Please allow me to briefly (?) comment on the question of allegedly mapping physics via nursery ryhme:
"Hey diddle diddle (math meet math) the cat (Schrodinger's cat) and the fiddle (is it alive or dead?) the cow jumped over the moon (neither, the background hasn't done a deal with the subject yet so anything logically consistent is possible apparently) the little dog laughed to see such fun (joy of freedom in freedom: creation) and the dish ran away with the spoon (logical consistency: and a new creation is made and a new now)".
Before I explain a bit better what is going on here, please consider:
I have read quite a bit of physics (was even once a University student studying this subject).
Respectfully; have you read any of "QED. The Strange Theory Of Light And Matter" by Richard Feynman? If not, say how can you judge? That book is aimed at lay readers.
(I think babies know something; I don't mean to imply reading all those (above, below) books is necessary.)
Have you read any of "The New Physics" edited by Paul Davies; this is a relatively recent overview of many areas of physics, to about "Scientific American" standard. Includes several authors including Stephen Hawking.
Have you read "The Cartoon Guide To Physics" by Larry Gonick; the clearest presentation of a lot of basic physics I've ever come across.
Have you read "The Force Of Symmetry" by Vincent Icke; covers a lot of quantum electro-dynamics, sub-atomic particle stuff etc. at an accesible level but properly (the author assures that you do not have to relearn it if you go on to further reading).
I have read quite a bit from the above, not much from the bigger "The New Physics" book though.
Also I have read all sorts of other stuff; sometimes only a bit of a book, sometimes more; consider: "Shadows Of The Mind" by Roger Penrose;
"In Search Of Schrodinger's Cat", "Schrodinger's Kittens" by John Gribben. I think I read all "Superstrings And The Theory Of Everything" by F.David Peat; some of "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku. Some items in "World Treasury Of Physics, Mathematics, And Astronomy" edited by Timothy Ferris (very interesting stuff there on the Mandelbrot set).
There's interesting stuff on the internet by Stephen Hawking; alll about "nuts" and "bolts" and "instantons" etc.
I have also come across many thoughts in discussion forum; of special interest is stuff written by Richard Stafford, and the paper he wrote. And I have read a certain amount of "An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis" by John Hospers. (A mathematician who looked at Dr. Dick's paper agreed with my idea of a possible way to explain Dr. Dick's work by reference to what John Hospers writes about how words are defined (so involves intersection of categories)).
I have also seen Chris Langan's ideas (ctmu.org).
What I'm saying is: might consider say I've done some homework here surely?
I don't claim to have got it all right.
But others with qualifications seem to be on an agreeable track?
Top physicist Stephen Wolfram (who wrote "A New Kind Of Science") has been reported as sugggesting the universe may be running to an unbelievably simple program, or something.
At www.emmynoether.com they are trying to teach high school students the underlying symmetries that used to be left till more post graduate stage. Things getting simpler it seems.
Richard Feynman refers to QED (quantum electrodynamics) as "adding arrows on a piece of paper"; he says that what physicists do in QED is pretty simple, it seems; but the tricky techniques to do it is what takes years of study.
Michio Kaku seems to think a very brief equation may one day say a lot?
So why not a nursery rhyme say a lot? Maybe these rhymes are age-old and popular because they reflect universal insights?
Supposing, how about an argument is given, to suggest that it cannot be so simple, because that supposedly means people with phD's are dum? Stephen Wolfram has a phD and is highly respected; but he has suggested it all may be very simple.
The people with phD's have done what they have done; all those researchers have built their structure that allows us to stand back, look at what they have found, and maybe we are able to say put the remaining pieces of the puzzle in place?
Physics is what it is.
The idea has occured of a dictionary where each word is defined by reference to other words; or a group of patterns which meet freely.
In the beginning you have Existence, freedom, meeting (so have consciousness of freedom in Existence).
One item meets one item. If you like, you can call this meeting "two".
But does 1 + 1 = 2?
Doesn't mathematics seem to coerce items like this
by assuming they combine?
"1" might just say "Hi" to "1", and not add up now???
Aurino and Harv: Mike understood that thing I once wrote about "person known to the dog" when I was explaining something about uniqueness; please note you did not seem to follow (at least initially) this use of analogy but seemed to take it too literally?
Idea: please be alert to use of metaphor in explanation rather than rush to think author is crazy?
The problem with "counting": it appears that "numbers" are like sticky labels that forcibly stick things together.
"Hey diddle diddle" looks like it can be thought of as "one mathematics" meets "another mathematics".
In other words: when two people meet: there are two viewpoints on the meeting: two ways of seeing "1 + 1".
So why "Hey diddle diddle"?
Because "1 + 1" first viewpoint meets "1 + 1" second opinion. The idea is that physics involves detail that gets overlooked by standard type math.
"the cat and the fiddle" looked like it could easily refer to "the classic Schrodinger's Cat problem where there is supposed to be a 50% chance of an alpha particle decay setting off a gadget that could supposedly kill the cat. Is the cat alive or dead?"
The wave function:
A variable in math could be lots of things. A function or rule in math: if it's more than just a variable (or can be more) it must involve some circumstance suposedly it seems where at least two variables are held together as one against a common background (what Chris Langan might call a "same-difference").
But "numbers" as math uses them look like functions: "2" suposedly holds "1 + 1" together.
Wave? A wave is spread out, so appears it seems to look like a group variable also. "2" could be a "1 + 1" wave perspective?
So a "wave function" characteristic of physics might be "a function function" or simply two perspectives on a meeting:
this view of our meeting: one meets one; and that view of our meeting: one meets one.
How about: Physics: two (or more) views on math? Math can be re-distributed through math say? But who is counting? It has been said that God counts every hair on your head. Math numbers seem like shells. Reality seems to have more substance; can be more than math shells? Reality can involve freedom.
Numbers as sticky labels?
"M" theory as "math re-discovered"? Even could "pea instanton" be "1+1 =2?" re-discovered? Physics as the ghost in the supposed "machine" of math?
The matrix: a narrow math view?
Examined set of a subset of a set of numbers: Dr. Dick seems to have looked at how to re-discover math; and found physics laws as math inside math? Stephen Hawking also did this without maybe realising; with "nuts", "bolts", and "instantons"?
A "rule" is like a group-variable; a "same- difference"; so like "2" view of "1 + 1"?
Minimum structure for describing a rule via math: you will get "1 + 1 as 2" redistributing in "1 + 1 as 2"; so could look rather like Dr. Dick's "fourth axis virtual particle exchange" for quantum electrodynamics?
Spinors and twistors? The Penrose triangle?
Also In this regard it is interesting to note Dr. Dick's idea of "data transmission as part of the explanation"; or "alternative view of reality".
And Chris Langan talks of "conspansive duality".
So I am suggesting that the laws of physics are kind of the "consciousness" of math; what certain assumptions about "singular" math overlook. (I can possibly show this in astonishingly succesful detail).
So "hey diddle diddle, the cat and the fiddle" becomes: two viewpoints on "one meet one" might give you the wave function supposedly fiddly problem of Schrodinger's cat.
"the cow jumped over the moon" : obviously that is impossible? But how do you define "cow" and how do you define "moon"?
If the question of the context is not decided (people assume the universe is already made, but from an eternal life perspective; everything might be made new, time itself created, "now" created according to free agreements.
See why the orthodox mathematical physics requires "many world's"? Chris Langan holds I think that the "many world's" of Everett are possibilities rather than actualities, I think I recall.
Instead a perspective could suggest: you have two views of a meeting of two: your view and the other person's view (LOVE: being and letting be: not coercing others to adopting one's view).
The Shrodinger's cat fiddle might be the result of forcing those together in a compulsory 1+1 math; but in reality "the cow could jump over the moon" that is: reality may be very free; the one world, the one universe, not yet decided.
Surely here one can reflect on "the joy of creation"; "When Two meet in My Name, there am I in the midst of them" said Jesus.
It is said of a day when "the heavens are wedded to the Earth". "And I saw a new Heaven, and a new Earth" I think someone said in the Bible.
Well; Paul Wheeler is, as I recall from Chris Langan's material, interested in "law from no law": consider law from Existence, freedom, consciousness, Love.
If we meet freely; if we do not have to confine ourselves with numbers or any sticky labels etc.; if the universe is freshly created with us (I mentioned in the past recall of being a newborn baby and awareness of what looks as humans can be in a state where it feels as if each move is like a new law of physics); then "cow jumped over the moon" might reflect that free association idea; and "the little dog laughed to see such fun" may reflect the joy of freedom in existence in creating through freedom and in God.
"and the dish ran away with the spoon" : this phrase might reflect the idea that in hindsight the universe looks very logical? Whatever is created in freedom in respect of each other will not contradict ?
Aurino: I agree one need be wary perhaps of mathematicalising talk of Heaven; but "although I tread in the valley of darkness, no evil do I fear"? God has power even over math; we do not have to force a particular view.