Quote:
Originally Posted by jedaisoul
My original intention was to show that law 4 (out of context) was nonsense, which it was. Then I pointed out that Schopenhauer explicitly excluded physical reality from the scope of his laws, which he did.
I've read your posts, and, so far, I can't see that your laws add any new meaning to what we already know about physical reality. That may well be my limitation, but I've said what I felt was relevant. I see no point in my contributing to this thread any further.
|
That kind of reply I can understand. I see what you were getting at now. Yes, I combined terminology of laws together and also added my own definition "law of conclusion" to represent: 4. Of everything that is, it can be found why it is.
(
keeping in mind I intentionally did not quote any authors names on any specific information because of this altering. I only wanted to point out that there are laws of thought developed for the readers unaware, as was I only hours prior to this post. I came to the realization of them through a different method, based off of physical things, there lies the connection between the physical and conceptual for those laws! They not specific to thought alone! I expect.)
I am not sure why you call this utter nonsense, I would be interested to hear your explanation.
The law of conclusion was added as a subsequential law, not a fundamental law. In other words it expresses that of everything that is, both physical, and conceptual can be found out why it is.
This is the key to what I am working on here. You made it clear that Schopenhauer's laws apply to concepts. That is, in order to construct rational thought those basic laws are to be obeyed.
I thank you for those remarks, due to the reasons I was unaware of those facts, as unaware I am/was of even the name Schopenhauer's. However, when I read that these laws exist, I was suprised to find, that they agree with what I have been working on. This is a crucial point: I arrived at very similar laws if not the same from an entirely different method, dealing strictly with physical things and their attributes.
I must make this as clear as I can. I am in the process of developing an explanation that can apply to physical things.
That is the context of the title. "The fundamental theory". I want to make it clear that I am not saying "I have the fundamental theory", I am saying it in the context of "I have a notion where the fundamental theory is (what it is)" ..
This (what I my purpose in this post is) should be made clear first and foremost!! Long before I move into the details the show "what is new" (ie, the answers for your statement: I can't see that your laws add any new meaning to what we already know about physical reality.)
I have not moved into that yet to show that it is something 'new'.
Why is it to be considered new? What I am developing may have to ability to predict fundamental particles, the behavior of fundamental entities, as well as things such as describing why we "get" the fundamental particles we do, when we take things apart.
What I am going to express in the future (on a website I am developing, or in these posts as well) is an interpretation that defines there is no such thing as fundamental particles/entities in the sense that they can be plucked from a sub atomic item. What I replace it with is the laws that predict fundamental behavior, and therefore it would be capable to say the following: (think of this as a quote prior to particle accelerators and quantum physics)
"
If we had the ability to strip apart reality to its most basic form we would find that it would have the behaviors based on the principles and laws here in this work (what I am here to discuss). Furthermore, not only would it predict all the basic parts, but if it can, then it also explains why they are. Because of this, if it succeeds to this point, then it would follow with the prediction that anything else, both physical and conceptual, may very well be possible to be explained provided the former is validated."
So you see, this is what I believe I have found. Now, discussing this will take a lot of time and effort to communicate clearly. (I've learned in this thread that I have rushed far to quickly, thus adding confusion).
I can not get into the specifics immediately as I have yet to physically write it all out (put it all together).
Therefore, only discussion I expect in this thread at this point is questions and ideas that challenge my statements, which I will attempt to argue successfully.
In the meantime I am putting together a multimedia resource based on explaining and describing the theory that is in sight of completion; tools and methods to help the reader understand; experiments to test each hypothesis; also the inclusion of experimental evidence that already exists, that the work should predict.
I am trying to make it clear that I am not speaking as person in the sense of "Hey I've done it! I have the fundamental theory". I am speaking as, "Whoa, I think my work has come to a conclusion, this is what it is, this is what it says, and this is what it can do, lets find out if it flunks the test"
Thanks.
