A fundamental Theory, and its 3 Fundamental Laws

This topic is to describe a fundamental theory that in one form or another lies at the foundation of all possible theory, and any theory which is to be produced must also agree with the fundamental theory.







There exists a set of limits governed by 3 fundamental laws that even our thought must obey. Furthermore, not only must we obey these laws in order to have rational thought, but it is proved in any meaning we try to create or apply to anything we observe or think about observing.

This has been the central focus of my work. My work was to find a fundamental theory if you will, which lead to the development of these laws. However, it was much to my recent surprise that I had been beaten to the realization of these laws by at least 3000 years, by the likes of names such as; Plato, Theaetetus, and Aristotle to mention a few.

The three laws are (based on certain areas of philosophy):

1)Law of identity - Everything that is, exists.
2)Law of contradiction - Nothing can simultaneously be and not be.
3)Law of excluded middle - Each and every thing either is or is not.

A conclusive law formed by these 3 laws is a considerable 4th subsequential law:
4)Law of conclusion - Of everything that is, it can be found why it is.










The above was a collaborative mixture of explanations by those mentioned authors including myself. However I believe these laws are incomplete, in certain respects to form a fundamental theory.



In order that you get an idea of how these laws apply in the theory I am speaking about we should refer to these laws here.

1)Law of identity - Everything that is, is what is
2)Law of relative contradiction - Everything measured within these laws can simultaneously be and not be, and is derterminable as A or B on relative interpretation
3)Law of relative exclusive - Each and every thing either is or is not. The method that creates the ability to discern an event or meaning from an excluded observation.



These laws can be formed into principles of systems that apply to the theme of mechanics and other subsequent partnering themes.
They are the principles that explain rational-irrationalism, and rationalism. They influence eachother, and can also be mutually exclusive.

1)System of Singularality - Things can be, without inclusion of other limitations other than they are influenced by the other two systems

2)System of Duality - Things can either Be or Not Be, and also Be at the same time, whole Not being at the same time.

3)System of Triality - Things are able to be recognized as individual systems. Things either Are or Are not. That is, A is A, and not B, or B is B and Not A. Certainty is produced in this system, however it may satisfy some to call that certainty naive certainty, in the same context of naive realism.

















I've taken this theory and applied it to certain areas of physics.

Based on these laws they can be translated in order to become theme specific. I translate them as the following to become applicable to cosmology.

These are numerical transfigures of the term "Reality":

1)Singularality
2)Duality
3)Triality






Singularality is the logic and rational behaviors that can be applied to a system based the first law, The Law of identity.


Energy in the form of light can be considered to be a state of Singularality. Light can considered as particle-like, however these type of particles do have any means to communicate to any other particles. That is, if we treat light as photons, there is no secondary set of light wave emission coming from these photon particles. We can treat them as a singular object in an otherwise empty void. As we do so we discover there is limits to the meaning we can apply to this circumstance. For example: We can not give the singular object a sense of direction, nor an ideal velocity. Therefore the Singularality will behave only as Singularality can.








Duality is the logic and rational behaviors that can be applied to a system based the second law, Law of relative contradiction.

Elementary particles can be considered to be a state of duality. We can treat them as two objects in an otherwise empty void and their behaviors will be equal to that of the meaning we can apply under these circumstances. Their is a variety of meaning we can apply, however there are limits and conditions to obey. For example, in order for a measurement to be made under these circumstances both objects must be involved in the measurement. IE, a ruler must be placed between them an thought experiment observer -to obey these laws- must view from the location of one of these two objects and can not view outside to see 'from afar' (we can elaborate on meanings further on). One can say that a fundamental objects that have the ability to interact with each other, ie a measurable mass and volume must consist of an A and B. That is, to form duality behavior you must have two Singularalities.

In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a particle not known to have substructure; that is, it is not known to be made up of smaller particles. If an elementary particle truly has no substructure, then it is one of the basic building blocks of the universe from which all other particles are made. In the Standard Model, the quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons are elementary particles.









Triality is the logic and rational behaviors that can be applied to a system based the third law, Law of relative exclusive.

Using our void and object tool, we can place 3 objects in an otherwise empty void. The observer can choose to be viewing from any one of these 3 objects. If the observe is to make a measurement, he can place the ruler between objects A and B and exclude his location from the measurement in order to acquire results. A Triality system can be considered to be whole, in that it is closed and satisfied. We see that if we add another object we still remain under the conditions of a triality system.

Therefore any Triality system must contain 3 objects, each one of the individual objects must be a form of duality. It thus is expected that a duality system can only transfer to a singularality state or a Triality state.






This theory then predicts ALL possible behaviors and types of all observable phenomena. We can then move into the mechanics based on these laws to further understand the behaviors. The reason it makes these predictions is because there is no other rational alternative. However, it also explains how an irrational system can be rationalized.


The consequences of this theory being correct are far reaching to say the least. It provides the guidelines than any fundamental theory must obey if it is to attempt to describe, explain, and/or express anything. As we take a look at some fundamental theorems we find that this is on face value, strikingly accurate.










One particular example is that of quarks. Quarks alone can be explained as a Duality system. There are six different types of quarks, known as flavors: up (u), down (d), charm (c), strange (s), top (t) and bottom (b).






Quarks in a complete system can be explained as a Triality system.










My expectation is this: In respect to particle theory you can use this theory to predict all rational particles and all irrational particles. In respect to any kind of universal cosmology theory you can us this theory to predict how a theory must behave.


The question is, why should nature obey our rules of thought? I respond to this quite simply. Nature is everything you can conceive and anything that is beyond your conception simply can not be conceived. Nature must have some form of meaning and this meaning must obey these laws. However this does not refer to meaning as common sense. It includes both the irrational and the rational.[/url]

There's quite a bit to chew on there. Let me digest for a while and I'll get back to you.

Not a problem.. I'm just sharing these ideas.

Quote :

This topic is to describe a fundamental theory that in one form or another lies at the foundation of all possible theory, and any theory which is to be produced must also agree with the fundamental theory.

As Neo said, admiringly, "whhhooooah"!!! Sounds like a tautology about tautologies, a law of laws, and a self-referencing feedback loop of logic. Just kidding.

To define the ultimate theory of theorizing sounds like an interesting project. But for those of us without any formal philosophical or mathematical training, it could use a little more context and content.

For example, the usual explanation for the fact that Quarks always occur in sets of three is that a single quark cannot exist alone in any real, physical sense. One quark is not a whole thing, but one-third of a thing (ie-proton). If that is so, our language and logic are hard-pressed to describe such irrational inferences from mathematical calculations : fractional, non-integral existence. Is such a ghost-thing admissible in a practical theory of reality?

On something closer to human scale, can you give an example of an application of the Theory of theories to a more conventional, and visualizable, theory of physics?

surely can. Although, I really need to take a break and rest from this, for a day or so..

So as long as your patient.. I can offer what your looking for.

If you are interested you can read through as much of you can at this link.

This is the work of a person I met on the internet who has a PH.D in physics.

As I read his work that he has posted and discussed I learned that he was very much so coming to the same conclusions that I have been.

Although I can not say for absolute certainty that his work is identical to mine (since I lack his grace in mathematics) so far out of 30 steps along the way of understanding his work my work has agreed.

So it should be highly probable that what you read in this link is defining much of the same overall concept(s)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UniversalExplanation

Quote :

As Neo said, admiringly, "whhhooooah"!!! Sounds like a tautology about tautologies, a law of laws, and a self-referencing feedback loop of logic

Hmm... almost precisely on the mark! We have had discussions of how this could provide the neccessary foundations to develop a true form of artificial inteligence. Ie, a synthetic consciousness.

Wikipedia : Universal Explanation

Quote :

Many people have put forth the idea that an explanation makes information understandable.

This is right down my alley. My website, enformationism.info, is a hypothesis about the fundamental, essential role of Information in reality. But explaining the deeper significance of something that most people take for granted is a daunting task. Being a novice at the "art" of explication, I look forward to learning more about the "mechanism" of explanation and the "science" of theorizing.

I have found that personal and cultural "expectations" (worldviews) are both the vehicle and the obstacle of explanation. Any novel information must be put into some appropriate context, and presented in a logical manner. But each person's context is different, and everyone's grasp of universal logical principles is incomplete.

(sharing this post for your interest)
**Pasted**

I must make this as clear as I can. I am in the process of developing an explanation that can apply to physical things.

That is the context of the title. "The fundamental theory". I want to make it clear that I am not saying "I have the fundamental theory", I am saying it in the context of "I have a notion where the fundamental theory is (what it is)" ..

This (what I my purpose in this post is) should be made clear first and foremost!! Long before I move into the details the show "what is new" (ie, the answers for your statement: I can't see that your laws add any new meaning to what we already know about physical reality.)

I have not moved into that yet to show that it is something 'new'.

Why is it to be considered new? What I am developing may have to ability to predict fundamental particles, the behavior of fundamental entities, as well as things such as describing why we "get" the fundamental particles we do, when we take things apart.

What I am going to express in the future (on a website I am developing, or in these posts as well) is an interpretation that defines there is no such thing as fundamental particles/entities in the sense that they can be plucked from a sub atomic item. What I replace it with is the laws that predict fundamental behavior, and therefore it would be capable to say the following: (think of this as a quote prior to particle accelerators and quantum physics)

"If we had the ability to strip apart reality to its most basic form we would find that it would have the behaviors based on the principles and laws here in this work (what I am here to discuss). Furthermore, not only would it predict all the basic parts, but if it can, then it also explains why they are. Because of this, if it succeeds to this point, then it would follow with the prediction that anything else, both physical and conceptual, may very well be possible to be explained provided the former is validated."

So you see, this is what I believe I have found. Now, discussing this will take a lot of time and effort to communicate clearly. (I've learned in this thread that I have rushed far to quickly, thus adding confusion).

I can not get into the specifics immediately as I have yet to physically write it all out (put it all together).

Therefore, only discussion I expect in this thread at this point is questions and ideas that challenge my statements, which I will attempt to argue successfully.

In the meantime I am putting together a multimedia resource based on explaining and describing the theory that is in sight of completion; tools and methods to help the reader understand; experiments to test each hypothesis; also the inclusion of experimental evidence that already exists, that the work should predict.

I am trying to make it clear that I am not speaking as person in the sense of "Hey I've done it! I have the fundamental theory". I am speaking as, "Whoa, I think my work has come to a conclusion, this is what it is, this is what it says, and this is what it can do, lets find out if it flunks the test"


I expect the theory to be that of a Tautology. I am coming to this conclusion from the development of a series of specific examples that branch from this Tautology, although, I have yet to fully comprehend what this tautology is. However, it is the tautology that deals with thought and physical reality, and therefore, becomes the most fundamental tautology possible. (I hope so!)



In propositional logic, a tautology is a propositional formula that is true under any possible valuation (also called a truth assignment or an interpretation) of its propositional variables.


Thanks.

Quote :

I can not get into the specifics immediately as I have yet to physically write it all out (put it all together).

This lament reminded me of a Netflix video I just watched. A little indie flick by a Chinese author/director, but with a couple of big Hollywood stars adding some heft to what might otherwise be a non-pop-flop : too abstract and intellectual.

Dark Matter is the story of a Chinese grad student who comes to a US university to study Cosmology under a famous professor. The student impresses the prof as a potential genius, but when his Phd thesis proposal (to explain Dark Matter) conflicts with the prof's own views, the topic is rejected as too ambitious before he ever gets a chance to "write it all out". I won't give away the ending, but I hope your "specifics" get a more sympathetic hearing.

I hear you Gnomon lol...

I have hundreds of pages written on the specifics, but they are scattered out in also a hundred different discussions.

Immediately in my meaning is referring to NOW, as in, I can't copy and paste a formal presentation, because my work has not yet been properly organized.

I am not here attempting to provide any 'new' or different views without a way to test them. I am also not claiming to have the right theory, I am following scientific method to deduce the accuracy and validity of it all.

None the less, I hope I receive a very difficult hearing and very challenging hearing, that will provide all the more strength to the invalidity and validity of any specifics.

Sharing a laymans expression post on Time.




What is time? Some people think it is a simple answer, but my job in this post is to provide to you that it is not as simple as it seems.

Typically, one can agree time is what a clock measures. But a clock is nothing but a ruler or measuring tape bent in a circle, that has a constant speed hand. Of course there are digital clocks, but the concept is the same. A clock is a ruler with something moving along its equally spaced units (ie, millimeters).


But lets take a look at a few ways time is measured and applied.


First there is the concept of linear time. The future, the present and the past. Many of us say, time moves forward. Also we say, the future will come to you. We have many ways of expressing which direction time is flowing, but overall we say the passed is behind us, and the future is ahead.

Illustration of linear time concepts:








Firstly, we see in the image above that because we consider ourselves at the present moment we place ourselves between future and past.

Secondly, (althought I didnt do this image quite correctly) being between the future and the past, typically we call the future unkown, and the past known, but a closer look reveals this is untrue. Just as the further we imagine the future, the more uncertain our prediction becomes, so does our imagining of traveling further into the past become more and more uncertain. Although we have evidence that gives us idea's of the past, we still lack any awareness of the past as much as we do the future. That is, we can't see dinosaurs just as much as we can't see the death of our star, the sun. We can only create concepts that make predictions, which vary in accuracy.

Linear time is a concept we create. The fact is, the conceptual past does not go anywhere, it comes along with us as memories. And the present moment is also a memory, of something that happened, however it is not the same experience of memory, it is a Real-time memory. The present moment is an experience, that we have given meaning with our knowledge and information. What we experience takes a little time to occur from the actual event that caused it. For example, as you read this text the screen refreshes pictures every 60 or so second, meanwhile, your mind is refreshing images as well. However, the screen is always one step ahead of your mind because you are living in the Real-time memory, which takes a little time to be produced. So the monitor is actually about 5 frames ahead of your real-time present.



Another illustration. This one showing relativity of events. While we temporarily remove ourselves from the linear time concept and pretend we can see the future and past at the same time: As the person fires the gun, the event at the barrel end of the rifle is a present moment, meanwhile there is also a present moment where the person is locate at the butt end the rifle. Relative to the end of the barrel, the shock wave has already occurred, and has become "a real-time and past memory". Where as, relative to the person shooting the gun, a future event is headed their way. But we just established that, that event is also a past event for the tip of the gun. Therefore, we have concluded from this point of view that the person is about to experience a future event that came from the past.

And in the other picture we can see that the if we consider the shock-wave an event, aka noise, then we see that the car and the driver are part of the present event. Relative to the car, the incredible sound contained in the wave is moving basically zero miles per hour, and is totally silent. Meanwhile some person is standing near the end of the track, watching a totally silent car approach them. According to his present moment there is no sound of the cars roaring sonic boom. So his future BOOOM is coming from the car's present moment.








This takes us into the concept of how space and time somehow fit together. We've established that distant past events (like a star) can become our future, while our past events can also become a distant objects future. Furthermore, our present moment can also become the future event for someone else, and someones past can become our present.

Suddenly, the whole idea of linear time doesnt seem to make all that much sense, when we start analyzing how one event effects another and vice versa.

This takes us into Energy. What is energy? It is somewhere that work has been applied, based on what your focus is. Energy is waves in the water, a falling stone, a stretched elastic band, light caused from heat/motion. It is the value work that has been done. But if we look at it carefully, we can see:

Simple waves in water don't move, its only an image or pattern that moves. If I drop a stone in the water, I see the potential energy in the stone held in my hand, turn into kinetic energy as the stone goes flying through the air, and as it hits the water and slows down. The energy is transferred to the water and disperses through it, but the water never moves, it is only the pattern of energy moving.

This is a basic law in physics. Energy can neither be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed.

Now, if we think of all the ways we conceive time in our linear perspective, we see that we use light, and objects, and distances, and events. In other words we essentially use the concept of energy and call it time.

However, we can clearly see that Energy has no linear direction at all, it does not get ejected or injected to or from the present moment, it only changes form and location, and moves all around.

So in some ways the future is only the past, and the past is only the future, and time does not go anywhere.


Because of this, if we consider the present moment as the center of the universe, then we can establish that any source of energy is the center of the universe relative to itself. We can imagine that time is going in all directions all the time, continuing to exist now.

An illustration to help represent these many events, all present moments, that are past and future moments relative to each other.







The conclusion of this overall is that time is not what we tend to think it is and come to know. However, linear time is rational to our lives, and the idea of spherical energy transformation (non linear time) is somewhat irrational in respect to our daily lives. While at the same time, linear time is somewhat irrational relative to spherical energy transformation (where we exclude ourselves as an observer).



What about traveling in time?

Consider this. What if distance wasn't concrete. What if distance could change? Would it take less time to reach a destination if the distance was shrunk? Yes right? If I measured a destination to be 10miles, and you measured that same destination to be 2miles, and you were located beside me, then it would not take very much time for you to travel that distance, so what would I see? I would see "not very much time" occur for you on your trip. Did you time travel?

Thats up to you to decide.

Quote :

Linear time is a concept we create.

Trying to convince a layman that Time is not what he intuitively knows it is will be quite a time-consuming project.

In your spare time, you might want to check-out the website referenced in another thread on this forum :

EVERYTHING FOREVER, Learning to See Timelessness,

https://panendeism.forumotion.com/science-nature-and-sustainable-living-f6/everything-forever-t507.htm

Sure, I'll check it out. I had no motive other than to see how coherent of an explanation I could produce in an hour.

Instead of copy and pasting to this forum, if you are interested maybe you would like to read a discussion on this.

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-of-science/19781-the-fundamental-theory-three-fundamental-laws-3.html#post268043

It was off to a rough start but page 3 seems to be making some headway.

Quote :

Why is it to be considered new? What I am developing may have to ability to predict fundamental particles, the behavior of fundamental entities, as well as things such as describing why we "get" the fundamental particles we do, when we take things apart.

How does your "Fundamental Theory" relate to the elusive "Theory of Everything" that has been the Holy Grail for physicists in the last few decades?

Wikipedia
<< The theory of everything (TOE) is a putative theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena. >>

It has come to my attention that I should redefine my efforts. (most rightly so in this particular discussion. )

What I have acquired is a hypothesis which points (in a suggestive manner) to what the fundamental theory of everything would be like, as opposed to providing that actual theory. (although, this is not the extent of my work (only the topic as is so far) I am also working on the actual physics)

In this sense, I believe it hints to what kinds of aspects "the TOE (if you prefer to call it that) or fundamental theory" would include.

Quote :

How does your "Fundamental Theory" relate to the elusive "Theory of Everything" that has been the Holy Grail for physicists in the last few decades?

It relates to such a theory by redefining our method of investigation. By providing a 'new outlook' the expectations of what to discover change.

As opposed to thinking reality consists of indivudal "parts" that work in conjunction with each other to produce a universe, this hypothesis, requests that we conclude, it is not parts that we find in the (microscopic reality) but rather, the limits of reason.

How can I put this simple and bold.

It says:

There is no such thing as an individual part in reality. There is only meaning derived by the model we use (that is our mind, or our being).


Instead of the very small being fundamental parts, scale has no relation. In place of this, there is only expressions of how meaning can exist.


Meaning must be defined to comprehend those statements. By my conclusions, meaning is, a system that consists of all the unique interactions that can occur between a minimum of two systems, including their individual states, during those interactions.

Therefore scale has no importance, since conscious applicable meaning is what produces a "THING" that "EXISTS".


In conclusion, since the theory of everything is a putative theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena, and hypothesis points to a consideration of what physical phenomena must defined as, then, a relationship must exists to complete the theorem.

The hypothesis requests the theory of everything must accept that physical phenomena is and can only be a production of meaning.

Sorry if that is confusing but its a work in progress.

WIKI(TOE)-There is a philosophical debate within the physics community as to whether a theory of everything deserves to be called the fundamental law of the universe.[20] One view is the hard reductionist position that the TOE is the fundamental law and that all other theories that apply within the universe are a consequence of the TOE.

As Robert Anton Wilson explains, Quantum Physics, or in other words, physics that deals with the elementary non reducible parts, is always going to explain that tool that is investigating, and therefore, the long road of physics itself has been to investigate our very own minds, including the mind that is responsible for everything that is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEZtw1yt8Kc

Now I see where you are going with this. You seem to be arguing from an idealist perspective.

I believe that the universe is composed of information/energy. It seems that materialists like to focus on the energy half while sort of glazing over the role that information plays in the formation of the universe.

To him who looks upon the world rationally, the world in its turn presents a rational aspect. The relation is mutual. ~Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Quote :

The hypothesis requests the theory of everything must accept that physical phenomena is and can only be a production of meaning.

Your hypothesis seems to be pointing towards a worldview similar to that of my own theory of Enformationism. Physical Science seems to have recently discovered (or grudgingly accepted) that matter and energy are not the bottom line of reality. Somehow the probing Mind---with its raw material Information, and its output Meaning---has to be factored into the equation.

My website has collected a small fraction of the informed fingers pointing in that same direction. Perhaps your Theory of theories will finally wrap-up all those suggestive speculations into a formal Theory of Everything.


ENFORMATIONISM
http://www.enformationism.info/

Quote :

Now I see where you are going with this. You seem to be arguing from an idealist perspective.

Wiki defines idealist as,

Quote :

Idealism is the philosophical theory that maintains that the ultimate nature of reality is based on mind or ideas. It holds that the so-called external or "real world" is inseparable from mind, consciousness, or perception.

In the philosophy of perception, idealism is contrasted with realism in which the external world is said to have a so-called absolute existence prior to, and independent of, knowledge and consciousness. Epistemological idealists (such as Kant), it is claimed, might insist that the only things which can be directly known for certain are just ideas (abstraction).

In the philosophy of mind, idealism is contrasted with materialism, in which the ultimate nature of reality is based on physical substances. Idealism and materialism are both theories of monism as opposed to dualism and pluralism.

Idealism also refers to a tradition in Western thought that represents things in an ideal form, or as they ought to be rather than as they really are, in the fields of ethics, morality, aesthetics, and value.

I am not comfortable with the idea that I am arguing from an idealist perspective. Nor would I be comfortable arguing from a realist perspective. Based on what I know of these perspectives, more would have to be said.

There was a point in the above quote that I'd like to point out.



According to wiki, further:

Quote :

Monism is any philosophical view which holds that there is unity in a given field of inquiry, where this is not to be expected. Thus, some philosophers may hold that the Universe is really just one thing, despite its many appearances and diversities; or theology may support the view that there is one God, with many manifestations in different religions.


Monism in philosophy can be defined according to four kinds:

1. Idealism, phenomenalism, or mentalistic monism which holds that only mind is real.
2. Neutral monism, which holds that both the mental and the physical can be reduced to some sort of third substance, or energy.
3. Physicalism or materialism, which holds that only the physical is real, and that the mental can be reduced to the physical.
4. Holistic gnoseology, which holds that only a global approach to reality, by means of a global knowledge, is able to get the truth. Holistic gnoseology is therefore an anti-specialist way to get a supposed deeper and comprehensive reality.

Certainly I am not proposing that only the mind is real (to refer to the mind of mortal life on this earth.)

Nor would the argument: -Physicalism or materialism, which holds that only the physical is real, and that the mental can be reduced to the physical- suffice.

These statements of what is real is where I have trouble. I argue both the physical and the mind is real in the sense they are the elements of a relationship that must occur together, or that is, when it is together some thing can exist, for an individual.

Further, I presented the idea that the mind has discovered what is rational and not rational. I believe a discovery does not produce or reveal something new, it is simply a realization of what already is.

Therefore, this concept accepts that something is both beyond our mind and the physical that can be reduced to some sort of third element of the whole picture.

While I have never investigated where this hypothesis would apply, it appears to me that it includes all three.

# Idealism / phenomenalism
# Neutral monism
# Physicalism / materialism

My first hand intuition tells me that this is due to the conception of time and unity that is part of this. That is, the universe is and has always been a singularity system in the sense that, whether it is expanded my trillions of years or condensed into a giant black hole, the entirety of it all is one system, which is then responsible for the hypersphere functions we have derived and deduced.

A singular system is independently, equivalent to the (common) human conception of nothing. 1, is. 1=1. 1. For example. Energy is independent of everything, an element unto itself. Therefore, it has absolutely no property, it is a nothing concept for us. We cant touch it, see it, or examine it. The argument based on wiki's descriptions would be that energy is not real in respect to a physical thing in a realist perspective. It only becomes real when it is interacted with a concept of a physical thing, which I claim can rightly so be said, a physical thing that is a concept.(this is where we get into the irrational existing along side the rational). Then finally, as we inspect that 'physical' thing (elementry part) to understand how it interacts with the nothing, we discover that its function and/or behavior is irrational. Thus, under this hypothesis, the physical thing is a duality element. The interaction of the nothing(singular) and the duality, while observed by a mind, allows for the completeness of the triality.

We can think of the triality as any concept that is rational. Such as, A is located at X, and B is located at Y. [to contrast] As opposed to an irrational statement, A is located at X and B is located at y, while B = A (B and A are the same.)

Therefore, at this point in time, it is somewhat agreeable that singularality, duality, and triality are all part of what is "REAL" in the existence. However, neither of these things was EVER a discovery of soemthing new, and is something that already was and has already been.


In a common way of speaking, as a mind, when we awake, when we become, we open the eye of triality.

And yet the triality has functions of duality and singularity that MUST be part of that macroscopic triality whole.


This then ( I Beleive) provides the ground work of ever level of 'truth', and the behavior we can expect at each level of those truths. (where by truth, I mean what is only but a consistency found when dealing with a specific complexity of meaning).

Gnomon wrote:

My website has collected a small fraction of the informed fingers pointing in that same direction. Perhaps your Theory of theories will finally wrap-up all those suggestive speculations into a formal Theory of Everything.


ENFORMATIONISM
http://www.enformationism.info/

I've been trying to read your site from time to time but my internet (dialup) is having problems loading your page it takes awhile and seems to keep timing out.

I am interested to check it out, but its time consuming..

BAAAH!!!

The power went out while I was constructing a post.. I hate that.. lol...

Now I don't have the patience to re-write it, so I will just compress it.

I was working on a principle:

Turning an object 90 degrees is the same event as bringing that same object to a stop. That is, the same exchange of momentum and/or kinetic energy is required to stop an object, as is required to turn it 90 degrees. (picture a spaceship, stopping, turning).

What follows is this.

Turning an object 90degrees(along a curved path)(1/4 a circle):






Turning an object 180degrees(along a curved path)(1/2 a circle):







Turning an object 270degrees(along a curved path)(3/4 a circle):





Turning an object 360degrees(along a curved path)(4/4 a circle):




A few years ago I formulated the steps to convert rotational physics into linear physics(as seen in the image below)


It has now come to my attention that this is more than just a conversion but a set of principles as posted above.

At this point I don't know the exact association between the above principle and the below findings, however, it is something I am investigating.


In quantum mechanics, the spin angular momentum of any system is quantized: its magnitude can only take values



where h is the reduced Planck's constant, and the spin quantum number s is a non-negative integer or half-integer (0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2, etc.).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)

Notice that quantum "SPIN" value, is a precise representation of the energy equations above, in 90 degree increments. It is only in a 90 degrees that a Full Value conservation of energy (exchange) will occur. That is, an orbiting, or rotating body of mass, can ONLY exchange its full value of energy in 90 degree increments. Thus, providing the ground work for quanta (quantum physics).

Quote :

Electric charge
See also: Electric charge

Quarks have fractional electric charge values, either −1⁄3 or +2⁄3 times the elementary charge (e) depending on flavor: up, charm and top quarks (collectively referred to as up-type quarks) have a charge of +2⁄3, while down, strange and bottom quarks (down-type quarks) have −1⁄3. Antiquarks have the opposite charge to their corresponding quarks; up-type antiquarks have charges of −2⁄3 and down-type antiquarks have charges of +1⁄3. Since the electric charge of a hadron is the sum of the charges of the constituent quarks, all hadrons have integer charges: the combination of either three quarks (baryons), three antiquarks (antibaryons), or a quark and an antiquark (mesons and antimesons) always result in integer charges.[39] For example, the hadron constituents of atomic nuclei, neutrons and protons, have charges of 0 and +1 respectively; the neutron is composed of two down quarks and one up quark, and the proton of two up quarks and one down quark.[14]

Arkain101 wrote:

# Idealism / phenomenalism
# Neutral monism
# Physicalism / materialism

This made me think of Ken Wilber's "Integral Methodological Pluralism" which is a breakdown and categorization of all of the different ways of looking at and studying manifest reality.



The chart is based on Wiber's holonic four quadrants model which looks like this.



The theory is that reality is neither composed of individual parts or systemic wholes but instead what Arthur Koestler called holons or whole/parts.

Wilber took the idea of holons and made the observation that holons (such as animals) posses four basic attributes. An interior and an exterior and plural and singular attributes. The theory holds that any approach that doesn't take all of these attributes into account may hold some truth but will never hold the whole truth. This is basically Wilber's theory of theories.

Arkain101 wrote:

BAAAH!!!

The power went out while I was constructing a post.. I hate that.. lol...

Now I don't have the patience to re-write it, so I will just compress it.

I was working on a principle:...

Sorry but I didn't really understand anything after the word principle.


And I thought Wilber's four quadrants were confusing.