An Idea

[Profpat]

Parvati using her charms to open Shiva's eyes to her presence
- the process of orthogonal duals beginning (balancing) prior to the process of duality formation

Hi SB_UK;

Actually I thought Parvati, Shiva's consort, held the mirror so Shiva could see how beautiful he is.

[SB_UK]

whoa!
still shaking from that last series (particularly the last one) of posts -

- one can feel oneself shaking in and out of reality.

It feels a bit like riding a rollercoaster through one's own mind .

[SB_UK]

o-> + o+ ->- duals engaged in duality formation ->- o+ (until o-> comes along)

o+

+

o->

->-

o+

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parvati

In Skanda Purana, Parvati is said to have assumed a form of a warrior-goddess and defeated a demon called Durg who assumes the form of a buffalo. Thereafter, she is by the name Durga.

Parvati

+

Shiva

->-

Durga

[the evolution [standing wave collapse] between forms]

from ADDF::Stabile
The metamodel web (optimal logical structure (wisdom) of mind and all things)

o+ [mother] [metamodel]

+

o-> [father] [detail]

->-

o+ [daughter - mother to be] [model - metamodel to be]

It's all the same - a fundamental inequality to permit change ((unidirectional) for the better)).

No - equality!

Inequality leading to a polarity of extremes which regress to the mean (equality)
- prior to the transient equality giving way to
Inequality leading to a polarity of extremes ... ... ...

[... ... the same mechanism just on a higher level ... ...]

~*~

The constant is change -
- a precise geometry of change.

You see - I was right all along.

Hug me.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

When the theory realm is below h such as this is, you are talking religion, and not science. h is the 3D constant of geometry, we must start with to do real science, until some new standard is established__but how would this be when a gamma wave, the shortest frequency is 10^-33 cm acrosss, and the smallest time/distance maeasurable is 10^-43 cm...?

h is a 3D space, and herein lies your, and all string theory problems__below h, as this post portends, is not science__It's pure imaginal religion... All real geometries are 3D...

We have no science to measure below 3D h, or above velocity c...!

The difference between the math and the physics, is math uses virtual space place holders for its number functions, functors, and matrixes, etc., and physics uses and is 3D geometric space__the reality...

There is no little mass point below 3D h__Science can't see below h__the wavelength of light won't let us. The smallest we can logically and scientifically see is 3D geometric h... All else is religion...

So Lloyd don't you find it an interesting coincidence that math says take a POINT and stretches it to make a 1 dimensional LINE, take that line and move it perpendicular to itself to create a 2nd dimension AREA (field), move that area perpedicular to create 3D space, cube or sphere.

Light an energy POINT which moves through space creating a line which goes perpendicular, and perpendicular again creating 3D space. A wave particle.

What is the difference between the math and the physics? The physical gives me a little mass point that moves, which creates the line, that goes perpendicular......

[Profpat]

When you are dicussing Planck's constant you are not in the world of reality anymore, only how small reality can be and still be MEASURED. It's a mathemativcal constant Lloyd things can be a lot smaller and of smaller dimensionas and still exist Lloyd you just can't measure it.

Lloyd you keep your FAITH that all is 3D, if that comforts you. I'm not here to destroy anyones religious belief.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

It isn't a belief Pat. It's the capability of science. Anything below h and above c is the religion. Meta-maths are used to theoretically see if it's possible to join the existing maths. Meta-spaces are used in these math theories, as the real 3D spaces are too small to deal with in the maths, so they zoom them up, so the meta-maths can handle them, but in the end, they, your Ed Witten's of the world, must apply these meta-math models back to h realities__They haven't, and therein lies their failures. You have not made the proper distinctions between meta-math models, meta-math spaces and the h and c 3D geometric realities of science...

Your speculations are nothing but meta-space non-realities, as you are dealing with the dillusional 'god factor', in science__That's not ever science, nor is it ever going to be. Science is the measure of h and h+, c and c-, and nothing else is science__Just meta-speculations. So, iff you would be honest with yourself and others, you'd admit it to be meta-speculations, then everyone can get back to scientific sanity...

Iff you choose the insanity of continuing of saying 1D and 2D are real physical dimensions, then so be it. Enjoy your non-scientific insanity... Bye

When you are dicussing Planck's constant you are not in the world of reality anymore[It is the only scientific reality possible...], only how small reality can be and still be MEASURED. It's a mathemativcal constant Lloyd things can be a lot smaller and of smaller dimensionas and still exist Lloyd you just can't measure it[No measure__no sense...].

Lloyd you keep your FAITH[Scientific facts only, allowed in science...] that all is 3D, if that comforts you. I'm not here to destroy anyones religious belief.[No, but you are trying to destroy scientific facts, thus far relayed on this forum__You will fail, as everyone before you has...]

[Profpat]

Diogenes Laertius: "...from the monad evolved the dyad; from it numbers; from numbers, points; then lines, two-dimensional entities, three-dimensional entities, bodies, culminating in the four elements earth, water, fire and air, from which the rest of our world is built up..."

BYE

[Profpat]

The next great awakening of the human intellect may well produce a method of understanding the qualitative content of the equations.”

Richard Feynman

1. THE ORIGIN OF PLANCK’S CONSTANT

Planck’s constant entered physics in 1900 as a result of Max Planck’s attempts to provide a theoretical explanation for the empirically discovered laws of blackbody radiation.1 He found that Wien’s heuristic approximation and existing observations could be reproduced if one adopted the concept that matter was a collection of discrete harmonic oscillators that obeyed an energy/frequency law of the form:

E = hν (1)

for the emitted electromagnetic radiation. Since h has the dimensions of ML2/T which are the dimensions of action, i.e., energy multiplied by time, it was natural to think of h in terms of action principles. The implication of Planck’s discovery of h was that the action of atoms is quantized and that h represents the fundamental unit of action for discrete atomic scale systems. Planck’s constant has become an integral component of modern atomic and subatomic physics, such that an understanding of the microcosm without h is virtually unthinkable. However, as pointed out by Peacock,1 to this day physicists really have not had a convincing explanation for why action in the microcosm is quantized, nor why h has the specific quantitative value of 6.626 x 10-27 erg sec. Here we will discuss the possibility that the Self-Similar Cosmological Paradigm may offer a unique and deeper understanding of Planck’s constant.

[Fredrick]

You are correct, Frederick. The origin of the universe does not really consume me with curiosity. I am a part of it, and as such, I accept that which I am a part of, on the basis of my limited physical senses. Good enough. Update the data base as new experience is acquired. Should such become a proven fact, it will be made known. The theories are good mental gymnastics, to me, not to offend any who have a vested interest in any particular line of thought.

It is far more interesting to compare perceptions among others of my kind, and to observe other species in their learning and interactions with our magnificent, and often challenging, environment.

Allow me to then formulate what I believe is key, and that can help explain much: I do not know who said it first, but the quote "the only certainty is uncertainty" contains two versions of overall information that contradict each other, while still being true. There is certainty, and this certainty exists at the overall level. As such, this overall truth is applied to all detailed levels. At each level there is no certainty.

This information allows a person to both state that there is a certainty and state that there is no certainty. As you see, both are correct, but both words of information are only correct when each word is considered within its appropriate framework of information.

I would use a distinction between on the one hand the correct general information (that contains the certainty) as overall level and on the other hand the correct universal information as that what is found throughout the universe (no certainty). I need to make this distinction, even though in the past I have only used (I believe) the term "overall level" for the general level. Who knows, I may have triggered some decent misunderstanding that way.

The general statement (certainty) supersedes the universal statement (uncertainty), though it does not undermine the universal statement (rather, it provides exactly that information).

I would say that this quote is the ToE in a nutshell. As such, you should be able to see that both Lloyd and I subscribe to this information. As one should expect, the mathematical information that provides evidence for that ToE contains the same paradox. Please allow me to get into this a little bit more.

The nature of math is such that it is itself not of the detailed level. Math is an abstraction only, and exists at the general level only. However, even there it is not almighty, because math must also be used appropriately to be correct. And this is where it gets very simple and becomes very interesting (I think):

1 + 1 = 2 is only correct when the 1s are populated with the appropriate entities. One apple and one orange do not make two appeloranges. The truth we find in math is only true when math is used appropriately. The apple and the orange belong to the detailed level, and math is only available in a framework of apples and another framework of oranges. There is no math for a single apple and a single orange.

You would probably say that you can still make the apple and orange fit the 1 + 1 = 2 statement, for instance, by turning them into fruits. That is correct, but we have generalized the entities then; we moved away from the detailed level to a level close enough to convey the message, but nevertheless no longer thé detailed level. In your mind, you must hold the apple and the orange for these fruits to be covered in the equation. There are no tools in math to apply to an apple and an orange: we cannot add them to each other, we cannot divide the orange by the apple, we cannot do multiplications with them when they are that detailed. Even when we state something about their positions, with the apple 3 inches away from the orange, we can naturally use math for some geometry, but we have then also turned the apple and the orange into objects, which is again a generalization.


I am going to make a jump now to the fact that in math an apple and an orange cannot be put in a single equation (as themselves) is similar in outcome as Einstein's General Relativity. Two objects are not fully connected, because each is self-based in nature, and they cannot be listed in a single framework of that level. Yet I am also going to make the same jump to Quantum Mechanics as containing two parts not identical to each other at the detailed level and therefore providing no grounds to come to a predictable outcome. When Einstein heard about the information from Bohr, c.s., he should have said: that is saying the same I am saying, but then differently. Instead, he made a proclamation that is quite improper for a scientist in that he said the "old man (god) doesn't play dice."

It is awkward he made that statement, because he had delivered us General Relativity, a certainty about overall uncertainty if there ever was one. That makes me wonder if he fully understood GR himself. I do not want to gossip, but there was word another scientist had also been talking about this in 1905. But let me not bring Einstein down too much: he is a master (but possibly in more than one way).

When reviewing the overall level, we can find incompleteness at the correct general level, while randomness would be found with the results, the then correct universal level. And that brings me to the discussion I had with Lloyd, now finished, where I claim the correct general information to supersede the correct universal information. And you know, that is the entire story. Because the ToE contains the paradox of having certainty about uncertainty, each speaker has the option to state something correctly one way and then state something correctly another way. It keeps life interesting, but it kind of gets in the way when trying to state something true of a general nature only.

What is good to keep in mind is that math is a general reality, not containing any detailed information unless populated (correctly) as such. Math belongs to the realm of science, but is not like most scientific branches, for they contain many many details at their foundation. One could say that math supersedes the sciences, because it delivers its truths at the overall level (the correct general level)

In essence, early 20th century scientists provided the ToE already. Then, possibly led by Einstein's incorrect move, the question was asked. In science, the question was asked after the answers had been given already. And this is interesting, because science did therefore forget to view itself as limited. Scientists had found their answers, but they did not realize they had found (many of) the final answers. Science does not want uncertainty as the outcome; it is based on the certainty of repeatable experiments and allows for some uncertainty under very strict conditions in scientifically theorizing. To knock on the door and say hello, I have mathematical evidence that we always have uncertainty is not very welcome — even when this information is found within the scientific branches (but then placed at the detailed level).

At the overall level, there is no rejection, while at the detailed level there is rejection, there must be rejection, because all is self-based, and must therefore reject that what is self-based in a different manner. I ask not for rejection, and neither am I asking for acceptance; I ask for understanding. I have information that uncertainty is indeed the standard.

So that is what I bring: a fact of the general level. I am using math to state something about math. As soon as someone states 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, I can let them know they forgot 0, because my evidence shows zero is always there when someone at least states something upto 5.

Though I consider Einstein, Bohr, c.s., Brouwer, etc, all to have brought plenty evidence for the ToE, I have a contribution as well, but not many think at this level. Before you know it, people start thinking at the detailed level, and there is no ToE at that level. The ToE can only be a general ToE, hence scientists keep looking because they do not want a ToE that is general.

There is no detailed ToE, except for the general ToE that comes out when viewing all details.

When you state: "Should such become a proven fact, it will be made known," then I must ask you who the announcer is going to be? No scientist will be that announcer, because there is only a general truth to be shared (that indeed there is no general truth to share at the detailed levels). Another reason is that the mystery of the ToE is an excellent carrot in front of those providing money to keep research going. Why slaugter the goose that lays the golden eggs? I am confident that if you do not speak up, no one will. Those you consider in control, have nothing to gain from my mathematical evidence that they should give utmost importance to the phenomenon of nothing to understand it all.

Jee, I think I said it all.

[dipayankar]

I do not know whether it was Durga or not.However the extreme temperatures of the early Universe would have prevented a permanent cohesion between the quarks and the other subatomic particles.

... ... frozen (spinning) to the spot
- the stability of Durga (Mother Earth).

o+

- spinning planet Earth.