Is the Theory of Everything Incomplete Without Including God?

[Jimbroni]

The Certainty of 'uncertainty' is ours in our observance, it is NOT in the atom, nor in it's behaviour...begs what is actually uncertain in the first place, but alas it is the first place that we cannot find as to follow exactly absolutely all of cause and effect...hence a form of uncertainty is built into the system we inhabit...meant to be pre-requisites "belief" ergo belief systems...and so on...and so on...

Well Said.

 

[Jimbroni]

Why not a belief, that such choices made, can hold relevances to the gravity of all situations. That some, operate independantly, having realized that such choices have consequences Maybe God, can do that? But us mere mortals, are locked into the entanglement issue

I would agree that such decisions one would make would have a profound effect on ones perspective, thus altering his/her/its :) logic. Which is why I personally would not try to include an intangible such as God into TOE and instead focus on GUT, but perhaps we don't have a choice or the initial cause isn't meant to be found. So like any scientific endeavor you need a control variable. I think the easy way out is to make God the controlled variable. :) That just feels funny to say that.

 

[Mike2]

I think a TOE would show how God created the universe. The existence of a Creator would be implied.

I've come to understand that God is the Logic that holds all things together. You cannot participate in an argument unless you accept the premise that logic is relevant and controlling. So if God is Logic, then you must start every debate, argument, and study with accepting the premise that God exists. God is not something you can prove any more that you can prove the existence of logic. God is just a starting premise for gaining wisdom.

A TOE is not complete until it explains everything physical. But questions do not stop until you derive physics from logic. For if we reduce physics to some other physical quantity, even though it unifies force, etc, it still begs the question as to where these more fundamental laws or entities came from. I've had this conversation many times on the Net. You cannot argue that God is in control so that everything is logical unless you can prove that physics can be derived from logic.

What is missing is to show how the events described about religon are consistent with the laws of physics and logic. What still needs to be explained is how the creation of life, the resurrection, a New heaven and Earth can come about. I believe it is all a matter of entropy. All these events seem to contradict the increase of entropy in all events in the universe. But I think that there may be a conservation of entropy for the universe as a whole. There is no alternative but that a universe exist. This is true at all times. So the Shannon information of a 100% probable event is 0. The Shannon information being equal to the entropy, there is a conservation of entropy in the universe as a whole. So as the universe disperses and increases entropy in one part of the universe, there should be a decrease of entropy in some another part of the universe. This may account for the physical necessity of life. This may account for why we, as decreased entropy creature, observe a increase of entropy for the most part.

So life is a decrease in entropy. There is a decrease in entropy associated with the construction of information storage devices such as a brain. And I think there may also be a decrease of entropy associated with a reduction of knowledge (information) to wisdom. For wisdom recognizes principles and precepts that reduce the amount of information needed because that information can be derived from just a few facts and applying principle.

Structures that maintain their coherence characterize systems of low entropy. So it seems as though a resurrection would also be a reduction in entropy. And I suspect that the New Heaven and Earth will be created as a result of the entropy reduction techniques of finding wisdom and being steadfast in sincerity.

 

[JesseBonin]

lets pretend that there is only 1 photon that exists in the entire universe and beyond
let pretend that this photon is either absolutly slow or super luminal
and the photon travels a path that weaves strands that braid themselves immensly dense (kinda like the weavings of a baseball) and that all matter/energy is permiations within this weaving of photonic energy. at some supremly complex series of vibrations sentient life is formed (you and me) and we visualize these permiations as the things we see and touch, smell, and hear so on... then ... if we are sentient then the power that permiates all things must also be sentient... you can go a step farther ... all thoughts, actions, choices, and discovery have been laid out befor you, pre-ordained. we discover nothing befor we are ready to discover them.

ask me about the single photon theroy on the "light speed" string

 

[sol2]

The Certainty of 'uncertainty' is ours in our observance, it is NOT in the atom, nor in it's behaviour...begs what is actually uncertain in the first place, but alas it is the first place that we cannot find as to follow exactly absolutely all of cause and effect...hence a form of uncertainty is built into the system we inhabit...meant to be pre-requisites "belief" ergo belief systems...and so on...and so on...

Respectively Mr. Robin Parsons

I am on trial here, and seeing the number of posts you have...the quote button is self explanatory.

Do you agree on a cosmological level there are dynamics going on?

Do you believe on a small level, there are dynamics going on?

Some talk about the "isometrical relationships" between the very small and the very large. Can GR and QM speak to this?

In the ring laser of Mallet, there is a "feature of GR" that is attractive.

Can http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@230.7Kl1bcYrOPl.0@.1dde4009/20 be described in cosmological events?

If we can use GR to describe features of experiments like Mallets, then what has been explained about the very small?

Has the fifth Dimension afforded us, a diffeerent perspective on uncertainty?

 

[sol2]

I think a TOE would show how God created the universe. The existence of a Creator would be implied.

I've come to understand that God is the Logic that holds all things together. You cannot participate in an argument unless you accept the premise that logic is relevant and controlling. So if God is Logic, then you must start every debate, argument, and study with accepting the premise that God exists. God is not something you can prove any more that you can prove the existence of logic. God is just a starting premise for gaining wisdom.

A TOE is not complete until it explains everything physical. But questions do not stop until you derive physics from logic. For if we reduce physics to some other physical quantity, even though it unifies force, etc, it still begs the question as to where these more fundamental laws or entities came from. I've had this conversation many times on the Net. You cannot argue that God is in control so that everything is logical unless you can prove that physics can be derived from logic.

What is missing is to show how the events described about religon are consistent with the laws of physics and logic. What still needs to be explained is how the creation of life, the resurrection, a New heaven and Earth can come about. I believe it is all a matter of entropy. All these events seem to contradict the increase of entropy in all events in the universe. But I think that there may be a conservation of entropy for the universe as a whole. There is no alternative but that a universe exist. This is true at all times. So the Shannon information of a 100% probable event is 0. The Shannon information being equal to the entropy, there is a conservation of entropy in the universe as a whole. So as the universe disperses and increases entropy in one part of the universe, there should be a decrease of entropy in some another part of the universe. This may account for the physical necessity of life. This may account for why we, as decreased entropy creature, observe a increase of entropy for the most part.

So life is a decrease in entropy. There is a decrease in entropy associated with the construction of information storage devices such as a brain. And I think there may also be a decrease of entropy associated with a reduction of knowledge (information) to wisdom. For wisdom recognizes principles and precepts that reduce the amount of information needed because that information can be derived from just a few facts and applying principle.

Structures that maintain their coherence characterize systems of low entropy. So it seems as though a resurrection would also be a reduction in entropy. And I suspect that the New Heaven and Earth will be created as a result of the entropy reduction techniques of finding wisdom and being steadfast in sincerity.

Mike2,

I have been reading your responses to Ranyart, but I have decided to stay out of that part of the physics forum.

You used entropy as a variable...and the logic from this...is that topology can be spoken to here? I am definitely open to corrections.

Now of course we can talk about the early universe, and what supergravity might mean here, and from the cooling nature, what matters, and action of space find discrete things form, and negative energy being expressed? A dualistic nature?

A supersymmetrical relationship forming in expansion?

I think then indeed the ideas here is to find a geometrical defintion that is indeed based on that logic.

The idea to assume the existence of something always "being", is a smart one because I find the logic of "nothing" falible right from the word g You can correct me here if you like.

Any corrections appreciated

 

[Mike2]

The idea to assume the existence of something always "being", is a smart one because I find the logic of "nothing" falible right from the word g You can correct me here if you like.

Any corrections appreciated

Time, of course, is a created things as well. So there is no "before creation", or pre-existing being. Time and being come into existence together. So "always being" is correct.

This is still the case if everything proceeds from a infinitesimal point (nothing). But to suggest otherwise, that something proceeded all at once, or that time proceeded from negative infinity with something existing before it expanded at time equal zero, both these suggestions preform the logical error of petitio principii, AKA begging the question. You are left without explanation as to where it came from.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Well Said.

Thank you, but isn't it ironic that this Universe requires us to have belief systems, and yet makes such an example of solidity to us, sold as a rock, stable as a Proton, a need to believe in solidity...solid as in objective proof, no need to belive in it, it is self evident, truth...

Sol2 sorry for the time, but I have a tendency not to answer 'all questions' inasmuch as I need be carefeul of "not giving it all away" (Biblical advise actually)...perhaps, if I have the 'reading' opportunities, (time on computer) I will go read the links, maybe answer some of the questions, then again, who knows, maybe I can't cause I don't know the answer...yet...

 

[JesseBonin]

TOE = God ?

Above all else man seeks relations with God. (most men anyway) There is no everything without including this hard wired function of the human machine. To understand "Everything" we must first understand ourselves, a journey very few ever undertake. More importantly, our thoughts ARE significant in the grand scheme of things.

The search for god: Since the beginning of recorded history (and even discovered history) the human animal has had a relationship with "a higher power". We have in our history been wrong about a lot of thing we "believed" to be true. The desire to know god, i think is different in that this "hope" is something we are all born with. Instinct? genetic patterning? or something deeper and more sublime? Our desire to know "how it works" is undoubtedly the first step the kindergarten class of the school of omnipotance.

Understanding ourselves: If every journey begins with the first step, then man has not even begun his journey. To understand everything one must start somewhere, otherwise we discover parts of a jigsaw puzzle we have no idea how to assemble. What is the beginning? the simple answer is "you" or "me, myself and I" we need scientific and philisophic blueprint of ourselves to understand completely anything we interact with. Are we insignificant in the grand scheme of things? absolutly not. Its hard to explain presence, without first posing this question to yourself, Am i important? You are the beginning and the end of all of reality. When you pass from this life, reality ceases to exist, at least for the most important being in the entire universe, yourself. I am an illusion, as are all other people, places and things. We are voices within your reality to help you learn, discover, suffer if need be. Scientifically, we must also understand why we are, a much harder question to prove through science. We have to know why our molecule degredate, why our thoughts affect physialogical changes in our bodies and anatomy. How our thoughts and perceptions effect the reality around us. Do not be any less impressed by the mundane than the power it holds deserves. Our ability to comunicate complete thoughts gives our thoughts power beyond the imagined. Our thoughts do hold power and presence. On some level, the power generated by our thought patterns effect the world imediatly adjacent to us, slight changes in magnetic fields to small to measure, still have the ability to effect the world at some level. In understanding ourselves completely (provided everyone did this) we would find ourselves in perfect harmony with all things around us, creating an eden or heaven. Then our search in the heavens would be non-essential to our expansion throughout it.

As we evolve as a people, we learn more about ourselves and how we effect our world. Eventually, much like a virus, we will learn to live in harmony with our host. Until that time we are bound by the restraints of this reality and this life. I believe like anything else in this world, "focus" is our main neglect. we always seem to be focused on the wrong things. Learn how your atoms work, learn how your DNA is written, learn how your mind conveys thought so on, then we can know all there is to know about "everything"

8)

 

[Erck]

Nice post.

I'm wondering if knowing ourselves is just a first step, in being able to then, go beyond that which we have learned... to go beyond ourselves... to others... to god?

 

[sol2]

The Brane Scenarios

Time, of course, is a created things as well. So there is no "before creation", or pre-existing being. Time and being come into existence together. So "always being" is correct.

This is still the case if everything proceeds from a infinitesimal point (nothing). But to suggest otherwise, that something proceeded all at once, or that time proceeded from negative infinity with something existing before it expanded at time equal zero, both these suggestions preform the logical error of petitio principii, AKA begging the question. You are left without explanation as to where it came from.

I believe this assumption had to take place here, as always being, becuase it allowed one to see the cyclical nature of that reality. I do not know how otherwise this can be considered.

I believe the essence of this flunctuation if you will, of the mobius strip or the klein bottle serve us well to descirbe this issue of continuity in action. If you had discrete functions alone, you have isolated your self from the potential of the fifth dimensional perspective, which recognizes the matter distinctions we now see around us, as an effect of fifth dimenisonal perspectives.

I do not know if this is confusing things, but in regard to the vacuum, how else might we have uinderstood negative energy as contained in this realization that while matter distictions are real ( as we all see) that "now" is a manifestation of then?

There is not much (in Time) that separates this if you consider early comsological events to measures in weak field considerations (LIGO)?

 

[JesseBonin]

I'm wondering if knowing ourselves is just a first step, in being able to then, go beyond that which we have learned... to go beyond ourselves... to others... to god?

It is my belief that if or when we finally do know all there is to know about ourselves, the search for things beyond that will be already done.

(theory) If the universe is made up completely of Photonic energy (and all things known and unknown are permeations of this energy) the we ourselves are made of this same material. In finding ourselves we should find that every particle of what we are is an exact replica of the entire universe. Kinda of like a hologram, if you cut a hologram in half you do not get two halves of a picture, you get 2 complete pictures half the size. this is the holographic universe theroy. And everything we know about the atom and how it works compliments this particular theory.

I think that at the center of all atoms is the very fabric of reality, a photonic power source that defines how a particular atom acts and reacts. If we were somehow able to split our universe in two, what kind of energy release could we expect. On the other hand, if we were somehow able to Fuse together our universe and another, what then would the releaase of power look like?

The expansion of our universe is not unlike the expansion of an underground atomic test, the explosion causes fision of all local atomic matter and as the sundered atoms find refuge in other mass new material is created. if we could freeze a nuclear detonation and allow 1 second of time to elapse over 100 years, we may well find that microscopic star systems are formed, where life florishes in an instant of time. the speed of light would be the barrier of course. If we were to accelerate ourselves beyond the speed of light would we find ourselves suddenly on the outside of a nuclear test looking at our universe among zillions of others? in any model of the universe you have to account for yourself, weather our role in it is significant or insignificant we are still a part of it so we matter.

ALL current theories and past theories suffer the same deficiency, HOW?
how did the universe first start its expansion?
what caused the first boom? was there a first boom?
does the universe repeat itself over and over again?
even gravity won't explain how so much material compressed could generate enough energy to escape its own gravity. and all the searching in history has brought us no closer to understanding this. maybe there is a sentience beyond what we call reality, maybe, when our universe is about to die, our decendants will know of a way to "restart" the universe, and in that way provide ourselves with immortality. maybe we are the forfathers of god.

 

[Erck]

(theory)I think that at the center of all atoms is the very fabric of reality, a photonic power source that defines how a particular atom acts and reacts.

Is there a "source" inside the universe... inside the particle, the string, the wavicle? Inside the "thing" and the "no-thing?"

ALL current theories and past theories suffer the same deficiency, HOW? how did the universe first start its expansion?

How was there anything to begin the expansion?

 

[JesseBonin]

marvelous light

light is the answer
it is the only constant is our chaotic universe. All things come from it, and return to it. (warning: religous quote) "i am the LIGHT, and the way" from our earliest ancestors we see the importance of light.

all things produce light (things in the real world anyway) or is it the other way around, light produces all things? either way light is the only thing present in ALL things, the only thing we have in common with everything. Light wounderful Light.

People think that light is a wave .. or could light be absolutly still and solid? and we as the "irresistable force" are simple occupants of the time space paradox that situation produces? And it is our own "vibration" and "motion" that gives light the appearance of motion wave or otherwise?

we always seem to put the cart befor the horse as it were. Man always has to come out on top, so it is not us that is moveing, it must be the light. HOGWASH

If god is all things, all knowing, all whatever, then waht is the commonality in all things ... that's right boys and girls ... light (or photonic energy however you like it)

should we assume that nothing in reality is "at rest" let me clarify a little or reclarify as it were. everything we know as "mass" exists due to its motion, light is a by-product of that motions effect within the absoute stillness of Photon. you will as you read my wild meanderings notice that i refer to Photon as a singular thing. this is becouse i believe that there is only 1 photon. And either it is super-luminal and able to be in all places at all times, or it is absolutly still and our universe is within it. lately i kind of lean towards the later of the two explanations. Super-luminance would not explain the finality of light, whereas the still photon may. this is a lot easier to say than to actually explain. I am NOT a mathmatician (although i have studied quite a bit of it) quantum math is a little beyond my limited study. however, set the speed of light to zero and see what kind of answers you come up with.

i call god photon, and as in any belief there must be a "leap of faith" make yours how you choose, hell it can't hurt... 8)

 

[Erck]

A god full of a universe without a light, is just a bunch of wavicles running around bumping into each other in the dark. :-)

 

[JesseBonin]

LOL erck .. and thus reality lives on 8)

 

[Jimbroni]

light is the answer


we always seem to put the cart befor the horse as it were. Man always has to come out on top, so it is not us that is moveing, it must be the light. HOGWASH

QUOTE]

You have some very interesting theories about the constant nature of light.
I've notice you ellude to this in a lot of threads you've responded too.

I have one question I've been meaning to ask. If light or god or universe or photon is one solid medium and everything is energy flucuations and wave moving thru that then how are shadows cast?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

It is in the very nature of light, inasmuch as, light, in transit, is invisible...hence "shadows"...more light bouncing off of one surface, and less off of another, cause all you ever see of light is it's interactivity with matter, otherwise you cannot 'see' it...that is why the Universe looks "inky black" when you look up at the sky at night...you cannot see all of the light that is actually there...


Does that help?

 

[Jimbroni]

It is in the very nature of light, inasmuch as, light, in transit, is invisible...hence "shadows"...more light bouncing off of one surface, and less off of another, cause all you ever see of light is it's interactivity with matter, otherwise you cannot 'see' it...that is why the Universe looks "inky black" when you look up at the sky at night...you cannot see all of the light that is actually there...


Does that help?

Not really :) Because the way I'm reading Jessebonin statement is that light is not in transit, which makes no sense in my mind. The very directional nature of shadows suggests light is coming from a source and can be blocked or redirected causing a shadow. (Standard Physical Model) I'm waiting to see Jesse's explanation on how shadows would work in a model were light is fixed and everything else isn't.

Actually in my mind, which is all screwed up. If Jesse changed light to time his theory would make a heck of a lot more sense. :)

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Ok then you would like to know the "relativity of light intesities", hence shadows, because even in the shadow, there is light...and one last (perhaps) insight, if you deal with "light" as what it really is, EMR (Electro-magnetic radiation) and stop dealing with it simply on the level that we see, (visually) then the entire Universe is flooded with light, everywhere! no exception, just 'relative light intensities' due to travel times, and paths...

Does that help?

 

[Jimbroni]

Ok then you would like to know the "relativity of light intesities", hence shadows, because even in the shadow, there is light...and one last (perhaps) insight, if you deal with "light" as what it really is, EMR (Electro-magnetic radiation) and stop dealing with it simply on the level that we see, (visually) then the entire Universe is flooded with light, everywhere! no exception, just 'relative light intensities' due to travel times, and paths...

Does that help?

I don't disagree with you, light is everywhere, but do you believe that photons do not move and have zero velocity?

 

[JesseBonin]

You have some very interesting theories about the constant nature of light.
I've notice you ellude to this in a lot of threads you've responded too.

I have one question I've been meaning to ask. If light or god or universe or photon is one solid medium and everything is energy flucuations and wave moving thru that then how are shadows cast?

he is the simplest answer i could come up with, move your finger through a pool of water ond look at the wake. the only evidence we have of lights "wake" is shadow cast on mass. but if you are far enough away from a solid object you cast no shadow, becouse light fills in the space behind you.
to be more acurate, move your finger through the water very fast, youll notice that directly behind your finger a "vortex" is created where water seems to behave diferently that we would calculate, that is shadow.

 

[Jimbroni]

he is the simplest answer i could come up with, move your finger through a pool of water ond look at the wake. the only evidence we have of lights "wake" is shadow cast on mass. but if you are far enough away from a solid object you cast no shadow, becouse light fills in the space behind you.
to be more acurate, move your finger through the water very fast, youll notice that directly behind your finger a "vortex" is created where water seems to behave diferently that we would calculate, that is shadow.

What you are describing is a mechanical longitudinal wave, sound is a spherical longitudinal pressure wave. Light is not longitudinal it is a transverse EM wave. The term for what you are describing is diffraction.
Where we are getting hung up is not the mechanics of wave theory, but the mechanics of particle theory. You have been saying photons do not move correct? and that light is only a wave moving thru a medium which is nothing but photons. That is a very controversial statement because that's not what I learned in Physics.

My understanding is that photons are emitted and a shadow is an area where photon density is lower than neighboring regions. (ie review the double slit experiment)


Oh and sorry for taking us way off topic.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Since a flashlight, shone on a scale, will give a reading, all I can surmise is that it has energetic force about it, Pardon the pun, scaler force, hence the belief that it is a moving physicality as/of energy...more energy, in one spot, that is moving...

OK?

 

[JesseBonin]

Since a flashlight, shone on a scale, will give a reading, all I can surmise is that it has energetic force about it, Pardon the pun, scaler force, hence the belief that it is a moving physicality as/of energy...more energy, in one spot, that is moving...

OK?

excellent 8) but is the photon moveing, or is photonic energy effecting adjacent photonic energy that simple has the appearance of motion due the the energies effect on the molecules of the scale.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Mathematically you can reduce all of the factors to the point where this question arises, as a consequence of, the mathematically available perception... the truth of it, in reality, needs furthering of the proof of it, as to decide if it is the mathematical perception (model) that will persist, or some other observable reality...

Is that a good answer?...cause it isn't the complete one...not by a shot, near or long...

 

[Erck]

Is that a good answer?...cause it isn't the complete one...not by a shot, near or long...

A little "muddled" I'd have to say.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

A little "muddled" I'd have to say.

"I'll bite" what part?

 

[Erck]

Mathematically you can reduce all of the factors to the point where this question arises, as a consequence of, the mathematically available perception... the truth of it, in reality, needs furthering of the proof of it, as to decide if it is the mathematical perception (model) that will persist, or some other observable reality...

This part.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Yes, well, clearly it isn't muddled to me, so if you don't tell me what part you find 'muddled' well, that is the end of the conversation...right?

 

[Erck]

I apologize if my choice of word was questionable... I really should have said "I don't understand what you are saying, would you mind rewording it?"

I find the whole part I quoted less than clear... but maybe it's just me.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

OK, given the ability in mathematics to cut everything fine, you can cut lightspeed into enough divided pieces, times, as to give the appearence (arising) that light has actually stopped, relative to time...a bit like Xeno's 'paradox' just not to absurdum, hence we get the apearence arising that photons don't need to move just the energy about them as we still need to resolve the transferences that we do observe...then we have the last part, which simply says, we need better proof before we can know if it is just a 'trick' of the math, or really the realities manner of operation...

Is that better?

 

[Erck]

Yes, that is better, thank you.

 

[pepcin7]

ready?

ok.

here we go.

me = God = you.

that's it. no more, no less.

what does that equation MEAN?? excellent question. I've been asking myself that question my whole life. and i think I've known the answer before I've known the question.

of course, you have to define what "me" is. this is HARD. it requires self examination. not easy.

then you have to define what "=" means. this is HARD. VERY hard to put in three dimensional terms. I'm going to have fun with this one. it’s like a double chemical bond or something.

then you have to definte what "God" means. this is HARD. again, self examination and examination of God and the nature of God.

then i have to define what "you" means. this is HARD. i want to examine you.

the definitions will NEVER be complete in any sense. the question is will the definitions be complete enough for you to be satisfied. you may think your levels of dissatisfaction are limitless, and believe me, i know the feeling, but you can still your ego when you choose to. remember, you can choose to do anything you want. do, or do not. there is no try.

may your journey be graceful,
phoenix

I like what you say. I am god and so are you and so is everything else. I don't think it fits well here as you give no coroboration and no evidence and no physics. you just make the statement, as did I. We may be rare but I think we know. ahh, I know we know. If you don't know that you know that then you don't. I don't claim to understand it, or do I claim to understand many things about this fantastic world. Only that I am part of it and it me and being that the world is dominated by fear cause many don't know this and that they are immortal it is hard to see sometimes because of the conciousness projection and belief in limits and scarcity. But it's ok. It doesn't really matter yet paradoxically we are all priceless and the universe is benevolent.

 

[JesseBonin]

"i think, therfor i am" modern philosophy. Perception mathimatical or otherwise is still the root of all discovery. Have you ever stood in the rain, and tried to dodge rain drops? excedingly hard to do, until you realize the awesome power of discovery and invention and open your umbrella. I cannot dodge the rain, but i can deflect it, and that is power over the elements of a sort. Infection was a death sentence until some clever folk stumbled upon penacillan. Maybe these analogies are too vauge, let me try and simplify my idea but better explain the premiss.
I does not matter if lights is moving 188,000 m/s or if it is perfectly still, lights motion is inconsequential. The important part is its finality, it provides us with a stable platform to develope real mathimatical proof of all things. (god included)

As it stands, we have to trudge through a mindless bog of the heaviest math known to man to define anything in our universe, from the simplest atom to the most complex quasar. the math we use is neccisarily difficult due to the "intangent" light.
let me give you an example. if we take e=mc^2 and give light a value of 1 then the equation breaks down to energy is equivilant to mass. bare in mind, the current scale for energy is based on the older equation. the newer equation would require a new scale as far as measurement is concerned.

for instance. a thing with .0013 mass currently would have an energy of 117,000,000
what does that number represent other than a scaled number?

by unifieng the 2 scales we can calculate other anomolies with simple math. algebra, geometry, calculus .. in this way we negate the need for quantum math altogether.

it really is a matter of perception, if we view light as an intangent then we must account for "chaos" and by definition it is impossible. God, i think, WANTS to be discovered.