[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Marketa But these differences, no matter what the difference is, can be unified - every difference is between at least two objects and it is a kind of symmetry between them (doesn't matter how complicated) and this symmetry is what I call unification.

How about the symmetry of a pyramid. Though symmetrical indeed, the top and bottom are not symmetrical. A pyramid shows a clear top-bottom distinction, and one could state that the bottom with four corners delivers a visualization of differences to the same subject, yet the top, the visualization of the whole in which all variations come together is pointing away from the details. While the bottom connects fully with the earth/reality the top is a pointed segment that delivers a united view on everything but only because it embraces the airy nothing it is pointing to.
Symmetry? I believe in it, no problem! But unification? Not with that point in top.

P.S. Thank you, Rod, for your clear choice, and R.M. for the clear language. Rod, will you let us know when your book comes out?

[Rod Johnson]

After reading umpteen unifying field theories I gave up on unity in favor of “consistent”. That means a theory proceeds on self delineating characteristics. Also I gave up TOE for TOAE theory of almost everything.

Rod

[Marketa]

This "pyramid" stuff is something wrong. And that is how artifitial the example is. If you want talk about TOE seriously, you must start with yourself, with how you use the language, what is it, how did it origin, thoughts, consciousness... When you do so, you'll see why I think that unification is possible and even in some ways neccessary. In my opinion, if there is symetry, there also is a kind of unification - you just have to find out, how the symetry is built.

[Fredrick]

The best way to describe my point of view is that our universe is based on duality (though I believe this can come about in a four-part way).

In the New York Times Science section of today (3-29-05) I read about the collision of gold nuclei in the Brookhaven National Laboratory. Here is a picture of the result:
http://www.physicscentral.com/pictur...ures-00-4s.jpg
and the abstract can be read at http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0501068

This is powerful imagery that seems to support what I am saying about an empty center at the emergence of the universe. Dr. Horatiu Nastase describes in the NY Times article that "(t)he collision of gold nuclei produce matter as it existed shortly after the Big Bang."

I could not ask for a better image.