[Benedict Broere]

Hello Michael,

You seem to say, and in trying to get things clear I use an analogy, that in order to evolute all alphabetical text out the alphabet you first need to involute all alphabetical text into the alphabet. But well, is this necesarry?

When there’s a mind that has the ability to vary alphabetical text out of the alphabet, this alphabet in itself is rich enough to derive all alphabetical text out of it, and there’s no necessity to at first put/involute all alphabetical text into it in order to etcetera.

I try to make it plausible that this aos is in itself rich enough to, in variation, derive mathematics out of it, starting with successively Point and Infinity, Straight Line, Cross, Triangle, Circle, Globe, etcetera.

With that of course you need some kind of intelligence/creativity that does the varying, the invention of mathematics, the determining of all the Laws and Constants, etcetera, and who does implement them into energy so that snares, quarks, atoms, molecules, etcetera, come into existence.

Abc, aabbc, aabbcbba, abcacba, abbcbbccaa, abc-bca, abc-abc-bbbc-abc, bac-abc-bc-a, bca-bbb-ccc-a, etcetera. Tatatataa, tatatataa, tatatata-tatatata-tatatataa, tatatata-tatatata-tatatataa, tatatataaa-tam, tatatataaa-tam, tatatata, ta, taaaa ! Tatatataaaa ! And so on.

Variation is very powerful. And it’s all around us. There’s even variation in how we interpret reality. Therefor this ‘intelligence at work’ is one of the many ways we can interpret reality. Others don’t see it this way, and think for instance this universe is by itself.

It is may be confusing that I combine reality with the various ways we interpret reality, but to me it’s all part of one system.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Benedict Broere Hello Michael, You seem to say, and in trying to get things clear I use an analogy, that in order to evolute all alphabetical text out the alphabet you first need to involute all alphabetical text into the alphabet. But well, is this necesarry? When there’s a mind that has the ability to vary alphabetical text out of the alphabet, this alphabet in itself is rich enough to derive all alphabetical text out of it, and there’s no necessity to at first put/involute all alphabetical text into it in order to etcetera. I try to make it plausible that this aos is in itself rich enough to, in variation, derive mathematics out of it, starting with successively Point and Infinity, Straight Line, Cross, Triangle, Circle, Globe, etcetera. With that of course you need some kind of intelligence/creativity that does the varying, the invention of mathematics, the determining of all the Laws and Constants, etcetera, and who does implement them into energy so that snares, quarks, atoms, molecules, etcetera, come into existence. Abc, aabbc, aabbcbba, abcacba, abbcbbccaa, abc-bca, abc-abc-bbbc-abc, bac-abc-bc-a, bca-bbb-ccc-a, etcetera. Tatatataa, tatatataa, tatatata-tatatata-tatatataa, tatatata-tatatata-tatatataa, tatatataaa-tam, tatatataaa-tam, tatatata, ta, taaaa ! Tatatataaaa ! And so on. Variation is very powerful. And it’s all around us. There’s even variation in how we interpret reality. Therefor this ‘intelligence at work’ is one of the many ways we can interpret reality. Others don’t see it this way, and think for instance this universe is by itself. It is may be confusing that I combine reality with the various ways we interpret reality, but to me it’s all part of one system.

Many thanks Benedict,variation is very powerful,but it is all onthe surface you know??
ta ta ta for now

regardsmichael.

[Benedict Broere]

Michael,
This 'surface', I won't get into mystical experience, if that's what you mean.
It's not that I personally have nothing to do with that, on the contrary, but this aos is all about organising scientific data into I think a TOE, and nothing else.

Graybeard,
Apart from the physics, a lot of what I say has to do with the research by Roger Sperry on the brain, and this combined with human history, the development of culture and worldview. On my website I try to explain all this. And I know it's all very abstract and summarised, and in need for lot's of notes and further explanation, but to me the general line of thinking seems very clear.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Benedict Broere Michael, This 'surface', I won't get into mystical experience, if that's what you mean. It's not that I personally have nothing to do with that, on the contrary, but this aos is all about organising scientific data into I think a TOE, and nothing else. Graybeard, Apart from the physics, a lot of what I say has to do with the research by Roger Sperry on the brain, and this combined with human history, the development of culture and worldview. On my website I try to explain all this. And I know it's all very abstract and summarised, and in need for lot's of notes and further explanation, but to me the general line of thinking seems very clear.

Benedict,yes I did mean that,although I would not see it as mystical,more like inner
unity of all things!But I respect what you say,ta ta for now.

regards michael.

[Graybeard]

Ben ... I understand when you say the general line of thinking is clear (to you) ..... My line of thinking is clear and understandable to me. My trouble is putting it into sentences that make sense ... this is the most difficult part. I make a wide allowance for this in others posts.

Last night I wrote a detailed reply .. and then canned it because it didn't make sense on paper. I have read up on the Anthropic principle. Objectively.... it is self-centered .. It views the world in a pre-Copernician slant. Subjectively ... it has many good and initially valid points, but overall it is philosophical .... It borrows heavily from evolution and then slips an Overlord in on the grounds that the high-odds favor such a thing... Lots of other things rely on hi-probabilities as well, I know,... but I am always sus of anything claiming the high-moral-ground.

I need to think about this a lot more with a more ambivalent attitude ...

soon ........

greg

PS: I like Arnhem... I like the town, I like the Architecture, and I like the food.. and I like the 'Bridge-too-far', especially its homeliness, its very plainness ... which belies the importance of its part in history.

[Benedict Broere]

Michael,
Intuitively sensing the inner unity of all things... This is a field of thought that I think enriches your life and anyones life when there's a certain openness for it. For instance the Greeks thought the world was a 'cosmos', a kind of gem, a string of pearls, also living, some kind of living work of art, etcetera. But to me, presenting this aos, this all is to subjective. Therefor I cling to data, scientific data, organising them in a way that for anyone is open to check, to control, to break in, to break apart for that matter.

Graybeard,
Thanks for the effort! But don't focus to much on this 'anthropic principle' (AP) in thinking it might be the main pillar of my thesis, because it's just one of the pillars. Still I think what baffled the authors of the AP most, and I agree with that, is these constants, that, with a slight deviance, will not bring the universe with us in it to discuss it all. Besides this I think the greatest mystery of this universe is that is is there, highly organised, and highly inprobable because of the allover and anything permeating tendency to fall apart. Concerning this latter the most probable condition of this universe would be to be nothing, zero. But it's there, 'alive and kicking'. Delving in my memory I remember a nice book on this, by William H. Calvin, with the title 'The River that Flows Upwards the Mountain'. 'The river' meaning atoms, molecules, starsystems, organisms, life in general.

I think that with this aos-principle I lean most on the work of Roger Sperry. He found out that we humans have in general two kinds of approaching things, handle things, solve problems, see reality even. And he won the Nobelprise with this, so he hardly can be seen as some obscure madman. Moreover, these days his work very much is present in any book on the human brain, mind or consciousness. I even have a book with all kinds of puzzles to train these two kinds of approach, with the English title 'Workout for a Balanced Brain', written by Philip Carter and Ken Russell, both closely connected to the Britisch Mensa, and with an introduction of the neurologist Dr. Christopher Martyn.

I see you know Arnhem. Good old Monty, so much ambition, and all in all very imaginative, daring, bold. With this aos-principle on this website I'm trying to find out if it isn't a 'bridge too far'. 'Everything' isn't just physics. It's the whole of reality and us thinking reality.

[mkirkpatrick]

Benedict,thank you for your responsive reply,what you said at the end of it,caused this
response my friend.

You said "I cling to data",haveyou ever tried "letting go"?Organising it in a way that anyone can check,to control?? To break in,to break apart??Whatare we talking about
here benedict,a theory,or a bank vault??


Unity exists in science too Benedict,you just have to dig a little beneath the surface.

You have the makings of a excellent theory here benedict,but you need to "let go" my
friend and NOT cling on.


kindest regards michael.

[Benedict Broere]

Yes Michael,

This 'bankvault', I think you're right in saying I exaggerate things. But you see in science the general practice is that scientifical meant statements on (parts of) reality always are tested, are objects of doubt, critique and counterexperiments. This discipline in science is rather ruthless. But it gives us the kind of science you trust when you need for instance a medical operation.

Also I like to add that sometimes, being a Dutchman, and writing in a foreign language, I don't know all the connotations of the words I use. But that's maybe a weak argument.

In general I would like to stress that this aos-theory is found as a general pattern in data derived form several scientific sources. Only my inspiration for this pattern is found in non-scientific sources, for instance Heraclit. But that's no problem in science.

About the unity in science... Well, on a fundamental level that's quite problematic isn't it? Hence the official description of what a TOE is expected to do - unifying the fundamental forces.

But to me, I doubt that if this undertaking becomes succesful, we really will have a TOE.
Because I think it's definition of 'everything' is to limited, and because I think it's explanatory line all the way up to for instance human behaviour is very problematic. Therefor I present this aos that concerns a wider 'everything', beginning with very basic mathematics, and going all the way up to for instance the various ways we interpret reality. Let me add this: I just can't see how a usual defined TOE can explain for instance twentieth century modern art. But with this aos I can, at least I can show the general mentality behind it.

Thanks for the compliment.

'Letting go', I'm just fishing for feedback, by other minds on this planet, their critique, what they think.

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks Benedict,your English is far superior than my grasp of your lingo!You are doing
an excellent job,and are provoking discussion,and debate,keep on this path my friend,
believe in yourself,let go,for it is in releasing,that we keep?Hold on and you loose!


regards michael.

[Benedict Broere]

Hello Michael,

It took me a while to figure out what you mean with this 'for it is in releasing, that we keep'. At least, I'm not out here to convince the inconvincable. For instance, when you look at the discussions on this website and also elsewhere, on the whole of the internet almost, then they often seem to result in a argument between deaf', between people that hold that much contradictory systems of belief and conviction, that they don't seem to communicate but just collide. And this to me is such a tiring and unfruithful undertaking, that I don't seek that anymore. I think only when people are prepared to reason, to exchange arguments, to refer to science or show authentic experience, then it might lead to something, something constructive. With this I mean no critique, and I'm also referring to myself, because I sometimes also get emotional, when something really blunt and not-arguing comes along. But in order to maintain some level of constructiveness, I tend to let it go and look for communication by argument.