This conversation is closed.

Theory of potentiality

Hi. My name is Theo and here you can read about my philosophy – Theomism.
Basis of Theomism is the Theory of potentiality (TP) that can explain everything. Always only can.


  • thumb
    Mar 21 2014: "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."
    -Albert Einstein
    • thumb
      Mar 23 2014: Einstein was an absolutely brilliant man.
  • Mar 21 2014: Ok.
    You're right. It only "can" or "cannot" be.
    I'm not very astute with this stuff but it interests me no end.
    I read your article and the first thing that struck me was this comment:
    "We’re not used to encountering snakes as a general rule...."
    I think much of Western Christianity is based on an encounter with a snake, isn't it?
    Anyway, each morning I do a sort of "slit-experiment" not quite the same as a "double-slit" experiment though.

    I am awake early and I hear the sounds of a truck of some kind, age and size, move past my window and one
    morning I realized that what I was engaging in were the waves of potential that could or could not be
    a truck. I don't actually see it, but I and the waves of potential or mathematical ratios, interfere with each other. I also don't actually have to exist myself to interact with them nor to prove it to anyone else.
    But I think in one way it is true that this truck doesn't actually exist but only it's potential, through sound waves, is
    what exists as it passes through or into the "slit" of my consciousness, where it all happens, whether I exist or not.
    If I look right away, there might be a truck there, but if I don't, I have a backlog of information that consciousness forms into some image, but mostly I also noticed that I don't actually have an image in my mind that I see that is a truck, which I also found to be strange.
    Don't know if any of this makes any sense or if anyone is put out by it, I do apologize.
    I think that Schrödinger might be willing to accept the "only can" idea, some 80-90 some years after his quantum theory.
    His theory is the only theory that quantum chemists can use to calculate the properties of molecules from first principles, which is the properties of their atoms.
    Empirical and non-empirical exist simultaneously, and in both realms, meaning each moves between both realms, simultaneously.
    Incidentally, I have seen infinite universes and like those who have had NDE's, wonder if others have.
  • thumb
    Mar 20 2014: I've read your article sir, but I will still reserve judgement, because I believe there is not enough information for a final verdict. I did not see any real 'math' in your article. You only expressed the basic ideas of set theory then described as 'cool' when a particular symbol coincidentally was similar to what you are using. Also, could we have some 'implications and applications' of your theory. As it stands, its a little insubstantial. I could even write something similar right here, right now.

    Theory of Everything (A theory of parallels)
    Quantum entanglement involves two 'parallel' particles that are somehow connected and yet not. Like two parallel lines in geometry, this 'proves' that this universe has a twin that is a mirror image of itself, and yet, never touches. 'We know this and this is cool.'
    In math, we express two like thing with the symbol '=' which means equality. Is it not wonderful that it is also the symbol for parallel lines? This is cool.
    Schrodinger's Cat
    Schrodinger's cat is observed to shift from being alive or dead because it 'jumps with its mirror universe until the time it is observed where reality collapses to accommodate for our 'objective' senses.
    The Choice
    As such, with our own perception we could choose to be in this universe, or the next, nothing is as it is because things are both and everything else at the same time and yet not.
    That ends my hocus pocus right there.

    The thing about 'reality' sir, is that you could actually interpret it anyway you want. If you assume your interpretation is true or the actuality of reality, then to you it becomes your theory of everything. Sorry to shoot you down like this, but I'm only saying that you need more proof other than Keanu Reeves being depressed.
  • Mar 24 2014: You are unhappy believing in science and indeed in existence because their exists no absolute truth. We can assume and build on our assumptions. We can run experiments whose results agree with our assumptions but we cannot prove without any doubt that our assumptions meet the holy criteria of being absolute truth. Before we throw the baby out with the bathwater we should think about what this thing, this absolute truth is. Is their such a thing? Is its existence limited to the world of spirits and religion? Is it a concept forever beyond the capability of the most intelligent animal, humans?
  • thumb
    Mar 23 2014: I am rather intrigued by the idea of quantum theory. I've actually read that article before. I have been studying quantum theory for a few months now. It has really helped me to view the world differently, but I think that it is a psychological thing more than it is scientific. Study atoms, then study psychology which, in part describes the way in which we see the world, and you will find a connection between quantum mechanics, and psycology
  • Mar 20 2014: Before reading about Schrödinger’s cat theory, you should first read Rope-Snake Illusion theory which explains superimposition more realistically.

    In the superimposition of the snake on the rope, the substratum is considered to be the rope. But the rope itself is not real, and is a superimposition on Brahman or pure Consciousness. Therefore it is said in Vedanta that the substratum is Rajju-upahita chaitanyam or pure Consciousness apparently limited by the rope. Every object in this world should therefore be looked upon as Brahman limited by that object or Brahman in the form of that object Sarvam khalu idam brahma. The illusory snake is described as Pratibhasika or illusory; the rope, like everything in this world, is Vyavaharika or empirical reality.
    Also read

    When we talk about existence, We safely assume that the universe eists and proceed from there. Some even gives reasoning as to how the universe came into existence., without questioning whether the universe exists or not.

    We feel our body and hence we know we exist
    We feel this world and hence we know world exist
    But the world exist in what?
  • Mar 19 2014: There's the theory that something only exists when you are aware of its existence. So nothing exists until your mind gives the something geometric and character data. So is existence just in our mind? May be nothing exists until we allow it to whether as an individual or a collective mass conscience.
  • thumb
    Mar 19 2014: Interesting idea, I'll be studying this. Is this your theory as in you made it sir? Not bad. However your theory is a lot more fuzzy and quantum entanglement as it stands is already very fuzzy indeed. In my course of studies I've learned to not take Aristotle too seriously. He started a lot of things, and we thank him for that, but a lot, or I dare say most, of his ideas are proven incorrect already nowadays. Quantum entanglement is still a very mysterious phenomenon. Einstein himself disliked it so much, he used it as proof that quantum mechanics could be nothing, calling entanglement 'spooky action at a distance'. The thing about quantum entangled particles is that, any observation of them at anytime yields different results, as in the analogous cat being sometimes alive, or dead, but not both when observed. Quantum entanglement is so mysterious, its been used as 'proof' for a lot of things. Like extra dimensions, parallel universes, magic, and the like.
    Theory wise, my only problem with your idea as of now is that it cannot be tested. Science is a little prickly about being able to test things so yeah. Your explanation of 'everything' could be 'AN' explanation but we cannot be sure if it is 'THE' explanation. I will comment something more prepared next time. I don't like giving out opinion too much without knowing everything there is to know about the subject first. Good day sir!