For what I understand, none of these theories is testable, reproducible, and most of them are even incomprehensible by anyone else besides their creators, which reduces them into mere subjective opinions. My question would be, what is the use of formulating untestable and subjective models of reality?
James, I would like to add little more to your description.
Verifiable: Some theories are verifiable, but require an LHC, LIGO, or LIGO with collision of blackholes, a super computer, or 5 decades of mathematics training. There is no way I could accept such things as verifiability criteria. I propose verifiability should be accessible to vast majority of humans.
Reproducible: Of course, if verifiability is designed to be accessible, many more people would be able to reproduce.
Comprehensibility: Theory should be presented in multiple levels, so that many grades of intellectual capacity can comprehend it.
As you mentioned, until these are achieved, a theory should still be considered subjective, much less a theory of everything.
I have not yet read your theory, but I would like to suggest that a true theory of everything would, by nature, be unverifiable, likely irreproducible, and certainly not intellectually accessible to all. That’s the game of trying to define the container from the perspective of the contained.
Or, as Heisenberg posited, at this scale, each increment of knowledge can only be acquired at the price of an increment of ignorance. Or whatever he said.
Hey Curt, thanks so much for all you do. One respectful nitpick: I think in the CTMU section where you say "substance dualism", it should really be "substance duality", because dualism in philosophy drives a wedge between mind and matter, whereas Langan's theory, in repudiation of that, has them dually defined on each other (with mind as the defining property of self-and-not-self information processing processors and matter as terminal-level information... such that the entirety of reality becomes defined on both processing and being the object of processing, hence "infocognition"... at least as I understand it). I know common parlance conflates dualism and duality, and so even some dictionaries do, but I believe the distinction is really important in the CTMU.
God bless!
PS
It's been a little while since I've seen Chris pop up and talk theory (probably since his last appearance with you), but he gives a light conversational taste of the CTMU in his recently released Michael Knowles interview (between the 14 and 37 minutes or so) that might be of interest to you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9miVG2xT5jYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9miVG2xT5jY
Thanks a lot for this summary, concise and sincere. I like this format and makes it easier to find which interviews to watch or re-watch. And as always veey grateful for your hard work. Cheers
All these theories are dealing with a limited portion of reality. Physicists are working on theories of matter struggling with quantum and relativity. Biologists are imagining they could explain physics from biological evolution. Mathematicians think throwing out lots of symbols together explains reality. Physicist+biologist hybrid think they can confuse people with collapse of waves in obscure objects. I think they are trying to project their own expertise in a small area onto a big screen the size of the universe which makes everything blurry beyond recognition. Are they explaining space, time, causality, waves, particles, life, evolution, consciousness, self, God, morality, ethics, cosmology, source of mathematics and language, purpose of life, why we see universals, and most importantly how their theories should be verified by us individually and applied everyday from morning to evening in our own life (at the least why we should wake up every morning to go to work)? None of them even come close. Without comprehensive explanations of all of these questions in a single model, their theories should not be called Theories of Everything. If Curt asks all of the above questions and presses them to explain how their model of reality answers them, I suspect they will not come back again.
All I have ever known is existence intimates that I do not know where I was before I was born and do not know where I will be after I die.
All I have ever known is existence is true because it is impossible to know non-existence.
Since it is impossible to know non-existence, the time interval between your current existence and your next existence is zero. The absolute shortest conceivable time interval.
It follows then, that reality is life followed by another life followed by another life after life after life after life after life after life (♀) after life after life after life after life...
The first 20 years of life... an eternity. The next 20... a lifetime. Your next existence... the blink of an eye (👽).
Hey look, all the models are working only slightly beyond the original scale of the proposers educational subject. Pretty funny none of them noticed but they all have a pseudocausal model. I bet they are all pretty frustrated with that. Haha.
By definition, the universe is finite and bound by the necessity of memory. If you want to know what the universe is, then define memory. Define the fundamental unit of memory (two-unit clock of opposite spin) at the heart of Quantum Mechanics.
There are assumptions underlying all models... the assumption that aligns science with reality is... the first property of matter is a type of (tensorial) memory.
The universe to us is finite, but there is no shed of evidence such a limitation applies to the universe as a whole, which is presumptively infinite in each of the three physical dimensions; time, space, and scale.
Until the unfortunate paradigmatic assumptions are corrected, interpretations of experiments and models can only be blind men's reports of the elephant. Each true, but limited: Snake, spear, fan, tree, barrel and whip. All good reports, giving details which those who simply know the elephant — might otherwise miss.
About your remark doubting that the right brain should be dominant …
The ancient (tantric) agenda of the inner union of the overview/feminine/right and the linear/masculine/left minds results in one integrated mind.
In this school it goes thus:
Accept that, if one should be "dominant" it should be the overview. If the quality of the overview becomes good (tricky, all schooling being left-brained) the masculine/Linearity will be delighted to have that overview when following a linear pursuit, responsibly guided. Just as a racing driver appreciates the data and nudges from good team communications because it frees him to focus on staying on the road. Just as soldiers love (the rare) commanders who manage high-quality overview. If that cooperation, overview picking and guiding the Linearity, friendliness can develop between the two sides, and one can become strongly aware of both. At that point, techniques which merge/fuse/blend can (with trepidation) be applied which begins their unification. Those same techniques can be very dangerous to those who's left and right are not friendly. What the psych guys call "permanent psychosis" can be the result. Hence such things being taught in person, with at least some level of secrecy, or at least with key omissions for the wise to discern.
Here is a theory of everything that is testable and agrees with all observations.
It derives the full Lagrangian (the full theory) of the standard model of particle physics, with massive neutrinos, and the Lagrangian of general relativity.
For what I understand, none of these theories is testable, reproducible, and most of them are even incomprehensible by anyone else besides their creators, which reduces them into mere subjective opinions. My question would be, what is the use of formulating untestable and subjective models of reality?
Curt has stated before (as is apparent from the choice of his guests), that he is "interested in the why questions", which is metaphysics I suppose.
If one is not interested in them, one can always "shut up and calculate".
See Sabine Hossenfelder……she has a theory on that….
James, I would like to add little more to your description.
Verifiable: Some theories are verifiable, but require an LHC, LIGO, or LIGO with collision of blackholes, a super computer, or 5 decades of mathematics training. There is no way I could accept such things as verifiability criteria. I propose verifiability should be accessible to vast majority of humans.
Reproducible: Of course, if verifiability is designed to be accessible, many more people would be able to reproduce.
Comprehensibility: Theory should be presented in multiple levels, so that many grades of intellectual capacity can comprehend it.
As you mentioned, until these are achieved, a theory should still be considered subjective, much less a theory of everything.
Yeah I'm along the same lines, any theory of everything should be verifiable, reproducible and comprehensible for most people.
btw, I have formulated a simple theory that comes pretty close to all of those. Would you be interested to take look? https://jamesberryhill.substack.com/p/reality-revisited-social-constructs
I have not yet read your theory, but I would like to suggest that a true theory of everything would, by nature, be unverifiable, likely irreproducible, and certainly not intellectually accessible to all. That’s the game of trying to define the container from the perspective of the contained.
Or, as Heisenberg posited, at this scale, each increment of knowledge can only be acquired at the price of an increment of ignorance. Or whatever he said.
You’re such an incredible writer.
Somebody I follow restacked you and I'm so glad they did, cause this is exactly the kind of thing I need more of in my life 👍
Welcome! There's so much more here: https://curtjaimungal.substack.com/archive?sort=top. Hope you enjoy!
Subscribed, I look forward to exploring!
Hey Curt, thanks so much for all you do. One respectful nitpick: I think in the CTMU section where you say "substance dualism", it should really be "substance duality", because dualism in philosophy drives a wedge between mind and matter, whereas Langan's theory, in repudiation of that, has them dually defined on each other (with mind as the defining property of self-and-not-self information processing processors and matter as terminal-level information... such that the entirety of reality becomes defined on both processing and being the object of processing, hence "infocognition"... at least as I understand it). I know common parlance conflates dualism and duality, and so even some dictionaries do, but I believe the distinction is really important in the CTMU.
God bless!
PS
It's been a little while since I've seen Chris pop up and talk theory (probably since his last appearance with you), but he gives a light conversational taste of the CTMU in his recently released Michael Knowles interview (between the 14 and 37 minutes or so) that might be of interest to you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9miVG2xT5jYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9miVG2xT5jY
Thank you. Fixed
Thanks a lot for this summary, concise and sincere. I like this format and makes it easier to find which interviews to watch or re-watch. And as always veey grateful for your hard work. Cheers
I guess Curt will not have Wolfram as a guest in the near future.
This is a rather wild roasting of Wolfram.
A roasting so brutal I thought only Neil deGrasse Tyson was worthy of.
I am glad somebody is taking care of (preventing) spreading nonsense.
All these theories are dealing with a limited portion of reality. Physicists are working on theories of matter struggling with quantum and relativity. Biologists are imagining they could explain physics from biological evolution. Mathematicians think throwing out lots of symbols together explains reality. Physicist+biologist hybrid think they can confuse people with collapse of waves in obscure objects. I think they are trying to project their own expertise in a small area onto a big screen the size of the universe which makes everything blurry beyond recognition. Are they explaining space, time, causality, waves, particles, life, evolution, consciousness, self, God, morality, ethics, cosmology, source of mathematics and language, purpose of life, why we see universals, and most importantly how their theories should be verified by us individually and applied everyday from morning to evening in our own life (at the least why we should wake up every morning to go to work)? None of them even come close. Without comprehensive explanations of all of these questions in a single model, their theories should not be called Theories of Everything. If Curt asks all of the above questions and presses them to explain how their model of reality answers them, I suspect they will not come back again.
All I have ever known is existence intimates that I do not know where I was before I was born and do not know where I will be after I die.
All I have ever known is existence is true because it is impossible to know non-existence.
Since it is impossible to know non-existence, the time interval between your current existence and your next existence is zero. The absolute shortest conceivable time interval.
It follows then, that reality is life followed by another life followed by another life after life after life after life after life after life (♀) after life after life after life after life...
The first 20 years of life... an eternity. The next 20... a lifetime. Your next existence... the blink of an eye (👽).
GL
Hey look, all the models are working only slightly beyond the original scale of the proposers educational subject. Pretty funny none of them noticed but they all have a pseudocausal model. I bet they are all pretty frustrated with that. Haha.
By definition, the universe is finite and bound by the necessity of memory. If you want to know what the universe is, then define memory. Define the fundamental unit of memory (two-unit clock of opposite spin) at the heart of Quantum Mechanics.
There are assumptions underlying all models... the assumption that aligns science with reality is... the first property of matter is a type of (tensorial) memory.
GL
The universe to us is finite, but there is no shed of evidence such a limitation applies to the universe as a whole, which is presumptively infinite in each of the three physical dimensions; time, space, and scale.
Here's the metaphorical ToE that encompasses the physical: https://kaiserbasileus.substack.com/p/metaphysics-in-a-nutshell
Until the unfortunate paradigmatic assumptions are corrected, interpretations of experiments and models can only be blind men's reports of the elephant. Each true, but limited: Snake, spear, fan, tree, barrel and whip. All good reports, giving details which those who simply know the elephant — might otherwise miss.
About your remark doubting that the right brain should be dominant …
The ancient (tantric) agenda of the inner union of the overview/feminine/right and the linear/masculine/left minds results in one integrated mind.
In this school it goes thus:
Accept that, if one should be "dominant" it should be the overview. If the quality of the overview becomes good (tricky, all schooling being left-brained) the masculine/Linearity will be delighted to have that overview when following a linear pursuit, responsibly guided. Just as a racing driver appreciates the data and nudges from good team communications because it frees him to focus on staying on the road. Just as soldiers love (the rare) commanders who manage high-quality overview. If that cooperation, overview picking and guiding the Linearity, friendliness can develop between the two sides, and one can become strongly aware of both. At that point, techniques which merge/fuse/blend can (with trepidation) be applied which begins their unification. Those same techniques can be very dangerous to those who's left and right are not friendly. What the psych guys call "permanent psychosis" can be the result. Hence such things being taught in person, with at least some level of secrecy, or at least with key omissions for the wise to discern.
Here is a theory of everything that is testable and agrees with all observations.
It derives the full Lagrangian (the full theory) of the standard model of particle physics, with massive neutrinos, and the Lagrangian of general relativity.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385694141_Testing_the_uniqueness_of_a_theory_of_everything
The Presentist Fragmentalist interpretation of quantum mechanics, which leads to QG and maybe a TOE down the road (we'll see).
Message for Curt Jaimungal ... Can you switch to Dark Mode? ... bright white screens fatigue eyes prematurely.
GL
You should interview Finland's Matti Pitkänen, whose Topological Geometrodynamics (TGD) had branes in the 1980s, years before string theory did.