[Profpat]

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

I'm sorry Neutralino.

I didn't mean to ignore you I didn't notice your post and useful link.

Thanks,

Pat

[Drifter]

Factor Analysis: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/UFA.HTM
an interesting read

Originally Posted by 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 Greg: Pat ... Surely this connection is already established by biological and evolutionary processes ?? Pat: 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.

Pat ... excellent reply !! its as tho you and I have both reached the end of a long journey together. Don't stop 1 metre before the finish line. I am not trying to be a smartarse or pretend I know more than I do .. but you are SO close to the answer now. I have the answers to your questions .. I would feel much free'er if I could PM my reply ?

cool bananas ... greg

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Pat ... excellent reply !! its as tho you and I have both reached the end of a long journey together. Don't stop 1 metre before the finish line. I am not trying to be a smartarse or pretend I know more than I do .. but you are SO close to the answer now. I have the answers to your questions .. I would feel much free'er if I could PM my reply ? cool bananas ... greg

Of course you can Greg, I'm always open to yours or anyones PM.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by Drifter Factor Analysis: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/UFA.HTM an interesting read

Hi Drifter;

It is an interesting link, I didn't read the whole thing but my cursory look revealed there is some informative information there.

Best,

Pat

[dipayankar]

Hi profpat,

Seems a very plausible theory. However what about complications like black holes, supernova etc etc... can these phenomenon be explained by your theory simply??

Originally Posted by 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

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Hi profpat, Seems a very plausible theory. However what about complications like black holes, supernova etc etc... can these phenomenon be explained by your theory simply??

Thank you for your comment Dipayankar.

The answer to your question is NO it can't. As Neutralino pointed out to me it's not a T.O.E. but rather a G.U.T. theory.

I believe it reconciles 3 of the major forces ( strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electro/magnetic ) into 1 force the electro/magnetic force. ( The QCD or color force )is also I believe a manifestation of the electro/magnetic force.

I have been thinking of gravity, and believe it may be related to radiation. Gravity being the attractive and radiation being the repulsive. Both follow the inverse square law, but due to spatial inflation and expansion, I've been experiencing difficulties doing so.

Best to you sir,

Pat

[dipayankar]

This is probably the most serious attempt in our forum to arrive at a TOE. However as always gravity is the problem. Why is that we cannot fathom gravity? As you said is it might be that gravity is a force that might be slipping out of our Universe. It would be very interesting to see how gravity behaves at a micro level..

Originally Posted by Profpat Thank you for your comment Dipayankar. The answer to your question is NO it can't. As Neutralino pointed out to me it's not a T.O.E. but rather a G.U.T. theory. I believe it reconciles 3 of the major forces ( strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electro/magnetic ) into 1 force the electro/magnetic force. ( The QCD or color force )is also I believe a manifestation of the electro/magnetic force. I have been thinking of gravity, and believe it may be related to radiation. Gravity being the attractive and radiation being the repulsive. Both follow the inverse square law, but due to spatial inflation and expansion, I've been experiencing difficulties doing so. Best to you sir, Pat

[Profpat]

[quote=Bob Campbell;41172]

Originally Posted by Profpat;41077 [COLOR=seagreen Hi Bob;[/color] Here is my comment to your comment Hi Pat, Excuse me for interjecting a comment. There is a problem with the concept of universal wholeness This is apparently part of your theotywhich 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.Actually I believe it started space and time. I don't believe it started in space and time And any linear development in thought also presumes that space and time are a priori.You are right it is a priori, which doesn't prove it's existence. I believe reality is an illusion, but that the illusion is real It is very easy to overlook this with our language bound left brain. 2nd para I deleted. I couldn't see how it related to my Idea 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.I believe my " particle " meets this description. The positive and negative spaces would be the same inside and 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.Again I think my " particle " does have a common inside and 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. Para 5 & 6 again deleted, in that it seamed to relate to your theory and not my Idea Best regards, Bob

I did give your link a look at and while it appears interesting, I don't know if you'll win the OCCAMS RAZOR PRIZE for simplicity.

I believe most of your comments probably would be better expressed at your thread describing your theory.

If you have any questions or comments regarding my Idea I'll be pleased to answer them.

Best to you,

Pat

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dipayankar This is probably the most serious attempt in our forum to arrive at a TOE. However as always gravity is the problem. Why is that we cannot fathom gravity? As you said is it might be that gravity is a force that might be slipping out of our Universe. It would be very interesting to see how gravity behaves at a micro level..

Well thank you very much for that compliment Dipayankar. I do appreciate it.

The real problem with the T.O.E. is that reconciliation of gravity with the other 3 forces.

I guess you could have 2 forces electro/magnetic and gravity. I personnally believe in a singularity however and that would demand only ONE initial force. So I am still on the Quest.

I'll try to maintain my modesty and not have your comment go to my Fat Head which houses a Small Brain.

Best to you,

Pat