The illusion of the Theory of Everything

[samii]

I'm starting this thread because I have a disappointing realization that we might never reach a theory of everything (TOE).

According to physicists a theory of everything should by definition explain everything, all phenomena, from the very small to the very big and everything in between. Nothing should remain a mystery, even life and consciousness must be incorporated in the TOE and the supposed supernatural and paranormal as well.
Materialist physicists believe that consciousness is just a manifestation of biochemical processes in the brain, and that the TOE will be able to explain it all without the need for a concept of soul.
The first sentence in Wikipedia about TOE is:
“The theory of everything (TOE) is a putative theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena”

The physicists’ emphasis on the physical only is a major problem to a true TOE. I believe the C’s once said they are by no means physical, and since we are 3D beings a TOE implies that we will have an understanding of all densities. This is a contradiction of what the C’s say about how our understanding of reality is limited until we reach at least 4D.

I'm now beginning to wonder if the search for the TOE is just another plot by 4D STS to distract us from something else. My question is should we abandon the search for the TOE or should we find another approach (if there's any)?

 

[Mike]

I'm starting this thread because I have a disappointing realization that we might never reach a theory of everything (TOE).[...]

I'm now beginning to wonder if the search for the TOE is just another plot by 4D STS to distract us from something else. My question is should we abandon the search for the TOE or should we find another approach (if there's any)?

Hi samy,
Have your read the Statement of Principles for the FOTCM http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=14396.0 . What I think it works toward is a start of a TOE at least in principle of dealing with 3D reality. There is so much more that goes along with it, but you have to start somewhere especially since much of what is agreed as valid in every facet of our reality is perverted. So my thought are don't abandon TOE, but don't feel pressured to get it all at once. I mean TOE is so vast it boggles the mind. You have to start somewhere. OSIT.

 

[John G]

I believe the C’s once said they are by no means physical, and since we are 3D beings a TOE implies that we will have an understanding of all densities. This is a contradiction of what the C’s say about how our understanding of reality is limited until we reach at least 4D.

Well here in 3rd density we are quite limited. We can for example create equations that we can't solve but I'm actually quite happy with how much physics has done if you look in the right places.

Q: (A) Are these densities related to the mathematical concept
of 'signatures of the metric?' I would like to model densities
with slices of different geometric properties, in particular slices
with different properties of the distance.
A: Yes...

Q: (A) What is the relation between the fourth density
that we know and the fifth dimension of Einstein and
Bergman?
A: Identical.

Q: (A) Okay, now, this is one thing. At some other point we
were speaking about pentagons and hexagons and I tried to
be tricky and when it came to pentagons, I wrote a
mathematical formula, a symbol for a pentagon, and then there
was the question of signs. We needed five signs. I asked you
whether there should be four pluses and one minus, or 3
pluses and two minus. The answer was that there should be 3
pluses and two minuses in a pentagon. Now, what about a
hexagon? What should I put in a hexagon? Three pluses and
three minuses, or four pluses and two minuses?
A: Four and two.

Q: (A) I want to ask about this macrodynamics. In
microdynamics we have Planck's constant and it is very small,
and this is why we have quantum jumps and quantum events in
microdynamics. But there is this concept of macrodynamics,
perhaps we have probability waves and quantum jumps on a
macro scale. This is something which we don't know...
A: Yet.
Q: (L) I don't like the sound of that! (A) So there is something
like Planck's Constant but much bigger that converts on a
macro scale?
A: Something like that. And if this is food for thought, you
have been presented with a veritable feast tonight, so,
good-bye

 

[rocrac]

Einstein-Martin Armstrong and the Theory of Everything (TOE)

Below is a link of a BLOG post written by Martin Armstrong who is one the worlds best traders. He developed a model which seems to corroborate the C's teachings.

_https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/understanding-cycles/einstein/

Thanks

Rocco

 

[SeekinTruth]

Welcome to the forum rocrac.

As this is your first post on the forum, we would appreciate it if you would post a brief intro about yourself in the Newbies section, telling us how you found this forum, how long you've been reading it and/or the SOTT page, whether or not you've read any of Laura's books yet, etc.