An Idea

[Profpat]

... Thank you also to question the importance of hierarchy, because I do think Pat's delivery is based too much on the importance of hierarchy.....

Guilty as charged Fredrick. But when i look up in Wiki regarding hierarchy and physics I got this:

[edit] Physics

In physics, the standard model of reasoning on the nature of the physical world decomposes large bodies down to their smallest particle components.

And yes I like the concept of a one dimensional Planck Length entity called the string.

In the physical world we do have a hierarchy structure. Starting with the string, quarks, protons/neutrons, atoms, heavier atoms, molecules, compounds, you and I.

Yes I do believe in a Hierarchy Structure for the Universe. However my model would still be the same, whether it was made step by step, or just emerged in its entirety.

Best,

Pat

P.S. Remember the opposite of hierarchy is anarchy

[austintorn@aol.com]

— A Little Bit of Nothing —

From not much was written our account,
And to nothing we’ll still have to amount—
But in between those two parentheses
The pluses rain on us from Heaven’s fount.

— Black-Out —

In the darkness I alit from the Wiz,
And tried to make sense of this world of His.
Now I’ve found the answer to life’s dark quiz:
One must live this life by what light there is.

[austintorn@aol.com]

More Occam found somewhere:

Occam's (or Ockham's) razor is a principle attributed to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham.

The principle states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." Sometimes it is quoted in one of its original Latin forms to give it an air of authenticity:

"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate"
"Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora"
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"

In fact, only the first two of these forms appear in his surviving works and the third was written by a later scholar. William used the principle to justify many conclusions, including the statement that "God's existence cannot be deduced by reason alone." That one didn't make him very popular with the Pope.

Many scientists have adopted or reinvented Occam's Razor, as in Leibniz's "identity of observables" and Isaac Newton stated the rule: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is
"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

In physics we use the razor to shave away metaphysical concepts. The canonical example is Einstein's theory of special relativity compared with Lorentz's theory that ruler's contract and clocks slow down when in motion through the ether. Einstein's equations for transforming spacetime are the same as Lorentz's equations for transforming rulers and clocks, but Einstein and Poincaré recognised that the ether could not be detected according to the equations of Lorentz and Maxwell. By Occam's razor it had to be eliminated.

Or, I might add "Keep It Simple Stupid!"

[Fredrick]

In physics, the standard model of reasoning on the nature of the physical world decomposes large bodies down to their smallest particle components.

And yes I like the concept of a one dimensional Planck Length entity called the string.

In the physical world we do have a hierarchy structure. Starting with the string, quarks, protons/neutrons, atoms, heavier atoms, molecules, compounds, you and I.

Yes I do believe in a Hierarchy Structure for the Universe. However my model would still be the same, whether it was made step by step, or just emerged in its entirety.

— Remember the opposite of hierarchy is anarchy

Thank you, Pat, for putting a big smile on my face with that last remark. I consider that a good one!

In the real world, I must argue that a lot happens -and is possible- between hierarchy on the one end and anarchy on the other. Please, don't ever look for me at either end for I believe reality in fullness exists not at either end of this scale. But please understand that I do like the hearty information.

I do hope to stir things up once in awhile.

You talked once about wagons and wheels. Just what are the smallest functional units?

In the LifeOS system model, the smallest functional unit is the atom. This is the smallest container for information, a packet, as it were. Although the atom is surly made up of smaller parts, when you break it apart, it no longer functions in the system. It is like a clay pot, damage its structural integrity and the contents leak out. Seems to me that the particles discovered by smashing things together, are like pottery shards. They are surely component parts of the atom, but of little use in understanding its original function.

Seems to me that this represents the boundary layer between classical physics and quantum mechanics. It also seems to me that this is the barrier that must be crossed elegantly by a TOE, rather than the origin of the universe. At least this boundary is something we can eventually understand.

Stirred by your remarks, Jim, because you get right at it.

But let me first say this: we must place the correct answer in the correct framework. The correct answer in the incorrect framework is automatically an incorrect answer (pronouncing time as a length is mixing up the information of one with the framework of another, for instance). Spatial information must be placed in spatial frameworks, temporal information must be placed in temporal frameworks. Though frameworks may inform each other, this cannot be done without good clarification first to identify the backdrop for what is inherently 4N (alien) framework information.

Okay, if we say that the atom is the smallest unit, we will then all agree that the smallest unit still has parts to it (quarks, for instance). The parts, though not independent, still have specific functions themselves too. So, your exact description is not correct (of the atom being the smallest functional unit, because the word functional may either not be appropriate or not specifically explained enough).

You make a very good point in asking how far we can and must go below the actual smallest unit of the atom. And, I would add, also how we should train each other in communicating correctly about these minuscule details of actual and linguistic importance (and still come across as friendly).

If I take the human being as a unit, I cannot explain myself without also mentioning the specific functions of all the parts that are part of me. My hands are delivering functions that are all by themselves so varied I dare not place that next to the functioning of the brain or the heart without any separation nor suggest any full disconnection (yes, that is a valid contradiction). I cannot explain the unit (of a human being) without explaining the myriad of functions that the parts deliver both each all by themselves as well as collaboratively.

Similarly, I cannot explain the Theory of Everything (our ultimate and only goal on ToeQuest) without also describing the functions belonging to the level below the smallest unit of the atom; much information can be found that can only be explained by these lower parts and their independent and/or/plus collective functioning — and not by the smallest unit of that atom alone.

The ToE requires that an explanation is given for how and what. My delivery explains why the up quark has a 2/3rd charge, and the down quark a -1/3rd charge. I show how these internal positions help create the neutron, and fit in together with the proton in a hadron. My delivery tells why&how matter could have moved from non-materialized reality to matter.

There are parts that I do not fully understand, but I do understand that there is a lot out there that is not formulated correctly and that contributes to a lot of confusion. I do not have a background in physics, but I do see that the smallest unit (of an atom) is a broken unit. That all by itself should inform every person with a brain! I understand that if you believe in ultimate unification, that this must be quite distressful information. But let the truth be victorious!

Pat showed me how the 8 parts are aspects of a spatial reality; I am not completely certain if we see i2i yet if matter is with the 8 parts or if the 8 parts are with matter. I believe the latter; no matter whether the universe is flatter than a madhatter or just better than the fatter tatter of the platter pitted matter tit-for-tat-chatter. You didn't get that? Doesn't matter! But I'd think it is appropriate to rhyme a bit the night before St. Nicholas celebrated his birthday (yes, the original Santa). Or do you suspect some of Austin's magic is rubbing off on me?

Does the smallest unit of the atom exist. Yes. Does unity exist? Yes. Do they collide into a singularity? No.

[austintorn@aol.com]

"Tit for tat," said Pat, as he farted at the thunder.

[Profpat]

"Tit for tat," said Pat, as he farted at the thunder.

LOL! Thats funny Austin.

[austintorn@aol.com]

"Oh Pat," said his sweetheart, "Leave the thunder alone; let us say instead that there is tit for Pat!"

[austintorn@aol.com]

— Matter Equals Energy —

The void pulsates in a structured sequence—
A field is present throughout space immense,
Out of which all particles can condense,
Occurring where the field’s extremely intense.

— Energy Equals Matter —

Atoms are just bundles of inertia,
Knots in the field and fabric of space;
Yet matter defines the structure of space—
The Yin is in the Yang, and vice-versa!

— Space Matters —

Matter forms inertial knots in space’s place,
While space places and separates the knots.
Open-endedness counters form’s closure
In the ying-yang cycle of appearance.

[austintorn@aol.com]

— We Are It —

Appearance and motion wholly create
Being and time in the arena of space;
We’re the complex composites from simple stuff,
The ultimate, so far, in the universe. (maybe)

— Whence We Came —

Of Strong’s stability, Weak’s dispersal…
Thence from the stars cameth our help and hope,
When they generated all the elements—
Hence brewed a soup of fortuitous accidents.

[austintorn@aol.com]

— Come and Gone —
(The theory of Nobody)

Like the light from a star already spent,
Our ‘get up and go’ has long gone and went.
We all birthed, lived, and died right away—
There’s nothing left but the slo-mo replay.