Major Update

Due to major errors in Theory of Everything by Illusion paper I needed to make a major update to it. You can download it from the link on the right area. Major changes are...

  • Third law of TOEBI is dropped out as obsolete
  • Second law of TOEBI fixed (force calculations for elementary particles)
  • Gravitational constant is included as is

There is also fixed multiple smaller errors. Some parts were simply removed as being not relevant.  All of this made Introduction to Theory of Everything by Illusion outdated! Hopefully I'll manage to update that paper in near future as well.

Update: Introduction to Theory of Everything is also updated.

77 thoughts on “Major Update

  1. Sorry, but the paper is still quite painful:

    TOEBI "metric": The constant 1kg/(ms) being constant is a triviality, no need to postulate that.

    First law: Vectors don't have a sign, and whether something spins counter-/clockwise depends entirely on the observer.

    Cheers
    Berry

  2. What do you mean by triviality?

    Oops, I forgot to mention from what point of view spinning is counter or clockwise. But in Introduction paper that spinning vector is described correctly 😉 Also, no signs in there.

  3. > What do you mean by triviality?

    I mean that an expression consisting solely of three man-defined constants is necessarily itself a constant.

    > I forgot to mention from what point of
    > view spinning is counter or clockwise.

    And that would be which one?

    > But in Introduction paper that Spinning
    > vector is described correctly 😉 Also, no signs in there.

    We're talking about http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1211.0027vM.pdf, right? I can read there "[...] and \(\vec f\) particle spinning vector. Vector gets positive values if spinning happens counter-clockwise and negative in case of clockwise spinning."
    Everybody can see: You use an entirely observer-dependent spinning direction label ("counter-/clockwise") and you indeed try to assign a sign to a vector. In one single sentence, no use denying that.

  4. For pleasing you I made a new link (on right-hand side) which points to the version which contains all the latest corrections.

    If we looked at the vector above then the particle would be spinning counter-clockwise.

    That postulation applies in every conditions, even in relativistic velocities. To me, that's not trivial.

  5. > For pleasing you I made a new link (on right-hand
    > side) which points to the version which contains
    > all the latest corrections.

    I had noticed corrections in http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1211.0027vM.pdf, as well. Maybe you could take that one down if it's http://toebi.com/documents/ToEbi.pdf which contains all the corrections.

    > If we looked at the vector above then the
    > particle would be spinning counter-clockwise.

    Sure. But you agree, that that's not a particle property at all, that it's merely the expression of the right hand rule, right? I.e. an explanation how the direction of a "spinning vector" and the everyday parlance "rotating clockwise" are related in general.

    > That postulation applies in every conditions,
    > even in relativistic velocities.

    Sure, because 1m=1m and 1kg=1kg and 1s=1s also in relativistic velocities.

  6. I can't take versions away from viXra.org, I mean that's my audit trail. Therefore, I have to keep my working version in my own site.

    Yes, you are right, that's just an expression of the right hand rule.

    Well, trivial or not I'm sticking with my "metric" at this point (I might change my mind in future).

  7. > Well, trivial or not I'm sticking with my
    > "metric" at this point (I might change my
    > mind in future).

    Sure, it's your site. Just be informed that calling such a trivial identity "metric" will cause irritation, especially since "metric" has already a well defined meaning.

    Anyway, let's go on: What about the unit mismatch in the third formula? On the left hand side we have kg/s, on the right we have m²kg/s².

  8. What a day! Busy busy busy... Ok, First law of TOEBI states that

    \[E=J\frac{s}{kg}\ m\Vert\vec{f}\Vert\]

    and

    \[J=\frac{kg*m^2}{s^2}\]

    Was this what you were looking for?

    I was wondering that "metric" thing... is it really that silly? I can remove it, it's not a problem.

    Update: I dropped "metric" out.

  9. I don't get it : is the law of gravitation derivating from TOEBI or is it part of it ?

    In the first case, where does it come from ? In the second, shouldn't it be 2nd law of TOEBI (or third) ?

  10. Wow, that sound great !

    I mean, I'm really wondering how those spiky stuff generate gravitational attraction. Maybe, like, they would curve space and time due to their mass ?

  11. > Was this what you were looking for?

    Nope. But while we're at it: Not without good reason is it common practice to typeset physical quantities in italic but not the units. In the first equation above, \(m\) denotes the particle mass, in the second the same symbol denotes a meter. Usually one would write
    \(E=\mathrm J\frac{\mathrm s}{\mathrm{kg}}\,m||\vec f||\)
    and
    \(1 J=1\frac{\mathrm{kg\,m^2}}{\mathrm s^2}\)

    But that was not the point. I was talking about your equation
    \(mf=\frac{1}{2}mv^2\)
    On the right hand side we have obviously an energy, but the left hand side has units kg/s, which is not an energy.

  12. Rats, of course the 2nd equation should be typeset as
    \(1\mathrm J=1\frac{\mathrm{kg\,m^2}}{\mathrm s^2}\)

  13. But on the left hand side there should be

    \[\mathrm{J}\frac{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{kg}}mf\]

    I fixed that into the paper.

  14. > I fixed that into the paper.

    Great. One humble request about the updates: Could you please provide the timestamp of the latest update somewhere close to the link? Then the reader knows when to update his local copy.

    Ok, back to physics: In
    \(\frac{\mathrm{J\,s}}{\mathrm{kg}}\,mf=\frac{\mathrm{m^2}}{\mathrm s}\,mf=\frac{1}{2}mv^2\)
    we can obviously cancel the mass and rewrite the equation as
    \(f=\tau \frac{v^2}{2}\)
    where I have coined the "TOEBI-constant" \(\tau=1\frac{\mathrm s}{\mathrm m^2}\)

    Do you agree?

  15. > Sure, I'll put timestamp next to that link.

    Thanks.

    So, in TOEBI a particle's spinning frequency is inevitably coupled to its velocity. That is very strange, because the former is an objective quantity (i.e. invariant with respect to a Galileian transformation) while the latter is not. In other words, your fundamental energy relation immediately lets your theory violate Galileian invariance. Doesn't that bother you?

    To express it more concretely: Two inertial observers with non-zero relative velocity will (of course) measure different velocities for the same particle, say \(\vec v\) and \(\vec v'\). According to TOEBI, this implies different spinning frequencies \(f\neq f'\). But in TOEBI, \(f^2\) governs the interaction strength between particles, i.e. two particles exert stronger/weaker forces on each other, depending on who observes them. Does that seem plausible to you?

    In this very same context you tell us: "Based on First Law of TOEBI, proton’s (and electron’s) spinning frequency is roughly 8.98755 ∗ 10^16 1/s at rest on Earth." How come? At rest, we have \(v=0\), so why not \(f=0\)?

  16. > Of course not, I meant that velocity change vs
    > spinning frequency change thing.

    I see, so you're sticking too \(E=\frac{m}{\tau} f\) without necessarily claiming that to be the kinetic energy.

    > But I'm not dropping that either right away.

    Right, you should drop it after you've understood the objection, not just to "please me" as you've phrased it so disconcertingly above.

  17. Well, you state in your paper that the Big Bang created little spiky sphere like object. I'm wondering why and how they are spiky. What are the spikes like ? Conicals ? Cylindricals ? Pyramidals ? Needle-like ? Why did it create sphere like spiky objects ? I mean, why the spikes ? And what's the aspect ratio of these spikes ? Is it 3-4 spikes per sphere, or more like 2 thousands ?

  18. Ok, then let's move on: You tell us that \(f\approx 9\cdot 10^{16}/\mathrm s\) for electrons and protons alike. According to TOEBI's force law, the repulsion between protons must therefore be 1836 times stronger than between electrons. Do you really think that's true?

  19. Oops, ther's the square missing. I.e. the proton-proton repulsion must be \(1836^2=3370896\) times stronger than the electron-electron repulsion (according to TOEBI, that is).

  20. Actually no, Second law applies in case of elementary particles. If we study interactions between two protons in reality we are studying interactions between two nearest proton electrons (electrons consists of three electrons in TOEBI).

  21. > If we study interactions between two protons

    ... at e.g. atomic distances of about \(10^{-10}\mathrm m\) ...

    > in reality we are studying interactions
    > between two nearest proton electrons

    Because the other four involved "proton electrons" can be neglected, as they are "much farther apart", namely \(10^{-10}\mathrm m+10^{-15}\mathrm m\)???

    > (electrons consists of three electrons in TOEBI).

    (I reckon that should read "protons consists of three electrons in TOEBI", ok.)
    So, how come protons have a mass of 1836 electrons if they only consist of three of them?

  22. >Because the other four involved "proton electrons" can be neglected, as
    >they are "much farther apart", namely

    No, the thing is that when these three electrons are spinning together (and generate the cross section of proton a.k.a. mass) particles in between them (FTEPs) collide and spreads around in a continuous fluxes.

    Volumes near the sources of these fluxes (a vague volumes between proton electrons) won't let through spinning induced FTEP flow (or wave or something) which is capable of interacting with another flow (or wave) generated by another spinning electron. Therefore only the closest proton electrons interact. Same applies if we calculate electron-proton interactions.

  23. > No, the thing is that when these three
    > electrons are spinning together (and
    > generate the cross section of proton a.k.a. mass)

    Spinning together (only!) creates mass in TOEBI? Which formula of TOEBI describes that?

    But maybe we should keep things easy for the moment, so let's stay away from composite particles. Ok, TOEBI predicts muon-electron repulsion to be 200 times stronger than electron-electron repulsion, and muon-muon repulsion in turn even 40000 times stronger?

  24. In your introduction, you state that the only relevant parameters of your elementary spiky spherical particles are :
    - spinning frequency
    - spikeless spherical radius

    I really don't understand at this point : isn't the spikiness important??? If the spikes have a length comparable to the particles radius, for example.

  25. (Could you please delete both my previous postings?)

    > muon is actually electron

    Nope, they have different masses \(M_\mu>M_e\).

    > which has reduced spinning frequency,
    > like around 1/200 of the original.

    I thought so (or rather similarly) but it doesn't work out: We separately consider an electron-electron pair, a muon-electron pair and a muon-muon pair, each of them with the same separation distance and anti-parallel spinning direction. Then we can cancel \(r^2\) and compare magnitudes. Experimentally the forces are found to be the same, so according to Second Law of TOEBI we must have
    \((G_e+G_e)M_e^2=(G_\mu+G_e)M_\mu M_e=(G_\mu+G_\mu)M_\mu^2~\Leftrightarrow~2f_e^2=(f_\mu^2+f_e^2)\mu=2f_\mu^2\,\mu^2\)
    where I have introduced the mass ratio \(\mu=M_\mu/M_e\approx 200\). Now your putative solution is \(f_\mu=f_e/\mu\), but that doesn't solve above equations. What's even worse: You have two equations for only one unknown (\(f_\mu\)).

  26. (I'm really sorry, please do a garbage collection. 🙂

    To be more accurate: Your try \(f_\mu=f_e/\mu\) fulfills the "outer" equation (i.e. "e-e" = "µ-µ") but not the mixed case "µ-e".

    And the single unknown is rather \(f_\mu/f_e\) which we may abbreviate as \(\nu\) and then rewrite the equations above as
    \(2 = (\nu^2+1)\mu = 2\nu^2\mu^2\)
    which cause, for \(\mu\approx 200\) being prescribed, two problems:

    (a) They evidently cannot be solved simultaneously (a problem similar to the Mercury one).

    (b) The left one yields an imaginary \(f_\mu/f_e\).

  27. Well, I'm disappointed, you're the one who talked about those spiky stuff, and now you act as it's irrelevant.

    Additionally, have you heard about a guy called Michelson ? He said some things about ether.

    Oh, and additionally, have you work with high power radiation before saying that photons can interact together ?

  28. In reality, muon mass = electron mass. The problem is that the contemporary particle physics doesn't know about particle's spinning frequency and so the interpretation is that muon is much heavier because it's trajectory doesn't bend as sharply as electron's trajectory in magnetic field.

  29. Actually muon's spinning frequency is not 1/200 of the electron's. It must be calculate from its interaction in magnetic field. I'm going to write a blog post concerning muon in near future, so we can continue this conversation without zillion comments above.

    I'm trying to find an excellent preview plugin for my wordpress installation! 🙂

  30. Well, as you might have guessed, I was wondering what you thought about all the experiments and theoretical results that showed aether in general was BS, since your theory is just a revamp of old gravitational theories based on aether.

    About photons : I can't help noticing that you're clearly saying that 2 photons can interact together, on their own, which is, well, to say the least, clearly stupid for anybody whoever worked with light.

  31. > In reality, muon mass = electron mass.

    How can you be so haughty to claim to know what's up in reality? Did the creator of the universe tell you in private? Or did you do some own hitherto unmatched experiments, directly weighing the particles? No, \(M_\mu=M_e\) is nothing but an idea of you.

    > The problem is that the contemporary
    > particle physics doesn't know about
    > particle's spinning frequency

    That is not a problem, because this spinning
    frequency exists only in your theory, which is
    the very object of challenge here. Encountering a discrepancy between your theory and experiments, you just claim that your theory is correct anyway (because it tells what "really" is going on, because it's your theory), while the experimentalists don't know what they're measuring? How did you recently phrase it? "Modesty is not my strong suit." Very true, indeed!

    If you want someone to buy that immodest claim of yours, you have to go the scientific way and
    prove that TOEBI + \(M_\mu{=}M_e\) can predict all known experimental facts involving muons as good as mainstream physics can. Are you and TOEBI ready for that?

    > and so the interpretation is that muon is
    > much heavier because it's trajectory doesn't
    > bend as sharply as electron's trajectory in
    > magnetic field.

    1) Does this interpretation conflict with anything except your own, private theory?

    2) FYI: The muon mass does not only affect its trajectory in magnetic fields. For example, if \(M_\mu=M_e\), how come after decay there is an electron left plus a lot of energy? Where was the energy stored before the decay? Maybe in the spinning? Nope, because according to you, \(f_\mu. Bummer! Or what about the size of muon atoms? According to mainstream physics, the muons (same attraction, higher mass) have to have smaller orbitals, in agreement with experiments. According to your ideas (lower attraction, same mass), though, the orbitals would have to be larger. Bummer!

    Why do you think you could convince anyone on earth that you knew enough about muons to conclude that experimentalists know shit about their results?

    And most importantly: Your resort \(M_\mu=M_e\), i.e. \(\mu=1\), doesn't help at all!. Plugging it into the equations above (which stem directly from Second Law of TOEBI!), the only solution is \(\nu=1 \Leftrightarrow f_\mu=f_e\), i.e. muon and electron being even identical. Bummer!

    > Actually muon's spinning frequency is not
    > 1/200 of the electron's.

    Not anymore? "Was kümmert mich mein Geschwätz von gestern?" = "What do I care about my chitchat from yesterday?" [Konrad Adenauer, allegedly]

    > It must be calculate
    > from its interaction in magnetic field.

    You didn't really consider carefully the equations above, did you? Read my lips: The actual value of \(f_\mu\), no matter how you got it, no matter what came out, cannot possibly fulfill both equations above! The only exception is \(f_\mu=f_e\) together with \(M_\mu=M_e\), i.e. identical particles. Anything else is in conflict with Second Law of TOEBI.

    Think about it. Longer!

  32. @ Berry:

    > experimentalists know shit

    Please try to avoid scatological language. Thank you.

    @Kimmo:

    Interesting debatte here, let's see how you manage.
    Remember: If things are getting too hot, you can always *ban* undesired comments.

    This is your blog, you are the boss here!

  33. That's partially right. In TOEBI there is ether, but it's nothing stationary medium or like that. It's just a name for something which is made of from smaller particles, in this case FTEPs.

    Where I have said that two photons can interact? I gotta fix that one.

  34. I will, I will... I'm going to write a new blog post which is handling this muon issue in detail. Today, however, I'm very busy but during this week anyway.

  35. Seriously? You think your FTEPs are the new thing????? Don't worry, there are a lot of theories where ether particles are not flowing randomly but conveniently behaving in a way that fits observation ;).

    I'm just wondering how you compare yourself with those gravitationnal aether defending-scientists (among those, very great ones) who used the same gravitational data as you did to create your theory. What did they miss ?

    Errrr… about photons, you said that the only parameters playing a role in a particle was :
    - spinning frequency
    - radius
    Then you go on explaining that photons just have a really smaller radius than electrons, and that's why their "cross-section" is so small. Then please, tell me what happens when two photons collide ?

    Additionally, introduction to toebi state : "Due to very small size (Rphoton = 3) photons
    interact very weakly with other photons."

  36. Yes, take your time, please. Science requires careful thinking. And blindly pulling \(M_\mu=M_e\) out of your bottom in a panic attempt to protect your theory is not a sign of careful thinking.

  37. At least they missed the big picture. One have to create a theory which includes ether particles and which uses those same ether particles in other interactions as well.

    I'll explain in detail what happens when two photons "collide" later on (I put it into my todo list).

  38. Their theory weren't given up because they didn't explain other interaction than gravitation. That's irrelevant.

    Can I ask a very impertinent question: your TOE doesn't say anything about photons "colliding", but you claim it as a TOE?

    More precisely, do you, or do you not, support the idea that 2 photons can interact, as you wrote in your introduction to TOEBI?

  39. Of course two photons interact. The problem is their extremely small cross section combined with their spinning. Spinning generates FTEP movement into the surrounding FTE. Now, in the case when two photons "collide" exactly head-on, surrounding FTE guides them pass of each other.

    With higher energies there is a chance for photon annihilation.

  40. Of course two photons interact.

    How does a laser work? So not only was Newton stupid, but Einstein too?

    Spinning generates FTEP movement into the surrounding FTE.

    Sidenote: how do you make it compatible with principles of thermodynamics? Are they wrong too?

    Now, in the case when two photons "collide" exactly head-on, surrounding FTE guides them pass of each other.

    So there's some kind of fluid mechanics stuff that will, whatever the spinning frequency, spin direction, polarization, angle of interaction, guide the photon on a path that will let them avoid each other and find back the same track, same polarization, same spinning frequency.

    What is exactly the difference between FTEP and little angels guiding photons in this case?

    With higher energies there is a chance for photon annihilation.

    What higher energies? X? Gamma? Higher? This phenomenon has never been observed in any case despite huge flux sources available nowadays.

  41. Oh, that would be really nice!

    You should really cover stimulated emission then. I know some laser experimentalists who would be happy to know that they can't create 2 photons in the same state. It might really help convincing those guys that raising coherence length of their beam is stupid, they would stop.

    Oh, and then you could actually explain what you're saying about double slit experiment! I understood that closing of a slit would instantaneously destroy waves in FTEPs guiding the particle into the interference pattern. I thought everything in TOEBI was mechanical: usually, mechanical waves are dependent on the speed of sound. What is the speed of sound in FTE? I mean, it cannot be instantaneous: all particles in my guitar string are linked together, thought I have to take into account the speed of the acoustic wave inside it.

    But I have a few problem with the concept even if FTEP sound speed is infinite. Let's suppose I'm interfering 100m after the double slit. My photons goes on, pass one slit, and follow the wave pattern it created. Now my photon is on its way to hit one of the interference fringe. Let's have fun! Let's wait a bit before closing the slit!
    - I close the slit after one meter. Ok, the FTEP reorganizes, and finally the photon goes to the classic one slit diffraction pattern like a good boy.
    - I close the slit after 50 meters. Wow, now Photy (let's call him photy), is halfway to the interference pattern spot it aimed at. But suddenly, he will have to change path to go back to the diffraction pattern.
    - I close the slit after 99.999m. Photy is 1 mm away from its interference spot. Wow, this one is hot don't you think? After doing almost all the distance, Photy will have to take quite a huge turn if he wants to hit the good diffraction spot!

    How is that possible?

  42. You should really cover stimulated emission then. I know some laser experimentalists who would be happy to know that they can't create 2 photons in the same state.

    What do you mean by that?

    Do you get pure one slit diffraction pattern in that last scenario? I don't think so.

  43. Sorry, I got a little bit carried away there by my disappointment. I had no intentions to insult anyone.

    But allow me one question: How did you become Kimmo's blogging mentor? Do you co-operate in some way?

  44. What do you mean by that?

    Well, stimulated emission (amongst many other optical phenomenon) relies on the fact that 2 photons can occupy the exact same place and have the same properties (impulsion, frequency etc.). This is not possible in TOEBI where they would collide. Or I missed one important properties of particles or one important law.

    Do you get pure one slit diffraction pattern in that last scenario? I don't think so.

    Oh, so at which distance do you decide when the pattern appears or disappear?

    Maybe you take a look at Delayed choice quantum eraser? Talking about double slit experiment without knowing that…

  45. I see... but I didn't say that the outcome from these collisions or interactions would change anything (like trajectories). Perhaps it would be better not to use the word collision, too misleading.

    I'm familiar with delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. As I already said, my time resources are limited. But I'll include the experiment in my book for sure.

    You ain't gonna get clear diffraction pattern if you close the slits after photon passed one of them. Pattern gets more blurred later the closing happens.

  46. I see... but I didn't say that the outcome from these collisions or interactions would change anything (like trajectories). Perhaps it would be better not to use the word collision, too misleading.

    Yes, I understood you didn't say that. You prefer to say that FTEP will magically wave around all particles so that for any polarization, angle of interaction, frequency, whatever, nothing will seem to happen. What nowadays theory just sum up by saying photons are bosons. You said a blog post will solve this, from a mundane point of view, awfully complicated fluid mechanics problem, so I'll be patient ;).

    No, what I was asking with laser is: how do you explain despite 50 years of laser advances (and other optics experiment), no one ever noticed two photons can't be in the same place. Blindness? Outright lies about experimental results? Evilness? Plot theory?

    You ain't gonna get clear diffraction pattern if you close the slits after photon passed one of them. Pattern gets more blurred later the closing happens.

    Oh, it seems that the greatest scientist of all time (I think it's appropriate) acknowledged the opposite:

    But what's ruining potential interference pattern
    in a case where another slit is closed after a particle
    passed those slits? Waves have passed that other slit
    too before it was closed but still interference pattern
    won't emerge.

    So, when can you close the slit so that the interference pattern won't emerge? After halfway? Quarter way? 90% of the way? And by the way, what is this "blurred pattern"? Halfway through diffraction and interference?

    Quantum eraser is, from this viewpoint, even worst, the wave pattern is not broken closing a slit, but SIMPLY observing the photon path MUCH AFTER (8 ns in the most famous experiment) it has interacted to form a pattern? And choosing to OBSERVE it or not actually destroy the pattern despite this delay. Are FTEP forcing photons back in time?

  47. Later dude! I promise to you that next time I'm writing my book I'll concentrate on these issues and I'll put that available for you to read. Now I have promised Berry to make a new blog post (during this week) regarding muons so I don't have the time to answer your every question. But you are next in line so to speak.

  48. @Kimmo:

    > I'll ban only if things go uncivilized.

    From your lips to God's ears.

    -------------------------------

    @Berry:

    > Sorry, I got a little bit carried away there...

    No problem, just try to be more sensitive in the future.

    > How did you become Kimmo's blogging mentor?

    I see myself as some kind of "good fairy" of TOEBI and this marvellous blog here.
    If you ask for a specific time point, I would say it was when Kimmo published his
    first "self-interview". I did never came across something like that and found it...hmmm...
    let's say..."special". Well, I could not resist to comment on that and from there it took of I guess.

    > Do you co-operate in some way?

    From my side: YES, there is defintily a strong co-operation between Kimmo and me.
    From Kimmo' side, I am not sure if he sees that the same way. Having that in mind,
    I would rather classify our "co-operation" as a one-way street.

  49. > From my side: YES, there is defintily a
    > strong co-operation between Kimmo and me.

    But you dont't provide any scientific input, do you?

  50. > But you dont't provide any scientific input, do you?

    That's correct.

    I am here for the fun part and leave the hard work to the boss (aka Kimmo).

  51. >> But you dont't provide any scientific input, do you?

    > That's correct.

    And you don't have an own, rational opinion about TOEBI, either?

    You're just throwing the popcorn, right?

  52. > And you don't have an own, rational opinion about TOEBI, either?

    I am a busy man, normally I read only the titles and go to the comments straight.
    Thus I don't feel qualified enough to comment on TOEBI's theoretical content.

    > You're just throwing the popcorn, right?

    I couldn't have phrased it better.

  53. > Thus I don't feel qualified enough to
    > comment on TOEBI's theoretical content.

    So you cannot even be an arbitrator. But you're not impartial anyway, right?

  54. > So you cannot even be an arbitrator.

    I never intended to be an arbitrator.
    As I said above, I consider myself a "good fairy" (named "dwarf").

    > But you're not impartial anyway, right?

    Of course I am not impartial, but I change my bias like the weather.

    I feel very honoured by your keen interest in me, which I hopefully served
    to your full satisfaction. Maybe you could be so kind and answer a question
    of mine in return:

    If you would have to answer the question
    "What is the meaning of life?" in one sentence,
    what would you say?

    "I don't know." is a valid answer.

  55. > As I said above, I consider myself a
    > "good fairy" (named "dwarf").

    I don't have any experiences with good fairies. Are they adulators?

    > If you would have to answer the question
    > "What is the meaning of life?" in one sentence,
    > what would you say?

    "There is none."

  56. > good fairies. Are they adulators?

    Yes, they are. But they are moody too.

    > "There is none."

    So you decided to decline the joker ("I don't know.") and claim to know the meaning of life.

    To my [very loosely speaking] understanding, a TOE is about "How the World works",
    while "The meaning of Life" is about "What you should do". In order to know "What you should do",
    you need first to understand "How the World works" and then derive from that knowledge, what your
    position and supposed role in the World is.

    If you agree with that argumentation, may I ask you to (briefly) explain your TOE?

  57. >> "There is none."

    > So you decided to decline the joker ("I don't
    > know.") and claim to know the meaning of life.

    I don't. Claiming the absence of something doesn't imply knowledge about this something.

    > To my [very loosely speaking] understanding,
    > a TOE is about "How the World works",

    That's too loose for me to agree. Does Kimmo agree?

    > while "The meaning of Life" is about "What
    > you should do". In order to know "What you should do",
    > you need first to understand "How the World works"
    > and then derive from that knowledge, what your
    > position and supposed role in the World is.

    > If you agree with that argumentation,

    I don't.

    > may I ask you to (briefly) explain your TOE?

    I don't claim to have one. Only a very specific class of people do so.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *