My own TOE attempt...

[areniers]

Hi everyone,

This is my first post here. I'm a 33 year old animal shelter employee from Belgium . I'm their magazine editor and I'm also in charge of school visits and so on. It hasn't got anything to do with science or physics let alone a TOE of course, but those things are reserved for my own time outside work. I've always been interested in philosophy and physics and I have been trying to combine the two for many years. I've written a lot of stuff and even published a book called "Tijd en zijn" (Time and being) last year on the relationship between philosophy and the quest for a TOE. The book is in Dutch

More recently I have been working on a follow-up text (in English), which goes in to more detail than the book, using an epistemological approach to the concept of a TOE (or what I tend to call "full Being-affirmation"). This approach leads to a strange marriage between philosophy and science called "gnomon dynamics". At the very end of the text there even seem to exist interesting links with the Euclidean representation of Special Relativity and the zero-Hamiltonian, which plays a major role in LQG.

For those of you interested in the text, it can be found here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/2604561/Gnomon-dynamics). It's not an easy read and it is rather lengthy. Feel free to pose questions of course...

Alvin

[Graybeard]

I've always been interested in philosophy and physics and I have been trying to combine the two for many years.

More recently I have been working on a follow-up text (in English), which goes in to more detail than the book, using an epistemological approach to the concept of a TOE (or what I tend to call "full Being-affirmation"). This approach leads to a strange marriage between philosophy and science called "gnomon dynamics".

Hi Areniers ... welcome to the forum. I read the first few pages of your book, skipped lightly thru, perusing, to the end. I think you have done an excellent job and it contains some good insights into QM.

I would have to read a lot more deeply before commenting on it. I didn't delve into the maths.

Your attempt to combine philosophy and QM is a big undertaking. Others have also tried.

Have you read The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav, a book that helps the layman understand fundamental concepts and issues in physics. Unfortunately he veers off, after an excellent start into Buddhism.

Nevertheless I admire your attempt, and it appears to be very well written, will peruse some more when I get time.

cool bananas ... greg

[areniers]

Hi Graybeard,

Thanks for your reply!

I consider my paper like a very condensed set of ideas, that's what makes it a difficult read sometimes. There's some math in it, like you stated, but it's not really math like we all know it. I call it "mathemasophical formalism" myself, and it is used to formalize the ideas put forth in a sort of meta-mathematical way (you'll see what I mean when you get to it). I do hope you take the time to delve a bit further in it, you might find some interesting surprises...

Thanks again for your encouraging reply!

Alvin