2008-02-20, 15:39
  #1
Medlem
Schackhästs avatar
Detta skulle kunna läggas upp under vilken rubrik som helst, men jag tänkte att det passar bäst här.

Citat:
A theory of everything – the short version

1. The mind can never know reality's true nature, because it's limited to a certain viewpoint. Reality MUST be neutral, for saying it is anything else requires a viewpoint or consciosness of some sort – which is limited.
2. Therefore, everything in your own mind is true – but a transcription of your definitions to reality must always be false. If you try to define reality from only one certain perspective you will always be wrong – because you're limited.
3. When you define reality, i.e. try to see an ultimate truth outside of your own consciousness, you invite negativity – even further limitation of the mind.
4. You can break free from your personal limitations by admitting that there is no absolute truth, only a personal one.

Note that embracing this theory doesn't mean abandoning anything that currently makes you feel happy and safe. Quite the contrary.



AN ATTEMPT AT A UNIFIED THEORY EXPLAINING EVERYTHING THAT MANKIND HAS EVER KNOWN – a solution to everything (hopefully)

You may find the following words vague and too general, but this is only because it's my hope that anyone who reads this will be able to relate to it and improve their lives. Don't get too defensive, trying to preserve your own opinion. Nothing I will say here will contradict anything you already know, all I want to do is to further expand your unlimited mind:

Like me, you are a human being with a consciousness of your own. You have lived through life obtaining and gathering information, making sense out of the chaos of reality. You have decided (consciously or subconsciously) to follow a set of ideas that makes your reality a logical, safe and happy place to live in. Others may not make you so happy and safe. You may have noticed that, while your set of ideas make perfect sense to yourself, you encounter difficulties and problems as soon as you try to fix the world and share these great truths of yours with your fellow man. Why is this? Which ideas are right, and which are wrong – ultimately? The simple answer to this question is that every idea is right. And wrong. The key to this lies in the realization of the seperation and unification of your own mind with other minds and what we call reality. Let me explain further.

What is reality? Realize that ultimately, an answer to this question can never be reached. Who is going to reach it? There will always be a certain limited viewpoint on 'reality': your mind or other forms of consciousness (otherwise, there is no 'who' in the previous stated question).

Therefore, trusting anything 100% is the death of creativity.

The key to so called enlightenment vs. stagnation of the mind is to have an openness towards everything – to simultaneously view ones surroundings from as many angles as one can.

Consider for a minute what this means.

It means that as soon as you dismiss anything as false, decide something conclusively, trust or view anything as an ultimate truth – your mind stagnates a little. This concerns everything.

Anyone who cross borders with an open mind will grow wisdom.

You might call the attitude I choose to have on life considering these points a kind of optimistic agnosticism: an optimistic outlook on everything, simply because it makes you and everyone around you happier; and agnosticism not just regarding the existence of God, but everything: an agnostic viewpoint is neither cowardly nor chaotic, it's on the contrary liberating because it is the dismissal of any one ultimate truth.

But if one isn't careful, even this viewpoint can bite itself in its paradoxical tail like an ouroboros, leading back to stagnation. How does one avoid it? Try with realizing the following points:

You have the right to create your own unique opinions, interpretations and models of your own reality.

You can do so (and you already do) for your own convenience – for example, it's easier to live if we assume that reality exists, if we use common conventions in communication or if we trust the results of independently reproducible scientific experiments. Empiricism is good because it makes sense out of everything fed into your brain.

These assumptions and tools are however always perceived through the filter of the mind; this is the beauty of life – one can never really find out the true nature of the information fed into your brain. No single ultimate truth can be reached, only a personal one – therefore you are entitled to believe in anything that makes sense to your mind; just remember that everyone around you (assuming they too have consciousness like yours) also make their own unique interpretations and models of their reality. It's easy to make the mistake of viewing ones own opinion as universal, since ones whole universe is nothing but a personal interpretation.

What this means is that every possible thought has meaning potential (with an open mind, there's no thought that can't enrich you), truth potential (you create your own truth) and have potential to be connected (if you can't see any other connection, the ultimate one is that everything you perceive is in your mind). Explore all possibilities.

Never belittle yourself. Comparing minds is useless. You are your universe.

Everything in the mind is true. Everything outside of the mind is false. This means that everything can be viewed as simultaneously true and false. There's no contradiction here.

The only true perfection is imperfection. In contrast to our common model of perfection as a stagnated state of purity and lack of chaos, imperfection has the potential of constant and endless improvement.

Learn the beauty of confusion, of doubt, of undecidedness. These things contain every possibility simultaneously; mind-blowing infinity.

There is no 'right'. There is no 'wrong'. There is no 'actually'.

I hope you – like me – will find that this point of view kills all the noise in your brain, erasing negativity (which can be defined as entrapment and restriction of the mind: what we daily call fear, anger, depression, evil etc.). This is extremely important. Whenever you view something as an ultimate, unchangeable truth outside of your own consciousness, you invite negativity and stagnation to your brain. If you erase this, the solutions to all your problems will reveal themselves.

Children are already enlightened because they know nothing. The greatest cause of stagnation of the mind is the indoctrination of individuals with what one sees as definite truths (on any level) when they are in the very fragile and easily influenced developing stage of the brain called childhood, killing their natural curiosity.

This has led to immense negativity throughout history; trapping our powerful minds in specific arbitrary boundaries.

Paradoxically, the unification of all human minds lies in realizing the seperation of them – we need to focus on what unites us all instead of getting hung up on small details. There's nothing wrong with sharing your own truth with the world – on the contrary, this is what will save mankind. Just never cross the line where you start to sell and vigorously impose your ideas on others; remember that everything can be true. All it takes is your personal optimistic interpretation of reality, and seperating this from the interpretations of others.

It's time for humanity to reach a greater level: by keeping positive undecidedness alive around each other, and particularly children, we can, eventually, eliminate all negativity.


I can only formulate my own thoughts. This theory makes sense to me. I hope I've written it down in a general, simple and clear enough way to enable all members of humanity to understand my argument. Like anyone else, I wish to spread my ultimate truths far and wide without limitations, hoping that they will lead to the improvement of humanity.


- J.H. Pollack

http://www.myspace.com/jhpollack
Citera
2008-02-20, 18:52
  #2
Medlem
Schackhästs avatar
edit

1. The mind can never know reality's true nature, because it's limited to a certain viewpoint. Reality must be neutral, for saying it is anything else requires a viewpoint or consciosness of some sort – which is limited.
2. Therefore, everything in your own mind is 100% true – but a transcription of your definitions of reality to another consciossness are not necessarily true. If you define reality to another mind in only one certain perspective you can't be 100% right – because we all have different minds.
3. If you insist on doing this with the firm belief that you are 100% correct, you will invite negativity to your brain – even further limitation of the mind.
4. You can break free from these personal limitations by admitting that there is no universal truth, only a personal one.

Note that embracing this theory doesn't mean abandoning anything that currently makes you feel happy and safe. Quite the contrary.



1. Sinnet kommer aldrig kunna veta verklighetens sanna natur, eftersom det är begränsat till ett visst synsätt. Verkligheten MÅSTE vara neutral, ty att säga någonting annat kräver ett synsätt eller ett medvetande av något slag - som är begränsat.
2. Därför är allt i ditt sinne 100% sant - men en översättning av dina definitioner av verkligheten till ett annat medvetande är INTE nödvändigtvis sanna. Om du definierar verkligheten för ett annat medvetande från endast ett perspektiv kan du inte ha 100% rätt - eftersom vi alla har olika sinnen.
3. Om du gör detta med en orubblig tro på att du ändå har 100% rätt bjuder du in negativitet till din hjärna - vidare begränsningar på sinnet.
4. Du kan befria dig ifrån dessa personliga begränsningar genom att erkänna att det inte finns någon universiell sanning, endast en personlig sådan.

Lägg märke till att punkterna inte kräver att man överger NÅGONTING som redan gör en lycklig. Raka motsatsen.
Citera
2008-02-21, 02:34
  #3
Medlem
Schackhästs avatar
Inga kommentarer eller synpunkter? Detta är alltså en teori som försöker förklara ALLT. Den kan sammanfattas lite enklare sålunda:
Citat:
Throughout history, many theories, philosophies, religions and doctrines have been established to explain the world around us. Every single conflict and forms of negativity that man has ever known can be reduced to this simple sentence: The unability to distinct between the truth of your own mind and the truths of others.
Citera
2008-02-21, 07:37
  #4
Medlem
Schackhästs avatar
Ännu en förbättring:

An attempt at a unified theory explaining everything that mankind has ever known – a solution to everything (hopefully)

No single attempt at summarizing everything can be perfect, neither this. Everything I will say here – like everything else I think I know – will be empirically deduced from the information fed into my brain since birth.

The only thing the human mind can know for sure is that it is conscious. We seem to live in some form of reality, and throughout history, many theories, philosophies, religions and doctrines have been established to explain the world around us and find an ultimate truth. There seem to be other individuals in this world with similar minds and they seem to similarly make sense out of reality empirically. But is there some form of universal truth to be found? Well, by combining all of humanity's empirical truths we daily get closer to some kind of universal human truth. This is what science is doing. But ultimately it can't answer every question there is, because whatever we perceive is perceived through a human mindset. Therefore, what we can't answer with science is open for endless speculation. What is it that we can't answer with science? Anything that lies outside of the realms of consciousness, because without any consciousness there is no ability to answer questions.

I personally believe that humanity might reach some kind of stage where every conflict gets it's solution, simply by raising awereness in other minds that what we see as reality is nothing but a personal human interpretation. Other forms of consciousness that perceive reality differently than our own are thinkable, and we might be able to explore such possibilities one day when artificial intelligence is a reality. If more and more humans become aware of the fact that every different human mind have different points of views and models of reality based on the immensly different information they get into their brain through life, we would have a world where no viewpoint or opinion is invaluable. Does this mean that everything goes, that we can do whatever we want and perceive whatever we want in total chaos? Yes and no. On one hand, no opinion can be said to be 100% false, even those that directly contradict our empirical knowledge; we can never be completely sure that these opinions aren't true in some sense, since we can't know in how many ways and dimensions reality can be percieved – we are limited to our human mind. On the other hand, there can be said to be certain things that unite all minds empirically, like the notion that limitations on our minds (what we call suffering, evil etc.) is bad and that breaking limitations of our minds (what we call happiness, flow etc.) is good.

I think that when realizing how seperate and at the same time united our minds are in this way, humanity will strive for achieving what our summarized empirically opinion perceive as ultimately good.
Citera
2008-02-21, 17:10
  #5
Medlem
asdf011s avatar
Intressant, har inte läst igenom det än men kommer definitvt göra det helt när jag känner mig piggare.
Citera
2008-02-21, 17:27
  #6
Bannlyst
Jag gillade det inte. Massa bla bla. I grund och botten går det ut på att man inte kan veta allt. Ok, men var är "unification theory of everything"? Det står ju att man inte kan veta allt. Den borde heta "the non-unification theory of everything" istället.


Dessutom så finns det en del logikfel. Om världen är objektiv så finns det visst saker som är 100% rätt och saker som är 100% fel. Annars är världen subjektiv, fast det säger författaren att den inte är. Paradox. Iofs så menar han att man inte kan bevisa något någonsin helt så det spelar ju ingen roll hur jag än kritiserar honom då han ändå inte tror på rätt eller fel. Yuck.

Typiskt exempel på låtsasintellektualism.
Citera
2008-02-21, 17:35
  #7
Medlem
Jordens avatar
Vad pretentiöst! Då är jag ändå pretto så det förslår. Börja med någonting mindre och använd dig gärna av en källförteckning.
Citera
2008-02-22, 08:59
  #8
Medlem
Schackhästs avatar
Please ignore this 'theory'. I've come to the realization that it is stupid.
Citera
2008-02-23, 02:08
  #9
Medlem
adequates avatar
Hail Eris! De där idéerna är långt ifrån nya. Discordianismen har haft dem i minst 40 år, och eftersom discordianismen har sina rötter i zen så lär dessa idéer gå att kunna spåra där också. Och i Platons idé-/skuggvärld, kvantmekanik och fler spridda ställen.

EDIT: Dessutom är titeln missvisande och bäddande för besvikelse. Jag förväntade mig nya idéer i jakten efter en teori som kombinerar allmän relativitet och kvantmekanik
__________________
Senast redigerad av adequate 2008-02-23 kl. 02:13.
Citera
2008-02-23, 02:09
  #10
Medlem
adequates avatar
Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av Schackhäst
Please ignore this 'theory'. I've come to the realization that it is stupid.
Kan du lägga fram dina argument för den ståndpunkten?
Citera
2008-02-23, 20:51
  #11
Medlem
Fan vad tråkigt att se att människa efter människa inte fattar att en teori om allt skulle nödvändigtvis behöva återspegla samtliga sinnesintryck och deras tolkning i symboler. Men inte ens detta skulle vara tillräckligt om vi skall tala om "sanning", för sinnesintrycken är möjligtvis endast ett möjligt system av oändligt massa möjliga.

Sinnesintryckssystmet är möjligtvis ett logiskt specialfall av vårt mentala system som i sig är möjligtvis en logisk specialfall av ett större system som inte kan representeras inom mentala systemet då mentala systemet är en delmängd i detta större system. Vi kan mentalt förstå våra sinnesintryck, för att deras representation ryms inom vårt mentala system. När vi mentalt försöker förstå det här överordnade systemet kommer vi pga våra begränsningar att stöta på en massa paradoxer och självreferenser. Paradoxer är representationer som inte kan bevisas inom ett system. Självreferenser är ett system som försöker uttrycka sanningar som det är okapabelt till och paradoxer är sanningar som det kan uttrycka men inte kan bevisa/tolka själv (eller nåt i den stilen).

Det svåra är hur man återspeglar den här tolkningsprocessen av symbolerna symboliskt. En teori om allt för oss människor behöver omfatta delvis en symbolisk återspegling med sinnesintrycksystemet, men även vårt egna mentala system, men utöver detta skulle det även behöva ha en symbolisk återspegling med det överordnade systemet, vilket vi trots allt kommer vara okapabla att tolka och därför uppstår paradoxer. Vad för system tolkar/utvärderar sin egen utvärderingsprocess? Vårt mental system och det som vi kallar fri vilja? Men vad är då detta ett specialfall av?

En av anledningarna till att vi har "the law of the excluded middle" är att utan den skulle vi kunna ha oändligt många sanningar om oändligt många "objekt" och deras relationer till andra "objekt" att ta hänsyn till, vilket med andra ord skulle motsvara slutsatsen att "allt är möjligt". Vilket jag tror är en nödvändig slutsats för att "någonting över huvud taget skall vara möjligt".
__________________
Senast redigerad av meric 2008-02-23 kl. 20:54.
Citera

Skapa ett konto eller logga in för att kommentera

Du måste vara medlem för att kunna kommentera

Skapa ett konto

Det är enkelt att registrera ett nytt konto

Bli medlem

Logga in

Har du redan ett konto? Logga in här

Logga in