|
Thanks; I registered but due to internet cost am likely to rarely visit at this stage.
I don't think my first post worked but here it is:
Hi,
I do not have a computer and internet is costly to use much.
(I may not be around here much).
I agree about "include ourselves".
Here is an interesting development:
I was about to open a door when I realised I was holding the wrong key.
I had been used to opening a different door and I just started with the usual key.
That got me thinking: about how thinking say works.
Seems to involve comparing and matching patterns.
A physicist I met on a discussion forum claimed to have shown in a mathematical paper that much of modern physics involves circular reasoning. That seemed to me a promising candidate for a "theory of everything".
He said his paper was about "the assignment of definitions". He noted that since a carpenter's level operates by "water going downhill", it would be (say) circular reasoning to use it to find out "if water travelled downhill". He considered the idea of a dictionary where you look up words and you find more words; you look those up and find more words; and you can (seem) to be going around in circles. He looked at the idea of juggling information to code a message and what could you do to screen out patterns that are inherent in the juggling process.
I discovered a very simple basically non-mathematical way to apparently map a lot of physics; that appears to map what the physicist found. It also appears to harmonise many different theories.
I discovered that what we call "sub-atomic particle physics" appears to be mappable by a simple system of juggling patterns; sometimes temporarily juggling certain patterns out; sometimes juggling them back in.
I found a way of mapping much physics at least; where it is like the possibilities of exchanging points of view in a discussion; where every voice gets a hearing; where any structure is by mutual agreement; where nothing is bound or loosed except by agreement.
I found that the laws of physics appear to describe possibility shells and have no force (they are voluntary) other than given them by counting. The act of counting seems to establish a "base" and "number" definition like the "paradox" of Zeno's Arrow.
The various parables in the four Gospels of the New testament regarding the Kingdom of Heaven and how "number" is seen in that context look very interesting in this light.
It seems that human beings are tripping up over "number".
There is a story about the apostles arguing over "who is the greatest?" Jesus showed that the greatest is the servant.
Is there a greatest "theory of everything?" It would be the servant of all... and what is the servant? May I suggest that the ability to discuss things is the servant.....
The problem: I cannot even suggest a particular theory? Or I can I suppose; as the truth can make us free; suppose one can map physics as a discussion? I do not want to impose a model...but I am not imposing as this is no model this is what we are doing already...discussing....the thing is nobody wants to be dictated to; people like freedom....
It seems there are many different ways of saying the same thing.
-dolphin |
