First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Grand Integration Theory
13326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Cali
Offline
Posted 6/25/07
i was a lil bit iffy on the "perfection" thing at first as well.. but then i think it could be a valid assumption... for certain purposes anyway. u should look into the Omega Point Theory.. it was by Tipler...

i think basically the theory is that as time progresses, the processing power of information would continue to increase exponentially, or i think at least at a fast enough rate so that humans would one day reach a point they would be able to simulate consciousness virtually... and even if time in the universe is finite, humans can create a virtual world with a relative time frame asymptotic within some boundary before the end of the universe/time or the big crunch... so the controlled perception of time would allow life in the universe to achieve virtual immortality, and allow life to escape iminent death. humans or some intelligent life would create a simulated "afterlife" and at the omega point where infinite information is processed... in that final state, the universe inevitably identifies with god.

something along those lines... lol dunno if that made sense the way i summarized it. the point is, it could be possible to keep ur current assumptions... up to u tho.. i think with omega point it does progress to infinite knowledge...
150479 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Aboard the Hyperion
Offline
Posted 6/25/07
Oh thanks a bunch wushukid! Yes that definitely makes sense to me, at least enough to get something going again and make the foundation a bit more solid. The last thing I'd want to hear is that I'm doing this for nothing because of some hollowed ground. I'd like to read more into it so I'll take your word for it.
30587 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / Pearl of the Orie...
Offline
Posted 7/10/07
OKay.... I seem to get the [qoute]The limit as time (t) approaches infinity progress of time (p (i) ) Equals perfection (P. [/qoute] IF this is true would it be possible for that process to have a downfall/error?.. I mean if there is a negative effect and a possible Opposite reaction... What would happen next?...
5035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / CANADA
Offline
Posted 8/29/07
i just read it and i dont egzactly get all of it, but i know what i know and id like to explain what i think this theory is all about.
First:opposits(+) and negatives(-)
we all know that (+) and (-) negatives do not go well together, thus so, everyone would have to be the same, but the world would not be complete because we need opposits and negatives to live, because if everyone was the same, in theory, everyones thoughts would be the same, meening that (C) or (P) is not achieved
now the theory of completion (C) or Perfection (P)
I believie (yet in theory again) that if the world was complete, the only way that would be is if the earth existed no more, and to achieve perfection everyone would have to be the same, but if everyone was the same like i said earlier, completion could not be achieved. I know my thoughts may not count due to the fact that i have much to learn in life still. But i believe everyone has there right of speech

for somone to be perfect that person would have to either die or not exist whatsoever

my opinion on progress:
ok we will always be progressing, meening there will always be more to reach out for, but never perfection or completion, thats bout all i have to say for now, i hope you all take to concider what i have said, and yes i know i still have much to learn about our world so if your going to be rude about it dont even comment
150479 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Aboard the Hyperion
Offline
Posted 8/29/07
@ ichigotetske: Ah you are speaking of duality. Yes and it will also touch on that subject. The problem I'll face is how I'll integrate that (afterall that's what the whole point is) and yes your feedback will be put into consideration. Like I said I can't do this alone. It's just an idea I brought up.

Let's take a peek at what might be the result of that. The duality concept ties very well with jamehz's input that the universe is trying to achieve equilibrium thus entropy always increases as scientists have pointed out. This comes in to where + and - will have to mingle and find their way to each other. Can't really explain much as I'm in a rush but think of the yin-yang symbol.

@TollBooth: unfortunately I haven't gotten much work over the summer around it so hopefully I'll get a spark again this Fall when it started.
2923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 1/6/08
What bollocks is this?!

First of all, it is your idea to integrate knowledge and concepts of different fields? The world has kept spinning for centuries and eons with humankind in it. What makes you think that you can think of a new idea that nobody has ever thought of before? If there's anything that our History has taught us, it is that the present is nothing but a perpetual repetition of the past.

The integration of concepts has been done countless times before and is a crucial ingredient for social evolution. For example, in the fields of quantum mechanics, there is an integration that we are trying to achieve: the dual nature of light. The development of ideas through time can only be achieved by integration of past knowledge and modern awareness.

If there was a slight chance of possibility that everything can be integrated and we can understand our journey or equation towards a grand truth, I really think it should have been done already so in the past when everything seems to still be clearer.

You realize that the reason why this cannot happen is because each concept or theory is dictated by a parameter that render it a law in specific condition. For example, most linear dynamics that we have right now make use of assumptions to simplify things. You take away those assumptions and common linear dynamics doesn't hold true anymore. E=mc^2 is only correct when the speed of light is constant, but what happens when it is not? Science in itself is already not absolute. How can you take something that is not a whole by itself and plug it into your "Great Integration Theory"?

And what about religion? Do you know that parameter that separates science and religion? Time! Religion was Science two thousand years ago or so. What we are believing now as religion is nothing but remnants of modern science at the time of our forefathers, and although both travel in a parallelism of pattern, both can no longer intersect each other even if you extend them infinitely. How do you even think of integrating two forms of intelligences with 2000 years in between them? Where's the common parameter to link them?

Ancient knowledge and Modern Science: they can not meet. They're linear, at most parallel.

And then you take progress as if its a positive vector that travels through another vector dimension. Are you even sure that time exists absolutely? Because modern physicists don't seem to think so anymore. Even if it does exist, how can you be so sure that progress is a positive vector?

It would seem that as time goes on, we gain more and more knowledge about the things around us. We discover more, but then again, there has always been more questions formed than answers gained in any one discovery. If you think about this, the more we progress, the more complicated it becomes, the further we go away from your infinite concept which is "Completeness". In fact, the more we learn, the further we move away from Purity.

(Please don't ever submit this for your thesis or whatever. I am 100% sure you will fail.)
2923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 1/6/08

vajmichael wrote:
It will also grow so huge that the project must be divided into general departments and then into specialized departments...


... and then eventually, the different departments become so specialized that they break off into the different fields of knowledge.

And that's how the whole thing came to be in the first place.

Knowledge gained through eons since the awareness of mankind became so complicated that no "Grand Integration Theory" could hold it any longer as one distinct field, and it broke off to different specializations and different "branches" each with their own parameters.
38663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Watching Heaven f...
Offline
Posted 1/11/08
Hmmm... Interesting theory, but still I consider it as being some general truths that you just state in a more scientific manner. For instance the Chain Rule. You cannot say it is every time applied, yet it is true that at least once in an individual's life it is approved. The same is with the Differentiation. It is true that though some have a small part in this life, it does count. But that makes me think in a more simple manner. How about homeless people? How do they have any influence on society. As you assume that everyone has a small part in this so-called progress, I can assume that there is at least one human that doesn't help or involve with society whatsoever. He would definitely affect himself, because it is only logical, but the Integration Theory you wrote is all about his affecting others, therefore the Chain Rule could be applied, ergo your theory being valid. Also you started the Concepts of your theory, you were talking about calculus, yet the part about God, replacing G with E and then with P... I don't know what calculus could that be... I mean it is just putting a symbol of '=' between them and doesn't really proves anything. Furthermore, if G=E=P, then G=P, meaning P=G. So, it could mean everything is going towards 'morphing' so-to-speak with God? On the religious side, I doubt that God wants that, because if He really wanted that, He wouldn't have even bothered creating us in the first place. I think your theory has a limit and it is not near at all to the infinity, if you get what I mean.
I am not here to just criticize but also to try and understand a bit more all of what you are saying. I may have misinterpreted some, though I doubt it. Anyways, good work so far. Waiting forward to updates on your Theory. Who knows? Maybe in the end everything will knot better. Keep up the good work.
1028 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Singapore
Offline
Posted 1/13/08
Ahh, interesting thread.

Nice theory, but two major loopholes:

The limit theory is an approximation.

Foe every progression there is regression. People has limited t, and transfer or the effect from one instance to another deteriorite as time passes, as well as for every effect.
Posted 5/3/08 , edited 5/3/08
.I've had only a few hours of sleep in three days, so my mind may not be what it usually is. Everything said here is my opinion(which is far from perfect...or sane for that matter.lol)

The idea of perfection is not perfect. Everybody has differing opinions of what perfect is. I do not believe that "perfect" is possible in any way, shape, or form. "The Grand Integration Theory" is very interesting, and perhaps i'm wrong and this is all possible. The math certainly seems to be logical, but , as i see it, perfect is just a way to percieve something. There are far too many things to integrate though

One example of something to integrate is religion and science. Of course, we know that there are many differing opinions on which religion is the truth. Although, even within ever religion, there are different opinions and interpretations of that "truth." My sister was once catholic, but a few years ago, she converted to chistianity. It's not a very big change in religion, but the fact is that she changed her opinion on the "truth." One can see this as searching for perfection, but i do not believe it is. I simply see it as her changing her mind because she found something she thinks is better. After awhile of studying this new religion, she changed her opinion once again. She does believe in God, but she does not believe in Jesus Christ. Obviously, there are people in that religion that believe in Jesus and i am sure that there are people that would agree with my sister, but the thing i don't see is how you can integrate "Belief" with "Disbelief." Even less so, i do not see how it would be possible to "completely" integrate all religions with science. Especially since there are new theories being created that may disagree with other theories.

There was one thing you wrote that bothered me a bit. It's in the first paragraph where you said "more complete" and "more perfect." Although, it sort of proves my point about perfect being a way to percieve something



If something is capable of becoming more complete/perfect, then that obviously means that it was not complete/perfect. If something does become more complete/perfect, however, that means that it was originally percieved to be complete/perfect. Perfect is a limit, and for something to become more perfect is to exceed that limit. Now, i know in this paragraph you were talking about your own theory becoming more perfect, but it just bothered me that you said that for some reason

Anywho, on to the math part. To me, math is nothing but theory that can be put to practical use. Most ppl consider math to be and unchangeable fact. 2 apples + 2 apples is, of course, equal to 4 apples. That is fact and no matter how hard anyone tries to say otherwise. However, math also involves values such as infinity. Which, to me, does not exist. Nothing is infinite. Everything has a limit. Your theory states, "The limit as time (t) approaches infinity progress of time (p(t)) equals perfection (P)." i think that perfect should always be equal to zero. At least it makes sense to me. The number zero is in the direct center of all + and - numbers. It is neither positive or negative, it is completely nuetral. In all cases that i am aware of, zero is the same as nothing. I certainly don't want to have zero apples, because then i will have nothing to eat. Mathematically speaking, Perfect is equal to Zero which is equal to Nothing. Therefore, nothing is perfect. Okay, so i may have made a bit of a stretch, but i believe it helps in saying that nothing is perfect. (in case you were wondering, i am indeed eating an apple right now because it is the only thing to eat. lol)

As you have said, as time continues and we progress, discover new things, and so on, there will be new things to integrate. I believe that your theory may never be proved or disproved. In order for that to happen, there will have to be exact records of everything that has been, is being, and will be. And at the same time, there must always be someone/something that is completely unbias integrating everything. Only at the end of time will your theory ever be proved. I hope that you continue on this theory and make it as close to complete as you possibly can. I wish to be proven wrong that nothing is or ever will be perfect. I sincerely hope that something i may have said has caused even the smallest spark. Good luck to you Sir
1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 5/3/08 , edited 5/3/08
I won't bother re-stating all of the criticisms already in this thread, but one immediate problem comes to mind: equivocation. I understand that your conceptions of progress and perfection are irrelevant as long as the relation between the two meanings is correctly expressed, but you're bound to encounter quite a bit of trouble when you try to equate your personal conceptions with those of others. Perfect in one context is not the same as perfect in another, i.e. perfection in a human context and perfection in a divine context.

Also, I'm a bit iffy on the perfection and knowledge ideas in the first place. If it is necessary for time to continue for us to exist and possess knowledge (I think it is, but perhaps you think otherwise because of religion), then there is possibly a problem with your function given the fact that new material to know is constantly "produced" every moment, including one's own consciousness. Then again, I'm not sure how far you intend to go with this theory, how many philosophies you intend to integrate, etc...
Posted 5/12/08

projectcedric wrote:

What bollocks is this?!

First of all, it is your idea to integrate knowledge and concepts of different fields? The world has kept spinning for centuries and eons with humankind in it. What makes you think that you can think of a new idea that nobody has ever thought of before? If there's anything that our History has taught us, it is that the present is nothing but a perpetual repetition of the past.

The integration of concepts has been done countless times before and is a crucial ingredient for social evolution. For example, in the fields of quantum mechanics, there is an integration that we are trying to achieve: the dual nature of light. The development of ideas through time can only be achieved by integration of past knowledge and modern awareness.

If there was a slight chance of possibility that everything can be integrated and we can understand our journey or equation towards a grand truth, I really think it should have been done already so in the past when everything seems to still be clearer.

You realize that the reason why this cannot happen is because each concept or theory is dictated by a parameter that render it a law in specific condition. For example, most linear dynamics that we have right now make use of assumptions to simplify things. You take away those assumptions and common linear dynamics doesn't hold true anymore. E=mc^2 is only correct when the speed of light is constant, but what happens when it is not? Science in itself is already not absolute. How can you take something that is not a whole by itself and plug it into your "Great Integration Theory"?

And what about religion? Do you know that parameter that separates science and religion? Time! Religion was Science two thousand years ago or so. What we are believing now as religion is nothing but remnants of modern science at the time of our forefathers, and although both travel in a parallelism of pattern, both can no longer intersect each other even if you extend them infinitely. How do you even think of integrating two forms of intelligences with 2000 years in between them? Where's the common parameter to link them?

Ancient knowledge and Modern Science: they can not meet. They're linear, at most parallel.

And then you take progress as if its a positive vector that travels through another vector dimension. Are you even sure that time exists absolutely? Because modern physicists don't seem to think so anymore. Even if it does exist, how can you be so sure that progress is a positive vector?

It would seem that as time goes on, we gain more and more knowledge about the things around us. We discover more, but then again, there has always been more questions formed than answers gained in any one discovery. If you think about this, the more we progress, the more complicated it becomes, the further we go away from your infinite concept which is "Completeness". In fact, the more we learn, the further we move away from Purity.

(Please don't ever submit this for your thesis or whatever. I am 100% sure you will fail.)


dude, i was going to say something about this piece of work but it seems you covered pretty much everything, and i do agree with you, this will fail if it was to be submitted as a thesis. i didn't read it all but the the first thing that i notice there are no references at all(this will not get you anything above a third and thats if your lucky. but the line that done it for me is :

"if we define progress as a function of time...mankind has improve its understanding of the world"

mankind can also make the world to ones understanding
Posted 10/17/08
Ari you seem to have put this on hold for a very long time. You managed to aquire some optimistic opinions but I also find a few who don't agree whatsoever with this train of thought. You've established some groundwork but it still has quite a number of holes in it looking at previous posters' input. You might want to start with addressing those before making your expansions. If I remember correctly the supposedly "next chapter" of your work has mainly to do with intelligent design. It's not making a big fuss right now though it wouldn't hurt to postpone that area for a little longer until you're absolutely sure major revisions are no longer required of what you posted here first. It's a very very large subject and I understand it must be difficult for you to pull together some ideas especially if they're generally accepted as "controversial". You'll have to tackle multiple issues at once to be able to make the entire thing more sound than it is now. It's not entirely out of the question but it is very difficult. Furthermore I know you're quite consiencious about making sure that what you put down makes sense if not "correct". Also it's not such a bad idea to consult some of your peers whom you work with that especially has to do with your interests. You said you were inspired by the psychology department about this so that might be a good place to start. Anyways although we don't know what the outcome of all of this would be, whether it would mean something in the end or that it turns out to be just trash, at the very least you've disclosed what's on your mind and it does no harm to share what you've dug up in that thought of yours.
Posted 2/13/10
Humans won't conform to such laws and you as one should know this. The only way is to create one human conciseness, leaving the worldly thoughts behind. But I see this is one of the necessary steps to get to that, Well done, I can't say I fully endorse this Theory, But It does seem like a worthy cause.


-Seven
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.