Theory of Life, the Universe, and Everything

[•Ik•]

Hi,

I am a theoretician who has compiled a wholly novel, complete and consistent theory of the Universe. Allow me to introduce myself a little more formally albeit anonymously.

I initially trained to be a synthetic organic chemist in high school and early college years - doing the actual synthesis reactions myself - before going into molecular genetics for my undergraduate degree. I took all of the requisite coursework (physics, general chem, organic chem, physical organic chem, genetics, biochemistry, calculus, advanced calc, cell biology, biology, molecular biology, advanced molecular genetics, human genetics).

I was originally going to major in English so I spent a lot of time reading classic literature (Shakespeare especially).

All of the other 101 classes (philosophy, history, economics, psychology, etc.) - I took all of those.

After that undergad stuff, I did a predoctoral stint at the National Cancer Institute, then got my Ph.D. in biochemistry and molecular biology with a project on yeast genetics and heterochromatic transcriptional silencing, then did my postdoc in fly biochemistry specializing in heat shock gene transcription activation and elongation, and then finally ended up with an academic position as a professor leading my own research group. I have been studying RNA metabolism for about 9 years now in that regard.

But my theoretical education began when I started getting results with the RNA project that I could not understand; they made no sense with the current reductionistic, materialistic, mechanistic paradigms. So, to understand what I had stumbled into, I delved into the major works by philosophers, scientists, theologians, and thinkers discussing all of the major enigmas, anomalies, theories, ideas, problems over the history of Humankind.

Once I had all of the data together (using the Baconian inductive approach), I began to make models. After about 100 different models that failed to capture how RNA metabolism worked, finally, I compiled a model with great heuristic and explanatory power. Given my knowledge of my own fields, I applied it to understand and explain DNA and protein metabolism.

In the process, I could see that the framework overturned the central dogma. So, of course, knowing how new ideas are received in academia - especially ones that seek to challenge the core paradigms - I kept my idea to myself.

From there I moved out of my speciality and into cosmology, physics, theology, mysticism, economics, political science, linguistics, child development, ontogeny, evolution, religion, philosophy, ecology, geology, planetary science, environmental science, and on, and on, and on....

The model fit all the evidence in every field I examined. And, in the end of making the model - no joke - I found My Self making the model. I arrived at a novel, and, by my estimation, the correct first-person perspective of the Universe.

I offer the theoretical framework to anyone who is interested in viewing it. Please PM me should a complete and consistent theory of everything be of interest.

Basically, the theory, called Unity, proves that there is Only One I.

Following this post, I will put up another post related to my recent blog effort. I hope I can engage members of this forum in discussion on the meaning of One I and the application of this knowledge.

Oh, one last thing. My goal is to provide the Reader and the World with a theoretical framework that facilitates a gestalt switch in consciousness. My goal is World Peace. How is this possible? Please consider the definition and meaning of theory vis-à-vis the ultimate theory:

The word theory is derived from the ancient Greek word theoria, meaning “contemplation, speculation, a looking at.” Theory is thus a subjective view of how things are experienced by the mind and senses. Unnoticed or unmentioned by the modern scientist and philosopher is that the word theory contains the prefix theo-, meaning “God.” In Eastern Orthodox theology, theoria is a stage of personal illumination, achieved only by the most dispassionate and pure of heart: the “vision” of God. This enlightenment thus lays the path to theosis, meaning “the attainment of likeness to or union with God.” In this regard, theosis is the final stage of personal transformation and the ultimate goal of Christianity and other religions. This etymology has eluded those who seek the ultimate theory of the Universe. It may shock the Reader to know this, but the purpose of the final theory is to provide the Reader with a first-person perspective of being God.

Peace,

Ik

 

[•Ik•]

I would like to share some material I have been working on related to the theory I have compiled.

As this is a pseudoscience forum, and I am a scientist, this is, of course, a little heart-wrenching.

Although I contacted the moderator of this sub-forum and asked whether I could post some theoretical work, I did not hear a response after two weeks.

Still, if I am informed that I am disallowed from posting theoretical material, I will cease and desist.

Peace,

Ik

 

[•Ik•]

Today I wrote about liquids, solids, and gases. More specifically, I wrote about liquid water, frozen water, and water vapor and their interchangeability. The title of the post is:

Heterodox theoretical explanations of how and why matter exists in and interconverts among three states

Here is the link (I see I am not allowed to put real links until I post twenty times; I will abide):

thetheoryblog [dot] wordpress [dot] com

Here is an excerpt:

When I was growing up, one of my favorite things to do was to make snow forts in my backyard (Figure 1). My brother and I would often make the fort against the side of the house because it was more readily defensible against imagined or real snowball attacks. Ah, salad days.

As a child, I had no appreciation for how physical matter exists in three states or phases and – depending upon the atomic composition of that matter – how changes in pressure and temperature relate to matter undergoing phase changes.

As a child, I did know what it felt like to get hit by a flying iceball, be freezing cold, and have my ears pop on the top of ski mountain.

As a child, I also knew about catching snowflakes on my tongue, getting sopping wet in the rain, making tracks in the dewy grass (Figure 2), and watching steam turn to droplets on my hand.

The point of my introduction is this: as a child, I didn’t know about the experimentally defined concepts of matter, phases, temperature, and pressure. I certainly did know how to experience these things: with curiosity and uninhibited bliss.

My, how development changes things.

More at link. Comments, advice, criticism, and discourse welcome here, there, and everywhere.

Peace,

Ik

P.S. If the link is offending, I will remove it.

 

[Emil]

Theory of Life, the Universe, and Everything

Congratulations!

 

[Kennyc]

I liked throwing ice chunks when I was a kid too.

 

[James R]

From there I moved out of my speciality and into cosmology, physics, theology, mysticism, economics, political science, linguistics, child development, ontogeny, evolution, religion, philosophy, ecology, geology, planetary science, environmental science, and on, and on, and on....

The model fit all the evidence in every field I examined.

For most people, covering all those fields would be several lifetimes of work.

And for all this talk of a new model, we have yet to hear even the most basic summary of it so far.

Got anything except hot air?

 

[Bebelina]

Did you really undergo all those educations or are you just claiming that to make your point more valid to the gullable masses?

 

[Kennyc]

Oh and Whatcha published in the leading journals?

 

[Stryder]

So far so good, however you might not want to try and dump everything all in one post on the reader. Afterall the human mind as near infinitely complex as it might seem, suffers from the very real need to keep things finite (finite bitesize to be exact)

If something is overly complex or attempts to compound greatly a "Broad" subject, it will likely cause either the reader to lose track of the writers discourse or just be too mind numbing for them to read.

As for posting here at the forum, just post what you will, if it becomes too ludicrous we'll deal with that when we reach that hurdle. I say this because I know how trying to pander to rules, regulations or just a particular public can overly complex a situation where complexity isn't needed. (You'll write better if you are at ease)

On the subject of "Unity" or "Only One I" as you put it, you might want to look into a theory that initially John Wheeler put forwards [one-electron universe].

I only bumped into Wheelers theory while looking for similiar theories to my own. Initially I had a model that allowed every particle to be created in the universe, the actual model replicates an occurance that is currently where most cosmologists put "The Big Bang", Which I lovingly refer to "A Big Number Crunch".

Pre-particle theory concentrates on just how energy as a dimensional array can populate a volume of space and how this "packet" is replicated to coexist other volumes of space at the same time through multiworlds theory.

(When you populate the radix volume, all other volumes out from the radix are also populated with an exact duplicate [if not the same volume]. This I class as being similiar to an operating system "Core" where by any changes to physics can be applied across any matter that is created within the universe seamlessly[emulated observers would be completely oblivious to this function] similar to a patch update.)

With some pre-planning in regards to "Super-symmetry" it's possible to suggest that paradoxes can be made between duplicates to generate uniqueness. (Like if you implied causality existed and you created a universe where a ball rolls down a hill, you could imply that creating a paradox and inserting a parallel universes ball into the rolling path of the original universe would cause a paradox because neither universe is going to be dictated by causality after the balls collide, although it generates a paradox in itself that can only really be observed if you take into consideration Conways Game of Life. Since the universe that you copied had a single ball in, and now you have one with two balls, so does that mean you have a universe that now attempts to collide two vs two balls? or that the universes created like steps in Conways game only has so many iterations before it stagnates to a finite structure?)

All in all, mine and I'm sure otherpeoples grand theories are interesting, the problem though is they are extremely complex, they aren't something you can write in a simple paragraph as there is usually far more depth to the theory than what will ever be relayed through writing alone.

 

[AlexG]

I am a theoretician who has compiled a wholly novel, complete and consistent theory of the Universe.

Right there, it tells us that this is going to be nonsense.

I initially trained to be a synthetic organic chemist in high school.....I was originally going to major in English

There's no point in continuing. This is just another 'wish I was a scientist' post.

 

[•Ik•]

Right there, it tells us that this is going to be nonsense.



There's no point in continuing. This is just another 'wish I was a scientist' post.

Yes, of course, nonsense.

Yes, of course, wish I was a scientist.

How odd: that 5 years in grad school studying yeast heterochromatin silencing and 5 year postdoc studying fly heat shock gene expression and 9 years being an NIH-funded assistant professor studying RNA catabolism really makes me wish I was a scientist.

Peace,

Ik

 

[•Ik•]

Oh and Whatcha published in the leading journals?

Well, here's a blurb from my biosketch:

X has authored seventeen peer-reviewed manuscripts and worked on a wide variety of topics in the life sciences: human herpes and papilloma virus infection, cancer, aging, stress, mitochondrial function, chromatin structure, chromosome organization, DNA replication, transcriptional silencing, transcriptional elongation, transcriptomics, RNA turnover and processing, protein-protein and protein-nucleic acid interactions, cell cycle checkpoints, nuclear architecture, nucleocytoplasmic transport, membrane traffic, microtubule dynamics, mitosis, biometabolism, and biological theory. He has published in the high-impact journals Science, Nature, Genes & Development, and Molecular Cell.

But, alas, I wish I were a scientist.

Peace,

Ik

 

[•Ik•]

Did you really undergo all those educations or are you just claiming that to make your point more valid to the gullable masses?

Yes to the first part; no to the second.

Peace,

Ik

 

[cosmictraveler]

I am a theoretician who has compiled a wholly novel, complete and consistent theory of the Universe

As has a few other "experts" in various fields. Is your theory similar to anyone else's or is it completely new novel approach?

 

[•Ik•]

For most people, covering all those fields would be several lifetimes of work.

And for all this talk of a new model, we have yet to hear even the most basic summary of it so far.

Got anything except hot air?

Yes, I agree, the tendency now is to be a specialist; a generalist is usually derogated with the term dilletante.

Here's the basic summary:

Iq <–> denergyre (denergon) <–> ombregyre (ombron) <–> photogyre (photon) <–> electrogyre (electron) <–> hydroxygyre (hydroxyon) <–> carbogyre (carbyon)<–> phosphogyre (phosphon) <–> ribogyre (ribon) <–> aminogyre (aminon) <–> deoxyogyre (deoxyon) <–> cellulogyre (cellulon) <–> organogyre (organon) <–> envirogyre (environ) <–> visigyre (visuon) <–> phonogyre (phonon) <–> linguigyre (linguon) <–> symbogyre (symbon) <–> numerogyre (numeron) <–> econogyre (econon)<–> lapoligyre (lapolon) <–> geniugyre (geniuon) <–> Igyre

Where I is the Beginning and End of the model; I is the Origin. Bidirectional arrows indicate the attractive and repulsive forces found within, between, and among all gyre systems. With regards to wave-particle duality, the wave is accounted for by the gyre name. For the Bohrian complementary quantum (particle), these are put in parenthetical form. A quantum actually is a particle that gyrates between two extreme states: a high energy, excited, unstable learning state (the gyrapex) and the low energy, ground, stable, memory state (gyrobase). This explains wave-particle duality. As gyres are left- and right-handed, this explains chirality.

---

More can be found by typing in "the parsed model" to a google search.

Specific reified models pepper posts throughout my blog.

So far on my blog I have discussed the origin and nature of dark matter, visible energy (photons), visible matter (leptons), phased matter (water), organic matter, phospholipids (membranes), RNA (nucleotides), protein, and DNA. I haven't yet arrived at discussions about dark energy or about origin of species, ecosystems, visual systems, hearing, linguistics, semiotics, numbers, economics, politics, and knowledge.

So, yes, I have something other than hot air. But I have hot air, too.

Peace,

Ik

 

[•Ik•]

As has a few other "experts" in various fields. Is your theory similar to anyone else's or is it completely new novel approach?

Well, it is based upon a model that has been used many times throughout history (dating back to Anaxagoras and up to and including Fresnel, Maxwell, and Thomson among others) but the approach - that is, the exact application of the model - is wholly novel.

Peace,

Ik

 

[•Ik•]

So far so good, however you might not want to try and dump everything all in one post on the reader. Afterall the human mind as near infinitely complex as it might seem, suffers from the very real need to keep things finite (finite bitesize to be exact)

If something is overly complex or attempts to compound greatly a "Broad" subject, it will likely cause either the reader to lose track of the writers discourse or just be too mind numbing for them to read.

As for posting here at the forum, just post what you will, if it becomes too ludicrous we'll deal with that when we reach that hurdle. I say this because I know how trying to pander to rules, regulations or just a particular public can overly complex a situation where complexity isn't needed. (You'll write better if you are at ease)

On the subject of "Unity" or "Only One I" as you put it, you might want to look into a theory that initially John Wheeler put forwards: link redacted as I don't have privileges

....

All in all, mine and I'm sure otherpeoples grand theories are interesting, the problem though is they are extremely complex, they aren't something you can write in a simple paragraph as there is usually far more depth to the theory than what will ever be relayed through writing alone.

Hi Stryder,

Thanks. I didn't want to be presumptuous about posting stuff; I do not want to offend or inflame passions. This is not my intent. So thanks for letting me post what I did.

Just let me know if I flout a rule and I'll do my best to set things straight.

Thanks also for sharing the Wheeler link. I am fond of and quite familiar with Wheeler's work, especially his cute, "It from Bit." I also love this quote, because it is quite prescient:

Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we grasp it - in a decade, a century, or a millennium - we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise? How could we have been so stupid?

Indeed, the underlying idea of Unity is indeed quite simple and beautiful: there is Only One I.

But, being trained as a skeptic, cynic, and critic, I had to prove it in order to know that it was the correct interpretation of the Universe and reality. Unity is, indeed, a theoretical proof of the Unity of the Universe, as Sciama and others have predicted.

From deep simplicity comes great complexity.

Peace,

Ik

 

[cosmictraveler]

You do realize that S. Hawking thinks there's no "theory of Everything" don't you?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...3_z1Cg&usg=AFQjCNGdZP4mt53B3kfDevPDjMUqN3BVTA

 

[Kennyc]

Einstein never fully bought into Quantum Mechanics either.

 

[Stryder]

You do realize that S. Hawking thinks there's no "theory of Everything" don't you?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...3_z1Cg&usg=AFQjCNGdZP4mt53B3kfDevPDjMUqN3BVTA

A "Theory of Everything" couldn't technically be created by one man or woman alone, such a theory would be the "rebinding" of many other distinct theories discovered by many other people on the way into "A Grand Theory", however a grand theory is like a house of cards, if one card proves to be just a little out, it will mean the whole house collapsing and require rebuilding.

Incidentally Hawking doesn't rule out Multiversal's or alternative timelines. In fact I'd suggest the only reason why an observer collapses a wavefunction is because the observer is Finite in nature and can only handle a finite observation, as opposed to say Artificial Intelligence or Transhumanism which could allow for a more recursive observation of the universe.