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 SUBmathematics?
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 4D "spacetime" right there?
Roger Penrose's spinors and twistors right here? As patternmatching involves a basestructure of two patterns compared; 2, so comparisons are 2D; so complex numbers?
The 4 quantum numbers are obtained easily it seems, and form a pattern like a double helix of DNA. A 34 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) reoccurrence probabilities of subpatterns in larger arbitrary patterns?
But if our knowledge fits "randomfinding" 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
