An Idea

[dipayankar]

Great.. let me really try to discern what you are try to get at..

I thought you had Dipayankar it's at:
( http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...03-idea-4.html ) you'll have to scroll down 8 posts to post # 40.

Let me know your thoughts,

Thanks

Pat

[Profpat]

Great.. let me really try to discern what you are try to get at..

Hi Dipayankar;

I would have to say it's two fold.

1st: The physical. I'm attempting to explain how the proton/electron - neutron came into existence. That would be by stings forming quarks combining to make the proton - neutron.

2nd: The metaphysical. I'm trying to demonstrate how we can go interdimensionally from the void to man. Including a partial reconciliation of the inner
dynamics of man to the inner dynamics within the particle.

While this is a complex topic I thought my Idea would aid in this objective.

If you have any specific questions or comments I would be pleased to address them to the best of my ability.

Best to you,

Pat

[Drifter]

if i may profpat,
each of the kindoms has it own consciousness from which all forms are seperated yet are all a part of the whole. Conciousness cannot be seen except by it's effects it cannot be measured except by it's activity, this is not a matter of faith, it is the knowing of a univesal law. it's there until it's looked for, then it's nothing again, always just out of grasp. imho, or so have i heard, yet 'the quest' continues and many 'other discoveries' are made. keep-up the good work profpat

Hi Dipayankar;

I would have to say it's two fold.

1st: The physical. I'm attempting to explain how the proton/electron - neutron came into existence. That would be by stings forming quarks combining to make the proton - neutron.

2nd: The metaphysical. I'm trying to demonstrate how we can go interdimensionally from the void to man. Including a partial reconciliation of the inner dynamics of man to the inner dynamics within the particle.

While this is a complex topic I thought my Idea would aid in this objective.

If you have any specific questions or comments I would be pleased to address them to the best of my ability.

Best to you,

Pat

[Profpat]

Hi Drifter;

Thanks for your comments and love your avatar. 4th degree black belt I'm impressed. You keep them honest on ToN.

Best'

Pat

[Drifter]

Thank you kindly Professor.

AWW, Profpat;
It's just a little something I threw on for "the ocassion."
It fits like a glove, don't you think?

"UGH, ME FIX. !!!"

Hi Drifter;

Thanks for your comments and love your avatar. 4th degree black belt I'm impressed. You keep them honest on ToN.

Best'

Pat

[dipayankar]

Hi Profpat:

Couple of things. First I am not very cosy with string theory, though it seems increasingly that string theory is the way to go.

Second, I feel the transformation that you are talking of is actually the evolution of the brain which caused this transformation. Though it seems that this transformation is way too fast...

Hi Dipayankar;

I would have to say it's two fold.

1st: The physical. I'm attempting to explain how the proton/electron - neutron came into existence. That would be by stings forming quarks combining to make the proton - neutron.

2nd: The metaphysical. I'm trying to demonstrate how we can go interdimensionally from the void to man. Including a partial reconciliation of the inner
dynamics of man to the inner dynamics within the particle.

While this is a complex topic I thought my Idea would aid in this objective.

If you have any specific questions or comments I would be pleased to address them to the best of my ability.

Best to you,

Pat

[Profpat]

Hi Dipayankar;

First let me appologize for the tardiness, on my part, in responding to your post.

I believe it may be best to start with a quote from a metaphysics site that I located:

Theory of Everything: Philosophy Metaphysics Unity

In Metaphysics and Philosophy a Theory of Everything would have to abide by the further condition of being founded on One thing. This Monism is necessary if we are to explain the Necessary Connection between the many things that we sense as existing (e.g. mind, language, concepts and interconnected motion of matter in space).
This unity of Reality is also a natural extension of Ockham's Razor, that the most simple theory which explains the most things is the better theory. Thus by logical extension, the best theory explains all things from one necessarily connected thing.

Notice from above it's their belief that there should be a connection between mind, concepts, matter, space, etc.

Also please note the Principle of Ockhams Razor is being invoked in that "..the most simple theory which explains the most things is the better theory."

Now my theory really starts with the big bang( the most accepted theory ).

It begins with that point and moves interdimensionally to the 1st dimension the string a very simple concept ( A line ). A closed string, which
becomes a quark ( Area 2nd dimension). Three quarks cojoined become our 3rd dimension ( Volume ).

Now we could stop here, in that most physicists accept the fact that the proton/neutron is made up of 3 quarks. So far nothing to spectacular in my theory, in that I'm at a place where the basic particle is comprised of 3 quarks.

However and this is the big difference in my theory, you don't need:

1) Gluons to bind the quarks together, or explain the QCD Force

2) QCD in that it's all really explained using our familiar Electro/Magnetic Force.

3) Strong or weak nuclear forces, again the strong nuclear force is explained by the E/M Force.

4) The electron, in that I view it a projection from the proton. A real ripple or field in space, but created by the proton.

Now this is only the beginning, the real eye opener is when the inner dimensions are discussed. This explains I believe why we have the ability to see visible light, why we can hear ( The octave is represented here ) Additionally are other senses are also accounted for in this Venn Diagram.

I could go on, but I won't right now.

Again from the above quote "..the most simple theory which explains the most things is the better theory. "

Again this is only the start of what my theory explains.

Now the question IS IT CORRECT?

Best to you,

Pat

[MJA]

The quote was right on, thanks Professor!

=
MJA

[Drifter]

"It's the simple things in life that confuse the wise-man."

[Profpat]

Thanks guys for your comments.

Here is another quote you may like MJA:

... It finally turns out that one can, after all, not get along without metaphysics.
(Albert Einstein, Remarks on Bertrand Russell's Theory of Knowledge)

Here the double negative makes sense, in that Uncle Albert is saying we need metaphysics.

I plan on expanding my discussion to cover the metaphysical side of my Idea shortly.

Best to you gentlemen,

Pat