A Theory of Everything and The Truth About God

[interlagos]

I've recently come across a nice presentation by Garrett Lisi suggesting that the whole "zoo" of particles and their interactions observable in modern particle physics can be described by a pure mathematical object called "exceptional simple Lie group E8".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V74NBEYq3tw

While the theory itself is not complete yet, the implications of what is being suggested are profound. It means that the structure of physical reality isn't just a set of arbitrary rules but rather a result of a beautiful mathematical process, which in turn reinforces the idea of physical reality being a result of consciousness itself (this wasn't mentioned in the video, but rather an extrapolation on my part).

So it seems that consciousness builds structures based on math and logic or otherwise they wouldn't hold. It also seems that it attempts to find all structures that can possibly exist so that it doesn't miss anything interesting and this is why in many spiritual teachings God is referred to as All That Is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdJ5AlxYZV0

The process of how everything started can also be described by what is called a Sacred Geometry, which is simply a set of rules on how to build structures from very simple constructs like dot, line, circle, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx31y1KKK3E

As the video above explains, in the beginning there was consciousness (they call it Spirit of God) and the void because the consciousness hasn't manifested anything yet. The consciousness had two options: either stay in this static omni-presence indefinitely or take a first step. Eventually consciousness would start creating and since there was nothing to measure time before the first step, time didn't exist either.

If we follow the process of building structures from the start we will see at some point that there are multiple ways how to proceed forward, this is where consciousness needs to split to take on multiple paths simultaneously. I personally believe, that this feature of creation process gives rise to multiple "you"s and multiple parallel timelines even though we all still derive from that one consciousness that started the process. So "you" exist because the overall consciousness needed to split at some point to explore a certain path in creation. Below is a good channeling on the topic (I like the autotune version better):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wM3doxMJ6s

PS:
For those of you who are searching for patterns compare the content of Garrett Lisi's video at the top at around 11:30 with the content of the video below at around 30:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN930nRm8No

And if you were patient enough to get to the bottom of it, here is a gift for you with some nice music and beautiful imagery:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuUb4EkVDuY
Enjoy!

[The Fool]

Some would argue the omni-presence never took a first step and that the universe is truly infinite in all directions.

Of course human comprehension is limited in this degree. Just imagine infinity equaling zero.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Hyperbola_one_over_x.svg/500px-Hyperbola_one_over_x.svg.png

[myrkul]

Just imagine infinity equaling zero.

[timeshareafrica]

The only philosopical question in live is:" should I commit suicide or not".Anything else doesnt make sense.

[interlagos]

While the theory itself is not complete yet...

That's an understatement! In the video, Garrett Lisi himself says "This theory, and others like it, are long shots".

So maybe don't put too much energy into fantastical extrapolations just yet!

I agree, from the linear rational perspective there are still many uncertainties and details that need to be worked out, but after digging a little bit deeper into the topic I found a few interesting things which link this E8 theory to the idea of God.

Firstly, I found a conversation between Garrett LIsi and a few other physicists at the link below
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/627
where they discuss certain aspects of the theory in spring 2010 and then two years later in spring 2012 there was a message from a relative of one of the physicists stating that he had passed away and that's where it gets interesting. Below is the full message (bold emphasis is mine):

To Gary Lisi -

In case you didn't know, I wanted to inform you of the unfortunate news that my brother, Ray Munroe, Jr. passed away from a heart attack on 3/11/12. He still wants his work to continue on beyond his death, and he tells me you are the man to do it. I know you don't know me, and I don't know you, but he tells me you are the one who will complete Einstein's theory with some infomration that I can provide you that originates from him. I'm not a physicist, but he told me to tell you a message & that you would understand. He keeps emphasizing the number "11" and gives me a list to give you: dark matter, anti-matter, nuclear energy, atomic energy, sub-atomic energy, sound, light, speed, time, space, and SPIRIT ENERGY - THIS IS THE MISSING LINK. He didn't completely buy into it before his death, but now he does because he IS spirit energy, and I can hear him. He said that when you complete your theory, that you will be the one to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a creator. Also, he wants you to study extra sensory perception. He and I have a theory that it is largely sound-based. Again, a chance for you to tie God & science together. I can visualize his ideas if you would like to discuss them, but you will have to discuss on a bright instead of brilliant level because I do not have a genius Iq like my brother, nor have I studied your technical physics terms. I have a BA in music therapy from FSU. If you are curious to hear more, then please let me know.

Meghan

Secondly, I found references to E8 in one of the channeling sessions about Holotope experience from Darryl Anka (channel for Bashar):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf9DL-k8uic
where he literally says (at around 1:00 - 1:22) that you are looking into the "Eye of God". The video then proceeds to explain (at around 2:00 - 3:00) that the shape in the center of Holotope is known in mathematics as "Gosset polytope E8". The video also briefly mentions the idea of Prime Radiant which is very in tune with the Garrett LIsi's explanation in the end of his presentation of how "particles" interact with each other.

In short the idea of Prime Radiant suggests that there is only one "particle" in existence (not one type of particles but one particle in totality) which is not limited by anything else and therefore can travel at an "infinite" speed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNxnE8nXFo4
Here is the quote from the video above at around 3:40
"When this particle crosses its own path in this incredibly beautiful and complex geometric pattern it reinforces itself, it becomes denser and denser and denser and denser. It now has something to interact with - itself on a different path! And as it interacts with itself more and more often on many different paths in many different perspectives it becomes denser, denser, denser, denser and forms the different states of reality from higher dimensions to physical reality. But it's all the same, it's all made out of the same one thing literally."

Yes, it's not a proof of anything, but it's the synchronicities like these that make life more interesting

Some would argue the omni-presence never took a first step and that the universe is truly infinite in all directions.

Of course human comprehension is limited in this degree. Just imagine infinity equaling zero.

Maybe the Universe is in the superposition of "static omni-presence" and "taking a first step" 

Just imagine infinity equaling zero.

Wow, how complex and intricate the geometric pattern must be for one single particle to look like the mess above 

The only philosopical question in live is:" should I commit suicide or not".Anything else doesnt make sense.

Death might be considered an abrupt change in frequency, but you won't cease to exist. Remember that you are here because you wanted to be here! So if you still find yourself physical then there must be some themes you wanted to explore in this reality or you wouldn't be here to begin with. So keep searching for patterns

PS: You might wanna watch this...

The Four Laws Of Creation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcq5tcOzito

[bb113]

I see a trend for the concept of a "creator" getting more and more abstract. If this continues it is inevitable that the existence of a "creator" (for sufficiently vague definitions of creator) will be proved.

However, the proof of this creator will not have been contributed to by people who just feel a creator or spirit energy or whatever is true and then accept it.

He didn't completely buy into it before his death, but now he does because he IS spirit energy, and I can hear him. He said that when you complete your theory, that you will be the one to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a creator.

It sounds like this lady just thought of some things (what would my passed away brother want) and now believes them to be true.

[The Fool]

If the universe started with a single consciousness, logically, we would be parts of that consciousness. Some say that would make us god himself.

This is has been recognized in the esoteric parts of Kabbalistic Judaism for awhile now but telling the people that they are indeed god himself will not work out so well for people in power. It may demonstrate what true equality actually is.

[ElectricMucus]

The whole thing boils down to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musean_hypernumber

Basically it means an attempt to make the number spaces R, C, Q, O compatible.
Complex number: 1 + i² = 0
Quaternion: 1 + i² +j² + k² = 0
Octonion: 1 + i² +j² + k² + l² + m² + n² + o² = 0

Since it is proven that only those four normed division algebras exist (don't ask me how) it can be conjectured that the whole universe can be described using just them.

Problem is the thing isn't established in math at all an generally viewed as esoteric mumbo-jumbo since nobody has demonstrated that it works outside such brain-fucks as "proving god".
As usual when you research these things and follow them to their origin not much remains from the initial fascination.

[The Fool]

The whole thing boils down to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musean_hypernumber

Basically it means an attempt to make the number spaces R, C, Q, O compatible.
Complex number: 1 + i² = 0
Quaternion: 1 + i² +j² + k² = 0
Octonion: 1 + i² +j² + k² + l² + m² + n² + o² = 0

Problem is the thing isn't established in math at all an generally viewed as esoteric mumbo-jumbo since nobody has demonstrated that it works outside such brain-fucks as "proving god".
As usual when you research these things and follow them to their origin not much remains from the initial fascination.

You know your math very well. Thanks for all this reading material.

[ElectricMucus]

The whole thing boils down to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musean_hypernumber

Basically it means an attempt to make the number spaces R, C, Q, O compatible.
Complex number: 1 + i² = 0
Quaternion: 1 + i² +j² + k² = 0
Octonion: 1 + i² +j² + k² + l² + m² + n² + o² = 0

Problem is the thing isn't established in math at all an generally viewed as esoteric mumbo-jumbo since nobody has demonstrated that it works outside such brain-fucks as "proving god".
As usual when you research these things and follow them to their origin not much remains from the initial fascination.

You know your math very well. Thanks for all this reading material.

I haven't really, I'm not in academia either, although I aim to, some day.

There also is this guy: https://www.youtube.com/user/sweetser
He attempted to actually do the things these guys just dream about, albeit he had a recent setback in his work I still enjoy his videos.

[The Fool]

The whole thing boils down to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musean_hypernumber

Basically it means an attempt to make the number spaces R, C, Q, O compatible.
Complex number: 1 + i² = 0
Quaternion: 1 + i² +j² + k² = 0
Octonion: 1 + i² +j² + k² + l² + m² + n² + o² = 0

Problem is the thing isn't established in math at all an generally viewed as esoteric mumbo-jumbo since nobody has demonstrated that it works outside such brain-fucks as "proving god".
As usual when you research these things and follow them to their origin not much remains from the initial fascination.

You know your math very well. Thanks for all this reading material.

I haven't really, I'm not in academia either, although I aim to, some day.

There also is this guy: https://www.youtube.com/user/sweetser
He attempted to actually do the things these guys just dream about, albeit he had a recent setback in his work I still enjoy his videos.

What was the setback? Is there something demonstrably wrong about Hypernumbers?

[ElectricMucus]

The whole thing boils down to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musean_hypernumber

Basically it means an attempt to make the number spaces R, C, Q, O compatible.
Complex number: 1 + i² = 0
Quaternion: 1 + i² +j² + k² = 0
Octonion: 1 + i² +j² + k² + l² + m² + n² + o² = 0

Problem is the thing isn't established in math at all an generally viewed as esoteric mumbo-jumbo since nobody has demonstrated that it works outside such brain-fucks as "proving god".
As usual when you research these things and follow them to their origin not much remains from the initial fascination.

You know your math very well. Thanks for all this reading material.

I haven't really, I'm not in academia either, although I aim to, some day.

There also is this guy: https://www.youtube.com/user/sweetser
He attempted to actually do the things these guys just dream about, albeit he had a recent setback in his work I still enjoy his videos.

What was the setback? Is there something demonstrably wrong about Hypernumbers?

He used hypercomplex numbers which is a different approach. He predicted that there will be no higgs particle and nothing like it but that didn't actually work out. (Unless Cern faked their results)
That wasn't the reason for the setback though, I don't understand it enough to be able to explain it to you.

You can always watch the videos and try to explain it to me if you like however

[The Fool]

The whole thing boils down to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musean_hypernumber

Basically it means an attempt to make the number spaces R, C, Q, O compatible.
Complex number: 1 + i² = 0
Quaternion: 1 + i² +j² + k² = 0
Octonion: 1 + i² +j² + k² + l² + m² + n² + o² = 0

Problem is the thing isn't established in math at all an generally viewed as esoteric mumbo-jumbo since nobody has demonstrated that it works outside such brain-fucks as "proving god".
As usual when you research these things and follow them to their origin not much remains from the initial fascination.

You know your math very well. Thanks for all this reading material.

I haven't really, I'm not in academia either, although I aim to, some day.

There also is this guy: https://www.youtube.com/user/sweetser
He attempted to actually do the things these guys just dream about, albeit he had a recent setback in his work I still enjoy his videos.

What was the setback? Is there something demonstrably wrong about Hypernumbers?

He used hypercomplex numbers which is a different approach. He predicted that there will be no higgs particle and nothing like it but that didn't actually work out. (Unless Cern faked their results)
That wasn't the reason for the setback though, I don't understand it enough to be able to explain it to you.

You can always watch the videos and try to explain it to me if you like however

Haha, will do! Great stuff. I've been contemplating a more simplistic view of this theory and I knew this had to be written somewhere. And I now see that is the case.

Thanks!

[bb113]

The whole thing boils down to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musean_hypernumber

Basically it means an attempt to make the number spaces R, C, Q, O compatible.
Complex number: 1 + i² = 0
Quaternion: 1 + i² +j² + k² = 0
Octonion: 1 + i² +j² + k² + l² + m² + n² + o² = 0

Problem is the thing isn't established in math at all an generally viewed as esoteric mumbo-jumbo since nobody has demonstrated that it works outside such brain-fucks as "proving god".
As usual when you research these things and follow them to their origin not much remains from the initial fascination.

You know your math very well. Thanks for all this reading material.

I haven't really, I'm not in academia either, although I aim to, some day.

There also is this guy: https://www.youtube.com/user/sweetser
He attempted to actually do the things these guys just dream about, albeit he had a recent setback in his work I still enjoy his videos.

What was the setback? Is there something demonstrably wrong about Hypernumbers?

He used hypercomplex numbers which is a different approach. He predicted that there will be no higgs particle and nothing like it but that didn't actually work out. (Unless Cern faked their results)
That wasn't the reason for the setback though, I don't understand it enough to be able to explain it to you.

You can always watch the videos and try to explain it to me if you like however

Don't need to fake it... only need to overestimate how certain you are about the background noise. I'm not qualified to say either way though.

[ElectricMucus]

Oh well, I think this sums it up 

http://youtu.be/c8xUd7Myeuk

[thebaron]

Throughout history you will find people saying that we are in complete control of our existence. I do not believe they are wrong.

[bb113]

Oh well, I think this sums it up 

http://youtu.be/c8xUd7Myeuk

Assessing uncertainty in physical constants

Assessing the uncertainty due to possible systematic errors in a physical measurement unavoidably involves an element of subjective judgment. Examination of historical measurements and recommended values for the fundamental physical constants shows that the reported uncertainties have a consistent bias towards underestimating the actual errors. These findings are comparable to findings of persistent overconfidence in psychological research on the assessment of subjective probability distributions. Awareness of these biases could help in interpreting the precision of measurements, as well as provide a basis for improving the assessment of uncertainty in measurements.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.14447

[The Fool]

Throughout history you will find people saying that we are in complete control of our existence. I do not believe they are wrong.

Such thinking gives freedom a whole new meaning--yet it is very liberating. Victimization becomes a foreign concept in such a world.  

[bb113]

Throughout history you will find people saying that we are in complete control of our existence. I do not believe they are wrong.

Such thinking gives freedom a whole new meaning--yet it is very liberating. Victimization becomes a foreign concept in such a world.  

what about random bad luck (eg being in the wrong place at the wrong time)?

[The Fool]

Throughout history you will find people saying that we are in complete control of our existence. I do not believe they are wrong.

Such thinking gives freedom a whole new meaning--yet it is very liberating. Victimization becomes a foreign concept in such a world.  

what about random bad luck (eg being in the wrong place at the wrong time)?

The esoteric school of thought I believe baron was referring to is one where we are essentially "god" or are directly of "god": We choose our lives and the terms of our existence through whatever means before our birth on this plane of existence. Thus, any transgressions against our perceived happiness or well-being have already been accepted by ourselves, random or otherwise.

Feel free to correct me, Baron, if I am misinterpreting your statement.