I've always found hard questions interesting. Not necessarily because they need an answer, but because I think searching for an answer brings about some interesting realizations. There are some age old questions that people have always tried to answer throughout history:
- What is the purpose of life?
- Why are we here?
- Is there a God?
- What is God?
- and on and on
An increasingly popular question these days is how do you scientifically tie everything in the universe together? Or more specifically, how do you tie the large-scale theory of gravity together with the small-scale theories of subatomic particles and atoms? This has long perplexed many of the smartest physicists in the world like Albert Einstein. We have equations that we use to measure large things like planets and then a separate set of equations we use to measure really small things like atoms. But why do these two things, which both exist in the same universe, have different equations for them? Why do large bodies of matter respond to one set of equations while small bodies of matter respond to a different set of equations?
Let me start off by saying that I am in no way a physicist or a scientist who deals with this stuff daily. So I don't know the current details and state of where this is. I'm an outsider who looks in and finds it interesting. I enjoy science and am a pretty logical person and good with details and data, but I'm not in this field everyday working professionally. I'm a computer programmer, not a physicist. With that said, anybody who knows a bit about these types of things knows that usually when you're looking at the same thing over and over again you can get stuck in patterns of thought that are no longer constructive. Sometimes solving a hard problem takes a perspective outside of the ordinary perspective to solve it. A lot of times scientific people start heading down the wrong track and then just keep pushing harder and harder the wrong way. Sometimes it takes an outsider to look outside the box and make a realization that helps correct course.
Now I'm not saying I'm that guy either. I'm sure what I am talking about has already been said before, but I just want to give my take on this because if it has been mentioned, I don't ever hear anyone talking about it. And I really think most scientists are missing the big picture of what is going on here because of one main reason:
Most scientists are materialists.
The vast majority of scientists don't take into account non-physical things. And that is understandable as we don't have a way to measure non-physical things. But that doesn't mean that at some point soon we may be able to measure non-physical things. And if that's the case this may uncover answers for many of the problems science currently faces, including the theory of everything. So with that said let's look at this in a different light.
In other words:
The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.
Okay let me put down some groundwork of where my thinking is. I've always found it weird how people view the universe in numbers and quantities. I get that numbers are useful from a human perspective and a reproducibility standpoint, but I don't think the universe works in numbers. I don't think the universe necessarily works in equations either. I think the universe is relative, but not relative in the sense of forces but relative in the sense of consciousness.
What exactly constitutes consciousness is yet another large question. I don't think we exactly know what consciousness is, but I think we have a pretty good idea. Consciousness is intent that is sent out from various bodies throughout the universe. In our everyday lives we see consciousness as deriving from living things. But what really is living? Of course humans are conscious, dogs are conscious and insects are conscious. But what about trees? Are they conscious? Some may say yes, others may say no. I say yes. They are conscious in a much more fundamental way than humans. But what about rocks? Are they conscious? See, this is where it gets really weird for most people. From what I have researched into these topics rocks are conscious as well. For anything to be physical it has to have a level of consciousness within it. Without consciousness you can't have physicality. So with this kind of foundation we can already see how this is giving us a bit different of a take on this kind of thing.
So of course string theory has become increasingly popular in this field of study. This basically goes beyond the physical particles that make up everything in the universe and places energy, or strings, as the core component of everything in the physical universe. Being somebody who places a high weight on spiritual things, this makes much more sense to me than particles. When I research spiritual topics they talk about energy and vibration. The fundamental part of ourselves is not our physical atoms, but rather, our vibration.
And this is where I think physics is at an interesting point in its research. I think physics is starting to step into non-physical topics. I think physics is starting to reach the end of the physical, matter reality and reach into the non-physical, energy reality. This is why these equations are breaking down when they research things like black holes and the Big Bang. This is where you're jumping from one dimension to the other, at least in a more literal sense. Because in reality all dimensions exist at the same time and it is just frequencies that separate them. The frequency that you are tuned into determines the dimension. And the frequency is determined by your body and the overall consciousness pull that your body emanates. This obviously gets pretty deep and I'm in no way an expert, I'm just putting information out there that nobody really ever talks about. There is a lot more to say about all of this.
Okay, now there have been experiments done that show our consciousness affects the outcome of events. Let me say this again. When we observe matter, we change the outcome of how it acts. This video gets into it:
This makes sense because it shows what spiritual masters have been telling us all along:
We have more power than we believe, or more correctly, we have as much power as we believe we do.
These double-slit experiments show that the expectation and observation of an event determines the outcome, or it at least influences it. This is a huge realization. This basically means that at the smallest level of our reality, the subatomic, energy level, things are not fixed to work a certain way. The energy responds dynamically relative to the consciousness and perspective acting on it. Energy is malleable, it isn't something that only reacts to physical influence. Our mind holds more power over energy than our body. Our reality is as malleable as we can imagine it to be. Yes, there are things that happen outside of our consciousness, however, we can also use our consciousness to work on reality and mold it in ways that we would not normally think as possible. This isn't me just babbling on about spirituality, this is science. The science and data is in for this.
Now let's look at this another way.
Changing our perspective
Relative to ourselves, from our human perspective, we have things bigger than us and smaller than us. Planets and stars are bigger than us. Cells, molecules and atoms are smaller than us. From our human perspective big things like planets act in a more mechanical way. We can use gravity and Newtonian physics to measure and predict with a great deal of accuracy what will happen with large bodies of mass. With smaller stuff things because less predictable. When we start looking at things like quarks and energy from a human level this stuff starts to act more randomly, or rather, in non-mechanical ways that are easily predictable. Things are more fluid like a wave. This is what the double-slit experiment teaches us.
If we shift our perspective from human to planetary does not this mechanical/quantum relationship shift with it? If we're something really large like a galaxy does something like a planet behave quantumly relative to the galaxy's perspective? Does the galaxy see planets and the energy acting behind planets the same way humans see quantum quarks and energy? Does this all depend on perspective? And does not the energy work within the perspective of the observer?
Let's say we are now super tiny, a quark of a quark (if such a thing exists). Let's call a quark of a quark a microquark. From the perspective of the microquark would not the quark now act more mechanically and predictably? Would not the quark act relative to the microquark similar to a planet relative to a human or similar to a galaxy relative to a planet? Are not all these things relative not to their size or mass, but rather, the perspective observing them and questioning a specific line of questioning?
After all, the perspective of the universe is not a human one. Our perspective is human. A cell's perspective is cellular. An atom atomic. A planet planetary. Different energies have different perspectives. And to try to answer a question like the theory of everything from a human perspective seems to me to be missing the point to begin with.
Finding the right foundation
Going further with this I'm not saying that a unified theory is not possible. What I'm saying is that the gravitational theory can't be the correct one. The correct theory would have to be more towards the side of string theory as reality is not based around mechanics, but rather consciousness. If we want to understand how reality works we need to understand consciousness better and we need to understand how to bring non-physical things into science. We need to start expanding our understanding of energy and the true reality that we live in.
The true foundation of life has to be more malleable and open, but when we step outside and look at it from a human level we begin to miss all this. This is no different than us watching people on television and not noticing that all we are really looking at is malleable pixels. We play a trick on ourselves and believe the illusion of the TV. I am saying that our reality is no different. This reality has energy that can work in infinite ways which is what string theory is trying to show us mathematically. But perhaps math is not the right language to explain such a phenomena. We understand that all matter is composed of atoms and that when we view these tiny particles with our eyes it all blends together and creates molecules and cells which create all the everyday stuff we see without ever seeing the true reality behind the illusion that our eyes tell us. String theory has to be foundational because it allows for the most flexibility towards how energy works. String theory incorporates and works towards what our intuition and great thinkers have been telling us all along.
Is a theory of everything possible?
With that said, I'm not saying that it is possible to have a theory for everything. Like I said, a lot of this depends on perspective and what exactly a perspective even is and what exactly a correct answer would even be. It depends on the scope of the question and the answer. If we solve for a 3 dimensional reality then we will get 3 dimensional answers. Is our brain capable of thinking outside of 3 dimensions? Again, this gets spiritual. From my research I don't think our "brain" is capable, however, our intuition and our feelings are capable of moving outside of the 3rd dimension. Yes, before you go of saying "lol feelings > logic, lolz" just hear me out. I'm not saying that logic is bad or wrong. I'm saying that logic has a limit. We are not simply 3 dimensional beings. If you want to believe that fine, knock yourself out, I don't. We are multi-dimensional beings that have more to us than this 3 dimensional reality. Where is the evidence? What do you think string theory is trying to show? What do you think consciousness experiments are showing us? If solving Grand Unified Theory requires going outside of physical reality then what does that tell us about what we think we know?
Look, I like logic as much as the next guy. I get the value and brilliance behind it. But I've also researched and read too much, from too great of minds, to think that it ends with logic and the brain. The universe is logical to a great, large extent. But the foundation of the universe may not be logical. When we view it from a human perspective it may look logical and we may be able to measure it precisely. But when we go deeper and deeper into what really makes up the accuracy and predictability of the universe we see that it all starts to fall apart. We start to see that consciousness, feelings and vibrations may play an ever more foundational role than we think. We begin to see the component of love start to come into play. Yes love. Perhaps there may be more to love than we really think.
I leave you with a quote from Manly P. Hall:
Since intelligence is the highest manifestation of matter, it is logically the lowest manifestation of consciousness, or spirit, and Jupiter (or the personal I) is enshrined in the substances of mortal mind where he controls his world through what man is pleased to term intellect. The Jupiterian intellect, however, is that which sees outward or towards the illusions of manifested existence, whereas the higher, or spiritual, mind (which is latent in most individuals) is that superior faculty which is capable of thinking inward or towards profundities of Self; in other words, is capable of facing towards and gazing upon the substance of Reality. Thus the mind may be likened to the two-faced Roman god Janus. With one face this god gazes outward upon the world and with the other inward towards the sanctuary in which it is enshrined. The two-faced mind is an excellent subject for meditation. The objective, or mortal, mind continually emphasizes to the individual the paramount importance of physical phenomena; the subjective, or immortal, mind if given opportunity for expression combats this material instinct by intensifying the regard for that which transcends the limitations of the physical perceptions.
Does this mean we stop trying to find a theory of everything? I see it like what Morpheus told Neo in The Matrix:
Neo: What are you trying to tell me? That I can dodge bullets?
Filed under:Science, Hard Problems, The Answer To Everything, Einstein^2
Morpheus: No, Neo. I'm trying to tell you that when you're ready, you won't have to.