Happy Halloween

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Everything Of Theory?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Alan on October 21, 2002 09:32:15 UTC

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



Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins