I wrote this at another forum but thought someone here might comment:

How about, as F.David Peat I think suggests in "Superstrings And The Theory Of Everything", a SUB-mathematics?

My suggestion:

more basic, so sub, mathematics is:

comparing and matching patterns.

A "theory of everything" is a contradiction in terms? Because "Everything" needs no speculation, no theory. Everything IS.

So one is left with a theory of theory. How about: an everything of theory?

What is the everything of theory?

What is the minimal requirement for any theory?

This question puts a new light on Chris and others' work.

I suggest it must involve a comparing and matching of patterns. Thus 3 components. The current physics laws can apparently be derived from taking this 3, this comparison of two patterns; and making a new comparison (4). Origin of 4-D "space-time" right there?

Roger Penrose's spinors and twistors right here? As pattern-matching involves a base-structure of two patterns compared; 2, so comparisons are 2-D; so complex numbers?

The 4 quantum numbers are obtained easily it seems, and form a pattern like a double helix of DNA. A 3-4 interchange system furthers the DNA analogy.

The major physics laws seem readily derivable.

To exist is to be different, distinct, unique. Random = unique. Thus perhaps Dr. Stafford found that the laws of physics are the base structure for "random" (unique) re-occurrence probabilities of sub-patterns in larger arbitrary patterns?

But if our knowledge fits "random-finding" laws, does it mean we know nothing? No; as random = unique. We know each thing uniquely. To know something is to know it is unique.

We live in the Kingdom of Existence; the Kingdom of God; where all things are new, created, unique in at least some way as to be is to be unique.

Sounds O.K.?

-Alan

• Patterns yes-but some things are the same - yaniru - October 21, 2002 - 13:10 UTC
  • Eternal existence - dolphin - October 22, 2002 - 05:42 UTC
    • EVERYTHING must include all the future, so no room there for pre - yaniru - October 22, 2002 - 11:00 UTC
    • no internal contradictions, - yaniru - October 22, 2002 - 11:02 UTC
    • It looks like everything is created out of agreements - yaniru - October 22, 2002 - 11:05 UTC
      • I can explain - dolphin - October 29, 2002 - 03:46 UTC
        • Ref for Cramer's QED please - yaniru - October 29, 2002 - 12:14 UTC
          • "Schrodinger's Kittens" by John Gribbin - dolphin - November 13, 2002 - 05:48 UTC