BenRayfieldWed, Dec 22, 2010 You offer a news article about E8 being wrong, which is no more reliable than the videos and other places I got my information from. I didn't say E8 is certainly correct, and my Gravity For Patterns theory is strong enough that it continues to be a good theory to explain all the other observations I listed even if E8 is wrong.

Most importantly, no other theory of physics explains this observation:

More often than would happen randomly or through normal communication or observing the environment etc, there are small statistical dependencies between the brains of people and/or quantum physics devices. See the "main results" list at http://noosphere.princeton.edu for the results of those experiments.

but give us no discrete mathematical equations

My Gravity For Patterns theory depends on Max Tegmark's theory ("All structures that exist mathematically exist also physically.") being true. I listed some observations that support Tegmark's theory. As we know from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems there are an infinite number of things in math that are true but can never be proven true. That includes patterns.

Therefore theres a good chance that the equations you ask for are past the incompleteness border, and it is unreasonable to require such equations be written before considering it based on the approximate words I used to describe it, which I will summarize as:

Gravity For Patterns at an infinite depth of recursing approximate simulations of simulations of... what we call reality, and all possible ways of combining those. If Tegmark's theory is true then Gravity For Patterns logically has to be a subset of the universe, balanced by part that does not have gravity for patterns and a part where patterns repel each other. Its still a theory-of-everything because it implies its opposite exists in the context of Tegmark's theory.

E8 is 1 of many examples of what you'd find in the gravity-for-patterns parts of the universe, but that does not mean our laws-of-physics are anything like E8.

Comment onGravity For Patterns a theory of everythingBenRayfieldWed, Dec 22, 2010You offer a news article about E8 being wrong, which is no more reliable than the videos and other places I got my information from. I didn't say E8 is certainly correct, and my Gravity For Patterns theory is strong enough that it continues to be a good theory to explain all the other observations I listed even if E8 is wrong.

Most importantly, no other theory of physics explains this observation:

My Gravity For Patterns theory depends on Max Tegmark's theory ("All structures that exist mathematically exist also physically.") being true. I listed some observations that support Tegmark's theory. As we know from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems there are an infinite number of things in math that are true but can never be proven true. That includes patterns.

Therefore theres a good chance that the equations you ask for are past the incompleteness border, and it is unreasonable to require such equations be written before considering it based on the approximate words I used to describe it, which I will summarize as:

Gravity For Patterns at an infinite depth of recursing approximate simulations of simulations of... what we call reality, and all possible ways of combining those. If Tegmark's theory is true then Gravity For Patterns logically has to be a subset of the universe, balanced by part that does not have gravity for patterns and a part where patterns repel each other. Its still a theory-of-everything because it implies its opposite exists in the context of Tegmark's theory.

E8 is 1 of many examples of what you'd find in the gravity-for-patterns parts of the universe, but that does not mean our laws-of-physics are anything like E8.