.

One of these is to attribute actual connections to the mind-states.

Each mind-state is an instance unto itself, it connects to nothing else.

But, where that particualr mind-state equates to one which seems to be in a physicalist world, obviously, there will likely be a 'memory feeling' to it.

===========

Does that make sense, or is it simply confusing things more.

At this level of discussion of UToR, concepts are tight and misunderstanding probable.

In all honesty, I can say that the concepts I've elaborated on in this post, make 100% sense to me; but, I've lived with UToR in the background for several years and discussed it deeply with a variety of people- so I fully understand that many will not be getting the same picture of UToR as I do.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

crowley2
crowley2

official hop cutie
Location: Uk, Essex, Clacton
Member Since: 22nd Nov 2005
Total posts: 272
Posted:I did have a few paragraphs on what i thought but i used too many shortened words *looks at floor*- sorry Pele anyway it pretty much said

Reality is what YOU make it

shocking isn't it all these posts with hundreds of words and i sum it up with 6 ha ha Peace.


The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it. ~ Terry pratchett

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:Technically, it's not a theory - but you've probably already mentioned that.

Anyway, to me it looks like it started out on the right track, but I feel that all the attention going towards "mind states" and the like is superflous. Thinking out some of the lower levels of the "theory", is there any reason why mind states should have any special position. Couldn't our minds simply emerge out of the inherant possibility of the universe's own existance, much like they would emerge out of a real universe built of physical parts?

If that was the case then the difference between the physcial universe and the modified ultimate theory of reality would also be undetectable.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

crowley2
crowley2

official hop cutie
Location: Uk, Essex, Clacton
Member Since: 22nd Nov 2005
Total posts: 272
Posted:as Sherlock Holmes would say the most simple explanation is most often the right one

The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it. ~ Terry pratchett

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: jeff(fake)


Technically, it's not a theory - but you've probably already mentioned that.




A few people have said that- I'm going to admit my ignorance and ask why it's not a theory (it seems to fit the definition of theory in the dictionary).


 Written by: jeff(fake)


Couldn't our minds simply emerge out of the inherant possibility of the universe's own existance,



Can you elaborate on this? I really don't understand what it means.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

crowley2
crowley2

official hop cutie
Location: Uk, Essex, Clacton
Member Since: 22nd Nov 2005
Total posts: 272
Posted:hes saying that we are all figments of our universe's mind that the universe exists so we must exsist so the universe can exist

*sigh*


The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it. ~ Terry pratchett

Delete

quiet
quiet

analytic
Location: bristol
Member Since: 15th Sep 2004
Total posts: 503
Posted:OWD: the question is *not*

 Written by:

In anticipation of the question 'Why, given that UToR denies the need for physical reality, do the mind states it proposes are necessarily real, co-incide so conveniently with those that would be there if the physical world was real?'

The answer is that, because UToR claims that all possible mind-states are necessarily real- obviously, the mind-states of the physicalist view are a sub-set of the set of all possible mind-states.



That's not the problem. The problem is this: given that, according to UTOR, *all* possible mind states exist, why is it that we *only ever* encounter those which we'd expect from the physicalist model? (e.g. why do we seem only to have coherent chains of memory? why no memories of future events? why no memories of other people's deeds'? etc)


ture na sig

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: quiet



OWD: the question is *not*



 Written by:



In anticipation of the question 'Why, given that UToR denies the need for physical reality, do the mind states it proposes are necessarily real, co-incide so conveniently with those that would be there if the physical world was real?'



The answer is that, because UToR claims that all possible mind-states are necessarily real- obviously, the mind-states of the physicalist view are a sub-set of the set of all possible mind-states.





That's not the problem. The problem is this: given that, according to UTOR, *all* possible mind states exist, why is it that we *only ever* encounter those which we'd expect from the physicalist model? (e.g. why do we seem only to have coherent chains of memory? why no memories of future events? why no memories of other people's deeds'? etc)





Let's get some defintions of 'you' clear.



First, and perhaps in UToR terms, most accurate, 'you' is the mindstate currently experienced- an instant of awareness which 'encounters' only itself- it has no access to other mindstates whatsoever.



It may be a mind state which is a memory feeling, in which case, although it will 'access' no other mind state, it will appear to do so.



The reason it can't access some, or all other possible mind states it because it happens not to be such a mind state.



If it is possible for a mind-state to exist that does 'access' some, or all possible mind states, then, be assured, according to UToR, it does necessarily exist.



Alternatively, define 'you' as the collection of mind-states that make up the sequence equivalent to those of you as a continuing being in a physical world.



The reason 'you', in that scenario, don't have access to, or encounter, other individuals mind-sates, is because they are not part of that sequence.



However, to the extent that a mind-state is possible that is one of feeling that you are encountering the mind-state of another, then, according to UToR, it is, necessarily, real.



------



Feel free to propose your own definition of 'you' and I will try to show how UToR deals with it.



Also, if you feel my reply above has missed the point you are making, feel free to propose a well-defined description of 'you' encountering the mind-state of another individual, and I will try explain why it is, or isn't, a part of your actual experience.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Or, to use your specific examples-

 Written by: quiet


why no memories of future events? why no memories of other people's deeds'? etc)



Depending on which definition of 'you' we use, either-

you don't experience future memories or other peoples memorys because- according to UToR, all possible mindstates are real and, obviously a collection of mind-states which happens to not include future memories is possible and therefore real.

And,

According UToR, all possible mind-states are real, so, somewhere out there, there is a version of 'you' which does experience (or seem to experience), future mind-states/other peoples mind-states. (Obviously, that is a alternate version of 'you' to which you do not have access).


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

quiet
quiet

analytic
Location: bristol
Member Since: 15th Sep 2004
Total posts: 503
Posted:OWD

I still think that you're missing the point of my question.

I don't think it turns on the definition of 'you'. The question is (and you can run whichever definitions you like, the point still holds), variously;

i. Why does this current mind-state only seem to have encountered other mind-states which lack knowledge of future mental states / other person's mental states / non-temporally-sequenced mental states, etc?
ii. Why is it that nobody that I'm aware of has knowledge of future mental states, etc?
iii. More generally, the question is this: if all possible mental states are real, why is it that the only mental states we ever encounter / experience are temporally sequenced?

Look: there is a phenomenon which needs explanation. That is, we reliably meet people (however you want to paraphrase that) who have experiences of their own (ditto) but where these experiences are inevitably in a temporal sequence. People don't have memories of future events, and nor do they have memories of other people's deeds. A common-sense physicalist view can explain this as follows: of course we only ever encounter temporally-sequenced mental states, because only temporally-sequenced mental states can ever be real. UTOR cannot (as far as I can see) explain this: it holds that all possible mental states are real, *including non-temporally-sequenced series of states* (or states which relate to others in atemporal ways), and can provide no explanation of why we only ever encounter a certain subset of these (putatively) real states.

Put another way: since UTOR says that all possible states are real, it has to explain why we only ever encounter a subset of those real states. How does it do this?


ture na sig

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: quiet


OWD

I still think that you're missing the point of my question.

I don't think it turns on the definition of 'you'. The question is (and you can run whichever definitions you like, the point still holds), variously;





It's vital that we're using the same definition of 'you'. otherwise confusion is going to occur.

In particular, if using two definitions of 'you' simultaneously, when those two definitions are logically opposed to each other, then confusion is guaranteed.

I suspect that this is what is happening with you- I can't say for sure, but, if you say which definition you are using, then this can be cleared up very quickly.

So, by 'you', are we referring to single instaneous mind state (ie 'you' in the present instant)

or-

by 'you', do we mean the totality of instantaneous mind states that make up 'your' life?

Pick one of the above (not both) and I can answer your question.

Alternatively, if neither definition works for you, then say why and, possibly, provide a definition you can work with and I'll try and answer your question.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: onewheeldave


 Written by: jeff(fake)


Technically, it's not a theory - but you've probably already mentioned that.




A few people have said that- I'm going to admit my ignorance and ask why it's not a theory (it seems to fit the definition of theory in the dictionary).


It makes no predictions and can't be falsified. Therefore in the technical sense it cannot be a "theory", except in the colloquial sense.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Mascot
Mascot

enthusiast

Member Since: 20th May 2002
Total posts: 301
Posted:As I understand it a theory is just something that can't be proved. This includes gravity and well established scientific concepts since there is always a chance that we are wrong. Newton thought he had gravity down but his theory turned out to be wrong. Now we have Einsteins theory of gravity but who can say that in time that won't be found inadequate in some way?

The opposite of a theory is a theorem. Theorems can be proved and are true by definition. They exist only in maths.

Falsifiablility is a prequisite of a scientific theory according to Karl Popper. UTOR is a theory just not a scientific one.


Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: the boy g

Falsifiablility is a prequisite of a scientific theory according to Karl Popper. UTOR is a theory just not a scientific one.


You got it. I default to the technical term rather than the colloquial. Since we are dealing with an attempt to explain reality, I think technicality is required.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: the boy g



UTOR is a theory just not a scientific one.





I'd go along with that- UToR is most definitly not a scientific theory, but it seems to satisfy my dictionaries definition of a theory-



"n 1 statement intended to explain a fact or event".



I wouldn't say that UToR can't be falsified- part of the reason I started this thread was to encourage people to find flaws in it.



I suspect that the way to disprove UToR is to find a logical inconsistency or contradiction.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Page: 1...678

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [ultimate theory reality] we found the following similar topics.
1. Learn > Juggling > Juggling theory > siteswap tutorial 1 - basic theory *help/resource
2. Learn > POI > Throws > pendlum throws theory *help/resource
3. Learn > Rope Dart > Throws > Basic pulls and throw's theory *help/resource
4. Learn > Juggling > 2 Club Manipulation > Club Hybrid Theory *help/resource
5. Learn > POI > Crossers > The Theory Behind Crossers *help/resource

     Show more..