[Benedict Broere]

I think variation is the key to the TOE.
This world came out of the TOE via variation.
Like Beethovens TaTaTaTAA, and out of that the Fifth, part one.
Like the alphabet, and out of that all the works of Shakespeare.
Like DNA, and out of that us and all living nature.

The TOE is a most general theme, out of wich the Line, Circle, Spiral, Squire... all mathematical forms arise, and the Laws and Constants, quarks, atoms, stars and planets, the Elephant, the Lion, the Ant, animism, hinduism, Egyptian culture, Schopenhauers philosophy, things and thinking and culture in general. Also the meaning of life. Everything.

This is what I think.
What do you think?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by Benedict Broere What do you think?

These are really the works of a variational principle called the principle of directional invariance.

[Guille]

Benedict,

You're totally correct. The world is pure variation, but there are many analogous terms; change, dis-caosification, evolution, progress, entropy, time... It is all of existence (and of non-existence). 'ta ta ta taaa' is a perfect arranging of toning and timing, and the mixture of these two is variation. Variation, we can say, is the compound of harmony and transition.

[dleviwing]

Welcome to ToeQuest Benedict. Rather than variations, I tend to think vibrations; The wave nature of matter and existence.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Welcome to ToeQuest Benedict. Rather than variations, I tend to think vibrations; The wave nature of matter and existence.

I have a profound philosophical problem with two of the most important concepts in physics: field and wave. It is a problem to explain the problem itself. Putting it into the term vibration, my problem is: can there be vibration amongst vibration? And vibration amongst the vibration in vibration? And vibration in that? And in that?... Does this stop? If it doesn't, should we assume that vibration is a concept that leads to a paradox of infinity (which is, in fact, the worst)? More importantly, shouldn't we neglect the ideas of field and wave if they are going to be harmful in such way that there is either zero or infinity? Lastly, to be clearer: can things refer to themselves? If they can, we should have in all our thinking the fact that things can refer to themselves. And of course, our whole logic is destroyed. What do you think? Are fields and waves merely inventions made by science to simplify the explanation of abstract concepts such as force and energy, or do they in fact reveal us an incredible secret about the universe that makes it chaotically more complex than it is according to classical physics?

[Benedict Broere]

Thanks for the welcome and broadmindedness !

Antonio,
this directional invariance...
It makes me think of dialectics: theses, anti-theses, syntheses.

Guille,
I think it must be possible to think out of something simple some less simple entities, who embrace themselves in a kind of dance, and than grow into something else, maybe something better - hence 'change', 'progress', 'life and death', etc.

mKirkpatrick,
Well yes, the way this reality is constructed seems te suggest that 'variation on a theme' is it's favourite way to order things. Also artists love it. And collectors of stamps, Dinky Toys and shells.

dleviwing,
I think we inhabit one huge, very complex and developing vibration. And to me it sounds like Jazz or Bach, invented on the spot, improvised, all variation on a theme, or variations on variations on several themes, that are variations on a central theme. It's art in ascent, and it lives, this world we are part of. I think at least.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Benedict Broere Guille, I think it must be possible to think out of something simple some less simple entities, who embrace themselves in a kind of dance, and than grow into something else, maybe something better - hence 'change', 'progress', 'life and death', etc.

What do you mean by this? Do you believe nature always goes to 'better' states? If so, what is 'better'? Is it more moral (good), more real (truth), more aesthetic (beatyfull)? Or is it all these, and thus, you agree with Plato's philosophy? I certainly disagree with him. For me, philosophers are the most important men which are given to humanity, but as a philosopher myself, I must hate some and adore others. I wish the thoughts of Plato, Kant, Hegel, Keynes (if we can call that brainless economist a 'philosopher' at all).... You mentioned Schopenhauer, do you like him (as philosopher)? Have you read Nietzsche?

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> I have a profound philosophical problem with two of the most important concepts in physics: field and wave. It is a problem to explain the problem itself. Putting it into the term vibration, my problem is: can there be vibration amongst vibration? And vibration amongst the vibration in vibration? And vibration in that? And in that?... Does this stop? If it doesn't, should we assume that vibration is a concept that leads to a paradox of infinity (which is, in fact, the worst)?

Guille;
If you have achieve this type of insight, you must start the study of wave mechanics. I'm not sure you realize how well your reasoning ability is.

Yes the vibrations are within vibrations within vibrations. The only limitations is the system that confines the wave. The universe is one limitation to maximum wavelength and the finite diameter of particles are also a maximum wavelength limitation of its matter. Understanding constructive wave interference and destructive wave interference will provide the answers to the interactions that produce the forces.

The full explanation is too extensive for a post.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by Benedict Broere It makes me think of dialectics: theses, anti-theses, syntheses.

The more things change the more they stay the same or no change. If you look now it changed and if you look again it really had not changed and look again it changed ...

[Benedict Broere]

Let me start again. Back to basics.
If I think of this TOE, I think of something really simple.
And out of that the invention of this world.
13,7 billion years further we try to interpret whats going on - Heraclit, Lao Tse, Boeddha, Mozes, Plato, Aristotle, Sjankara, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, etc.
I try. And to me, art seems to give a good way in, into this reality.
Is there progress? Is there morality? Is there growth in quality? What is going on? How do we link 'the Holocaust' with with what is there - world?
I think thinking of this TOE needs imagening how this world came to be out of this TOE.
Maybe this TOE needs first thinking almost mythological. Maybe this TOE needs to overcome the load of science, to later on connect the myth with science. Maybe this TOE needs at first brute imagination, and than thinking it into science. And maybe science is to limited to grasp what really is going on.

I'm an artist. I tend to see this world as a kind of art in ascent. I think it's fruithfull. Think of for instance Mondrian, Bach, Picasso. They invented worlds out of simple theme's.

This TOE is something out of which a world can be, invented, can be made for real, with us, trying to understand.