## The theory of everything shouldn't exist

Post your reality fanfiction here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

Taralewis3051
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:34 am UTC

### The theory of everything shouldn't exist

I am not a university student. I am just in high school but am studying physics and chem. I am just sitting here wondering why do we have energy. I mean look at computers communication there is 0 and 1. on and off. Off will always be a granted but why is there an on. nothing has a purpose because for something "not to be real" makes more sense, because It is nothing (empty) there is no reason for it to exist. but for things to exist makes zero sense.

So if energy can be off why do we have an on. such as a 1 and 0. our brains the same electrical pulse no electrical impulse = movement. Where does this energy come from?. people lack the understanding of nothing but, to be honest in physics its the only thing that makes sense. [X = 0]we don't have to even question why it equals nothing because nothing is nothing. but as soon as it x = 1 how does x have 1.

I mean look at the 3rd dimension as a cube. then the 2nd dimension is a square. then the 1st a dot. but a dots a really small circle. not a square. again x = 1 doesn't make sense how did we get 1?

if everything started from nothing how can we turn it into something? but again how can we start with something because that makes 0 sense. how can something just exist? I see on seeker that they trying to find smaller and smaller particles, but how does that help. no matter how small we go we will find something smaller because there is no such thing as nothing if something exists.

but then you think about it everything has energy nothing can ever not have any energy. but 1 cant = 0. unless we live in a quantum state. where we between 2 dimension oscillating or collided. because the idea of these two living separately makes more sense then existing at the same time.

I know I'm all over the place but that's the most sense I can make out of the whole idea of physics. I mean it makes sense with my idea of explosions and sound waves that these low energy objects can release a wave of energy. such the way the "big bang released everything else". like I said it in high school this is prob very wrong and very scifieeeee but not understand how something started when studying it makes you think why am i doing this.

I mean think if a plug. nothing works unless you plug it in. then its receiving 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 of electricity. but before it was 000000000000000000000 but 10 min before it wasn't 111111111111111111 but now it's 0000000000000000 so in both states, it was a 1 and a 0. on and off. so what if there are only 2 dimensions. rather 3rd 4th or 5th its on and off. such if string theory was real that the string exists in 2 stats on and off. therefore providing the string to either to be on or off. such an appliance in your house. and maybe time is the motion of this energy in string theory movement where time is as fast as the string to make a complete cycle of 0 then to 1. allowing bigger objects with more mass take longer to move through this 0 to 1 stage causing slower times and increased gravity. and allowing gravity to change depending on its size in its string

gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

### Re: The theory of everything shouldn't exist

It looks like your basic question is why there's something rather than nothing, which as far as I know doesn't have any nice causal answer. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that the question can only be asked if there is something, so there's a bit of a selection bias there.

There are a few other errors you've made in the rest of your post.
- Zero energy is not really possible thanks to quantum effects. We've gotten close to absolute zero but can't actually reach it.
- One dimension is a line, and zero dimensions is a point.
- A true point is not just a very small circle. That's what you draw when you put a "point" on a piece of paper (and the ink or graphite also has a thickness so it's not so much a circle as a very short cylinder).
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Pfhorrest
Posts: 5439
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

### Re: The theory of everything shouldn't exist

The fundamental stuff of reality is a mathematical structure, and all mathematical structures reduce to sets, starting with the empty set and then putting that into itself and so on. It’s all a bunch of nothing, nested within itself.

All operations are likewise reducible to set operations which are equivalent to logical operations, and all logical operations can be reduced to nested applications of joint denial, which is really just a fancy kind of NOT.

So really, everything is just a bunch of negations of nothing. Which sorta makes sense, because not-nothing = something.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

### Re: The theory of everything shouldn't exist

It is said that when students enter university, they know everything, when they leave they know they know nothing (and that's why there's a lot of random knowledge sloshing round campuses).

I admire your philosophical traits, though they have some way to go to become a coherent scientific ones. (Get it wrong, with what you've already written plus random capitalisation and centre-justification and you could well go in the direction of the TimeCube guy!) Press onwards. Learn more, adapt to such new knowledge (without taking others' information for granted, though appreciate that they won't all be wrong) and maybe you'll one day satisfy your questioning nature. (Although that would be a shame. There always should be further questions, or there may be an end to the joy of life.)

Regarding 0-ness and 1-ness, in logic, as one of the aspects not yet discussed by others, in electrical circuits a "1" may well be conveyed by a "low" voltage (or a negative one) compared to the "high" (or ground) of the "0". What is base and what is not base can be circuit-specific according to application. Maybe the default for the universe is "something" and it is the void (interspersed patterns of which dictate the nature of the non-void left between) is the signal. Or maybe it's nothing like that, even, as our human inventions work at levels of human comprehensions while the universe does its thing how it does it uncaring of our own concepts of how we would engineer the thing.

(Also consider the Not-gate. The input of a 1 produces an outout of a 0. Where does the 1 go? The input of a 0 produces an output of a 1. Where does it come from. Whichever convention you use, something, at some point, appears to cone from nothing. It only makes sense when you realise that the gate (as with all gates) have additional contacts upon the global 1 and 0 'supply' and uses the input(s) to tie it onto whichever it is designed to tie to, under the circumstances. A 'red' 0 or 1 comming into the Not, imagining we could additionally colour it only for our own viewing convenience, only guides the gate to output a 'blue' 1 or 0 (our having coloured those supplies in that manner, here).

Though, again, this does not really apply to the universe. Even assuming qubits instead of bits. I won't even insult you by suggesting that the 1s and 0s (and 0/1s and 1/0s) of the universe get fed in from dimensions 'above' and 'below' the standard logic gates that we see. Although once you start to go all String Theory you do indeed get some (NPI!) 'parallels' to this idea.

Not that I think you are likely to learn much from this reply of mine. Some of it you probably should be ignoring. Though not the bit about it being good to continually explore and question more new things. That's probably fairly sound.

heuristically_alone
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 7:43 pm UTC
Location: 37.2368078 and -115.80341870000001

### Re: The theory of everything shouldn't exist

Taralewis3051 wrote:I mean look at the 3rd dimension as a cube. then the 2nd dimension is a square. then the 1st a dot. but a dots a really small circle. not a square. again x = 1 doesn't make sense how did we get 1?

Ist dimension is more of a point then a physical dot. Really you wouldn't be able to see it. We juay draw a dot to help us visualize where it is

You can learn to levitate with just a little help.

:idea: = Surprised Cyclops

doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5531
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

### Re: The theory of everything shouldn't exist

There is no reason why things exist. It is empirical.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

Tchebu
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:42 am UTC
Location: Montreal

### Re: The theory of everything shouldn't exist

You say that "off will always be a granted" but it's not at all obvious, and yet this is really the central premise from which the rest of your questions stem.

For example, my gut feeling (informed by years of grad school in theoretical physics, but a gut feeling nonetheless), is actually quite the opposite. I would say that "on" is always granted and it's just not clear what it is that's "on" and why that and not something else... If this clashes hard with your intuition then that's perfectly fine, but it should at the very least tell you that the premises that you find absolutely obvious are not at all obvious to others and deserve intense scrutiny, especially given that yours leave you with unsolvable mysteries ("Why anything?"), while mine leave me with difficult, but in principle solvable puzzles ("Why this thing?").
Our universe is most certainly unique... it's the only one that string theory doesn't describe.

Eebster the Great
Posts: 3460
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

### Re: The theory of everything shouldn't exist

heuristically_alone wrote:
Taralewis3051 wrote:I mean look at the 3rd dimension as a cube. then the 2nd dimension is a square. then the 1st a dot. but a dots a really small circle. not a square. again x = 1 doesn't make sense how did we get 1?

Ist dimension is more of a point then a physical dot. Really you wouldn't be able to see it. We juay draw a dot to help us visualize where it is

No, a one-dimensional object is more like a line, ray, line segment, curve, circle, or anything else with extent in only one direction. Scaling up a one-dimensional object increases its length by the scale factor to the power of one. For instance, doubling the radius of a circle increases its circumference by a factor of 21 = 2. By contrast, a disk (the interior of a circle) is two-dimensional, so doubling the radius increases the area by a factor of 22 = 4, and a ball (the interior of a sphere) is three-dimensional, so doubling the radius increases the volume by a factor of 23 = 8. A single point is actually zero-dimensional, having no extent at all. If you define a measure at all, it will not change when the point is scaled, as it will vary with the scale factor to the power zero. This reflects the fact that points do not change when scaled.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

### Re: The theory of everything shouldn't exist

The "intuitiveness" can sometimes change based on your expertise.

If you get into 3d modeling, certain elements, like a point not scaling despite other objects doing so, just makes sense. Instead of being simply an abstract math thing to recall, you have a practical context with it that'll allow you to easily envision a number of different transformations, even ones outside of your typical workflow.

So, in the OP's case, he may gain additional understanding of his conundrum by dabbling in such a skill. Actually using electricity might also be another fun practical application. Small robotics or what not. You'll get a much better idea of things like "Where does this energy come from?"

doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5531
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

### Re: The theory of everything shouldn't exist

OP is never coming back. Pour one out for OP.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

Compos
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 12:09 pm UTC

### Re: The theory of everything shouldn't exist

Why is there something rather than nothing? There is no rhetorical precis to that question. What you are claiming is that the "law of contradiction" is embodied in the hermetic division between being and non-being, without reference to a quantifier. If you read Kant carefully, you will see that only referencing the quantifier renders this "law" valid a priori. And that being and non-being are contraries, not contradictories. The effect is to view all that is dynamic as static. This, in order to 'claim' a logical 'entail' by extension. The rejection of temporality is typical of this mentality.

Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

### Re: The theory of everything shouldn't exist

Pfhorrest wrote:The fundamental stuff of reality is a mathematical structure, and all mathematical structures reduce to sets, starting with the empty set and then putting that into itself and so on. It’s all a bunch of nothing, nested within itself.

All operations are likewise reducible to set operations which are equivalent to logical operations, and all logical operations can be reduced to nested applications of joint denial, which is really just a fancy kind of NOT.

So really, everything is just a bunch of negations of nothing. Which sorta makes sense, because not-nothing = something.

1. Everything follows from a contradiction
2. The universe/multiverse is everything
3. The universe/multiverse follows from a contradiction