The Fundamental Theory and the Three Fundamental Laws

[Jway]

Originally Posted by arkain101

I am a little on the loopy end of things today being that I missed some precious hours of sleep.. so I don't think I will get into your reply to deeply at the moment, but I think what should suffice is a conclusive statement of my own, which you can for yourself discern if it is agreeable with your thoughts.

I was actually looking to coincide and elaborate on how I was receiving your First Law. What I was conveying is the totality aspect of the law. I understand that the "is" portion is (LOL) the critical part. IMO, from minimalist perspective, the First Law could show up as simple as: Is

Yeah, that's a bit too simple, but saying that "is, exists" is redundant. And yet, in axioms regarding 'nature of reality,' I understand (I think) why we phrase it as such.

With all that said, I am spinning on the "everything" part of the assertion. For me this is critical, as I believe the totality of the assertion matters, literally. And I concede that this is a bit semantical, but as a comprehensive, fundamental law, I see it as obvious.

Conclusion:
In our efforts to understand reality we intuitively place meanings, on (at least) behaviors, actions, and things.

Agreed. Though wondering if within context of First Law, are "behaviors" and "actions" to be considered things? I venture to say that - no we are not saying these are things.

Through this we develop rational thought and reasoning that we can build upon in order enrich that meaning. In other words, we intuitively discover/learn a foundation of which build upon. Therefore, one could describe that, the extent of what we know of reality relies on the extent of ability to apply meaning to it, in the sense of both rational and irrational conception.

I would likely replace know with "understand." Perhaps trivial, but follows from what was already stated. And as I read, "ability to apply meaning to it" I get idea of "it" as either not us, and/or outside of us, when I literally believe we are it. Either way, I would rephrase what you are saying, and perhaps this is just spin, though I would say, "the extent of what we understand about reality is interdependent of ability to derive meaning from within it."

So if we are to understand reality further, we must investigate how these meanings come about, how they are constructed and modeled, and furthermore, the extents or capacity they can be applied and related.

I can grant this, but it seems presumptuous. I don't believe that it is necessarily rational to investigate how meanings are constructed and modeled, and furthermore the extents or capacity they can be related.

I grant that it may be desired, though not following how it is necessitated to further understanding. Honestly, you had me at "we must investigate." But I think "how meaning comes about" follows nicely from what was already stated.

What this tells us about what the theory communicates is; at the source of it all that exists is a system of; first, pure source (energy). Second, pure form. Third, pure choice(although I hesitate to use that word, it does not fully convey the concept of relative perspective). And that it is this system of sets that is needed to "close" it off and produce a perspective or observation.

While this follows from what you had in paragraph right before it, I already conveyed that I don't know if that necessarily follows in rational way. Or more precisely, I say it seems presumptuous. The belief in existence of "pure form" is presumptuous, from assertion of Law number 1 - Everything that is, exists (as everything).

I'm not even sure I understand what pure form means, but humorously, that strikes me as what is near heart of this discussion, understand what "pure form" is and/or means.

For your third one, I'd probably go with (pure) interpretation, though I hesitate to put word "pure" in there as it seems presumptuous. Furthermore, I wonder if choice / interpretation is something that is / exists? Thus I see it as we presume it exists, and/or is occurring, but is ultimately what is being investigated for further understanding of reality of what is and what is not.

In follows that anything considered a part of the universe must then be within these conclusions here. If it were not, then what?

Then perhaps the First Law (of Totality) is rational, and the other 2 axioms add meaning (technically no-thing) to the mental construct, in attempt to further understanding of nature of reality.

Continuing, if reality were to have a function that was incapable to be included with this theory, then we would be left with a problem that existed beyond anything we can discern as real.

Does reality need us to discern if it is real? I believe that "everything that is, exists (as everything)" need not be discerned, interpreted, formulated, conceived of, in order for it to a) exist and b) hold itself together, rationally speaking.

That is, if this theory can produce the bottom line breakdown of thought and its laws, it would follow that we could make conclusions that the universes behavior will be filtered by these laws of thought in the very literal sense that the universe (any comprehendable item or behavior) is literally thought, a compilation of 'events' grinded through these laws, to produce a foundation that other meanings in the universe can be formed by; Then, that possibility of conception would not be a part of this universe. This raises the question, of how can we ponder something not apart of our universe (our consciousness), without developing some notion of a unknown part of consciousness. If it is not rational or irrational (limited series of being) then what? Comprehension of eternal? maybe... i dunno.

My response to question underlined - By allowing. Allowing for (simple) thought that there is more known about universe (in it's totality) than through what is understood via models of meanings (or symbols, or things).

As consciousness, we can be in this (physical) universe, but not necessarily of it. An analogy would be how I can be in a night dream, but that is not necessarily the reality from which my true consciousness resides. Even while all the available "evidence" around me would substantiate that I too have form like everything in that reality. And yet knowledge (or wakefulness of consciousness) would tell me my nature is not bound to that reality, even while in midst of "it" I am convinced that some of it (really most of it) is not me, not of my making alone. And yet, I am literally deriving all meaning from the manifestations I have "constructed" (I'd say projected) onto the nature of (this relative) reality.

I believe it is in the axiom that - Everything that is, exists (as Everything)" - in which all rationality springs from and ultimately returns to. Though it is somewhere between, enjoyable and challenging to interpret Everything as "something" and "no-thing" and "not me." Thus understanding the nature of reality from that system, is understanding nature of ourselves, while pretending it is not about us, it is about "it" (reality outside / around).

[arkain101]

I regret the fact that I included those laws so early in the development of this theory. I've tried to point out that that was a mistake, but the readers seem to keep missing that.

At this point, the laws are yet to be fully described. I did not come with the laws prior to the mechanical principles. On the contrary, the laws came to a realization after the development of the following:


These laws (althought not yet defined completely) can be formed into principles of systems that apply to the theme of mechanics and other subsequent partnering themes.
They are the principles that include a)rationalization of what is irrational, and b)rationalism.

1)System of Singularality - Things can be, without inclusion of other limitations other than they are influenced by the other two systems. It has no limitations on its ability to be located at different places at different times to satisfy the following two sets demands. Think of energy (light)

The mechanical parameter that can be placed in this set is rotation orientation and/or spin.

2)System of Duality - Things can either Be or Not Be, and also Be at the same time, whole Not being at the same time. It is a two object or set system. Where it is not possible to provide the reasoning which object is moving or is not moving if motion should exist between them (motion meaning, change, events, something to observe)

A basic list of the mechanical parameters that can be placed in this set are 1) Rotation orientation and/or spin 2)Direction 3)Motion 4)Velocity 5)Distance 6)Mass 7)Energy 8)Force 9)Momentum 10)location (think of placing a ruler between yourself and the only other reference frame that is)



3)System of Triality - Things are able to be recognized as individual systems. Things either Are or Are not. That is, A is A, and not B, or B is B and Not A. Certainty is produced in this system, however it may satisfy some to call that certainty naive certainty, in the same context of naive realism.

The same basic list of the mechanical parameters apply to the triality system as the duality system. Ie, 1) Rotation orientation and/or spin 2)Direction 3)Motion 4)Velocity 5)Distance 6)Mass 7)Energy 8)Force 9)Momentum 10)location. However the central aspect that allows the duality and triality system to be considered different is the ability for a frame of reference (think of a 3 frame universe) to perform a measurment with itself considered excluded. (Think of placing a ruler between to points)

They influence each other, and can also be mutually exclusive. And it makes no change to go beyond the 3 system or below the 1 system. It is complete in its 3 set (of sets) form. I am learning that this is considered a topology.



Allow me to try to blend this into existing theory. Special Relativity Theory in its most basic expression abides to these principles. The (lorentz) transformations are contained in the duality set. The source of connection between the transformations (information/energy) is 'contained' in the singularality set. Meanwhile the triality set is what combines these former sets into a classical macroscopic picture of the universe. And by classical macroscopic picture of the universe I mean, the role the conscious observer plays as the tool to rationalize the irrational system. The triality system 'does' this based on the 3rd law, the laws of a triality system, a triality system is the beginning of macroscopicity understanding. which only demands 3 frames of reference.. We could add more, but it would not add another system, it would only a more complex version of the triality system.


Example using General Relativity.

Space-Time is treated as though it has physical qualities, the theory does not prove that these qualities exist, but it relies on the 'concept' of them none the less. The key word here is concept. Because this is a conceptual theory, it CAN be reduced into this fundamental theory.
The fundamental theory, ie the system of Singularality, Duality, and Triality (sets) can explain the validity of General Relativity. It can do this in the same way it provides the validity of the theory of special relativity. Furthermore, it is my expectation that it can explain the how/why we treat space-time as something consisting of qualities that can be warped and bent. That is, if we are understanding HOW we think we will understand how we came about to think of it this way.

Based on this, a series of experiments can be performed to test this theory I hear present.

One of those experiments (that I am developing), is a (presumed) method to create a gravity field. If the gravity field can not be created based on the expectations that the experiment requires, then this fundamental theory has contradictory evidence towards it, but if it can then it has some support.

If this theory is to have any real value, then it must make predictions, and it must have ways of being tested. Prior to this it is not nessecarally a complete theory. (explaining that I am not trying to convince anyone the validity of this theorem)

There are a number of ways it can be tested.. and thats the best news I've learned about it from day one. . Modern Advanced physics (like a string theory model) is well known for its lack of ability to be tested, and frowned upon because of this by many. At least to my understanding..



As you can tell I have a lot of work to do to finalize this theory and its laws and principles. I am not presenting to you the Complete concept. I can only at this point share with you the basic layout of the theory as a whole.

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by arkain101

I regret the fact that I included those laws so early in the development of this theory. I've tried to point out that that was a mistake, but the readers seem to keep missing that.

At this point, the laws are yet to be fully described. I did not come with the laws prior to the mechanical principles. On the contrary, the laws came to a realization after the development of the following...

Including the laws so early was not the major error. Your error was in attributing the laws to Wikipedia:

Originally Posted by arkain101

I used statements from wikipedia, as I thought it would be a good starting point...

It would appear fom your later comment that this was not true. You made up these laws yourself. So why did you attribute them to Wikipedia? Did you not realise that people with even a passing knowledge of philosophy would recognise that it was not true? Wikipedia is far from perfect, but even if someone with only an elementary knowledge of philosophy did put such nonsense on Wikipedia, it would not remain there for long.

Which leaves us with the question:

Why, would you expect anyone with a reasonable knowledge of philosophy to bother to read any more of you lengthy prose, after such a claim?

[arkain101]

I explained I used those laws from wikipedia for the reason they may be familiar with people. Why did I say this, because I found and read through them there.

Law of thought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The laws of thought can be most intelligibly expressed thus:

1. Everything that is, exists.
2. Nothing can simultaneously be and not be.
3. Each and every thing either is or is not.
4. Of everything that is, it can be found why it is.

There would then have to be added only the fact that once for all in logic the question is about what is thought and hence about concepts and not about real things.

– Schopenhauer, Manuscript Remains, Vol. 4, "Pandectae II," §163

I should also note that if you read my first post you will see the following:

The above was a collaborative mixture of explanations by those mentioned authors including myself. However these laws are incomplete. Read next post.

Does this satisfy your concerns?

I don't expect that kind of attitude will be much appreciated along the development of this thread.

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by arkain101

I explained I used those laws from wikipedia for the reason they may be familiar with people. Why did I say this, because I found and read through them there.

I really don't see where your making these assumptions.

Well, thankyou for clarifying the source. I withdraw my comment about that, and apologise.

However, I would dispute that the interpretation of rule 4:
"4. Of everything that is, it can be found why it is."
corresponds to what Schopenhauer originally said:
"4. Truth is the reference of a judgement to something outside it as its sufficient reason or ground."

The former is a claim about "everything that is", the latter is about truth and judgement. There is no correlation between the two statements. However, I acknowledge that is what Schopenhauer claimed. It was not originated by you.

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by arkain101

I explained I used those laws from wikipedia for the reason they may be familiar with people. Why did I say this, because I found and read through them there.
Law of thought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After further reading of the source of the Schopenhauer quote, I think I've found why the second version of the fourth law, which is the version you quoted, is apparently so different from the original version - your quote was taken out of context. The complete quote is:

The laws of thought can be most intelligibly expressed thus:
Everything that is, exists.
Nothing can simultaneously be and not be.
Each and every thing either is or is not.
Of everything that is, it can be found why it is.
There would then have to be added only the fact that once for all in logic the question is about what is thought and hence about concepts and not about real things.
– Schopenhauer, Manuscript Remains, Vol. 4, "Pandectae II," §163

The text (in bold) that you omitted makes it clear that when Schopenhauer used the term "everything that is", he was not referring to physical reality at all. He was referring to logic and thought. This is confirmed by his later refinement of the four into two laws. The second law then becomes:

The second law of thought, the principle of sufficient reason, would state that the above attribution or denial must be determined by something different from the judgment itself, which may be a (pure or empirical) perception, or merely another judgment. This other and different thing is then called the ground or reason of the judgment.

Here, again, he explicitly refers to "law(s) of thought". So when you say:

Originally Posted by arkain101

I've taken this theory and applied it to certain areas of physics. Based on these laws they can be translated in order to become theme specific. I translate them as the following to become applicable to cosmology...

It seems clear, to me, that you are applying to physical reality laws which Schopenhauer derived solely in the context of logic and thought. I would suggest such usage is not legitimate, or at least, is not justified by Schopenhauer's usage. In particular, the law "of everything that is, it can be found why it is" clearly does not apply to physical reality. I.e. Schopenhauer's three laws that preceded it do not justify such a conclusion about reality.

[arkain101]

As much as it looks like I used Schopenhauer's laws, I did not on purpose, nor did I depend on his reasoning, or even know his reasoning. Hence my regret for quoting them. It was a copy and paste mistake, that I've posted a few times now that those laws are incomplete for what I am discussing here.

It seems clear, to me, that you are applying to physical reality

Yes, that is the key point to the thesis here that I am describing to you. (I don't know anything about Schopenhauer or his work, he is not related to this thread). The thesis is that, there exists a set of laws for thought(which I am still working on developing), and because of this, physical reality which can be thought about, will in one form or another abide to one or more of those laws.

I have suggestive evidence of this being accurate, which I will get into. Furthermore I will get into the matter of ways to test and validate this overall.

That is all I can respond for now, I need to get going.

However, I request we move on from the wikipage, and the laws. I am beginning with evidence first, since that is the core of where I've worked on this, the laws in according to my expression have not yet been developed, so it is meaningless to get into this further.

Thanks.

There would then have to be added only the fact that once for all in logic the question is about what is thought and hence about concepts and not about real things.
– Schopenhauer, Manuscript Remains, Vol. 4, "Pandectae II," §163

I will be responding to this as well. As I have said, from where I am coming from that in quotation is incomplete. What I am doing here is attempting to show the completion, and prove it.

(however the opening post has become a bit of a disaster in my opinion. It may be worth my while to spend a little more time on that and start a new topic.)

[lemit]

Arkain,

It looks like you understand the basic problem with philosophical theory, that it is philosophical theory. It has nothing to do with the realities people face every day.

If you can develop applications of your theory that address political/enviironmental/economic/sociological/educational problems in a way that doesn't look like a cult, I'll be thrilled and will subscribe to your newsletter. (Sorry, it just seems like the next thing I should say.)

--lemit

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by arkain101

...(however the opening post has become a bit of a disaster in my opinion. It may be worth my while to spend a little more time on that and start a new topic.)

I agree. If you quote a major figure in your OP, subsequently denying that you intended to do so does not alter the fact that you DID quote him, and then applied those ideas out of context.

Better to let your work stand (or fall) on its own merits.

[arkain101]

I agree. If you quote a major figure in your OP, subsequently denying that you intended to do so does not alter the fact that you DID quote him, and then applied those ideas out of context.

Applied what ideas out of what context?

Better to let your work stand (or fall) on its own merits.

???? That is what I am doing.


It is frustrating you fill my thread full of this stuff when you have not even asked me to further explain anything related to the thesis and one of its applications. I have no clue if you even know what I am talking about, and yet you make these accusations.

I will surely be starting a new thread another time.