The mother of all theories. (Was Tony's 3 theories of 'creation')

[Guest guest]

Tony wrote:

> According to Ramana there are three theories of creation.

> 1. A God created it.

> 2. It arises as one perceives it.

> 3. It never happened at all.

< snips>

 

Each one of those three statements is a possible belief system, and each one

might be considered to be a theory. If that is so, then like any other

theory each of those statements should be based on a set of suppositions,

postulates and concepts which in turn and on themselves should also based on

prior suppositions, postulates and concepts which in turn and on themselves

should also... and so on and so forth, ad... originatum.

And if those sentences stand for authentic theories as stated, then just

like any other theory, the value of each theory would depend on the

verification of predictions that the theory should be able to make.

 

Proof of any of these 3 theories (or for that matter proof of any theory)

can not be found and ... (hold your horses!)... does not have to be found,

as the nature of any theory is not to prove itself to be true,* but to find

out if it is workable, useful and efficacious enough to lead to the

understanding and / or discovery of known or unknown processes, occurrences

or things (res).

(*This has to do with Godel's incompleteness theorem, explained at the end.)

 

There has been a gradual shift in definition and appreciation of what

theories actually are. As well there have been new insights in why we need

theories, or why we invent them at all. The nature of theories has evolved

over time, see the list below. Of course, some theories are a mix of older

and newer theories, and all theories can very well co-exist; even

contradictory theories live happily side by side, except for adherents and

opponents who can get up 'quite in arms.'

 

Evolution of the nature of theories:

1. The oldest theories are about "how things came to be."

(scriptural and mythical creation accounts)

2. Then theories evolved that attempted to explain "why things are

the way they are."

(as to cause)

3. Theories after that had more to do with "what things are for."

(as to purpose)

4. Later theories were more about "what 'exactly' things are."

(as to identity, composition, properties and characteristics)

5. Then came the theories about "what more things are there."

(as to microscopic and macroscopic discoveries)

6. And the latest theories are about "what things can we construct

or de-construct."

(as to energy dynamics on sub-atomic and elementary levels)

7. Then there have always been "theories" about "whether or not

there is any-thing at all."

(as to "not this! not that!" or "only this here now!")

 

What all respectable and serious theories have in common is that they make

predictions which may or may not be verified.

A "theory efficacy rating," a theory's success rate can be calculated and is

expressed by the theory's "omega index."

 

This omega index is a dynamic "complex" number that changes over the life of

a theory. This number can be charted to represent or even predict the useful

life of a theory from inception to demise.

 

The omega index's number is derived from:

a. The number of predictions measured to be correct and therefore

proven to be true, minus the number of predictions proven to be incorrect

and therefore false.

(a one dimensional linear measurement)

b. Accuracy and reach of measurement, influenced by the macroscopic

and microscopic resolution of the measuring apparatus.

(a two dimensional grid measurement)

c. Energy distribution over the full expanse of the multidimensional

area to which the theory pertains and for which the predictions are made.

(fractal index, range, granularity, density and energy

dispersion)

(a three dimensional matrix measurement)

e. the number of outstanding predictions.

f. number of years over which the theory is deemed to be active.

(difference between year of inception and the 'deemed' year of

demise or replacement)

 

The omega index measures the overall significance of a theory and the

"worth, impact or value" of the fulfilment of its predictions. This

calculation enables the evaluation of a theory as to 'for how much', 'up to

how far' and 'for how long' it is applicable, suitable and useful.

Over the life of a theory its omega index can be charted as a curve,

starting off at zero and increasing to a maximum number. Flattening out of a

curve means that the usefulness of the theory is reaching its limit and that

there is need for a new theory.

 

The last category above (# 7) pertains to 'pseudo' theories, as their

definitions are not theoretical at all, unable as their proponents are to

make verifiable predictions. Absolute statements like "nothing exists at

all" or "all is everything" are in principle and by definition not

measurable. Their omega indices are either 'null', (charted as a horizontal

straight line) or 'infinity' (charted as a vertical straight line).

 

Very often seemingly opposing or contradictory theories can make the same

predictions. Their omega indices lie often in the same range. Examples are

the wave and particle theories. Subsequently, the "wavicle", "probability

wave" or "wave function", and "complementarily" theories had to be

invented.

Except for the wavicle theory attempt, the other theories have higher omega

numbers than their predecessors.

Einstein's and Quantum Mechanics theories also have their numbers in the

same range, new theories are now being worked at in order to unify these

theories (GUT and TOE's) or to come up with something totally new.

 

The 'flat earth' theory and 'the earth is the centre of the universe'

theories have made verifiable predictions but their omega indices are in the

very low and the upper low range. These theories have outrun their

usefulness as some of their predictions were not verifiable or found to be

false.

 

A modern scientist's intent is not to PROVE his or her theory. A theory is

invented - theories cannot be discovered - to make predictions and invent

measuring tools to test the predictions. When the limit of a theory's

efficacy is reached, when the omega indices flatten out a new theory will

have to be put together. (All this has to do with 'complex number theory'

and is also related to Godel's 'omega-consistency' theorem.)

 

"Proof of a theory" makes a wonderful headline on the front pages of dailies

and in popular scientific news reports, ("Proof! Einstein's theories found

to be true, yet again!") but it is no more than that... just very inaccurate

science news gathering and editing.

 

As theories make predictions about processes, occurrences and things that

may or may not be found. When predictions are found to be true, this will

usually lead to other, usually more efficacious theories.

 

As all theories "work well, up to a point" and "can predict only, up to a

point", it does not mean that theories can turn from true to false. It only

means that the limit of workability and usefulness been reached, the omega

indices curve is flattening out.

 

While predictions are being tested, only predictions that are deemed "true

and trusted" have been mechanically measured to be correct and are therefore

tangible and not conjecture anymore.

 

A theory itself is not sensitive to judgements of truth or fallacy, theories

cannot be truthful or fallacious. Any theory with an omega index between

zero and infinity has a useful value and contributes to the development of

subsequent theories.

 

Any serious theory that posits testable predictions, is invented to find

truth as the nature of all things. It is for the "measurer with the

ruler"*** to shed light on the as yet mysterious. It is the one who looks

through 'invisible darkness' to make the un-seen seen, the un-viewed

visible... verily present, verily actual and miraculously real***, admiring

all and everything in awe.

 

*** The words "royal, regal, rex, res and real, right" all stem from

"ruler", the ONE with the measuring tool. The French "roi", the Latin

"rex"

stem via the root "rag" from the Sanskrit "rij" and "raj" which words

originally meant "stretching a right or straight line." One who was fair and

straightforward, judicious and righteous was elected to be the Raj or Royal,

one who can be trusted to draw a strait line.

 

"Make straight [is] the way of the lord."

 

"What is truth", Pontius Pilate asked.

 

"Truth" is "verus" in Latin, "vrai" in French, "waar" in Dutch, "whar"

in

German, and... the original meaning of the word "very" in English...

"verily" and "aware", also "wit" as in witnessing, "visible", "vision"

and

"voir" in French.

All these words are based on the Sanskrit "vid", seeing objects, physical

and sensed knowing (as physical as in carnal knowledge).

 

Words like "reality, regal, realtor, real-(estate), res-(publica), real,

thing (Eng), ding (Dutch), Ding (German), geding (trial), truth, trust,

true, trow, troth, value, worth, guaranty (warranty), aware, beware, wares,

guard, yard, ward etc." are in origin all based on tangible, measurable and

protectable for-trade "wares" such as personal property, real estate

property and public property (res publica).

 

"True to your word" meant that one was worth-y of one's word, one could back

up or guarantee one's word with wares and worthy goods. (Ware-house,

stoneware, being worth your salt.)

 

Words, all words... verily

All words indeed, but each word designed and invented a human, a wizard or

sage, whose life was rooted in a deep sense of reality, fairness, equality

and rectitude (right-ness), re-establishing and maintaining a very realistic

society (republic) based on guaranteed truth (worth, value, trust, honour).

 

In the history of human culture - to overcome the inequities of class

distinctions - the judiciary system and measuring systems (scales of

justice) were invented to overcome previous inequalities. (Of course it

would run out of hand again, when not everybody could be trusted with

illusive trade (money) and control games. Trust and truth were to be shamed

again, wares had to be warehoused and be guarded by guards (wardens) or in

gardens and yards.

 

Beware to be aware not to lose one's wares.

Keep your wits, come to your senses and use them.

 

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

By the way, regarding those three "theories" at the top of this post,

purported "theories" according to Ramana as quoted or paraphrased by Tony:

1. A God created it.

2. It arises as one perceives it.

3. It never happened at all.

all belong to category 7, theories about "whether or not there is

any-thing at all."

 

Absolute statements like those are in principle and by definition not

verifiable as their only possible predictions are not measurable. Of course

one can say that those statements are irrefutably true no matter what, as

though by divine decree, well then see $$$ below.

 

To repeat, this category 7 pertains to 'pseudo' theories, as their

definitions are not theoretical at all, unable as their proponents are to

make serious and verifiable predictions such as:

ad 1. "As a god created it, a god will destroy it." How can that be

tested and verified?

"Before creation there was nothing, this is creation, after

destruction there will be nothing." How can part one and three be tested?

ad 2. "The prediction is that as things arise that are not

perceived, ergo they don't arise." How can that be tested?

ad 3. "The prediction is that in the end we will realize that

ultimately nothing happened" How can that be tested?

 

$$$ Those are statements that can only stand an illusion of the light of

day.

The 3 statements

1. A God created it.

2. It arises as one perceives it.

3. It never happened at all

are not irrefutable statements of truth (as will be shown at the end of this

paragraph), although each of them can be defined as a 'consistent system'

according to Kurt Godel's "incompleteness theorem."

In 1931 Godel, a U.S. (Austrian-born) mathematician and logician, made a

shocking discovery when he proved that when there are 'truths' within a

consistent system (a system devoid of contradictions) and when there are no

other systems beyond that system to support it, that the "truth" statements

within that system cannot be proven with the axioms within that system. When

a system is consistent, then the statement of its consistency is not

provable within it, which makes the system "incomplete." A consistent system

can only seemingly exist; when it gets tested by complete systems, anomalies

and contradiction arise within the purported consistent system which then

makes itself non consistent, thereby disproving the irrefutability of the

statement within that seemingly consistent system.

 

Love, Wim

 

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.265 / Virus Database: 137 - Release 7/18/2001

Attachment: (application/ms-tnef) winmail.dat [not stored]