[rybot]

Originally Posted by Fredrick Can you come up with anything that can be broken down to just three individual aspects of similar condition and stature? Example of two: male and female. Example of four: Father, mother, daughter and son.

Fredrocek, I reread your post and see I missed some of the info first time through. E.g Male-femal and father mother daughter son I overlooked.

So, along with the previous line with two terminals example I must no think of some other kind of threeness.

The weak force has three kinds of particle;
..W+,
..W-
..and Zo.

Mother, father, progeny.

Three primary colors of the Electmgnetic type( e,g t.v. );
red, green, blue

Three priamry colors of the artist/painter:
red green or red blue green or red blue yellow. I forget exactly on that one.

Three kinds of electron:
..electron.
..muon electron
..tau electron

Three kinds of neutrino:
..electron(?) neutrino
..muon neutrino
..tau neutrino

Animal with three main body parts:

abdomen, thorax and head(?). The legs and antenna are included in various catagories.

THe buck-eye tree sometimes, or always, has three nuts in each pod. I've heard that one or two of the nuts are posious but that squirrels know which ones are the toxic ones.

I think there are some or many molecules that are composed of three atoms or three molecules.. Isnt waterH2O. Yes, that is two parts Oxygen and one part hydrogen.

Some men have three Y chromosomes but Ive never heard of any women with three X chromosomes.

There are three and only three stable( all equalatral ) triangles, regular/symmetrical Platonic polyehedra of universe:
..Icosahedron
..Octahedron
..Tetrahedron.

There are only three 90 degree axial dimensions --cosmically speaking-- of universe: the cartesain XYZ or abc depdening ony you label it.

There are only three cosmic directions of universe:
..in,
..out
..and around.

Euclid has only three topologial characteristics:
..vertexes/crossings
..lines/edges
..faces/areas

There is only past, present and future relationships.

Anything we define as a container box etc...divides the physical universe into three parts:

..all the universe insided the container,
..all the universe outside of the container
..and the little bit of universe that composes the container itself.

Thats all I can think of at moment. Hope that helps answer your question.

Rybo

[dipayankar]

What about the four basic forces? Em, weak, strong nuclear forces, gravity? They do not fall into the three theory. Also there are more than two dozen sub atomic particles...

Originally Posted by rybot Fredrocek, I reread your post and see I missed some of the info first time through. E.g Male-femal and father mother daughter son I overlooked. So, along with the previous line with two terminals example I must no think of some other kind of threeness. The weak force has three kinds of particle; ..W+, ..W- ..and Zo. Mother, father, progeny. Three primary colors of the Electmgnetic type( e,g t.v. ); red, green, blue Three priamry colors of the artist/painter: red green or red blue green or red blue yellow. I forget exactly on that one. Three kinds of electron: ..electron. ..muon electron ..tau electron Three kinds of neutrino: ..electron(?) neutrino ..muon neutrino ..tau neutrino Animal with three main body parts: abdomen, thorax and head(?). The legs and antenna are included in various catagories. THe buck-eye tree sometimes, or always, has three nuts in each pod. I've heard that one or two of the nuts are posious but that squirrels know which ones are the toxic ones. I think there are some or many molecules that are composed of three atoms or three molecules.. Isnt waterH2O. Yes, that is two parts Oxygen and one part hydrogen. Some men have three Y chromosomes but Ive never heard of any women with three X chromosomes. There are three and only three stable( all equalatral ) triangles, regular/symmetrical Platonic polyehedra of universe: ..Icosahedron ..Octahedron ..Tetrahedron. There are only three 90 degree axial dimensions --cosmically speaking-- of universe: the cartesain XYZ or abc depdening ony you label it. There are only three cosmic directions of universe: ..in, ..out ..and around. Euclid has only three topologial characteristics: ..vertexes/crossings ..lines/edges ..faces/areas There is only past, present and future relationships. Anything we define as a container box etc...divides the physical universe into three parts: ..all the universe insided the container, ..all the universe outside of the container ..and the little bit of universe that composes the container itself. Thats all I can think of at moment. Hope that helps answer your question. Rybo

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by rybot Fredrick, that is so true of anything taken as a whole, e.g. a human. I'm not sure of what is meant by you latter comment above. I think you are asking for a concept of a something that is has less than a total of three aspects e.g. a line has no angles or it could be said to have to 360 angles at each terminal end. Then we may say we have three and only three aspects: 1) the line 2) left end (terminus ) 3) right end (terminus ) Perhaps we could go with the idea of a conceptual point, however, whats the point? Pun and no pun intended. :--) Rybo

Thanks for all the examples, Rybo. However, when I look them over, they appear to be all examples of inequal stature or not independent. The example above, for instance, has only one line, and one line only. The left end and right end do not belong to the same level; they are part of the line, and in all there is only one aspect here: the line. If you wish, a second aspect can be placed next to it: not-line, meaning anything that the line is not. I hope by working my way through the other examples that my set up requirement to my question becomes clearer:

The weak force has three kinds of particle;
..W+,
..W-
..and Zo.
[The weak force is not an independent force, it exists on the same level with strong nuclear force, gravity and EM. Please explain if you consider W+, W- and Zo as independent aspects of the same level]

Mother, father, progeny.
[These belong to two different categories: mother and father belong to one parental category that is individual and sex specific, progeny belongs to a category that says something about (many) generations and is sex neutral]

Three primary colors of the Electromagnetic type (e,g t.v. );
red, green, blue
[True, except for the features of light and dark, so a fourth aspect inherently is part of the outcome]

Three primary colors of the artist/painter:
red green or red blue green or red blue yellow. I forget exactly on that one.
[It's red, blue and yellow, though these colors too are automatically subjected to light and dark, which is therefore a fourth aspect of the painter's pallet of equality]

Three kinds of electron:
..electron., muon electron and tau electron
..muon electron
..tau electron
[Electrons are not independent. Please explain if you consider electron as independent aspects of the same level]

Three kinds of neutrino:
..electron(?) neutrino
..muon neutrino
..tau neutrino
[Neutrinos are not independent, please explain if you consider electron neutrino, muon neutrino and tau neutrino as independent aspects of the same level]

Animal with three main body parts:
abdomen, thorax and head(?). The legs and antenna are included in various catagories.
[It is only one animal, body parts are not of an equal and independent stature]

The buck-eye tree sometimes, or always, has three nuts in each pod. I've heard that one or two of the nuts are poisonous but that squirrels know which ones are the toxic ones.
[Nice to know, but nuts are not independent aspects, they are part of the cycle of life, each nut needing nutrition, water, light, etcetera to become a new full grown tree]

I think there are some or many molecules that are composed of three atoms or three molecules.. Isnt waterH2O. Yes, that is two parts Oxygen and one part hydrogen.
[Three parts indeed, but not of equal stature nor independent]

Some men have three Y chromosomes but Ive never heard of any women with three X chromosomes.
[I have, and even more: 4, 5, and 6 X chromosomes, though in all cases only 1 is active and the others are placed in inactive mode. Sorry, I don't know the exact term for this). Again, I am looking for independent aspects, not internal aspects]

There are three and only three stable (all equalatral ) triangles, regular/symmetrical Platonic polyehedra of universe:
..Icosahedron
..Octahedron
..Tetrahedron.
[Reminds me of solid, fluid and gas. Again, nice to know, but by definition they are not of the same stature. Just like solid, fluid, and gas are three stages, for instance, for water, they do not occur at one and the same time; and it is the water that is the independent part. Please explain further]

There are only three 90 degree axial dimensions --cosmically speaking-- of universe: the Cartesian XYZ or abc depending on how you label it.
[Please explain]

There are only three cosmic directions of universe:
..in,
..out
..and around.
[Not certain what you mean by this, but they do not seem to be of the same stature nor independent; Also, I can easily envision a direction coming from the left and going to the right, a line that is not going in or out or around]

Euclid has only three topological characteristics:
..vertexes/crossings
..lines/edges
..faces/areas
[These do not seem to be of the same stature and fail to follow the independent requirement]

There is only past, present and future relationships.
[Relationship is the only aspect here, time like solid, fluid and gas are not independent aspects but dependent. If I were to place time as an independent entity, I'd only end up with Now and not-Now, with future nor past being here in the Now]

Anything we define as a container box etc...divides the physical universe into three parts:

..all the universe inside the container,
..all the universe outside of the container
..and the little bit of universe that composes the container itself.

[Interesting, but these aspects are not of the same stature, the universe inside and outside the container plus the container are all three parts of the 'single' universe. Please explain how the container can be seen as separate and independent from the universe.]

I am interested to read if I was able to make my question clearer and of course I am eager to know how you will judge my judgments.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Okay, I was thinking more in terms of practicality...

Sorry, Dipayankar,

I guess I tried to show how the set up is too contrived to be much helpful in our quest to understand everything as in a toe. Still, I agree with you that it is an important set up, that in general we are able to find a two positional outcome. Yet this often depends on how we have set up the conditions. Even something with just a left and right tends to have an up and a down, a front and a back. Indeed, three directions, but then again there is also the inward and outward direction...

[rybot]

Hmm Fredrick. I originally used three lines --of equal length if neccessary-- but you were not satisfied or something with that example. You then gave example of Mother Father Daughter Son.

Those are much less equal in stature than three same legnth lines of an equalateral triangle, so I'm lacking clarity of just exactly what is required to meet your definition of "equal stature".


[The weak force is not an independent force, it exists on the same level with strong nuclear force, gravity and EM. Please explain if you consider W+, W- and Zo as independent aspects of the same level]

For what its worth Fredrick, it is in same catagory as others i.e. they are all bosons, but the weak force is independent, except as found in mathematical unified theories. where it is same as EM force, so, I guess I'm in disageement with you here.



[These belong to two different categories: mother and father belong to one parental category that is individual and sex specific, progeny belongs to a category that says something about (many) generations and is sex neutral]

Again, you are the one who gave the a reply to my triangle( 3 lines and six angles ) with Mother Father Daughter Son example, so, I'm in need of much more clarity cause I only followed your example but limited it to three by not specifying gender in the "progeny".

We might say that Man or woman is the action or reaction and the resultant is the progeny ergo I have just given another cosmic thressome example. Maybe doesnt fit your needs.. I dunno and will see how you respond.



[True, except for the features of light and dark, so a fourth aspect inherently is part of the outcome]

Fredrick, all three colors I gave or in the catagory of "light" i.e. light( visible ) is not sperate from them. Dark is absent of light. So again I'm not clear as to what your exact needs are in definning this three-some concept. I hope you don't take this as my being onery for the sake of jsut being onery. Just need more clarity of your specifications.


[It's red, blue and yellow, though these colors too are automatically subjected to light and dark, which is therefore a fourth aspect of the painter's pallet of equality]

ditto the previous reply above

[Electrons are not independent. Please explain if you consider electron as independent aspects of the same level]

There are no independent anything of universe Fredricl i.e. it is all 'relative' because it is all related. Minimally by gravity. Like the weak force above electrons are independent to some degree.

If you want totall independence, you have to begin with the whole finite physical universe and state that it is independent from teh outside macro-infinite void of true absolute metaphysical nothingness.

That is the closest you will come to absolute independence, however, even then and at best, you may only have finite ultra-micro set of quasi-physics occurring as grviational spactime seperatin our observed and quantifi-able finite physical universe from teh macro-infinite metaphysical voidn of true nothingness.


[Neutrinos are not independent, please explain if you consider electron neutrino, muon neutrino and tau neutrino as independent aspects of the same level]

THey are indipendent particles of the same classification. That classification then falls under the even larger catagory of 'elementary' particles, whihc in-turne falls udner classification of fermions whcih in-turn falls under classification of phsyical.

This goes back to my previous statements that all of physical unvierse's tuff is related-connected ergo there is no indpendent anything, except maybe for universe itself.


[It is only one animal, body parts are not of an equal and independent stature]

Ok, that I can agree with as teh connection there is very obvious even to the eye.

[Nice to know, but nuts are not independent aspects, they are part of the cycle of life, each nut needing nutrition, water, light, etcetera to become a new full grown tree]

ANd yes it is all a part of universe. Uni- equals the 'one' verse Fredrick, adn the only truly indepenence to be found i.e. the first subcatagorization fo "U"niverse is metaphyscal and physical.


I think there are some or many molecules that are composed of three atoms or three molecules.. Isnt waterH2O. Yes, that is two parts Oxygen and one part hydrogen.
[Three parts indeed, but not of equal stature nor independent]
[I have, and even more: 4, 5, and 6 X chromosomes, though in all cases only 1 is active and the others are placed in inactive mode. Sorry, I don't know the exact term for this). Again, I am looking for independent aspects, not internal aspects]

There are three and only three stable (all equalatral ) triangles, regular/symmetrical Platonic polyehedra of universe:
..Icosahedron
..Octahedron
..Tetrahedron.
[Reminds me of solid, fluid and gas. Again, nice to know, but by definition they are not of the same stature. Just like solid, fluid, and gas are three stages, for instance, for water, they do not occur at one and the same time; and it is the water that is the independent part. Please explain further]

Fredrick, these can be physical models you hold in your or metaphysical concepts you hold in your mind. Either way the are independent to allmost as much of degree as possibel yet retaining equal stature --whatever equal stature is--. I'm realy starting to lose track of any and all parameters your are trying to put in place.

So far you have excluded everything including maybe unvierse, so, if that is the case, lets us go bakc to your original concerns to my six angles of triangle and find out what is that causing you to itch it. Ha ha

There are only three 90 degree axial dimensions --cosmically speaking-- of universe: the Cartesian XYZ or abc depending on how you label it.
[Please explain]

3D = 3 known and observed spatial dimensions associated with our physical universe. Surely youve heard of these three?


There are only three cosmic directions of universe:
..in,
..out
..and around.
[Not certain what you mean by this, but they do not seem to be of the same stature nor independent; Also, I can easily envision a direction coming from the left and going to the right, a line that is not going in or out or around]

I'm sorry Fredricll but I'm losing all sense of rationality with your set of parameters. These are 'directions' ergo having "same stature" to best that I can understand what it is you mean by stature.. At this point tho who knows?

Their all three differrent directions ergo indepent from each other and even more idependent when identified with differrent objects.

Euclid has only three topological characteristics:
..vertexes/crossings
..lines/edges
..faces/areas
[These do not seem to be of the same stature and fail to follow the independent requirement]

why am I not surprised. :--)

There is only past, present and future relationships.
[Relationship is the only aspect here, time like solid, fluid and gas are not independent aspects but dependent. If I were to place time as an independent entity, I'd only end up with Now and not-Now, with future nor past being here in the Now]

Hmm, I errored here cause there are three aspects events --not neccesarily label as time-- however there is only two cosmic set of relationships, or wait maybe there are three.

past-present
past-future
present-future,

Yep that is three. Another reminder Fredrick it is all related so, It appears to me that your parameters are not possible.

If they are then you need to tell us because I can't seem to meet your criteria.

Anything we define as a container box etc...divides the physical universe into three parts:

..all the universe inside the container,
..all the universe outside of the container
..and the little bit of universe that composes the container itself.

[Interesting, but these aspects are not of the same stature, the universe inside and outside the container plus the container are all three parts of the 'single' universe. Please explain how the container can be seen as separate and independent from the universe.]

Was "sperate from universe" part of your original criteria/parmaters? I'm way beyond remmebering those origianl comments and maybe way beyond ever being able to meet/statisfy them, seo Fredrick, please give us the answer, if such even exists.


I am interested to read if I was able to make my question clearer and of course I am eager to know how you will judge my judgments.[/quote]

Clarity may help but at this point I think I've reached my limit to rationalize your set of parameters by stating that based on what you've been asking for I can't find it.

So please tell us. Or maybe you dont have an answer but like to try and set a trap of unanswerble conclusions or resolutions as set by your criteria/parameters, that may be changing of over time. I dunno. Do you?

[Fredrick]

Rybo, I like that you investigate this with vigor. I agree that the parameters I am setting need to be explained better.

Let me try if I can clarify what I desire with the following examples. Yet, said in advance, you do make a good point that there are no "independent anythings" in our universe, though I do consider this a debatable point since we can also consider our universe as a gathering of parts and not as something that is a single whole (the word universe can be considered an abstract idea enabling us to talk about it as if it were singular, while the actual parts may always be separated to some extent). I guess what I am looking for are equal parts within a single category. Having said that, the parameters need to be explained better still.

A triangle is just a single triangle by itself, the three lines that make up the triangle are not independent lines. If they were, we would not have a triangle. According to me, other examples you provided are also focusing on parts, and not the whole. The four forces, for instance, are the whole, while each force is made up out of dependent aspects. I will say that this is a weak spot in my question. I can see what I am trying to say, but I may not be a good communicator in saying what I can see.

Though not similar, father, mother, daughter and son are of equal stature within the same category called family relationship. As with offspring, anyone can be considered as progeny, so that is a categorization by itself, and already applicable to the other two words used of father and mother (or man and woman). Therefore, the three words of mother, father, and progeny belong to two different categories.

As far as categorization of light is concerned, I agree with you, Rybo, it's a good example. I just wanted to point out that the three colors red, green and blue do not tell the whole story since light and dark (and the positions in between) are at least as important, and also the fact that reflected light (so not light as the source) is red, blue, and yellow (not green) creates an additional aspect to light that 'undermines' the fundamental threeness of light.

About 3D, I know about it, and I see nothing wrong with it. At the same time, I have never seen anything that is just 1D, so I do consider the set-up as flawed. Only when accepting the whole set-up first do the parts make sense, not the other way around. In my view, the first level that can exist is 2D, a field, yet anything 2D is not the actual delivery but an artistic delivery (such as a movie, a painting, etc). The movie screen is 3D (the screen has a certain thickness), while the movie itself is 2D. I am able to consider the movie itself as 2D since there is no thickness to the movie (only to the light particles), but again, the point I am trying to make is that I have never seen anything that is just 1D.

I think my parameters are possible, but possibly it is a vantage point that is truly quite specific. I'll leave it up to you to either discover it and like it, or decide that it is all far too specific and not that interesting.

[rybot]

Originally Posted by Fredrick I guess what I am looking for are equal parts within a single category. Having said that, the parameters need to be explained better still. I think my parameters are possible, but possibly it is a vantage point that is truly quite specific. I'll leave it up to you to either discover it and like it, or decide that it is all far too specific and not that interesting. [/font]

Hey Fredrick, since none of the answers I gave are acceptable, for your set of parrmeters, I'm all ears to hear you give an answer, as I have no more to offer.

It appears to me that many of the threeness examples I gave, are within a sameness type catagory tho they still may not fit your set of parameters.

E.g. The three primary, stable regular symmetrical polyhedrons
tetrahedron
octahedron
icosahedron

or three cosmic diretions;
in
out
around

or three physics relationships;
action
reaction
resultant

etc....


So, again, I think we need your answer(s) or some one elses's cause I'm out of ideas.

Rybo

[dipayankar]

I am now doubting if there is a ToE. If there is why is it so elusive? Why cant QM and Relativity be correct in their places and we leave them as it is?? What problems are we facing if we do not 'dicsover a ToE'?? We should look at unraveling gravity and see if we stumble across a ToE.

Originally Posted by Fredrick Sorry, Dipayankar, I guess I tried to show how the set up is too contrived to be much helpful in our quest to understand everything as in a toe. Still, I agree with you that it is an important set up, that in general we are able to find a two positional outcome. Yet this often depends on how we have set up the conditions. Even something with just a left and right tends to have an up and a down, a front and a back. Indeed, three directions, but then again there is also the inward and outward direction...

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by rybot Since none of the answers I gave are acceptable, for your set of parameters, I'm all ears to hear you give an answer, as I have no more to offer.

Hey Rybo,

I am not immediately offering an answer (though I am offering you one below); what I like to share with you first is my amazement that there is an absence of threeness under my (yes, possibly very strict) parameters. Having said that, I do want to look at all those aspects that appear to come in threes.

I like to read your information that there are only three primary, stable regular symmetrical polyhedrons. I wish I knew more about them. The question I would ask is do these three come in their own versions only, or are there for instance two versions of the icosahedron (though I would imagine, for instance, that both icosahedra are then considered too similar to be seen as different). A second point I have about the polyhedrons is that they are quite specific and appear to exist in the abstract only. Still, I will accept this as an example of three.

I disagree with the three cosmic directions you provide since the three are all center-based (in, out, and around), and our cosmos may not be center-based (or may not be just center-based). Though the Big Bang theory delivers ample evidence about a central location from which everything moves outwardly, this does not automatically mean all came from a singular spot. If all came out of a large concentrated area then various aspects of our cosmos are not center-based, but could, for instance, be considered edge- or regional-based.

I am interested to learn more about action, reaction and resultant since I do not understand the concepts precisely. Looking at the words, both action and reaction appear to be resultants already, so the three seem to exist within two categories, not one.
---------------

One answer I may be able to give about threeness is that an appearance of three can exist, though only when various aspects aligns. When I take the three numbers 0, 1, and 2 and add them up I get three as well. Only due to the empty spot of 0 can we get three out of three. Depending on the acceptance or the rejection of the empty spot as significant we either end up with three out of three or with three out of two. Personally, I fully accept the empty spot as fundamental, and vital in helping us understand everything. As an example, I envision an empty central spot within the Big Bang for the very first moments. I therefore reject the idea that materialization of the center took place at the beginning, I only accept the idea of initial materialization of the surrounding area.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by dipayankar I am now doubting if there is a ToE. If there is why is it so elusive? Why cant QM and Relativity be correct in their places and we leave them as it is?? What problems are we facing if we do not 'dicsover a ToE'?? We should look at unraveling gravity and see if we stumble across a ToE.

I think we agree on this one fully, Dipayankar. Yet rather than taking one aspect, disseminate it, and hope it will yield the answer, I believe looking at what we have will yield the answer already.

I believe we ourselves are to blame for not finding the correct answer. The structure in which we are trying to formulate the answer is an impossible structure. It is like Stephen Hawking's remark that we are looking for North at the Northpole; it ain't there. At the Northpole, there is only South. Only in religion and the abstract can we come to a singular overall outcome. The word god can encompass a single answer, just like the word universe can encompass everything. Yet these are just words. We can imagine them to be real, and they may even be real on the non-material level, but at the scientific level they are not real. The word universe is within science a collective at best.

In science, the theory is created that singularity exists in our universe, yet there is no direct evidence that singularity exists.

So, while scientists have been looking for a ToE since the mid eighties, they never examined their own parameters for finding the ToE. Just like Einstein's remark that "God does not play dice" is a non-scientific remark, the question what the ToE will be is a non-scientific question if it must automatically be based on the assumption that all exists somehow on a singular platform of the largest kind. I believe the ToE exists, but it is not one that is based on any form of singularity. I reject singularity as the part of the basics; it does not exist, except possibly as the specific result of byproduct created by circumstances at specific max conditions. I am thinking of white as an example, which can be seen as the delivery of the three colors of red, yellow and blue at their max. If we take ordinary red, yellow and blue we get gray, not white. And gray points to duality, not to singularity.

Must a ToE be based on an ultimately singular platform, Dipayankar, or can a ToE be based on the absence of such a singular circumstance?