[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...

Originally Posted by 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 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

[Graybeard]

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

Pat ... Surely this connection is already established by biological and evolutionary processes ??

Originally Posted by Profpat 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."

I don't think Occam's Razor states "..the most simple theory which explains the most things is the better theory." This is a perfect description of the '=' theory or '1/0' theory. (just a liddle joke)

I think it is better described as "When there are a number of theories that describe the SAME thing ... then the simplest is most likely the right one"

Originally Posted by Profpat 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 ).

Do you have any theory or reason as to why a 'closed string' is really a quark ? I have never heard this before.

Originally Posted by Profpat Now the question IS IT CORRECT?

Pat .... I am biting my tongue while awaiting further revelations ....

cool bananas ... greg

[Bob Campbell]

[quote=Profpat;41077]Hi Dipayankar;

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.


Hi Pat,

Excuse me for interjecting a comment. There is a problem with the concept of universal wholeness which any TOE must accommodate in some way. There are acknowledged self-contradictions in the big bang beginning in space and time to space and time. And any linear development in thought also presumes that space and time are a priori. It is very easy to overlook this with our language bound left brain.

The point is that the concept of universal wholeness does not allow of any kind of explicit distinctions in phenomenal experience, because this requires a boundary of some kind that can be distinguished as a phenomenon. That boundary then represents a Rift in Universal Wholeness. This Rift then presents a twoness that contradicts the oneness. There is only one way that this rift can be resolved consistent with Universal Wholeness. The boundary can not be a boundary defined in space and time as with some elementary particle. It can only be a boundary between a universal inside and a universal outside.

Now neither the inside nor the outside can be known as a "thing" distinct from the other. That would be a dichotomous twoness not Oneness. The boundary MUST be an ACTIVE interface involving an energy process between the universal inside and the universal outside. This means that all we can know in phenomena is active energy processes at active interfaces between inside and outside. Everything that we see and sense is an active interface and our nervous system integrates experience via active interface processes between neurons. There is nothing else possible in physical phenomenal experience.

This means that the primary requirement for Universal Wholeness to be possible is that all things that we perceive as active interfaces MUST share both a universal common inside and a universal common outside. There is NO OTHER structural possibility to experience of any kind anywhere in the universe consistent with universal wholeness. And no amount of intellectual bootstrapping can circumvent this fundamental dilemma of the creative process.

There is however a subsumed hierarchy of discrete ways that this Rift in Wholeness proliferates within itself. It is this that generates the structural dynamics of atomic matter directly, consistent with the empirical evidence. It is this that moves the galaxies and stars and generates the evolution of biological life. The dynamics of the whole creative process amounts to the process of mending the fundamental Rift in Universal Wholeness. This Rift in wholeness is at the root of our personal quest to integrate our personal experience meaningfully through living just as it is implicit in the structural dynamics of the cosmic order that moves the heavens.

This approach can complement traditional approaches to science by providing a practical methodology consistent with integrating wholeness. The overall picture is needed before the pieces can be properly assembled. There is much more on this approach at www.cosmic-mindreach.com. It is not easy, but if you are interested, it will make you think and wonder in new and unexpected ways. One can see into the structural constraints implicit in the cosmic order directly. It is not a belief system.

Best regards,
Bob

[MJA]

Originally Posted by Graybeard I think it is better described as "When there are a number of theories that describe the SAME thing ... then the simplest is most likely the right one" cool bananas ... greg

= is the simplist solution to every equation,
= unites all things.
= is simply and truly the right ONE!

=
MJA

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Pat ... Surely this connection is already established by biological and evolutionary processes ?? I don't think Occam's Razor states "..the most simple theory which explains the most things is the better theory." This is a perfect description of the '=' theory or '1/0' theory. (just a liddle joke) I think it is better described as "When there are a number of theories that describe the SAME thing ... then the simplest is most likely the right one"

I agree with this summary of Occam's razor. Here is a nice discussion on how physicists use Occam's razor.

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Pat ... Surely this connection is already established by biological and evolutionary processes ??Yes you are right about evolution Greg. My Idea tries to explain why did we develope eyes to see the LIGHT, and ears to hear the SOUND, and membranes to FEEL, SMELL and TASTE. If there was no light or sound or membranes at the beginning we would not have developed the way we did. It's similar to the philosophy of ESSENTIALISM, in that we had to have that essence at the beginning. I don't think Occam's Razor states "..the most simple theory which explains the most things is the better theory." This is a perfect description of the '=' theory or '1/0' theory. (just a liddle joke) I think it is better described as "When there are a number of theories that describe the SAME thing ... then the simplest is most likely the right one"OK, I agree with you again.I think my Idea fits your definition. BTW I think Michael's One theory is valid, same with MJA's = theory, and Protheory's of positive negative and neutral, are all good theories and are probably correct. They all suffer however from the same vagueness to make them that useful or practical. I'm afraid I don't understand PoK,s 1/0 theory to comment on it. Do you have any theory or reason as to why a 'closed string' is really a quark ? I have never heard this before.Pat ...Wellll, string theory states everything is made up of vibrating strings, including electrons and quarks. The strings themself are membranes. Keeping with the spirit of our mutual friend Occam I thought the simplest, is to eliminate any middleman, and have the string itself be the quark. Granted it's my understanding that quarks are larger than strings but I think once the string is closed it, because of the inner field it created, would expand. . I am biting my tongue while awaiting further revelations .... Don't, because according to my Idea it would hurt cool bananas ... greg

Best to all,

Pat

P.S. I have need additional time to properly address your comments Bob