June 2, 2008

Forum Home

Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

 all posts
 member posts highlighted
 member posts only

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help


CATEGORY: High Energy Physics [back]
TOPIC: Pieces of E8 [refresh]
A. Garrett Lisi (member) wrote on Jun. 9, 2007 @ 16:51 GMT
There are very few moments in theoretical physics that qualify as... thrilling -- moments that send shivers of excitement down the spine and make the brain tingle. It's such an abstract pursuit, you wouldn't think the effects would be so visceral. The thoughts take years to accumulate, and are often disjoint and haphazardly organized. On a very rare occasion, a new insight brings a cascade of ideas together at once -- a chain reaction in the mind. It's very cool. Of course, the idea could still be wrong. And usually one needs to set about the hard work of trying to prove it wrong, before airing it in public. But, in this case, with a recent idea I think is significant, that work will likely take me a long time -- and I want to share the main idea now. So here it is:

If we take seriously the idea that fermions may be gauge theory ghosts, there is one gauge theory in particular that stands out: that of a principal E8-bundle. The exceptional group of rank 8 is the largest of the exceptional Lie groups, and perhaps the richest in structure. Pirating an appendix from Superstring Theory, the 248 dimensional Lie algebra of E8 is described as:

e8 = so(16) + S(16)

the special orthogonal group (with 120 elements) acting on the space of 128 dimensional chiral spinors. This is remarkable as it is, since it says there's a Lie algebra in which the Lie bracket of two elements gives one element acting on another as a Clifford algebra element, B, of so(16) acting from the left on a spinor, Psi, of so(16):

[ B, Psi ] = B Psi

There is also a lesser known, equivalent description of e8 that I read about in John Baez's This Week's Finds:

e8 = so(8) + so(8) + (V(8) x V(8)) + (S(8) x S(8)) + (S(8) x S(8))

In this description, the 28 elements, H, of so(8) act from the left on three 64 element blocks, Psi1,Psi2,Psi3:

[ H, Psi123 ] = H Psi123

and the other 28 elements, G, of so(8) act on these from the right. Now, if we build a Yang-Mills theory with E8, and take the three blocks to be ghosts, the BRST extended connection:

A = H + G + Psi1 + Psi2 + Psi3

and its curvature,

F = d A + AA

= (dH+HH) + (dG+GG) + (dPsi1+HPsi1+Psi1G) + (dPsi2+HPsi2+Psi2G) + (dPsi3+HPsi3+Psi3G)

fits the standard model -- complete with three generations of fermions and gravity! This is mostly laid out in my last paper. The gravitational connection, frame, Higgs multiplet, U(1), and SU(2) fit in H, while SU(3) and another piece of U(1) fit in G. And three generations of leptons and quarks fit in the Psi's, related by triality. This is a beautiful thing -- exactly what one would hope for in a TOE!

If it's true, it would explain a lot of complicated structures in the standard model in terms of a simple E8 Yang-Mills field: exactly what and why spinors are, why the particles get the charges they do, why there are three generations, and possibly why the masses are what they are. And there's very little wiggle room. It will have to be a real form of complex E8, since we need a non-compact gauge group for gravity. But there will be only a handful of ways to consider the E8 symmetry breaking to the standard model. After all, it's just a Yang-Mills theory, with no other fancy stuff flying around. It will either clearly work, or it clearly won't.

There is a lot of work to do. I haven't gotten exactly the right particle assignments down yet. And I don't know if someone's tried this before, since the literature is somewhat obfuscated by the use of E8 in heterotic string theory, which is quite different. (I doubt it's been done before though, since it relies on my crazy idea of replacing some gauge fields with fermionic ghosts.) I expect to be working on this for quite a while -- studying the structure of E8, which is quite beautiful, and many other aspects -- trying to see if the fermions will fit properly and the KM matrix pops out of it. It's not a completed theory, which is why I didn't write it up as a paper. But I think it's interesting and exciting enough to put here, for the enjoyment and puzzlement of others.
Mark Stowe wrote on Nov. 20, 2007 @ 19:56 GMT
Is anything recursive/self referential in the mathematics of your theory?
St?©phane Beauregard wrote on Nov. 21, 2007 @ 22:15 GMT
Are there any experiments that could be done in the near future that might test predictions of your theory? Or will the energies be out of reach for a long, long time, like they are for other grand theories of everything?

Andrew Dayton, andrew@daytoncontracting.net wrote on Nov. 23, 2007 @ 01:07 GMT
Being only a humble carpenter, would this mean that since we know how weak, strong, e/m, and now gravitional forces are linked, can we now begin to learn to artifically manipulate a gravitational field?

Because we specialize in difficult and unusual builds, I thought it might be nice to offer my clientel anti-gravity sleeping quarters on earth or maybe a house that floats.

I apologize if this insults anyone, but I can't hang mentally with the bunch of you for long. Seriously though, can gravity now be manipulated?
Matthew Fisher wrote on Nov. 23, 2007 @ 02:40 GMT
Are there any implications or unknown properties of Gravity or Magnetism that are implied by this theory? For that matter are there any other implications of this theory on other known laws or theories?
Emile Lunardon wrote on Nov. 23, 2007 @ 22:16 GMT
Dear M Lisi,

Can your interpretation of the E8 group shed some light on the "Cosmic Galois Group" conjonctured by M P.Cartier(*) which acts as an universal group of symmetries on the coupling constants of renormalizable physical theories and which is expected to solve the problem of divergences in quantum field theory.

(*) A Mad Day's Work : From Grothendieck to Connes and Kontsevich. The evolution of concepts of space and symmetry.

Bull.Amer.Math.Soc. (N.S.) 38 (2001) ,no. 4 389-408
attachments: 001_from_grothendieck.pdf, Connes_Marcolli.pdf
A. Garrett Lisi (member) wrote on Nov. 25, 2007 @ 06:54 GMT

Is anything recursive/self referential in your question?


It's still to early to say what they are, but the theory appears to be sufficiently restrictive that as it develops there will certainly be testable predictions, right or wrong.


We're still stuck with gravity -- just do the best you can with wood. Be creative.


The theory is built from the ground up to match what we know. If all goes well, it will continue to agree with what we know and predict some new things that we don't.


I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that.
Lois J. Wetzel wrote on Nov. 25, 2007 @ 17:38 GMT
As a long-time artist/meditator I applaud your method of study. It allowed you to spend a lot of time in altered states of consciousness (like surfing, snowboarding) so that you COULD come up with this kind of theory. Very clever of you, indeed.

If you (or anyone reading) are not a student of sacred geometry, you might want to check into the work of Ibrahim Karim, an Egyptian architect who is studying/teaching sacred geometry from the inner chambers of the Egyptian pyramidal tombs, and further developing the studies of the French Radiethesiests. There is some VERY interesting information there. Sacred geometry is apparently how spirit creates matter.
Tommaso Bolognesi wrote on Nov. 25, 2007 @ 18:44 GMT
Your E8 theory shows that the smallest known bricks of matter and force fit a very beautiful (and complex) symmetry.

Up in the biosphere, symmetry in shape (or a flower, a runner, etc.) is not a free gift; it is achieved by an evolutionary process.

Is it at all conceivable that the E8-particles and their symmetry be the result, by emergence, of the evolutions of

an exceptionally simple (maybe deterministic, discrete, computational) system, in the spirit of, say, cellular automata?
Bryan wrote on Nov. 26, 2007 @ 17:33 GMT
I may ask this question clumsily, but bear with me a moment. The symmetries of the particles extend to the forces themselves which govern them. Fusion (strong nuclear) is balanced by fission (weak nuclear) and they are, in some way, inverses of one another. Aristotle coined the word for "gravity" to describe the force which causes things to sink or fall and Newton picked it up. But Aristotle coined two words for opposing balanced forces: gravity and levity. There was some talk in the past decade about an antigravity fifth force in the universe, indetectable at micro scales, but readily apparent in the macrocosm -- Einstein's Fudge Factor, the force propelling the acceleration of expansion in the universe, etc. And the famous "inflationary universe" soon after the Big Bang signals its separation from the symmetry. Does E8 allow for a missing force? Are the 20 missing elements related in some way as a family? Or are they scattered through the matrix? What is your opinion on levity?
Bryan wrote on Nov. 27, 2007 @ 06:29 GMT
PS: The fellow who asked about recursive or self-referential (Mark) was asking, I think, whether E8 has the nature of a fractal or if it is fractal geometry.
A. Garrett Lisi (member) wrote on Nov. 30, 2007 @ 02:26 GMT

Wow, "altered states of consciousness"... here I thought I was just having fun. ;) Also, I do like geometry a great deal, but "sacred" seems too strong a word. It would be impossible (and arrogant) for me to say with certainty that ancient philosophers couldn't have obtained deep insights into the geometry of the universe through omphaloskepsis, but I prefer using math. If people are struck by the beauty of geometry, I would encourage them to use this as motivation to learn a bit of the related mathematics. Physics and math are the best magic I know -- most of the other kinds are fake.


Yes, this is possible. I try to follow Occam's razor in these matters, but it's conceivable that there's a simple system for which E8 is an emergent symmetry. Though I'm going to spend more time working on the E8 Theory itself first, before I consider how it might emerge from something else.


Yes, I feel levity is very important in physics. (I think that's apparent from my paper title.) And if this E8 Theory turns out to be true about nature, it will include a few new particles, corresponding to new forces. But these are going to have to be sufficiently weak that they don't contradict the standard model, which very accurately describes the world on our human scale.

Bryan II:

If so, then the answer is no, E8 is a complicated (simple) Lie group, but not a fractal.
mike wrote on Nov. 30, 2007 @ 03:22 GMT
To the extent human tropical water monkeys see randomness in events ... time is a ride exactly between quantum and astronomical. That would make self conscious life actually THE unifed field and quite a beautiful answer as well.
Tommaso Bolognesi wrote on Nov. 30, 2007 @ 11:23 GMT
Occam's razor is one of my favorite tools too (maybe not for posts, though...). After your november 2007 paper, precisely two distinguished concepts are filed in my mind under 'particles' + 'beauty': one is the system of roots for the 248 symmetries of the E8 manifold; the other is Wolfram's elementary cellular automaton 110, with its amazing interacting particles emerging from basically any initial condition, including the simplest.

While it is clear that the universe can't be a cellular automaton, one can expect a lot of beautiful things to emerge when trying to transpose the simple ideas behind them -- and the computational-universe view -- to the discrete, graph-like structures considered in LQG (spin networks, foams, knots, braids...), or just to plain, finite trivalent graphs, as suggested by Wolfram himself.

That's what I am after, and although I well understand that your priority is still on the internals of the E8-Theory, I wonder whether you'd have at hand a 'natural' candidate for a sequence of increasingly complex symmetries X1, X2, ..., Xn, with Xn = E8, so that research and experimentation on emergence in graphs could be more realistically directed towards cracking X1 first.
TG wrote on Nov. 30, 2007 @ 21:30 GMT
A piece of the answer hides in the Coral Castle. See you in the water sone day.TG. http://www.coralcastle.com/9tonbig.htm
Tom Greenhaw wrote on Dec. 2, 2007 @ 21:01 GMT
Looks like I'm going to have to go back to math school for a few years to anwer my own questions about how your idea affects cosmology. In the meantime...

Have you considered that some of the unnasigned points on E8 could apply to "dark matter"? Does your idea rule out dark matter or make it easier to know how and what to look for?

As an alternative to dark matter, does your idea show that the effect of gravity is not perfectly linear in its relation to space?
anna wrote on Dec. 3, 2007 @ 14:18 GMT
it's imazing now to look at the 12th century cathedral's roses (copies of Solomon temple probably)?
attachments: valencia_cathedrals_rose.jpg, rose_nord__de_Notre_Dame_de_Paris.JPG
Daniel P. Fitzpatrick wrote on Dec. 3, 2007 @ 20:39 GMT
Is it possible that quark spinors, emulating electron spinors in magnetism and sigma and pi chemical bonding, could be responsible for gravity and inertia?
Phil wrote on Dec. 10, 2007 @ 18:34 GMT
Is this related to Star Trek Voyager's episode regarding the Omega Project, where there find the ultimate element? Seven says the element is symbolic of Perfection.
Michael Cecil wrote on Dec. 11, 2007 @ 11:56 GMT
Just a few questions:

Would not a theory of *everything* have to say something about the consciousness that created it, or through which it emerged?

(I suggest that a theory of *everything* would have to be able to explain its own origin. This is not my idea. It was told to me by another searcher for Truth back in 1972.)

Inasmuch as science originates in self-reflection and the thought of the 'thinker', a true theory of *everything* would have to determine whether this is the only dimension of consciousness. (It isn't. There is also the chaotic Lorentz attractor form descriptive of "psychosis", as well as the "observing consciousness" which is capable of observing the 'movement' of self-reflection in the first place.) (The 'classical' consciousness originating in self-reflection and thought cannot observe this because it does not yet exist.)

Would not a rigid adherence to Occam's Razor result in the conclusion that there is neither a 'mind', nor a 'thinker', nor a 'self' but merely thoughts?

If this E-8 is, in fact, a theory of everything in the physical world, how could it be related (through metaphor, archetype, synchronicity etc.) to a complete description (based upon observation, not thought or self-reflection) of the full dimensions of human consciousness?

In other words, maybe E-8 is not a TOE but a crucial *half* of a theory of everything: a TOEBH or a theory of everything by half.

Michael Cecil

Eric Bremner wrote on Dec. 12, 2007 @ 17:47 GMT
"consciousness that created it, or through which it emerged?"

-Michael Cecil wrote on Dec. 11, 2007 @ 11:56 GMT

Not so much. If I were write down 2+2=4. that doesnt tell you anything about my consciousness. Nor does it tell you anything about its "inventors" consciousness. Of course 2, +, =, and 4, are all different theories, the most basic part of these theories were developed in multiple places without any intereference from outside forces. (Unless there was aliens! woooOOOoo!, but I'll put that theory on the dusty shelf where it belongs for now) Because the same theory was developed by multiple, and entirely different consciousness' it is impossible to say that the theory has anything to do with its inventor, the theory is of itself.

I think you are trying to say that there may be "bias" in the equation, which is a perfectly valid question. But some things simply "can't" have bias. But of course I can not tell you for sure about this quation, because I havn't read All of the original creators work. And to have an equasion work out, while biasing the numbers to your own "whim" is an accomplishment of its own accord.
Michael Cecil wrote on Dec. 12, 2007 @ 20:23 GMT
Not so much. If I were write down 2+2=4. that doesnt tell you anything about my consciousness.

Eric Bremer wrote.

Of course it does. It tells me that the origin is the 'classical' consciousness originating in self-reflection and thought.

And, if I tell you that thought originates in fear and desire, that also tells you something about the consciousness that makes this observation: it is not the 'classical' consciousness, which is incapable of observing thought.

The bias I am referring to is the bias which requires the preservation of the 'classical' consciousness itself. Descartes, for example, postulated the thought of the 'thinker' in order to escape the psychosis described in the opening passages of Meditation II. Of course, it is necessary, in some sense, to preserve sanity; but, at the same time, the resultant view of reality is distorted by that motivation. It is not an objective view of reality.

The observations of the "observing consciousness", on the other hand, have nothing to do with fear or desire; and, for that reason, can provide an objective view of reality beyond the view of the 'classical' consciousness.
A. Garrett Lisi (member) wrote on Dec. 29, 2007 @ 19:25 GMT

We always see randomness in events, but I think self conscious life is a question, not an answer.


Yes, this is a great way to proceed. And I think LQG is the best place to start if one is going to work up to a fully quantum description of the whole enchilada.


Amusing, but within the realm of coincidence.


The theory isn't developed well enough yet to say anything definitive about dark matter.


Yes, the appeal of symmetry has spanned many centuries. It's interesting to consider to what degree this aesthetic appeal is grounded in the fundamental nature of the universe.


Sounds kinda weird.


Shh! Don't give away my sources!


For the paper's title, I used "Theory of Everything" in the technical sense of combining a description of general relativity and gauge symmetries as parts of a single, larger symmetry group. The theory has nothing to say about consciousness. If you want to build up from fundamental physics to an understanding of consciousness, that's a long hard path -- but a potentially worthwhile and successful one.




You're correct that we're all biased. However, science works, so this is promising.
Tom Greenhaw wrote on Jan. 16, 2008 @ 01:22 GMT
I've been looking at E8 and a couple other TOE mathematical models that imply unobserved dimensions. The thought occurred to me that what we percieve as a 2 dimensional timeline could potentially be a vector through multidimensional time.

While this concept can very neatly address the issue of missing dimensions, proving it experimentally is an interesting exercize.

Perhaps this idea may prove of some use to your work...
bidou wrote on Jan. 16, 2008 @ 21:25 GMT
Yahou !!

Me, I found the exeptionnaly simple theory of nothing :



Garett, What do you think about my theory ?
David wrote on Jan. 16, 2008 @ 21:33 GMT
Garrett, are you familiar with the work of MS El Naschie? It appears that your TOF and his work (which for the most part appeared in the Elsevier journal Chaos,Solitons & Fractals) have a lot in common? I would appreciate hearing your opinion.
Kotatsu@laposte.net wrote on Jan. 19, 2008 @ 08:21 GMT
Great Job Mr Lisi, this is a really logical theory. I hope you will soon be able to test this with the new CERN scientist toy. ;)

But... I started reading your AESTE and it seems you postulate the Higgs' boson exists. As the Higgs as been created to fill the holes in the standard theory and as far as I heard of, it's never been seen (maybe it will with the LHD but who knows...)don't you think it's going to bias (blow) the geometry if the actual gravity explanation is false.

I read another Theory by Lafreniere that explains all the forces maybe it will help... or not. but both your theories seems valid, well Lafreniere is not a physician and is axplainations are far less mathematical but it sounds coherent too...even if is...hum writing style is... weird. just take a look if you have some time and let us know what you think of it.

N. Tantilov wrote on Jan. 24, 2008 @ 14:59 GMT
Dear Dr. Lisi,

I'm sorry - I posted in the the wrong thread, which won't be replied to, so once more my question regarding TOEs:

Kurt G??dels Incompleteness Theorem ...

means *any* TOE will end up being a "TO almost E".

Guess this doesn't touch your present work at all, but in the long run you must have some sort of opinion about it ... ? Hope it's not too indiscreet to ask.

One more thing - I like your statements about a beautiful theory. The search for truth and the search for beauty are in a way related - the ancient Indian seers called the Ultimate Reality they found:

Satyam, Shivam, Sunderam - the True, the Good and the Beautiful.

- And pardon me for mentioning still one more thing - you have a nice way of using words. The titling of your paper, "Pieces of E8" ...
Sava wrote on Jan. 31, 2008 @ 13:22 GMT
Can anybody translate this theory in Ukrainian,or russian?
Matt J. wrote on Feb. 1, 2008 @ 03:26 GMT
Dr. Lisi-

I know you are a "surfer dude", but somehow, I think it is best to start off with a salutation more appropriate for someone who really has earned his PhD.

Anyway, on to the real topic: I see you say you have a lot of calculation to do. Have you found a Computer Algebra package suitable for it? Is Octave, Axiom or Sage suitable? As I read the descriptions of these packages, they sound somewhat promising, but they all seem to be missing something. GAP, for example, my old favorite, only handles Lie Algebras over fields of prime characteristic and small dimension or over GF(2). But if you want to know the Normalizer etc. of the Weyl group, that GAP can do -- if you tell it the Weyl group;)

Then again Atlas sounds promising too, though the only description of it I found on the Net is rather dated

(www.liegroups.org), and sparse in describing what else other than "Kazhdan-Lusztig-Vogan polynomials" it will compute. Somehow, "structure theory and admissible representations of real groups" still sounds too vague. And their "Spherical Unitary Explorer" works only for the Classical Groups.
JKD wrote on Feb. 1, 2008 @ 11:21 GMT
Hi Lisi,

(Condensed matter physicist speaking :-)

The action in Eq. 3.8 involves an integral over a 4-manifold. I assume this is a Cartesian 3+1 space, is this correct?

So, how would you quantize the theory? Would you find the field modes and their conjugate momenta on this manifold and proceed in the usual way?
Ford Prefect wrote on Feb. 28, 2008 @ 05:10 GMT
Dear Lisi,

How does this have anything to do with 42?
Guglielmo P wrote on Mar. 3, 2008 @ 22:51 GMT

As your theory is a gauge theory with all its apparatus, for it to make sense it should be renormalizable or even finite(what string theory are). I just run across your papers, but didn't took the time to read it, so I ask you:

Is your theory renormalizable ? (which is, as far as I can remember the main plague of quantum gravity and the reason to look at supersymmetry and string theory. Is it not so ?)

Thanks for you answer.
Albert Soler wrote on Mar. 6, 2008 @ 06:07 GMT
What fun it's been reading about this new idea!

Just like I may never be able to play linebacker in a pro football game, I can still love the game as a spectator.

Being new to this game, there are so many *really* basic questions. I'll just ask one or two here:

- The dimension thing. Very confusing. (Except, strangely enough, for the vertices corresponding to elementary particles. Perhaps because it's such a neat idea (as in tidy): So, E8 is an 8-dimensional polytope. But has a 248-dimensional surface. To help me encapsulate this concept, how many dimensions would the surface of a 3-dimensional *dodecahedron* have? (Would that be 20 dimensions? Same as vertices?)

*A little homage to the late Gary Gygax.*

- So, we have an 8-dimensional polytope. A 248-dimensional surface. Where/how does 4-dimensional space-time fit into E8?

- Okay, three questions: So, it looks like this might describe all the fundamental particles in nature and all their possible interactions. But, does General Relativity naturally arise from the model? Can it explain why there are three spatial dimensions and only one time dimension? Or, why time is so different?

Really more than three questions. But hey, it's such a fascinating idea!
Kris Michael Krieger wrote on Mar. 8, 2008 @ 01:32 GMT
I'm a complete layman, not at all a amthematician, so I hope it's OK for me to post here with a very basic question, because I don't know where else to ask.

Is the rlationship between the E8 shape, and particles, in any way similar/parallel to the relationship between position on the Periodic Table, and characteristics of elements...? Similarly, would the "colored lines" connectivng the vertices relate to some sort of commonality and/or transition from the qualities of one particle, to those of adjoining particles? IOW, if one "line" is blue, and anotehr "red", do the colors represent different correspondences of qualities between the particles, where A could have X in common with B, but Y in common with other adjoining particle C...?

TIA, and thanks for your patience with my simple question...
Ray wrote on Mar. 10, 2008 @ 18:42 GMT
Neat stuff, Dr. Lisi.

I am excited about progress with this theory so I won't hinder it by posing you self-indulgent questions. I trust understanding will filter down to me in time. You keep at it, and good luck!
Nelson Ferreira Alves wrote on Mar. 21, 2008 @ 02:18 GMT

And if 'All' happened in the Bulk?

Big Bangs, big explosion's big 'everything', Branes colliding and so on...

In the out there Dark is just what we can yet see, if we ever seen...

We are happy to be in a small universal blt of stars...
A. Garrett Lisi (member) wrote on Mar. 25, 2008 @ 19:08 GMT

A lot of people have considered multiple timelike dimensions -- it is a neat idea, but tends to run into problems by predicting tachyons.


It lacks something.


I'm more curious about his fanatical followers...


There are some theories that work without a Higgs, but they tend to be more complicated. It's a good bet that the Higgs will be seen in a few months at the LHC.

I'm afraid I don't have time to look at Lafreniere's stuff.

N. Tantilov:

I'm not sure that just because Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem can be posed and proved within the universe that it is a fundamental part of its structure. I'm convinced that the universe can be described by mathematics, but not that it is mathematics -- though it's an interesting idea. Also, good to know you enjoy humor -- it sees us through the dark times.


The mathematics should translate easily enough.


"Dr. Surfer Dude" maybe? I've been using Mathematica a lot ( > 20 years!), and sometimes Maple. GAP looks very cool, and I may end up using it. I think the Atlas website isn't particularly user friendly yet. Maybe all the attention will motivate some improvement, there and with my stuff too.


Aren't we all condensed matter physicists? The base manifold is naked -- it's a four-manifold of arbitrary topology. It doesn't have a signature or metric -- these are part of the E8 fiber moving over it.

I like the path integral approach to quantization. But using canonical quantization in a flat spacetime approximation would be fine.


What do you get when you multiply 4 by 2?


It should be accessible to some of the same tools as non-abelian quantum field theory. However, it's a lot messier since the spacetime frame is part of the fiber, and this spacetime can be curved. So the usual QFT methods probably won't give a fully consistent quantum E8 theory. I'm counting on using the methods being developed by the quantum gravity community to consistently quantize this theory.


Being a linebacker isn't as much fun as it sounds... A twenty sided die lives in 3 dimensions, otherwise you'd never make your saving throws. The E8 Lie group is a 248 dimensional smooth surface -- there are 248 directions one could move in when on this surface. Each of these directions is a symmetry which can be plotted as a unique point in an abstract 8 dimensional space, giving the E8 polytope. (Does that make things clear?)

The four dimensional base spacetime, over which the E8 Lie group moves, must be assumed from the beginning. General relativity does come from considering how part of the E8 Lie group surface moves over our base spacetime. To get time, we have to assume a specific noncompact form of E8, and it's not clear why nature would make that choice.


Yah, that's pretty close.


Thanks. Coming up with good questions isn't a hinderance though -- it helps clarify this stuff for me and others.


Whoa, dude, cosmic... It is lunch time though, so I'm gonna make a small universal blt.
anonymously written on Mar. 30, 2008 @ 10:24 GMT
anonymously written on Mar. 31, 2008 @ 12:15 GMT
anonymously written on Mar. 31, 2008 @ 13:02 GMT
anonymously written on Mar. 31, 2008 @ 14:12 GMT
anonymously written on Mar. 31, 2008 @ 15:23 GMT
anonymously written on Mar. 31, 2008 @ 15:46 GMT
RICHARD THOMAS wrote on Apr. 6, 2008 @ 04:16 GMT
Hi Garrett,

How about another exceptionally simple theory of everything.That is Particles X and Y can be in the same place at the same time in the same state in the big bang contrary to the law of non contradition.

1/3 Fermi Dirac+ 1/3 Bose EInstein Equation+ 1/3 Bose Einstein equation= 1 Einsetin bose/fermi dirac.

That means particles are in between existance and non existance.

You can add equations in 1/3s if a big crunch preceeded the big bang and the force of gravity was converted to four states of matter in one.

And then the big bang was unstable becuase one state of matter violates the law of non contradiction.

So potential energy was converted to Kinetic.

And one state of matter became four and the dependant variable one force became four.

Can you prove this with E8.?



Richard Thomas.
RICHARD THOMAS wrote on Apr. 6, 2008 @ 04:28 GMT
Creation Ex-nihilo means the equation for the universe does not balance.

The equation for the unviverse balances if there was a big bang and the four states of matter were compressed into one state and one force as Einstein sais.

Then the potential energy of the big crunch was converted to the kinetic energy of the big bang..

But E=MC^2 does not balance for 2 2E=2M*2C^2.

So the universal energy equation does not balance for creation ex-nihilo creation ex-nihilo means a contradictory equation for the big bang is wrong and all of the maths is non contradictory.

So we can add equations 2+2=4 to get an equation for the universal energy.

Which means that we have to "get" energy from outside of the universe.

To make the equation balance.

Can you prove ex-nihilo that the equations for everything are 2+2=4 and don't balance.?With E8.

This is a personal request to Garret Lise from Richard Thomas the author of How To Fail Einstein at College.


STEVE JEFFREY wrote on Apr. 6, 2008 @ 04:41 GMT
JOHN 11 verse 9 Are there not 12 hours in a day.Jesus is deliberatley wrong and sais 12 not 24.

Jesus equation is the opposite to Douglas Adams.

42. 21+21=42

It is 12+12=24.

So you see the direct opposite to Douglas Adams answer.


Six is not right for seven but is right for six.

2+2=4 is right for six.

The light that is in some people is darkness so how great is that darkness
STEVE JEFFREY wrote on Apr. 6, 2008 @ 04:45 GMT
JOHN 11 verse 9 JESUS SAIS THE ANSWER IS NOT 21 TIME DIMENSIONS BUT 12. Can you test this with E8.?


STEVE JEFFREY wrote on Apr. 6, 2008 @ 04:49 GMT
Another exceptionally simple theory of everything.
attachments: BLOG_1.wps, MyScienceThesis.pdf
RICHARD THOMAS wrote on Apr. 6, 2008 @ 04:51 GMT
attachments: BLOG_4.wps, BLOG4.txt
RICHARD THOMAS wrote on Apr. 6, 2008 @ 05:11 GMT
The quantum weirdness equation is ZIGGY it is a computer that can be used to add up millions of equations and get one equation.



This is the case for Einsteins equation it is a contradiction of state space and time.

It has to be a contradiction of apples and oranges if the big bang is right.

But ex-nihilo is 2 APPLES+ 2 ORANGES= 4 APPLE/ORANGES.

You can add 2000 equatsions+ 2000 equations= 4000 equations/1000= 2+2-4.

So you get one equation for 2000 or 2000000 equations.

And the equaton is rational even though it does not balance for E=MCsquared.

2+2=4 is a non contradiction equation and thus agrees with a christian theory of everything.

The four force would always be four and the four states of matter would always be four in ex-nihilo creation.

But the equation for energy and momentum depends of the four states being four.

And a new equation can be drawn up and tested empirically that means the four states are one and the four forces are one as a dependant variable.

Steve A Jeffrey
A. Garrett Lisi (member) wrote on Apr. 7, 2008 @ 18:03 GMT

Nah, I'm sticking with 42.
STEVE A JEFFREY wrote on Apr. 8, 2008 @ 09:43 GMT
Hi Garrett,

12+12=24 is the reverse of 21+21=42.

So could it be Jesus is trying to tell us that six is right for 2+2=4 2*6+2*6=4*6

Thanks for not deleting my posts.

Maybe you saw the film expelled and developed some tolerance for the christian worldview.

If you really must stick with 42 then you must recognise that opposites like 1+1=2.

And 2+2=4 are important.

1 ODD+ 1 EVEN= 2 ODD.

And 2 ODD+ 2 EVEN=4 EVEN.

This is what I call the YING/YANG equation for E=MCsquared.

2E=1M+1C^2 4E=2M*2C^2 (this balances but is not right the correct equation is 2E=2M*2C^2)

That is why I say the universal energy equation does not balance for ex-nihilo.

Cheers I think Douglas Adams adds up to 9*42=378(18*21)


I have called my book on Lulu A CREATIONIST NONSENSE.

30 40 50% OFF.

RICHARD THOMAS wrote on Apr. 12, 2008 @ 02:07 GMT

Here is our model for adding equations if it works with light it should work with all physics equations.

To get one equation from a million other equations.

RICHARD THOMAS wrote on Apr. 14, 2008 @ 05:30 GMT
The theory of everything can be biological.

Kinds can be contradictory.And they can be non contradictory.

But if kinds are contradictory then you need reverse engineering to change one kind into another.

To give you an example you can reverse engineer an AM radio to do what it was never intended to do and become a two way radio.

You cannot do this without information even a college professor would not be able to do it without the net.

Random chance has a high IQ but much lower than a college professor.And without information random chance woudl not be able to reverse engineer the radio.

What do you think Garrett a biological Simple theory of everything.?

Who makes the waves man.?

Dr. Ray Munroe wrote on Apr. 17, 2008 @ 15:31 GMT
Dear Dr. Garrett Lisi,

I recently published a book on “New Approaches Towards A Grand Unified Theory” and noticed some interesting similarities between your research paper “An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything” and my book – despite the fact that we approached the problem from very different perspectives, and I just read your paper (so it didn’t influence the ideas in my book).

Similarities – 1) Both approaches expect at least a minimal left-right symmetric weak force, 2) both approaches need 16 Higgs scalars (my book uses two complex Higgs scalar doublet fields, one of the complex doublets couples to the Standard Higgs vev of 246 Gev, and the other appears to couple to an energy scale of 20,000 TeV), 3) both approaches may explain the CKM and PMNS matrices (my book unifies and complicates these matrices), 4) both approaches contain SO(8) algebras that may not have been expected, 5) both approaches may explain the three generations of matter – your “triality” – although my book predicts a total of five generations that condense into three low-mass generations, and 6) both approaches derive their gravity representations from Clifford algebra (although they yield different conclusions).

Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that a 14-dimensional Supersymmetric SU(15) Lie Algebra may be the best effective theory (short of the over-kill “True” 26-dimensional theory), and that this theory can condense into a 10-dimensional SU(11) “Boson GUT”, an effective 8-dimensional SO(16) “Fermion GUT”, and a 4-dimensional SU(5) Supersymmetry. Within the framework of my book, your E8 representation may be a good effective theory in 8 dimensions, and with an order of 8 x 31 it is large enough to contain two SO(16)’s of order 8 x 15. It isn’t clear to me whether the 10-dimensional SU(11) “Boson GUT” is collapsing into an effective 8-dimensional SU(9) or whether it is being misrepresented by an 8-dimensional SO(16).

Most of my ideas on GUT Lie Algebras are in Chapter 7. The earlier parts of my book address grand unification from a thermodynamic perspective. And I have a few pages on the Creation –Design – Chance – Necessity Debate as it relates to the Anthropic Principle that might appeal to your “blog followers”.

I received my Ph.D. in Particle Physics from Florida State University in 1996 under Prof. Howie Baer, taught full-time until 1999, taught part-time until 2003, and I’ve been in the business world full-time since 1999.


Dr. Ray Munroe

Tallahassee, FL
RICHARD THOMAS wrote on Apr. 18, 2008 @ 07:50 GMT
Phillip Adams stole his book.
RICHARD THOMAS wrote on Apr. 18, 2008 @ 07:51 GMT
Or is it Douglas Adams.?

RICHARD THOMAS wrote on Apr. 19, 2008 @ 06:09 GMT
WHy did you answer me Garrett and not Dr Monro.?

It is a terrific thing to have a non contradiction.

It is a terrific thing to have a non itchy dick.

But unless you have the contradiction an itchy dick you cannot have the non contradiction a non itchy dick.

RICHARD THOMAS wrote on Apr. 19, 2008 @ 06:13 GMT
Hi Garrett,

Somebody mentioned 2+2=4 in respect to your theory.

What does 2+2=4 have to do with an exceptionally simple theory of everything.

To me 2+2=4 means non contradictory mathematics.

The opposite to the quantum weirdness equation 1/3 APPLE+ 1/3 ORANGE+ 1/3 ORANGE= 1 APPLE/ORANGE.

Because 2+2=4 = 2 APPLE+ 2 ORANGE= 4 APPLE/ORANGES.

That is there are two apples and two oranges and that multiplies togther to get four.

Just like 1*1=1 And it is 2*2=4 so the eqautions are not foru in one.You can divide by four to get one equaton but that will be contradictory.

Or is it.?

What do you think Garrett.?
attachments: 1_BLOG_4.wps, oddeven.exe
RICHARD THOMAS wrote on Apr. 19, 2008 @ 06:18 GMT
attachments: X1100tmp.jpg
RICHARD THOMAS wrote on Apr. 19, 2008 @ 06:29 GMT
If the basis of your theory is 42.

Then John 11:verse 9 sais that the opposite of your theory is right.

Instead of 21+21=42.

The answer is 12+12=24.

Why 2+2=4 when it is six is 12+12=24.

And that means 1+1=2=2+2=4.

2*6+2*6=4= 1*12+ 1*12= 2*12.

Make 2E=1M+1C^2= 4E=2*6M*2*6C^2.

That makes E=Mcsquared right for two.

So that is Jesus equation and his answer not Phillip Adams of 7*6.

So come up with a new theory that is exactly the opposite of your own and you might be right about a theory of everything.

RICHARD THOMAS wrote on Apr. 20, 2008 @ 06:34 GMT
Thought experiment.

A clock wound up is potential energy and is like the big crunch of an earlier universe.

It winds up the clock as it reverses exapansion the energy is stored in this equation 1/3 Bose Einstein+ 1/3 Fermi Dirac+ 1/3 Fermi Dirac= 1 Bose Einstein/Fermi Dirac.

particles X and Y are in the SAME STATE AT THE SAME TIME in THE SAME PLACE.

So when the energy is released it is like removing a little cog from a clock the clock spins releasing the energy as expansion of the spring.

RICHARD THOMAS wrote on Apr. 20, 2008 @ 08:56 GMT
Garrett for the title of you next book you are welcome to use "MONKEYS WITH CAR KEYS AND A CHALK BOARD."


RICHARD THOMAS wrote on Apr. 21, 2008 @ 10:13 GMT
Here is my program for the theory of everything in my book HOW TO FAIL EINSTEIN AT COLLEGE by L&R publishers Murwillumbah.

Here is the source code for the updates of the Physics Knowledge Cards.

unit uMain;



Windows, Messages, SysUtils, Classes, Graphics, Controls, Forms, Dialogs,

StdCtrls, ExtCtrls, Menus;


TForm1 = class(TForm)

Panel1: TPanel;

Panel2: TPanel;

Button1: TButton;

Button2: TButton;

Edit1: TEdit;

Edit2: TEdit;

Image1: TImage;

Label1: TLabel;

Label2: TLabel;

Button3: TButton;

Button4: TButton;

Button5: TButton;

MainMenu1: TMainMenu;

Hlep1: TMenuItem;

contents1: TMenuItem;

Index1: TMenuItem;

N1: TMenuItem;

wwwcjwcom1: TMenuItem;

N2: TMenuItem;

About1: TMenuItem;

File1: TMenuItem;

Contents2: TMenuItem;

Index2: TMenuItem;

N3: TMenuItem;

wwwcjwcom2: TMenuItem;

N4: TMenuItem;

About2: TMenuItem;

procedure Button1Click(Sender: TObject);

procedure Edit2KeyPress(Sender: TObject; var Key: Char);

procedure Button2Click(Sender: TObject);

procedure Button5Click(Sender: TObject);

procedure About1Click(Sender: TObject);

procedure Button3Click(Sender: TObject);

procedure Button4Click(Sender: TObject);


{ Private declarations }


{ Public declarations }



Form1: TForm1;


uses About, Unit3, Unit4;

{$R *.DFM}

procedure TForm1.Button1Click(Sender: TObject);


Edit1.ReadOnly := false;

Edit2.ReadOnly := false;

Button2.Caption := '&Store Equation in File';


procedure TForm1.Edit2KeyPress(Sender: TObject; var Key: Char);


if (Key = #13) then


Label1.Caption := Edit1.Text;

Label2.Caption := Edit2.Text;



procedure TForm1.Button2Click(Sender: TObject);


TFile : TextFile;


AssignFile(TFile, 'physics.txt');



Writeln(TFile, Edit1.Text);

Writeln(TFile, Edit2.Text);

Writeln(TFile, ' ');

Flush (TFile);


Button2.Caption := 'Done';

Edit1.ReadOnly := true;

Edit2.ReadOnly := true;


procedure TForm1.Button5Click(Sender: TObject);




procedure TForm1.About1Click(Sender: TObject);




procedure TForm1.Button3Click(Sender: TObject);




procedure TForm1.Button4Click(Sender: TObject);





unit Unit3;



Windows, Messages, SysUtils, Classes, Graphics, Controls, Forms, Dialogs,

StdCtrls, ExtCtrls;


TForm3 = class(TForm)

Panel1: TPanel;

Button1: TButton;

Button2: TButton;

Button3: TButton;

Panel2: TPanel;

Image1: TImage;

Image2: TImage;

Image3: TImage;

Button4: TButton;

Button5: TButton;

Button6: TButton;

Button7: TButton;

Label1: TLabel;

Label2: TLabel;

Label3: TLabel;

Label4: TLabel;

Label5: TLabel;

Label6: TLabel;

Shape1: TShape;

Shape2: TShape;

Shape3: TShape;

procedure Button3Click(Sender: TObject);

procedure Button1Click(Sender: TObject);

procedure Button2Click(Sender: TObject);

procedure Button5Click(Sender: TObject);

procedure Button6Click(Sender: TObject);

procedure Button7Click(Sender: TObject);


{ Private declarations }


{ Public declarations }

function ActivateCard(pThisCard : integer) : boolean;



TPlrCard = class


Name : string;

Expression : string;

constructor Create;



TDisplay = class


Activated : boolean;

constructor Create;



Form3: TForm3;

PlrCard : array[1..55] of TPlrCard;

Display : array[1..4] of TDisplay;


uses uMain, Unit4;

{$R *.DFM}

constructor TPlrCard.Create;



constructor TDisplay.Create;


i : integer;


{set Display cards to false}

for i := 1 to 3 do


Display[i].Activated := false;


{read in values for the Plrcards}



procedure TForm3.Button3Click(Sender: TObject);




procedure TForm3.Button1Click(Sender: TObject);




procedure TForm3.Button2Click(Sender: TObject);




procedure TForm3.Button5Click(Sender: TObject);


Display[1].Activated := ActivateCard(1);


procedure TForm3.Button6Click(Sender: TObject);


Display[2].Activated := ActivateCard(2);


procedure TForm3.Button7Click(Sender: TObject);


Display[3].Activated := ActivateCard(3);


function TForm3.ActivateCard(pThisCard : integer) : boolean;


i : integer;


if Display[pThisCard].Activated = true then


if (pThisCard 4 ) then

Display[pThisCard].Activated := false;

case pThisCard of

1: Shape1.Brush.Color := clTeal;

2: Shape2.Brush.Color := clTeal;

3: Shape3.Brush.Color := clTeal;

4: begin

for i := 1 to 3 do


Display[i].Activated := false;


Shape1.Brush.Color := clTeal;

Shape2.Brush.Color := clTeal;

Shape3.Brush.Color := clTeal;






Display[pThisCard].Activated := true;

case pThisCard of

1: Shape1.Brush.Color := clYellow;

2: Shape2.Brush.Color := clYellow;

3: Shape3.Brush.Color := clYellow;

4: begin

for i := 1 to 3 do


Display[i].Activated := true;


Shape1.Brush.Color := clYellow;

Shape2.Brush.Color := clYellow;

Shape3.Brush.Color := clYellow;




Result := Display[pThisCard].Activated;


RICHARD THOMAS wrote on Apr. 23, 2008 @ 19:42 GMT
The language is Delphi.

The algorythymn is 1/3 APPLE+ 1/3 ORANGE+ 1/3 ORANGE= 1 APPLE/ORANGE.

Where apple and orange stand for different kinds of physics equations electromagnetism and gravity.

Quantum Mechanics and Relativity.

The five string theories.

Or even Garrett Lises equations.

You can add 100 or a million equations and reduce them by division to one equation.

Garrett why not you come up with a non contradictory theory fo ex-nihilo creation by adding big bang equations 2+2=4.

The equation for the universe and Ex-Nihilo doesn't balance you have to get energy from another universe.

To make it balance.

Ray Munroe wrote on Apr. 27, 2008 @ 04:05 GMT
Hi Garrett,
Dr. Ray Munroe wrote on Apr. 27, 2008 @ 05:07 GMT
Hi Garrett,

Have you had an opportunity to read my book “New Approaches Towards A Grand Unified Theory” yet? I’m trying to resolve my ideas with your ideas with String Theory and with Supersymmetry.

My wife, daughter and I came to the beach this weekend. The Florida Gulf coast doesn’t have the waves that you’re used to, but it is relaxing. And suddenly, the answer hit me in the middle of the night.

The E8 group is based on the 5-simplex, the Hexateron (which has 30 nearest neighbors). I think that the natural extension to E8 would be based on the 6-simplex, the Heptapeton (which has 42 nearest neighbors), and this group would have an order of 430 (10 x 43), and a rank of 10. For lack of a proper name, can we call this E(10)? In my book, I related rank and dimension – thus, I expect this group to exist in 10 dimensions, which should delight the String Theorists. (Yippee!) With an order of (10 x 43), it is large enough to include my 10-dimensional SU(11) “Bosonic GUT” of order (10 x 12), and a 10-dimensional SO(21) “Fermionic GUT” of order (10 x 21), and 100 (10 x 10) of my Supersymmetry operators.

Although my book gives the background for these ideas, these are new extensions of my theory. I didn’t push fermions to the natural limit, and I was happy with two SO(16)’s of fermions, but the 21 charges of SO(21) arise from: SO(21) → SO(10) basic “Fermion GUT” + 7 subtypes of Hyperflavor + 2 New Generations (for a total of five fermion generations) + 2 new types of Leptoquarks (a, ψ). Now 21=10+7+2+2, and SO(21) has an order of 210 that reflects both the seven-fold symmetry of hyperflavor and the five-fold symmetry that we expect from five generations.

Regarding the 100 Supersymmetry operators, I had a supersymmetric SU(15) that decomposed into an SU(11) “Bosonic GUT” and an SU(5) of supersymmetric operators that related the spin quintet: (0,½,1,1½,2). SU(15) has an order of 224 and SU(11) has an order of 120. 224-120=104. Of these 104 supersymmetric operators, four are diagonal components that do not affect spin, whereas the other 100 components do affect spin. You thought you had GHOSTS in the machine, but you may have relic operators from Supersymmetry (and what I called Hyper-SUSY).

There it is! I’m only good for models – you are the Differential Geometry Master! Now go include Hyperflavor, WIMP-Gravity and Supersymmetry into an “Exceptionally Complicated” E(10) Theory of Everything, and RIDE THAT WAVE!

Ray Munroe
SQUIRE OF GOTHOS wrote on Apr. 30, 2008 @ 07:22 GMT
Trelane in Star Trek was not the messiah he was just a naught boy.

He xhibits what Spock describes as an intellect without discipline,power without contructive purpose.

And in another start trek moie Final fronteir Syboks God of Shakare.

Mc Coys asks the easy question what does God want with a starship.

Of course God has no motive to prove Einstein wrong as He does not require a starship.

Unless you can prove God needs one.


Please answer Dr Monro above and not me next he is in the que.
RICHARD THOMAS wrote on May. 2, 2008 @ 08:52 GMT
Why not be another surfer dude who asked Jesus into his life and got saved it isn't that unusual.

God is a wave.

RICHARD THOMAS wrote on May. 3, 2008 @ 08:41 GMT
This shows Einsteins theory means the law of non contradiction does not apply in the big bang if E=MCsquared is right.



The Grateful Dead, And An Exercise in Resistance Before the Event

In sub-atomic nature, the equivalence of energy and mass implies exactly this, that energy is quite literally the same as mass, and vice versa. Energy and mass are equivalent and by any theory of meaning whatever, in Einstein’s famous equation, they are actually identical, and this undercuts one of the foundational requirements of Western philosophy. The latter requirement is a restrictive consideration of traditional logic attributed to Aristotle, and recognised as the three laws of thought so-called. Whatever reasons might have been at play in justifying the insertion of Aristotle’s three laws of thought into European scholarship, they represent the most refined defense available, both of the myth of Divine Creation, and of the philosophical mechanisms underlying its assembly. The first of these, the law of identity as A=A is something of a misnomer.

The first law of thought so-called asserts that a thing is never anything other than equal to, or equivalent, to itself. According to Aristotle’s law of identity therefore, the identity of a thing relies on nothing outside of itself, which is to say that its relatedness with other things has no influence or impact upon its identity. A=A underpins the isolated, particularity of all things as per The Book of Genesis, and as per the isolated, ideal particulars that populate Plato’s realm of ideal forms. This first law of thought is supplemented by the second law so-called.

The second law of thought, the law of contradiction asserts that a thing cannot simultaneously be both itself and not itself. It too is something of a misnomer – it is actually the law of non-contradiction! The second law therefore merely states the underlying idea of the first law ‘in other words’ which means precisely that energy can only ever be energy as in A=A; energy cannot therefore be mass! This exactly is the point at which the ancient and the modern come into direct conflict. Newton is favoured implicitly in this restrictive law of thought while, to remain true to non-identity theory, Einstein and 20thcentury science must be rejected. Identity-theory alone, which is to say dialectic, the genius of our species could overcome this impasse that is at the heart of our historically evolving, Judaeo Christian process. But the third law of thought presents a stubborn resistance.

The third law of thought so-called is the law of the excluded middle – if a proposition is true its obverse must be false. There is no middle-ground between truth and falsity, which is to say that the possibility of a middle ground between truth and falsity is excluded from consideration. There may well be examples where the law of the excluded middle might seem perfectly sensible, but try this: Energy can only ever be identical to energy! If this is true, its obverse, energy is identical to mass, must be false. The principle of equivalence contradicts all three laws of thought!

The first law of thought as A=A pontificates a restrictive theory of the identity of isolated particulars, while the second law underpins the first law by excluding outside influences, and both cases refer to a purely objective fact so-called, of material reality. Material reality is made up of wholly isolated particulars as in Genesis! Give each of these isolated particulars a name and you have nominalism! The universe is populated with nameable, isolated particulars. Nominalism is the doctrine that there are no universals or classes of things – there are only named particulars. The third law is explicitly about thought itself. It anchors the first and second laws in a restrictive proposal about the nature and mutually exclusive relationship of truth and falsity. But all three laws have a dual character – each is an example of theory isolated from its referent as required by empiricism (external evaluation) correspondence theory, and non-identity theory, while each, by the gift of a mystical metaphysic called the transcendental signifier (God) is equally a privileged proposal about the nature of reality viewed from a standpoint external to its referents; empiricism!

These three laws of thought so called were assembled at a time when it had not been noticed or known that the form and content of the universal subjectivity of nature and human being had been hijacked by priests and philosophers, and projected onto an external God (or Gods in the case of the Greeks). Instead therefore of universal subjectivity and its objective counterparts being recognised as two sides of the same coin, and in the special sense of dialectic, recognised as equivalent and identical one within the other, these two essential components were dualised as independent features and named accordingly as subjectivity and objectivity, and it made all the difference. This mutually exclusive separation is taken for granted on the authority of its Judaeo Christian credentials. Nothing else could justify it!

Although it had been traditional to regard each of these three laws of thought so-called both as a substantive (ontological) truth and equally as independent (epistemological) mechanisms of evaluation, in reality they are each the subordinate feature of a compound, Judaeo Christian, cum ancient Greek attitude – each is recognised as a feature in non-identity theory. All together, they function as a defensive bastion in favour of the philosophical underpinnings of Genesis, and against identity-theory. Each as indicated, functions both as a mutual support for each other and for their compound root, isolated particularity, the fundamental postulate of Judaeo Christianity, of Western civilisation, of liberalism therefore, and therefore of capitalism. Analysis or decomposition as deconstruction have led inexorably as we have already confirmed, to the God-sent bounty for all dominant social forces -- divide and rule! All this is to say that if A can only ever be equal to A, the law of contradiction is (both false as already indicated, and) pretty well superfluous as per the second law. But equally, if as per the law of contradiction the proposition that a thing cannot be both itself and not itself, is true, then its obverse as per the third law so-called, must be false. In this case energy can only ever be equal and equivalent to energy as in A=A, in which case Einstein’s famous equation e=mc2 must be false, which, in light of the success of 20th century science cannot be sustained!

What was regarded as true during most of the modern period, has now become dubious to say the least, and at best, deficient. It is as plain as plain needs be that Aristotle’s three laws of thought were invoked quite specifically as a defense of Genesis and the Judaeo Christian convention of non-equivalence it embodied as constitutional emphasis for all Judaeo Christian time. It has already been confirmed that after Einstein and 20th century science, non-equivalence and non-identity theory can only retain its dependent credibility as subordinate feature within the extra layer of understanding brought forward by the primacy of equivalence, dialectic and identity theory. www.newtimepress.co.uk.


If you can prove my equation wrong you can prove your point so why not write Jeffreys proved wrong.

RICHARD THOMAS wrote on May. 4, 2008 @ 09:11 GMT
Forgive my ignorance of Geometry Lise.

Maybe you can interpret my another exceptionally simple theory of everything in terms of geometry.

I know na eqaulateral triangle expresses my thrid equation.

Each side being 1/3.

And a square expresses 2+2=4.

But that is all I know about the Geometry of my theory of contradiction of time place and state in the big bang.

You might call it the balanced equation for the universe.

RICHARD THOMAS wrote on May. 5, 2008 @ 04:46 GMT
Some music fits the words to Interstate 54.

I just commissioned a new tune which fits the words better.

So while one theory will explain everything you can always come up with a new theory that fits the data better.

Do you think it is like that Garrett.

And what do you think of using the third equation with millions of equations to boil it down to one equation for everything.?
RICHARD THOMAS wrote on May. 5, 2008 @ 04:50 GMT
Dear Garrett,

You can have exclusive rigths to develop me thoeries explained in MY SCIENCE THESIS-TAKE EINSTEIN TO INFINITY.

A handshake is not like a written contract but is considered more binding.

RICHARD THOMAS wrote on May. 5, 2008 @ 07:46 GMT

Garrett please read my book and give me a review for L&R publishers Murwillumbah who are publishing my sequal.

They have asked me for a review frm Garrett Lise Stephen Hawking and Karl Kruselnicki.

So we are hoping to get one from you.Send it to aircloud@bigpond.net.au

RICHARD THOMAS wrote on May. 5, 2008 @ 11:18 GMT
Give yourself courage with good weapons.

If there are only two universe one big crunch and one big bang.Then the equation is 2+2=4


And it doesn't balance you have to "get" the energy from outside of this universe ex-nihilo.

To balance the equation for the universes.

So the big myth of evolution is that evolution proves ex-nihilo wrong because of the conservation of energy.

Even if you have an infinity of cycles of crunch and bang.

You have to start somewhere and you loose energy with every cycle.

So it still ends with heat death it doesn't go on forever so the universe still must have an ex-nihilo begining.
RICHARD THOMAS wrote on May. 7, 2008 @ 02:58 GMT

The bible explaination of Douglas Adams 42 as the answer to life the universe and everything.



24 +18=42

42-18= 24

So 18 Garrett is 6+6+6

and Douglas Adams name in Pythagarian

Name*Number =9*42=378=21*18 7+7+7*6+6+6.

Six is a Mans number seven is Gods number 378 is man playing God.

Steve A Jeffrey.

Think of 24 as YING and 42 as YANG.

They are two opposite answers to the unviverse.
RICHARD THOMAS wrote on May. 7, 2008 @ 08:53 GMT

21+21=42 is the opposite of 12+12=24.

So one in YING and one is YANG.

One is contradiction mathematics and one is not contradiction mathematics.

Since the bible is where the rule of non contradiction comes from I assume 42 is contradiction maths.

It is all about being the best a math that I can be.

If I can only understand Calculus made easy why not make that book doggyeared.

And that is where I got all my inspiration Calculus Made Easy.

And it wasn't that easy it was the bible that inspired me.

Steve A Jeffrey.

The superman syndrome my latest book.

We need teamwork on this one guys.
RICHARD THOMAS wrote on May. 7, 2008 @ 11:07 GMT
We need teamwork how about writing MAPLE FOR IDIOTS about my quantum weirdness equation.

Write on the blackboard all the equations on both side for string theory that balance.

Then add those 1/3 APPLE+ 1/3 ORANGE+ 1/3 ORANGE= 1 APPLE/ORANGE.

Add 1/3 1000 EQUATIONS+ 1/3 1000 EQUATIONS+ 1/3 1000 EQUATIONS= 1000/1000= 1 EQUATION.

Then add the five string thoeries togther.

And get one equation..............

Then add up Eddingtons Unified Field Theory.

And add the string theory equation to Eddingtons equation

Make both equations 2 and add them 2+2=4.

This is Maple for dummies.

RICHARD THOMAS wrote on May. 8, 2008 @ 03:10 GMT
My thoery is that the preceeding incarnation of our unviverse was a Godel universe and it begins with a non contradictory maths big bang that leads to a contradiction in time in that universe.

So black holes in that universe are contradictory juts like the begining of our universe.

The big crunch of a contradictory universe leads to a contradiction in particles in time space and place for the big bang in our universe.

That leads to a universe where the law of non contradiction applies.

And black holes in our universe can be added 2+2=4.

As they obey the law of non contradiction.

Garrett what are the philosophical ramifications of E*8 you have been asked that before how about an answer.?


RICHARD THOMAS wrote on May. 8, 2008 @ 08:51 GMT
Development of my thinking.

First my friend Buddy Doyle said that the big bang might be a phase change.

Then retired in oceanside objected to my quantum weirdness equation.


By saying that identical particles cannot be in the SAME STATE at the SAME TIME in the SAME PLACE.

Wikkapedia stated this better that Opposite particles X and Y cannot be in the SAME PLACE at the SAME TIME in the SAME STATE.

This is exactly what must take place prior to the big bang the four states of matter must be one so the dependant variable the four forces can be one.

(Red) Dermott told me Bose Einstein statsitics mean particles cannot be in the same place at the same time and in fact they can but not for fermi dirac statistics.


Also my equation applies to the duality of light.


Roger Penrose made me apply my idea of a Godel universe to dervive the maths for the begining by using a black hole in a Godel universe.

Which is contradictory like the begining.

The universe prior to the incarnation of this universe could have been a Godel which began with a non contradictory big bang that is one that can be explained by physics.

And led to a contradictory big crunch.

And big bang leading to a non contradictory universe like our own.

the thoery is completion therefore it is valid.

The two universes taken togther do not balance for energy since energy must be gotten from outside the universe to make the energy equation balance.

And endless cycle of universes would mean the unvierses growing more and more massive to balance the equation 2+2=4.

Beat that for development Garrett.........And try a little kindness and you'll overlook the blindness of the narrow minded people in their narrow minded street.


RICHARD THOMAS wrote on May. 10, 2008 @ 11:39 GMT
Hi Garrett,

I apologise for my entuthiasm for my own exceptionally simple theory of everything.

But what looks like spam.

Is really just swepervesense.

Richard Thomas.

Times man of the year.
RICHARD THOMAS wrote on May. 10, 2008 @ 23:22 GMT
My Science Thesis-How To Fail EInstein at College.

Is the illusion of the perfection of Einsteins Unified Field theory.

You have to appeal to ex-nihilo and thus to God to balance the equation of the two unviverses 2+2=4.

Big crunch and big bang.

THE ALTERNATIVE FACTOR wrote on May. 14, 2008 @ 04:51 GMT
(Ben Itos)" Madness has no purpose or reason but it may have a goal." Mr Spock.'The Alternative factor'

SPOCK wrote on May. 14, 2008 @ 04:54 GMT
"Madness has no purpose or reason but it may have a goal.

Computer calculate the last digit of Pi."

attachments: 1_oddeven.exe
RICHARD THOMAS wrote on May. 14, 2008 @ 04:55 GMT
Garrett is not like me he can understand my excitement at my little theory.

But I can't understand him.

It is not madness to say Garrett is smarter than me.

RICHARD wrote on May. 14, 2008 @ 04:58 GMT
Madness has no purpose or reason but it may have a goal.

Garretts sublimated goal is toprove 42 right as the answer to everything.

666 is a certain kind of seductive madness but it may have a goa such as proving 2+2=4 right.

RICHARD THOMAS wrote on May. 14, 2008 @ 05:01 GMT
Gentelman we have to take a chance especially if one is all you have. Captain James T Kirk Tomorrow is Yesterday.

( one chance may be all we have to have a unified field theory).

RICHARD THOMAS wrote on May. 16, 2008 @ 01:59 GMT

Hi Steve,

I assembled the following some days ago, but have hesitated to send it for a number of reasons. Firstly of course it is a tad more tentative and speculative than I’d want. Secondly, I must admit, your attachment somewhat threw me. Even now I’m not entirely sure what to make of it but assume it comes up with two distinct aspects. (a) If I’ve figured it right, it is connected to our mutual friend Sami (he has one of the few copies of ‘Imagine’ an unpublished first attempt at the assembly of New Unified Theory) and (b) you are actually a committed Christian – these are not exclusive; they may both be equally valid.

Secondly, I have hesitated in burdening you with what by any standard is a rather lengthy engagement. You may not savor that if your Christianity is there to be defended against atheists like myself. But finally, I see in your own approach a certain delight in rigor, (and never mind the length) and I think this must be the deciding factor. But here’s a kicker; the material we’ve been exchanging is only of value to me in supporting a credible theory of everything that recommends itself to future generations if any such survivors survive the eco-threat we all seem bent on turning into an extinction-event beyond compare.

Finally, therefore Steve, I have included the opening 8 to 10 thousand words of work in progress, to illustrate what my real interests are. It might be subject to minor amendments, but these pages I think are pretty well complete. Finally, finally, they are my copy write of course, but the real object is to launch a movement. Feel free therefore to send both our correspondence and the material enclosed below to anyone you think might have a principled interest in such matters. Invite them also to ‘send-on’ as in a serious chain-letter, and invite them also to get in touch with me if they have questions arising. Do you mind if I do this with what you have sent to me? Enough said.

Give my regards to Sami,

Best wishes,


Dear Steve,

Thank you for your series of emails. There are a good many points of interest but one stands out.

In looking for a unified field theory we have ignored math that does not agree with Aristotle’s law. This is truly heartening and I have to say, something quite extraordinary. On the face it, it would seem that Plato’s influence has finally been overturned, but caution is urged. Aristotle is the philosopher of the Catholic Church and was chosen as such for his philosophical suitability and compatibility with Christian theology.

You might recall that the basics of Plato’s Pythagoreanism was the mystical belief that nature isn’t just amenable to quantitative characterization, but rather is conceived as quantity incarnate in the way I guess that in Hinduism, material nature doesn’t actually exist but is quality incarnate, congealed spirit, Maya, a monism of spirit, spiritual energy, or just energy if you prefer. Pythagoreanism therefore is essentially a Hinduism of quantity. I think for the sake of clarity we have to go the whole hog and recognise from this Greek standpoint, that material nature is a monism of quantity, number pure and simple – the congealed forms of matter that composes and surrounds us as in Hinduism are transient, mere phenomenal, quantitative appearances. Unfortunately, this thoroughly materialist basis was treated idealistically by Plato. i.e. he postulated a realm of fixed, ideal forms (quantitative universals) lying outside of material nature. These ideal forms were perfect exemplars of their imperfect counterparts in material reality, and posed by Plato as the component particulars in the mind/s of The Gods.

In the mind/s of the Gods therefore universals and their corresponding particulars were one and the same, and since (Greek) mortals had pre-cognition of them, albeit as unconscious residue as per the theory of anamnesis (conscious images of the ideal forms were forgotten at birth) these residues of pre – cognition were carried into life as the basis for the re – cognition of their imperfect counterparts in reality/material nature to furnish a template-matching psychology of perception as per French rationalism. British empiricism is another animal altogether, and as Kant observed, neither are tenable, hence his assembly of German idealism in which ‘the empirical’ is cast within the restrictions of the a priori.

As I understand things, Aristotle’s advance over Plato’s idealism was to dispense with the realm of ideal forms with the presumption that the universals were/are immanent within the material process. That didn’t dissolve the confusion however, because idealism (the doctrine at its most extreme that there is nothing but ideas) is a persistent little devil, a Judaeo Christian norm, and constitutional to the way the dogmatic basis imposes its dogmas on its believers. Nothing has changed!

Even in secular society so-called, the Judaeo Christian norm persists, persists as it were, without the name of an already absent God. Secular society so-called persists in the shadow of a doubly absent God, hence the importance of the sentiment in bold above. In looking for a unified field theory we have ignored math that does not agree with Aristotle’s law. My question of course is, do the worthy authors of the sentiment succeed in overcoming the restrictions of idealism? I doubt it, and my reason for doubting it is that, again in my view the only means of overcoming the grip idealism has on Judaeo Christian imagination is via the portrayal of a completely authoritative, wholistic materialism in which imagination, mind, theory etc (and Genesis too) is demonstrated to be an emergent property of matter, a monism of matter now to succeed the monism of spirit of the East, and the Judaic duality of spirit and matter. A monism of matter with self-awareness recognised as the emergent property of social matter in historical motion is the natural successor to these ancient theologies, and all the data for it is now available.

My doubts are amplified too by what may simply be ‘conformity’ to what I have called the three laws of thought – we actually need to transcend them and if their compound is what is meant by the law’ of non-contradiction, we need to be very clear on the point. A start has already been made in referring almost immediately below to the need for a wholistic materialism in which wholism and top-down determination is recognised self-consciously as the essence within the appearance of reductionism, and conversely reductionism and bottom-up determination is recognised as the essence within the appearance of wholism. There is only one example of it in the whole of the Western canon, and so far as I am aware, no one has noticed it. Indeed no one seems to know or even suspect that this next step in the development of the scientific method has already been taken by Marx in his assembly of Capital, is there to be recognised as such and exploited as the basis of insight to the accomplishment of our still unachieved species’ maturity. Mainstream scholarship has rejected, and demonizes Marx’s breakthrough in method and defends its Judaeo Christian counterpart, defends therefore the indefensible via the medium of a selective blindness.

As given in the literature the three laws are neutral as between idealism and materialism, and this is the difficulty – each standpoint gives a different reading because idealism is ultimately inseparable from theology, with Judaeo Christian theology as the supreme exemplar among all others, of idealism, and because of it, the supreme exemplar among all others, of ideology, “the ruling ideas in any given epoch are those of the existing dominant class”. The difficulty we now have to confront is like a barrow-load of monkeys.

If idealism remains dominant in imagination, Aristotle’s three laws will be read idealistically. I make no apologies now for saying that for want of an authentic wholistic materialism, the preconditions for an authentic materialistic reading of Aristotle’s laws of thought do not exist, except in embryo in New Unified Theory – my baby, the synthesis of natural and social science. This had led me to some very challenging conclusions.

A physics-based, unified field theory may at best, itself be one of these formulations which, like Aristotle’s three laws straddle the gap between idealism and materialism, but it too can fall prey to a traditional reading in which idealism remains the dominant basis, hence my uncompromising stance in favour of New Unified Theory. A note of caution is again requisite however – New Unified Theory has not been refereed! Its credentials lie yet in the force of the case made on behalf of it by my good-self. Dialectic is the key, but as everywhere else in this morass of detail that represents the history of a journey towards insight and enlightenment, caution is again urged.

Dialectic is the solution to the problems of historically evolving clarity, but with Hegel and Marx as the high point of accomplishment, dialectic too can straddle the divide between idealism and materialism, and it too can fall prey to the untranscended dominance of Judaeo Christian idealism, (Hegel) hence the willingness of many scholars to entertain Hegel, but to partake of the demonisation of Historical materialism. Old habits die hard, and mind-body dualism (idealism by yet another name) is both among the oldest of habits and foundational to Western thought across the board.

In short, dialectic is the solution, but dialectic does not agree with Aristotle’s laws of thought unless they are read materialistically as per the requirements of an wholistic materialism. Even with Marx’s breakthrough to new insights in scientific method, this is novel ground. (For one of the best discussions I’ve come across on this difficult topic of dialectics and unified field theory see The Dialectics of Nature, Michael Kosok 1973 in Telos – since Telos is a Canadian Journal it should be in the library at QSU. I think Kosok is decisive, but of course, no one is listening anymore. Physics seems to want and demand of itself, a physics that stands clear of everything but physics – it isn’t possible but only seems so.)

This is all very fascinating for a whole variety of reason. Thirty four years ago when at 35 my academic career was launched I read Bertrand Russell’s Problem’s Of Philosophy (1912) and what caught my attention and effectively launched my abiding interest in the questions of truth we’ve been discussing was his reference to the three laws of thought. Russell said that they belonged in the dead history of philosophy – no one concerns themselves with them any more, said he. But here we are, nearly a hundred years down the line balancing everything on their knife edge. Just shows how much we should trust philosophers. In fairness however, quantum mechanics was only a germinall enterprise in 1912 – Russell was showing his epoch if not his age. Nevertheless I took the view that he was speaking authoritatively and acted accordingly i.e. I took the view that R’s position for philosophy was simultaneously, an all too convenient dismissal of dialectic. I was right, but now instead of having a debate with a dead constituency, it seems the question is at the heart both of Einstein’s theories of relativity, their alter ego in QM (what lovely irony) and also at the transcending heart of New Unified Theory. I note therefore with some satisfaction that even if in the context of an untranscended idealism, you have affinities with Aristotle’s traditional logic via Einstein Bose and Dirac Fermi. And yet, as my reply to your initial email indicates, all three of his laws of thought so-called are invoked in the law of non-contradiction you define for my consideration, and all three are violated in one way or another.

I don’t know quite what to make of this (but will try to work it out below) because these three laws are chief among the defenses of Cartesian mind-body dualism, in my view the central problem of Judaeo Christian cum European philosophy, (meaning Western philosophy in general). The defense of Cartesian mind-body dualism however, is co-terminal with the defense of Judaeo Christian theology. (I now can pre-empt what follows – Aristotle’s three laws simply have to be both preserved and transcended, (second law of dialectic) which is to say in seeing the three laws as the gateway to a higher reading yet, the three laws have to be violated and read materialistically.) Secular society ain’t quite so secular as is supposed, and the reasons are buried in the history of philosophy. The unresolved problematic of mind-body dualism is a mystical core at the heart of the conceptions of reality in which Western civilisation is grounded – science doesn’t escape the problem, but rather is the extension of it.

A satisfactory solution to mind-body dualism has never been brought forward, and because of the all too convenient failure, the history of Western philosophy and science (to say little of the political and moral correspondences) is the history of an adjustment within and to its (idealistic) permissions and restrictions, and this precisely is to say, within the permissions and restrictions of Judaeo Christian dogma. No surprise therefore that pragmatism should emerge as response in the New World – whatever works is promoted to the status of truth – why it works is another matter entirely. Your rendition of the law of non contradiction prompts the following.

(1) The law of non-contradiction is instanced first by affirming precisely the second of Aristotle’s three laws law if, via a substitution of particles X and Y put in place of ‘thing itself’ and ‘not itself’, while simultaneously invoking therefore, the first law (A=A) on behalf of particles X and Y. This amounts to a shift from a logical to an empirical matter. Can two particles ever occupy the same place as opposed to ‘can a thing be both itself and not itself’?

Second (2), via the reasoning of 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1, the law of non-contradiction is asserted as the mathematical basis both for the law of contradiction as given by Aristotle, and the basis for its obverse, with both resolved to a single proposition, the condensate, but now defined as the law of non-contradiction, a classic example of dialectic, the interpenetration of opposites as per Engels, of simultaneous, mutual incorporation (unless ‘state’ as succession as in tossing coins is given privilege (as 1/3 privileging state as energy, plus 1/3 privileging state as mass?) in which case, dialectic degenerates to paradox). But if the remaining 1/3 as Fermi Dirac is now added as qualification, does it imply privileging neither the first nor the second 1/3 but on the contrary privileging both simultaneously, as in the condensate. Good old-fashioned analytic philosophy cannot allow it because of the third of Aristotle’s laws – ‘if a proposition is true its obverse must be false’. The condensate combines truth and falsity and if viewed idealistically and undialectically, it is a nonsense. Dialectic is the key to a creative transcendence of this otherwise absurd condensate.

The first 1/3 can now be expressed as e=mc2/e, the second as e=mc2/m and the third as e=mc2/e/m. This is guesswork on my part but it seems to be a cap that fits very well, and if it does we have as I have always asserted, the supreme example among all others of dialectic at the heart of the periodic table and at the heart therefore of material nature. Note this well however: Einstein’s equation violates the requirements of a purely quantitative treatment because mass is effectively a qualitative feature. Quality is reduced to quantity and at the same time, quantity is reduced to quality. In this way, Einstein’s equation violates Aristotle’s law of contradiction, which is to say that if the equation is read within the restrictions of idealism as per mind-body dualism, it has to be rejected as paradoxical nonsense. But this compromise can and has to be ignored because via dialectic we can recognise that neither quantity nor quality has credible existence independently of the other – the first law of dialectic alone can redeem Einstein’s equation from theoretical absurdity from which it follows that successful practical applications embody dialectical reasoning without acknowledgement.

(The same dilemma is encountered in unpacking Einstein’s classic equation ee=em cee squared by other terms.)

(a) Treat energy and mass as successive states and therefore as two aspects of one conundrum, plus (b) yet another conundrum as a simultaneous, mutual incorporation of energy and mass in which state is ignored, and recognise the result as a paradox, or recognise both the successive and the simultaneous components as the simultaneous requirement of dialectic. This is largely illustrative, somewhat speculative and it needs both amplification and condensation – dialectic is the simultaneous identity and non-identity of bi-polar opposites.

In E=MC squared the ‘identity’ or equivalence of energy and mass is rejected in theory by the announcement in theory, of energy and mass as the composing polar opposites of a previously existing singularity – the atom, from which it follows, that in practice, energy and mass are actually inseparable so that Einstein’s equation is tenable only as the simultaneous identity and difference of theory and practice – this precisely is dialectic and, horror of horrors, the absolute basis through which Karl Marx assembled the three breathtaking volumes of Capital so that in the convergence of natural and social science on dialectic as a common basis, a synthesis of natural and social science is signaled by history itself. As immediate bounty, just as Einstein’s equation permits calculation of the energy co-efficient of all elements in the periodic table, Marx’s equation ev=uv (exchange value is equivalent in every commodity to use value) permits calculation of the relationship of use and exchange values throughout capitalism.

Through this medium of dialectic, quantity and quality are exposed as the source both of natural and social science; energy is correlative of quantity while mass is correlative of quality. The condensate seems to be a classic example of dialectic in which quantity and quality are source components of energy and mass, but equally, in Marx’s treatment of the commodity, exchange value is correlative of quantity, while use value is correlative of quality, and Marx’s response is quite majestic, hence both Einstein’s equation and Marx’s commodity owe their treatment in natural and social science to the prior, common source of quantity and quality. Wholistic materialism, otherwise dubbed New Unified Theory seems just around the corner.

The surprising and interesting thing is that in the readings just given, the law of non-contradiction seems to be no other than dialectic – this can be put in doubt in an idealistic reading by affirming or rejecting it as a matter of whim, but of course, finding yet another dialectical contradiction to struggle with. Affirmation and rejection like truth and falsity now need to be treated as an embedded feature of the working condensate. Unfortunately however, insofar as the law of non-contradiction is finally recognised as identical with dialectic, in an idealistic reading, the accomplishment skates over the specific demonstration through which Cartesian mind-body dualism and Aristotle’s defense both of the Judaeo Christian basis and Western philosophy in general (liberalism) is secured. This is arguably the most difficult aspect of my struggles with New Unified Theory.

You’ll gather that I am no defender of these three laws of Aristotle, quite the contrary, but of course this doesn’t mean that they can be properly be ignored. They have to be read within the context of an wholistic materialism, and this points up the ideological timbre of Western theory and practice.

If the central problem of European philosophy is a real problem, (and in my view the problematic couldn’t be more real or significant because ideology readily fills the philosophical gaps to highly convenient, political effect) and if real progress in self-understanding is to be served well, neither Cartesian mind-body dualism nor Aristotle’s three laws can simply be set aside, but rather engaged and dispatched while preserving their value as indicated above. This points up the difference I suppose of natural science in all its forms from my chosen enterprise, which incidentally, is something more than science or philosophy.

A synthesis of natural and social science has been secured in what I call New Unified Theory and it produces an epistemology I have called ‘liberation art’ whose result is ‘liberation history’, and these amount I argue, to the ripened preconditions for the accomplishment of our species’ maturity. The condensate and dialectic recognised as the dialectic at the heart of an wholistic materialism is thus recognised as the inner fact and logic of self-conscious social matter in historical motion – there is no escape for any constituency from this limitation. Reality does not exist independently of the thinking process, but rather embodies it.

My chosen enterprise is concerned with self-understanding, meaning universal rather than individual self-understanding – the former of course (universal self-understanding) being the source of the latter ensures at every stage, crucial, historically evolving increments to the latter. History furnishes both the progressively enriched, enriching content available to individuals, and an external environment in which to deploy functions of like within like, but when history gives its allegiance to one-sided enterprises of various sorts (as in privileging an idealistic reading for instance) each participating individual may well find herself going along in a (liberal) stream she imagines she has chosen. Few escape from the over-determining thrust of history, while most never suspect their restrictedness - so much for the whole idea of the freedom in which liberalism, the cult of the individual as classical subject of philosophy is grounded.

My enterprise is aimed as inducing universal insight and the possibility of a meaningful engagement with history – in a word my enterprise is aimed at exposing the preconditions of ‘enlightenment’ on the assumption that this has been the historical destiny of our species from the start. Our species’ birth, a la Darwin and its post-Darwinian sequel as our species’ infancy, childhood and adolescence has been the preparation for the accomplishment of our as yet unachieved, species’ maturity, and of course it calls for transparent exposure of the history in which the story and the teller are one and the same in self-revealing process.

By contrast, natural science has nothing to do with self-understanding, but rather is concerned with portraying material nature objectively, (and increasingly) so as to energize technological mastery in a whole variety of domains that all too often have been chosen mainly because of profitable potentials. As you know, research- funding is more readily available for the latter. There are exceptions of course, and perhaps astrophysics is the prime contender, although space flight, probes into deep space, satellite technology, Star Wars and so on cannot be isolated from profitable developments. The duality of these two enterprises of know-how and self-knowing isn’t absolute of course – their results interact in profound ways over time. Unfortunately, the interaction is cast in mystical fundaments (idealism) and perpetuates mystical effects as ideologically supported sites of power under the control of groups, classes, cliques etc whose interests rarely coincide with humanitarian needs, precisely the circumstances in which a proper response to the role played by Aristotle’s logic is germane. Truth is of the essence! In fact, these two enterprises are themselves a prime case in point, and I’ve said something of it.

Natural science itself falls under the law of identity as per A=A. – the identity of natural science is defined exclusively by its own internal structure. (One-sided, traditional, idealistic, anti-dialectical reading!) As an object or thing as per A=A, natural science cannot properly violate the second law without self-contradiction, i.e. it cannot be itself and not itself, and, as per the third law, if these propositions are true their obverse must be false (which means that dialectic is false). This treatment of science incidentally is not something I have ever given any thought to, which points up one of the extraordinary effects of intellectual engagement with an other – it almost invariably prompts insights and application not previously considered. Clearly the nature of ‘the other’ his/her interests, biases, skills and insights etc are the crucial stimulus to a more or less appropriate ‘tailored’ response. These latter features permeate one’s own ruminations and opens up new elements and avenues of communication and insight. I now have a dilemma.

A song with familiar chords, melody and theme (JL might approve but YO might sue you) signals the possibility that you really won’t be interested in ‘my enterprise’, while you will have gathered that I by contrast, am profoundly interested in yours, and this of course in the context of overcoming the limitations of mind-body dualism, of Aristotle’s three laws of thought and inevitably therefore in the context of seeing the whole Judaeo Christian enterprise both as the source of New Unified Theory and the resistance to it. Judaeo Christian development is its own grave-digger, and historical integrity can allow no other reading – the stimulus to the achievement of higher things than theology will allow, is already with us, and it is accompanied by a crisis left in the wake of traditional religion.

There will be no merely technological fix for the deepening crisis of human being that is current all around us. Insight is the key!

It seems to me that the song is more problematic than any song should be. For some reason, I have just realized that you know Sami, a friend of mine domiciled in Canada?

In receiving your first email I had presumed that your connection to me was consequent upon your having visited my website as www.newtimepress.co.uk and because of this presumption I assumed you knew me and something of what I am about from that source. The page on the author (me of course) and other details in the site might well have led you to your opener re the law of non-contradiction. A mutual friend here in the UK had said that Sami would be referring someone to me and perhaps you are he. In either case, you might have gathered that I am a working class escapee (at age 35) from factories and building sites to university degrees and teaching Social Sciences at Middlesex University for some 15 years. But . . . the song of adoration and its implications.

My partner is a devout Catholic while I am an atheist in search of the basis of a transcending new , spiritual awakening. The journey is over thirty years long now and sometimes I wish I had never started, because it is a lonely place to be. In brief, when finally I reached the conclusion that atheism is the only option for me I accepted the duty of uncovering a corresponding ethical basis with universally applicable implications. This aspiration was energized in the early eighties in recognising that ee=em cee squared is the supreme example among all others of dialectic, dialectical contradiction, the corrective to all previous theories of dialectic, and therefore of the pre-conscious, mechanical subjectivity of material nature through which alone one could hope to furnish (a) a coherent account of the emergence of consciousness and (b) a wholly rational alternative to Divine Creation. As already remarked, when Divine Creation is discounted (a) and (b) of the last sentence are essential, and I have presumed, that responding appropriately is a feature of our species' development. The outcome is a forced move as in the game of chess.

By necessity, nature must already encode and have encoded from eternity the latent potential in appropriate conditions to become self-conscious, and because the outcome is already a fait accompli, the preconditions for it must have been latent from eternity. This is no more than the underlying assumption of Stephen Hawking’s theory of the super-singularity and the big bang.

As you know four forces are presumed as latent content within the super-singularity, and you speculate, no doubt along with many others whether there is one force from which the four basics are evolved potential. Be careful what you wish for. Lao Tzu as chief progenitor (in writing) of Chinese Taoism called it ’Chi’ – force as energy, Chi, a rose by any other name! In Hinduism, they call it Brahaman, the soul of the universe, but spiritual energy nevertheless. It wasn’t within Stephen Hawking’s remit to see Chi or Brahaman as the source force, but rather, that the four forces have to be presumed in the super-singularity to account for their emergence as defining basis of material nature. His remit was rather to account for the most of what empirical physics is about, and so far as physics is concerned, four forces without a specifiable origin was a tenable starting point. But if presumptions of this sort are justified by examination of ‘the nature of the consequent’ and if in addition, Lao Tzu could presume a single source of energy to underlie the possibility of all reality, no one should object if I insist that since consciousness and self-consciousness are recognized as the whole basis of the theoretics advanced by Hawking, Lao Tzu, Taoism, the Vedas, Genesis, Aristotle, Newton, Descartes to mention but a few, that self-consciousness can equally well be presumed as latent content within the super-singularity. Everything, especially New Unified Theory then falls neatly into place. Material nature is a process in which eventually, its self-consciousness was destined (here, there and who knows where) to become manifest.

The big bang followed by the coalescence of our Milky Way, our solar system, and our green jewel furnished the preconditions for the appearance of nature’s self-consciousness in the collective body of Homo sapiens, and bingo, here we are in the raging furnace and dying embers of our species’ adolescence, waging war on one another usually because of different religious beliefs, waging war on life itself, tearing ourselves and the environment to bits through the one-sided medium of know-how applied in the end, to the procurement of ever-expanding consumption.

Traditional religion in all its colors and hues was essential to human development but has now led us to a sorry pass, and to me, a transcending basis has increasingly seemed essential whereby to conceive and accomplish our species' maturity, beyond all conceptions of god. All this is to say that science, especially physics is and can be nothing other than an exercise in naive realism in which the material universe is conceived objectively, I should say, merely objectively. Once a Divine Creator (universal subjectivity itself) has been discounted from the surviving Judaeo Christian basis in Europe there is nothing but a merely objective material universe, but this is the whole point; the purely objective material universe doesn't exist independently of its universal subjectivity. Here, a wholistic materialism is crucial.

New Unified Theory is the post-theological treatment of immanent, universal subjectivity and its objectified correlates, and this reading was latent from eternity if closer to the surface at successive stages of development – big bang, life on earth, mammals, primates, Homo sapiens and material self-consciousness as species’ infancy and childhood à (Vedas/Genesis/Greek math) à species adolescence, feudalism, Renaissance, Galileo/Keppler/Newton à Einstein etc, Hobbes/Descartes, Locke/Rousseau, Hume/Montesquieu, Smith/Benthamà capitalism, Kant à Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx (Husserl/Durkheim/Weber/Heidegger/Russell etc) à New Unified Theory as species’ maturity.

The only world any of us can know is the world inflected through, and cast within the restrictions and permissions of its universal subjectivity - this was Immanuel Kant's conclusion in the late 18th century and once divine creation has been discounted it is even more essential and absolutely true today, except today, Kant's eleven-part conception of the a priori can be replaced by ee=em cee squared a theoretical singularity to match the practical singularity advanced by Hawking. The equation was latent from eternity, is and has to be true prior to all experience for without its truth as the basis of universal subjectivity, material nature could not exist let alone persist – the a priori is a super-adequate substitute for God. It is up to us to engage reality as given by its real history and make of it what we can. The age of theology has fulfilled its evolutionary promise and must it seems be transcended as the very price of our species’ survival.

I am fascinated Steve, that once again, from an unlikely exchange with someone who sends me both a scientific cum philosophical conundrum followed by a familiar song as a sort of calling-card, I find myself once again rehearsing the essentials of New Unified Theory, and being much more long-winded than I had intended. I have every respect, I hope you will have gathered, for your sensitivities along with those of my son of forty two who has been searching by various means for spiritual integrity for the last 20 years, along with my second son of forty five who is less focused, nevertheless enthralled with the task of enlightenment (my oldest son lives in a wheel-chair) my partner of 25 years already mentioned and for any and everyone who seeks ‘the truth’ as basis for higher human being than history or traditional religion to date would allow. As you will gather, truth and intelligent design takes on a whole new meaning within the context of New Unified Theory.

I envy you, if like my partner you have a concrete belief that gets you through the night and day in the faith of a good God, but I cannot embrace it. Instead I search for the point of universal, mutual connection that would help future generations to make something more of our green jewel than a conflicted shit-heap on the way to ‘rapture’ and some other preferred place. Whether we were then to call that point of universal, mutual understanding ‘God’ would hardly matter since the recognition of cooperative mutuality is what is important.

To close, I will include for your amusement or whatever, a few opening pages of (Breakthrough) some work in progress. I hope you enjoy the logic of my enterprise if not its aim. The foregoing is longer than I intended, but it is as much for me as it is for you, for Sami or anyone else – self-clarification so far is an endless journey with no end in sight.

Finally, I gather from Sami via our mutual friend Joe that you are doing a Phd. Sami thought you’d enjoy if not benefit from contacting me, and this you can judge for yourself. As far as citing New Unified Theory is concerned however, I have mentioned that the material has not been refereed, and your supervisors might take a dim view of citations from it, but feel free anyway. I have self-published a first volume at the website detailed above, and have a good many other volumes in the queue, but don’t quite frankly know how best to market the whole thing. ‘Breakthrough’ is the latest, the best and most exciting since it benefits from the earlier struggles with as yet unpublished volumes.

Best wishes,


Breakthrough . . . Essential Essays in Human Progress

Outrageous, disgraceful, the greatest slur ever to arise, provocative beyond toleration, satanic vitriol, disturbing, frightening and shocking . . . but true and truthful as never before, and full of hope! Hope is the key! Wake up!


Breakthrough recounts the structure and function of the most challenging, revolutionary theory ever to appear, and the context of its appearance confirms it. We are both the context and the content, and Breakthrough is the invitation to explore the meaning of who and what we are as never before. In fact, ‘we’ are the material embodiment of the ever-transcending consciousness of nature itself, matter that thinks, the conscience of the material universe – ‘we’ are the history of self-consciousness incarnate, but we hardly know who we are. Without the insights we now have, an ancient priesthood launched a mistaken conception of human being that has shaped some three thousand years of history to devastating, yet staggeringly creative effect.

We have been blinded by belief in the God of war, Yahweh, Jehovah, The Father and One True God of The Chosen People, and we may never recover from it. Belief in this God of war inserted inhumanity and hatred into human history as no other influence ever could, and at the same time furnished the technological know-how for world-domination, its holy grail! It has put profit above people while it shaped and drove global economics towards imminent self-destruction. Without The Father there could be no Son!

Belief in this God of war over-rides the cypher of love, and in the space between war, hate, profit and love every atrocity, every brutal excess imaginable from assassination through, crucifixion, homicide, fratricide, torture, genocide, world wars and mass human sacrifice has been justified in the name of God. But most damning, and worst of all of all, the love of war has become an unrecognized, addictive frenzy in which all moral claims have been subverted to the service of a brutal God and the alpha male dominance that now has become a bitter war on life itself. I have become tainted by my understanding of history shaped by this God of war, and so I think, has everyone else. We all deserve better! If we really want it, we can do better, but our children and theirs will benefit most. This is how it has to be. We will give or withhold as a dispassionate God might, the help that alone could confer fully human status upon our progeny. Simply to train them for an infinite extension of selfish, consumptive addiction is the best that the absent God of Judaism could or was prepared to do. We can do better!

We each as infants had the propensity for love, but the God of war would have it otherwise. ‘He’ would make warriors and victims of us all and call them shepherds and sheep, while bringing all true joy to a bitter, profitable end. The Garden of Eden was our infancy made sour, not by original sin, but by the desire of cunning despots to form practical history in the image of their brutally exploitative aspirations. The rest is a poetry of pain and alpha-male savagery in the disguise of moral superiority. New Unified Theory was destined to arise and to read out of The Holy Book what had been buried out of sight between the lines of it so as to preserve and serve the expanding savagery of the dominant male principle in the shape of a naked ape thrust without merit or choice upon the breathtaking stage of nature.

New Unified Theory is an account, among other things of the emergence through historical time of the structure, function and content of self-consciousness – if it didn’t emerge whole as recounted in Genesis and it didn’t, self-consciousness emerged piece by piece out of the fundaments of nature’s own evolutionary processes, and we are the result and we are finally in a position to confirm it root and branch. Nature, not God is the root of consciousness – we are nature become aware of itself, but myth would have it otherwise. Myth has claimed centre-stage in human history, and from the first totem pole onwards has become constitutional to how we think of ourselves.

To all accounts, myth was essential to human development, the mechanism through which we explored while unwittingly creating, reality. The conclusion is inescapable – self-consciousness is co-terminal with reality. The assembly of our species self-consciousness therefore is simultaneously the assembly of reality! ‘This creation’ began effectively when our DNA was consolidated in its present form and with the help of social matter reaching back to a Black Athena in East Africa and on to the present, it is repeated in every one of us in the condensed miracle of self-consciousness we all take wholly for granted. ‘We’, the species Homo sapiens have created reality, and every day ‘we’ create it anew in the trans-historical space between the overlapping births, lives and deaths of all its participants. Within the context and tensions of myth and material reality, Creation and Intelligent Design take on entirely new meanings – ‘we’ are the authors, but since the process is and always has been a subtle collective process expanding through time, its real basis is not explicitly nor exclusively intellectual, but rather involves the intuitive orchestration of feelings and emotions.

We do not reach agreement on shared meanings therefore via an exclusive comparison of intellectual proposals, but rather through the subtle concordances that sometimes make us smile and at other times make us frown, and once these demeanors and others of the sort have been confirmed as the underlying ideational content, we symbolize at least some of it by words and ciphers of various sorts all of which makes the process one of almost infinite subtlety. Once the collective agreement has been reached however, we can all too easily forget the subtlety of the process (if ever we even noticed it in the first place) and use surface expressions as knowing moments of agreement. Self-consciousness therefore is primarily an emotional matter, and because there is no history of emotion it is all too easy, especially when conflicted stances are put in place of the emotional basis of agreement, to lose sight of the real meaning of our communicative exchanges. All too easily we take the words for the meaning when in fact they are only the surface markers of a much more subtle underlying basis. This is not to devalue words and their assemblages as phrases and sentences however, but rather to acknowledge their role and function in the thinking processes we all engage. The inter-relationship between the wordless, ee-motional basis and the words and word strings it prompts alone could mobilize and enable the inter-relations of mutual understanding among social participants. A technical point of real importance cannot at this point be ignored.

It has become a standard conclusion in the science of semiotics that the status of the words in the foregoing juxtaposition of words and the ee-motional contents with which they are associated has been promoted in such a way as to demote their ee-motivating counterpart. It can and must be conceded that the inter-relations between these opposed poles alone could mobilize the communications and communicative functions without which human society would be impossible. Nor can it be stressed too strongly, as already remarked, that the cooperative basis in which the communicative function was grounded in the first instance has been replaced by competition, but to allocate primacy as in promoting words, word-strings to the status of signifier and simultaneously demoting the ee-motional basis to the status of the signified, is to privilege words and rational proposals over and above the importance of feelings. Here we have a prime example of the manner in which science, the science of semiotics is guilty of a one-sided bias that reduces the scientific enterprise to mere ideology. Science could hardly do otherwise, but the result anyway remains the same.

In privileging words and rational proposals over feelings, semiotics has signaled the subordination of its enterprise to the requirements and service of a competitive society, and can put up its hands in disingenuous innocence as to its motivating intentions. The task of science is and has always been to give faithful account of ‘what is’, and if a competitive society such as is the norm of modern society within global capitalism is ‘what is’, it could hardly be upbraided for addressing the structure and function of what it is. This very reasonable stance, however falls into mere ideology because of its limited, one-sidedness, the mark of ideology everywhere.

In its one-sided engagement with the communicative structures and functions of a competitive society, the science of semiotics ignores the requirements of a cooperative society, ignores in other words the nature of society before it became the tooth and claw competitive battleground we call capitalism. Equally, in ignoring the cooperative circumstances in which our communicative functions were assembled in the first place, and focusing on how cooperation has been subordinated within competition, the prospects of returning to cooperative arrangements on a higher level than before have been minimized – out of sight is out of mind. By this reckoning the science of semiotics is a blatant, unrecognized exercise in ideology. If its status as science is to be redeemed at all, it can only be redeemed from ideology by overcoming its one sided-ness.

In recognising the existing limitations of semiotics as the result of privileging words and rational proposals by allocating them the status of the signifier while demoting feelings as meanings, intuitions and unspecified ideas to the status of the signified, its redemption must involve recognising the obverse. Semiotics can be redeemed from mere ideology only by promoting the erstwhile demoted feelings, meanings, intuitions and ideas to the status of the signifier (that which we have already agreed) and demoting the erstwhile promoted words and word-strings to the status of the signified!

To wrangle about the meaning of words rather than about the meaning of meanings shifts conflict to something outside of what we have already agreed – a Marxist would insist that in class-divided society the working class is exploited by dominant classes, while a liberal would reject it. There is more to say about the redemption of semiotics from the status of mere ideology, but a sharp rejoinder might even now point out that in reversing the stress of privilege as between the signifier and the signified, one-sidedness has not been overcome but merely reversed. One sort of one-sidedness has been substituted for another. There is a remedy, but its preconditions have not yet been brought to attention. Quite soon the remedy for all one sidedness will be brought centre-stage, and simply to have highlighted the problem of semiotics, the preconditions for it are already under way. A short digression into the nature of philosophical reasoning is essential.

There is nothing more familiar in the whole wide world than the self-consciousness we take for granted and these brief remarks about the compromised nature of semiotics is a timely reminder. They can remind us that because of the role played by myth, and despite thousands of years of examination of it, there is nothing in the whole wide world about which we both know almost everything, and understand almost nothing. This has to be the starting-point of New Unified Theory, and hopefully it will amount equally to the point of departure for a new phase in human development. This can be said without fear of valid contradiction.

We are the authors and intelligent designers of civilisation, the authors and intelligent designers therefore, of self-consciousness, of reality itself, and actually of the preconditions for the assembly of New Unified Theory. Our real task now is to understand what we have assembled, and the rudiments have already been detailed in outlining the problem of semiotics. Our real task is to understand both a remedy to the problem of one-sidedness and therefore cast light on everything else at the same time – we must understand the real nature of what we have created.

What ‘we’ have created has the inbuilt, symmetrical unity through time of exploration and creation, discovery and invention, curiosity and revelation, theory and practice, and this fascination has been pursued until myth itself has effectively become redundant. In its wake, material reality, self-consciousness come to the cusp of its maturity is nothing short of the invisible transparency in which the universal history of nature and human being is inscribed for all to see – now you see it, now you don’t. In this magical space absolute fullness and total emptiness, self-consciousness and self-consciousness is inscribed as the sacred, social substance of human being. No wonder this extraordinary space that is both the heritage of every human being and the destiny of material nature, was filled with a self-conscious mystery and myth called God. The developments leading to this exhilarating conclusion are astonishing beyond all compare. It is unlikely that full justice can be done by them here.

Myth from its first consolidation around a totem pole was the guiding light to insight and enlightenment in the emerging history of the naked ape, but a new, accelerating stage of development was announced with the greatest technological advance of all time. The translation of the spoken to the written word is head and shoulders and a country mile above and ahead of all other technological advances there has ever been. It effectively launched our species’ adolescence at the origin of civilisation wherein myth from the long history of the preceding oral traditions furnished an ever more sharply focused convergence of mystical possibility within material reality and vice versa. Only now can we review both the usefulness of myth and the necessity to transcend its limitations.

Genesis was a prime example, indeed the prime example among all others of how myth in the written word functions as a fixed record of, an optic into, and a stepping stone to higher possibilities than mere primates could achieve, but would first lead the world through a merry dance of pain, confusion, misrepresentation, evolving insight and emerging potential that was destined finally to issue in New Unified Theory. The question now is not whether myth has become redundant, that is taken for granted here, but rather to review the insights that have been garnished throughout our species’ adolescence and recognise in them the aid given to the assembly of the next stage of human development. What we have assembled so far is not entirely a pretty sight, and yet the guardians of Genesis ancient and modern are heedless of the need for fundamental change. The warp and weft of Genesis persists as a haunting retardant on essential transitions to higher things.

Lock, stock and barrel, we have designed and built civilisation in the image of alpha-male dominance, slavery, serfdom, exploitative, dehumanizing use of servants as beasts of the field, and holy books everywhere, including the Vedas of Hinduism, but most especially The Book of Genesis have invoked divine authority as supremely effective disguise in its aid. Nothing short of a shocking truth could inspire the essential rebellion against the sort of world projected into practical effect by the master-text of Judaism in all its variants. Is it sheer accident that holy books everywhere justified very narrowly the same atrocities in the name of God, or was it a supremely cunning plan for the domination in perpetuity of the many by the few, and even for the domination of the world? Accident alone could hardly have orchestrated the parallel modes of domination that are observable all around us from which we now can see what previously was obscured from sight.

Myth and materiality were destined to become deadly enemies in the battle for truth and morality, and time alone could deliver a judgment. In fact, the battle has now been won leaving the war for higher humankind, love and the dignity of life as an as yet unresolved enigma. It hardly matters now whether accident or intention was the driving force behind the holy books that achieved nothing so much as the justification for the unjustifiable. The important thing is to expose the residues of history in such a way as to empower its participants in the accomplishment of a higher destiny than history to date would allow. This is the task that inspires the assembly of New Unified Theory, and hopefully, it shows.

It is demonstrable beyond all debate that in encrypting their blueprint for alpha-male superiority and world dominance the scribes of Genesis had turned reality downside up, inside out and back to front. This we will progressively confirm. The first step in the assembly of these compound inversions of human history is familiar to all. It was to displace the creative principle of self-conscious development, and relocate it outside of its real hearth and home.

The myth of creation was produced by what today we’d call a primitive people coming to the end of our species’ childhood, and it subordinated our then-pending civilisation to the outside agency of a creative, mystical imagination residing somewhere outside of space and time, yet everywhere and nowhere. Our primitive forebears succeeded in setting puzzles in writing, about the nature of reality that with unerring accuracy would lead towards the redundancy of all myth, and what then? The outcome was fateful, effectively inevitable, and it now dominates the world.

Under the guiding light of Genesis, consciousness in European history has been increasingly subordinated to the service of mastery and know-how as-if this and ever-expanding consumption was all that mattered and all that could ever matter. Know-how can blow holes in the ozone layer, move mountains, melt ice-caps, kill all the fish in the sea, wipe out cities at a stroke, eliminate nature’s greatest forests and never to be repeated living works of art, with hardly a backward glance. Fortunately, know-how and rapacious consumption is only a part of what human being really is; fortunately, history has now furnished the means to know ourselves as never before, and to celebrate the higher truth open to us, ‘after God’. New Unified Theory is not the apologetic appeal of a supplicant, but a demand for a legacy denied by the guardians and defenders of the indefensible, a demand for the return of stolen identity, a demand for human dignity and much else.

As history incarnate, we have prepared the ground for the accomplishment and celebration of the next logical step beyond mere mechanical competence. Easier said than done. The theoretical breakthrough to the insight required by the next logical step in human development is summarized below while its translation into practical effect is the greatest challenge we will ever meet. Firstly, we need to appreciate exactly how truth was subordinated to inhumane ends by belief in the creative schemes of the God of War, and secondly we need to recognise the real nature of truth, after God has been discounted – these features are two sides of the same coin and since the literature in favour is three thousand years deep, the transcending movement cannot be squeezed into a thimble. On the contrary!

No apology is offered for saying that what follows in Breakthrough is the first, embryonic approximation to ultimate theory, an all-encompassing theory (AET) that opens the door to the last and greatest phase of human development, and it positively commands universal assent. There is a price to pay. No longer can grand theory be harnessed to the establishment or preservation of privilege. Secrecy henceforth should only apply to truly intimate, legitimate and truly sensitive matters of personal privacy. Maximum transparency, maximized universal insight alone could reduce suspicion, conflict and insecurity towards tenable human arrangements, and having prepared the grounds, history now demands it as a human right.

Special, enabling conditions of insight have come to maturity in the preconditions for the appearance of New Unified Theory and their convergence in consciousness marks a watershed moment in the evolution of civilisation. These enabling conditions are brought into relief in what follows, and are decisive to a fault in marking out a new, previously undreamed enlightenment for all – in fact all the evidence suggests that we will embrace it en masse, or perish quite soon.

Genesis has finally led us to the very edge of species’ suicide, and a correction going to the very root of all possible understanding alone could prevent an extinction event beyond compare – on present trends all green-stuff on the face of the earth could be eliminated before my newborn grandson reaches maturity. (The bees in America are already being decimated.) If this is an outcome that might be welcomed as ‘rapture’ by ‘The People of The Book’, the rest of us might not approve quite so highly, and here, because The People of The Book have no right to impose self-destruction on everyone else, a remedy is advanced.

‘Breakthrough’ confirms in terms of strident truth, the end of ideology, the end of mysticism, the end of the Judaeo Christian writ and the inception of the ultimate breakthrough to higher human being. Its credentials we will confirm below, are impeccable far beyond the current foundations of civilisation. ‘Breakthrough’ can hardly find words equal to the drama it encodes because human experience is always something greater than what can be said of it - historical experience always outstrips the theory that emerges from the progressive, self-understanding of practical process. Nevertheless, New Unified Theory is the newly emerged measure of all valid theory, the basis for the correction of all previous theory, and this should quickly become obvious to anyone who can set aside their skeptical reservations for just long enough to see how these outrageous claims on behalf of New Unified Theory are already justified. The preconditions for more or less comprehensive self-knowing have been fulfilled, and defense of bigotry alone could deny it.

Through the medium of social matter in historical motion, material nature came to self-consciousness on a green jewel in orbit around a life-giving sun. This is our privilege and it is special beyond compare. We are equally, the vehicle and the self-conscious result, the unfolding story and the knowing story-teller, and although Western civilisation knows of this purely materialistic insight, all its institutions are grounded in the self-deluding denial of it, and although Eastern civilisation fares no better attention is deployed here on what follows from Genesis. In its wake, mainstream scholarship almost without exception is the disingenuous author of a quite incredible exercise in self-deception. Small wonder therefore that we are blinded yet by an ancient God of war – an ancient mystical basis retains its mystifying grip on how reality is conceived, portrayed and experienced in the annals of practical history. To this extent Western civilisation and the global capitalism of which it is the author is grounded in psychosis, a collective schizophrenia, and it shows.

At the turn of the 21st century, our increasingly dangerous, ecologically devastating, war-torn species’ adolescence in civilisation is the signal from history of a system suffering from a profound crisis of identity expressing as a universal fragmentation. Within the system of human being everything is dissolving at an increasing rate as in a universal entropy disintegrating towards a mere aggregation of parts, particles, photon-dust, participants and quantitative relations. The age of the specialist has castrated the creative potentials of the great majority of us by furnishing an outcome foreshadowed in the first chapter of The Holy Bible.

In the first instance, The Book of Genesis was driven into existence by the alpha male imperatives of primates in transition towards higher human being, and nothing has changed except scale and intensity. Civilisation so-called is infinitely more brutal than the mute brutes from which we are descended – civilisation has become a war on life itself, and insight alone, insight most especially to the role played by the God of war can reverse the trends of our blind, self-destructive species’ adolescence.

New Unified Theory is a reaction to a mystically induced, one-sided reductionism with corresponding universal fragmentation, and it advances the wholistic remedy with a human face. New Unified Theory announces the basis of a new spiritual awakening that was in our species’ destiny from the first gatherings around a totem pole. No one could then have known that the first gatherings around a totem pole was the launching pad of self-conscious history as such, and the launching pad of a detour through every mystical possibility leading finally to its materialistic obverse in New Unified Theory.

Through the medium of the totem pole, the crude, innocent, superstitious, animistic, ancient, embryonic spiritual basis marked the first steps of specifically human development beyond the purely Darwinian, biological basis. Consequently, the laws of change applying to the biological evolution of species as recounted by Darwin would have limited relevance in the new circumstances of evolving self-consciousness. The evolution of consciousness-proper in short, could only begin when the Darwinian basis had come to completion, and entirely different registers of insight with moral and political self-consciousness are at its core. With the appearance of the naked ape, nature entered a new phase of its development. Wake up!

Human being is altogether more than the mere sophisticated animalism to which we are confined by the dogmas of Genesis, and altogether more than a sophisticated ape. Human being and self-consciousness is an entirely new, post-Darwinian principle on the face of the earth – it is the principle of moral, technical and political self-consciousness, and the principle of history incarnate. Through the medium of its real source, human being was the internally generated, ultimate springboard of intelligent design: ‘Man made God’ and to all accounts, in its time, this was a necessary illusion.

In the attempt to understand herself, post-Darwinian man made God in her own image. In her own theoretical imagery too made she also, the heavens and the earth, and it is good, but more, infinitely more than pre-conscious apes could ever imagine. Starry, Starry night! Three words say more than a thousand pictures! The theoretical imagery projected onto nature by its own evolving, self-conscious imagery of portrayal was something altogether more sophisticated than merely applying names to things encountered via the medium of naive perception as per Genesis. This we will confirm. Perception involves much, much more than merely the lifting of lids of healthy, primate eyes.

What to begin with around the totem pole was the unwitting attempt of a naked ape to understand itself has become the mystified, self-mystifying odyssey of human being. At the open end of that enthralling journey at which we now stand and look out at the world we have assembled both in theory and in practice, confusion is greater than ever before because confusion itself has become a primary feature, perhaps the primary feature of self-consciousness, and it isn’t entirely accidental.

Confusion among the non-dominant masses is a God-send to the rich and powerful and every effort has been made to nurture it from pulpit, university lectern, teacher’s blackboard and Sunday-school sermons. Induced ignorance on a mass basis is the greatest political weapon imaginable, and The Holy Book is its text-book and master-text. If ever its influence was justified, times have changed. Contrary to the master-text of Judaism, Christianity and Islam where historical immutability is the key concept, history is actually a process of real, non recurring transitions, as opposed to mere cyclical change, and we cannot, not respond appropriately to it. If we don’t learn from history, we could never have risen above the primates from which we are descended. We cannot stop learning, and New Unified Theory is irrefutably the evidence of it – real learning is essential to real change, but it also requires understanding the real nature of the stepping-stones history has already assembled.

Theories of God, invented in the first instance around a totem pole as aid to self-understanding, alongside of the mutually incorporating theory and practice of an ever evolving know-how that now splits nature to its sub-atomic core, sums up in global capitalism to the ultimate exercise in politically convenient, self-mystified confusion. Totemic principles wi
RICHARD THOMAS wrote on May. 26, 2008 @ 03:25 GMT
Opposite particles X and Y cannot be in the SAME PLACE at the SAME TIME in the SAME PLACE except in the conditions of the big bang.

GLUON X+ QUARK Y are in the SAME PLACE at THE SAME TIME in the SAME STATE in the big bang.

When this kind of matter is mixed with ordinary matter four states and four forces.

It explodes into 2+2+4.Releasing potential energy as kinetic.

This is the proposed mechanism of the big bang.

Giannoti at CERN will check the idea and prove it right.

RICHARD THOMAS wrote on May. 29, 2008 @ 16:14 GMT
Richard Thomas and John Boy Walton both add up to 13.

13 letters.

God is down on writers.

Dion(dionysius) is 4 letters adds up to 24.


2*6+2*6=4*6 The equation from john 11 verse 9.




RICHARD THOMAS wrote on May. 29, 2008 @ 16:29 GMT

You entered: GARRETT LISE

There are 11 letters in your name.

Those 11 letters total to 53

There are 4 vowels and 7 consonants in your name.

What your first name means:Teutonic Male Spear strength.

Norse Male Defender.

English Male Variant of Gerald, meaning 'rules by the spear' or 'hard or bold spear.' Also an English variant of the German Gerard, based on medieval pronunciation.

Anglo-Saxon Male Strong spear.

Your number is: 8


It means Garrett is man pretending to be God his true number is infinite 4.18 Or infinte 4=666.

So Garrett will use 2+2=4 with 7 but his real meaning is 2+2=4=6

Garrett will add equations in 7s 2+2=4.

To get 28 equations.


And Richard Thomas and John Boy are 13 letters.
RICHARD THOMAS wrote on May. 31, 2008 @ 03:40 GMT
My new book has just been released MY SCIENCE THESIS- How To Fail Einstein at College by Richard Thomas.

It is available form central London Publishing London,WIG9TD.




It is also available without the latest research blogs from Amazon as MY SCIENCE THESIS-TAKE EINSTEIN TO INFINITY.

Read my book for a complete understanding of the Big Bang using Erasmus Darwins model.

Richard Thomas
RICHARD THOMAS wrote on Jun. 2, 2008 @ 05:39 GMT
Proving 2+2=4 doesn't balance for a cycle of the big crnch big bang.

Means that the universe must become more massive with each cycle to make E=MC^2 balance.

This is a paradox since unending time means infinite mass.

Proving Einstien wrong is more productive than proving him right because we learn something new and different about the big bang.



Add a New Post

  • Please enter the text of your post, then click the "Submit Your Post" button below. You may also optionally add images and file attachments below before submitting your edits.

  • HTML tags are not permitted in posts, and will automatically be stripped out. Links to other web sites are permitted. For instructions on how to add links, please read the link help page.

Your name: (optional)


You may optionally attach up to two documents to your post. To add an attachment, use the following feature to browse your computer and select the file to attach. The maximum file size for attachments is 1MB.

Attachment #1:

Attachment #2:

Once you're done adding file attachments, click the "Submit Your Post" button to add your post.