I have stumbled upon a remarkable pattern in everything.Is this the beginning of ToE?

[Pattern]

Ok, a while ago i became interested in finding a pattern that could help me understand Hegels and Marx views on history. This led me to make a list of all fenomena that we can not touch. When i listed them i thought they looked kind of cool so i started rearranging them. Many changes later this pattern emerged and the law with it. What can we do with it?



If the pattern is correct it can tell us how to cerate new intelligent life, how universe is structured and so on. The scheme is not complete yet but we can se the outlines of something potenitally revolutionasing. I will define some of the more unclear words in the scheme but feel free to ask whatever you want or make your own arrangement out of it.


When i dicovered the law i had not yet constructed level 4, the experiance level, and I did not know how to inckude feelings and motivation inte the scheme. But after some thinking i came to the presented conclusion where felleings must be generated by the touch sence.


I speculate on if the fenomena of emergens could be responsible for the development of a new level from older levels.



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



Anyhow, what do you think?





General law: One unit is only one unit but when there is several units a relation appears and the units combined with the relation produces a pattern.




Universal structure




1 Mathematical level


Units: Digits, geomtrical figures

Relation: Mathematics

Pattern: Patterns




2 Space-time level

Units: Dots

Relation: Lines

Pattern: Space-time




3 Material level


Units: Energy, Matter

Relation: Gravitation

Pattern: Universell




The structure of conciousness


4 The Experiance level

Units: Nervimpulses = The units that produce pain witch probably is the original feeling

Relation: Expreiance = originally the experiance of pain but as time goes other feelings are added

Pattern: Motivation = What makes us do something rather then nothing




5 The Categorisation level

Units: Impressions = information from our senses

Relation: Scales = The sorting of the information from the senses

Pattern: Kategories = The storage-structure of the brain




6 The Thoughtlevel


Units: Symbols, Words = The recollection of experiances in a broad sesce

Relation: Grammar = What gives any meaning to a sequense of symbols

Pattern: Thoughts = Meaningfull combination of symbols and grammar

Two more universal levels

7 Musical level

Units: Tones

Relation: Rythm

Pattern: Music




8 Evolutionary level


Units: Genes

Relation: Laws of Evolution

Pattern: Development

Two more councious levels

9 The Cultural level


Units: Counciousness

Relation: Communication

Pattern: Society




10 Ideal level

Units: Memes = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

Relation: Laws of evolution

Pattern: Development

[labelwench]

Hello Pattern.

Welcome to the forum.

I have read your first post and have previously encountered the links you offer, which are an interesting read.

My personal experiencing of life through the senses perceives everything of my encounter to be part of a 'pattern within a pattern within a pattern', no end in sight as far as I am able to discern, which seems to be limited by human biology and an existence of relatively short duration when compared to koi fish, Bowhead Whales, various trees, and so on, as one moves outward from the self.

As a species, we use pattern recognition as a learning tool, IMO, and anything new or irregular when compared to previously experienced patterns elicits both our curiosity and concern, lest it be a threat to the continuance of our life experience.

Perhaps others with greater knowledge on the topic will respond to your question in regard to whether patterns represent the starting point for a TOE.

Regards,

Labelwench

[SteveA]

Welcome to ToeQuest, Pattern.

I saw a paragraph in that link on Emergence that I thought was an interesting read, yet also surprising to me because it seems to agree with something I considered to be non-obvious.

Corning's definition of emergence:

"Rules, or laws, have no causal efficacy; they do not in fact “generate” anything. They serve merely to describe regularities and consistent relationships in nature. These patterns may be very illuminating and important, but the underlying causal agencies must be separately specified (though often they are not). But that aside, the game of chess illustrates precisely why any laws or rules of emergence and evolution are insufficient. Even in a chess game, you cannot use the rules to predict “history” — i.e., the course of any given game. Indeed, you cannot even reliably predict the next move in a chess game. Why? Because the “system” involves more than the rules of the game. It also includes the players and their unfolding, moment-by-moment decisions among a very large number of available options at each choice point. The game of chess is inescapably historical, even though it is also constrained and shaped by a set of rules, not to mention the laws of physics. Moreover, and this is a key point, the game of chess is also shaped by teleonomic, cybernetic, feedback-driven influences. It is not simply a self-ordered process; it involves an organized, “purposeful” activity." (Corning 2002)

I've come across something similar from my own experiences and reasoning that fundamentally time has no rigid, predetermined direction, or at least not one that could be learned from events in time. The idea of a clockwork universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe_theory) is something that not only can't be physically demonstrated as true but doesn't appear to be something logically determinable from experiences within time and some degree(s) of freedom remain and it would appear that reality is constructed but assuming patterns persist and relying upon them to figuratively provide landmarks.


Here's an example, if someone was making a map and began at some hill, the first landmark on the map would be the hill. In order to create a continuouly connected map, some pathway back to that origin always needs to remain, otherwise you're left with 2 or more maps and can't determine how to get from one to another.


So in that example, the properties of the (singular) map connected to that hill would be all the states one could reach and still have some traceable pathway back to the hill.


I believe that applies similarly to patterns and that similar to the chess analogy, there could be millions of different games/rules that used the same pieces and same board, but why is it that people might keep playing chess and not switch rules in the middle of a game? I can only assume it's because they enjoy playing a game of chess and randomly rewriting things from moment to moment doesn't make for much of an enjoyable game


I do think there's one thing that can't be controlled in time and that's the property of universal expansion - logic itself seems to be based upon integrating things (perfect logic and perfect memory would appear to go hand in hand), though there could be a lot of freedom in how those things are organized/associated and some things that are assumed to be rigid laws and unchangeable patterns, may not actually be but instead conventions/patterns that have been accepted as 'landmarks' to navigate by, but could potentially be altered by (re)orienting around different conventions/patterns.


So, yes, reality is known by various patterns and in order to maintain things as a singular integrated entity, it would appear whatever pattern(s) are used to describe things would have to be a complete description.


It's interesting to consider that there might be a singular ideal pattern that describes it all (and maybe it's a pattern that includes some freedom for growth in the future as well ... lots of interesting things to consider ).


Again, welcome to TQ, Pattern. Have fun

[labelwench]

"Build it and they will come!"

Thank you, Steve, for showing up, almost on cue, to give Pattern some significantly more substantial grist for the mill than I am able to offer on some topics. You are a reliable and dependable entity in that regard, and just to caution you, Pattern, Steve is a man of many ideas, and quite adept at communicating them.

Exploring the many paths within our own minds is greatly enhanced when we add new and diverse perspectives that others are willing to take the time and energy to share with us.

[Graybeard]

I think your on the right road.

cool bananas ... greg

[SteveA]

Is my pattern of behavior that predictable? (Dang, I'll have to work harder on that! Just kidding. I think some patterns need not be changed ... one pattern that might fit the bill for that would be a pattern capable of describing all other patterns? Yet another interesting idea ...)

Thank you for the compliments, Lorrina.

I think you'll find Lorrina to also be a very reliable source of company of the site, Pattern and she's got a way of tying many ideas here to personal experiences in life. I don't like trying to stereotype things much as that tends to place things in boxes and can be stagnating, but I'd say she provides a bit of a grounded home base around here in some respects that I personally enjoy seeing.

I'm certain you'll find ideas floating around here at the site that you'll likely be able to integrate with yours and people who can stimulate some more.

[labelwench]

Is my pattern of behavior that predictable? (Dang, I'll have to work harder on that! Just kidding. I think some patterns need not be changed ... one pattern that might fit the bill for that would be a pattern capable of describing all other patterns? Yet another interesting idea ...)

Thank you for the compliments, Lorrina.

I think you'll find Lorrina to also be a very reliable source of company of the site, Pattern and she's got a way of tying many ideas here to personal experiences in life. I don't like trying to stereotype things much as that tends to place things in boxes and can be stagnating, but I'd say she provides a bit of a grounded home base around here in some respects that I personally enjoy seeing.

I'm certain you'll find ideas floating around here at the site that you'll likely be able to integrate with yours and people who can stimulate some more.

Perhaps I should have phrased my sentence to read 'predictably reliable', for in the strictest definition of the word, I would not accuse you of being 'predictable'.

The potential for words on a screen to be rendered of more than one meaning, in the absence of tone, inflection and body language to accompany, is an example of 'predictable', IMO.

On the subject of 'patterns', many of us employ patterns regularly in our manner of speech as well.

'Patterns within patterns within patterns'........in all directions.......once we learn to recognize them.

[SteveA]

Well maybe you wouldn't accuse me of being predictable, but your unspoken guess that I was would probably not be far off the mark ... that's ok, if it wasn't for the patterns, then there would be no way to diverge from them either - Yin and Yang and I've found a comfortable "rut" in life, which is good enough for me (if there was no point at which one could be satified, I imagine that would be quite exasperating!) Yes, I get bumped out of my comfy spot on occassion but have managed to acquire some hope that things can settle down over time and I've learned to understand the value of being able to find that hope.

Thank you for helping me find that too. Of course it's many people, things and events in life that have provided lessons, insight and inspiration though but it's still been a pleasure to have had some of your patient attention and yes, I can understand why some of your equine 'students' likely do well under your care. I know we don't share every interest in common, but it's still a pleasure to see someone who has a healthy curiousity, mixed with down to earth common sense, with an appreciation for life and an ability to enjoy some of the simple things as well ... that's a personality combo that I've got to give a couple thumbs up for. Sorry, if I'm a bit flaky in some respects but I admit hardly understanding myself at times, though I don't think I'm guilty of not putting enough effort into that ... I've just come to recognize that life's not necessarily working against me and I'm willing to learn how to do a little give and take and learn some dance steps to it. I've got some principles I don't plan on backing down on, life has some requirements that need to be met and I guess it's a matter of finding an agreeble compromise in the middle somewhere and I intend to enjoy finding that.

The patterns in life are landmarks we organize around, but the exceptions to those patterns are areas of growth worth noting. Finding a working, long-term balance between those extremes seems like something worth investing some effort for a compatible integration

Sorry, Pattern, for drifting off the topic of your post. I have a tendency to do that, but in the long run I think it all still fits into a pattern

[Pattern]

Thank you for the welcoming, here is a little wall of text:

Yesterday i wrote an answer to SteveA but it took so long that i was logged out and when I posted it it disappeared. Now I will try again.

When I read your first post in this thread, SteveA, I was a bit annoyed. That is nothing strange since i am often annoyed by what I call an extreme materialist perspective witch I think I could see in your post. I started thinking about this and some conclusions came up. I think some historical misconceptions are responsible for my annoyment.

I start with defining materialist and idealist. In phlosophical terms a materialist is one who cheers for matter while an idealist is one that cheers for mind. Some has gone so far as to say that either mind or matter doesent exist. This is extreme materialism and extreme idealism.

In historical terms a materialist is one that views historical events as effects of material causes while an idealist promotes mental causes. These two views are in their extreme promoted bu Hegel and Marx:

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

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

Historical materialism is not to be confused with mechanical materialism witch simply concludes that each cause has an effect and therefor everything is predestined. Historical materialism deals with money as the driving force in history but still everything is predestined in the extreme historical materialist view. Everything is also predestined in the extreme historical idealist view.

Ok, an example to this discrepancy between the two would be the event when man started farming. The materialist would search for the cause of this event in stavation or lack of huntinggame or someting material. The idealist would say that previous ideas had led to the idea of farming. It is easy to see that both theese causes could be correct and normally we therefor choose both. What I find fascinating is that the entire history can be explained by either of the perspectives in a satisfying way, even though the cortadict eachother fundamentally.

Now over to the philosophical meaning of the words. In the beginning of civilication nature was precieved as chaotic while mind was precieved as order that mastered the chaos. A quite reasonable assumtion. This led to the elevation of mind over matter as someting more organised and better most of the times. Then came Newton and said that nature was in fact predictable and more so then the mind. This conflict between mind and matter was a big thing but in the nineteenth century one can say that materialists was in a big lead in this struggle. So marx ideas was put in good soil. One can also see how the mechanical materialist view left little space for god and therefore god was put on the other side with the idealists. One central conception among materialists seems to have been not to believe in anything that can not be touched.

But later in the twentieth century we could se that the nature was actually full of chanse like the brain. I suspect that the implications of this discovery has not yet come to effect. Or put in another way, materialists still have the upperhand because of lag.

Now, a consequence of a traditional materialist view is that there are no sipmle laws or patterns that explain everyting simply because this could be an argument for god or other things that can not be touched. The idea of not believing in things that can not be touched is as dumb as believing there is no physical world. Thoughts can not be touched as well as many other things as my first post shows.

This is why I got annoyed by the answer from you, SteveA. If I understand you correctly you said there are no big patterns and i guess the reason why there should be no big patterns is that they can not be tuched.

Please do not think that i see myself as an idealist, because I do not. I might be leaning a little bit to the idealist side but im somewhere in the middle. Only from a extreme materialist wiew can I be called an idealist, but it would be false.

What we can learn from my scheme is that mind and matter both are made of chaos and pattern. The whole schism between mind and matter rests on the misconseption of one beeing more organised than the other. I think we should put this argument behind us and consentrate on the patterns we can find in mind as well as in nature.

When Buddha had starved for ten years he came to the conclusion that the middle was correct, I trust him on that.

[Pattern]

I must admitt that I did not fully comprehend your answer, SteveA, and maybe im wrong about you beeing a strong materialist. But the thogthts in my previous post is what has led me in this direction and I wanted to clarify them by writing them down. If they interest anybody im glad.

Cheers