The Fundamental Theory and the Three Fundamental Laws

[arkain101]

What is the fundamental theory like? What does it have to accomplish in order to succeed?

Suppose there is a possibility of "The Fundamental Theory". A theory that connects all fundamental theory together under a set of common laws, while based a few simple postulates.


The purpose here is to discuss this idea of a fundamental theory and what it would have to accomplish. As well as our thoughts and ideas that would brings us there.


I will begin by sharing with you what I have been working on that I think is capable of providing the grounds for a fundamental theory of everything fundamental. I believe it is capable based on certain predictions that can be made and tested.


My basic premise is that, a fundamental theory must include the self and the universe. The self being the conscious observer, and the universe being, the observed events.




I'll begin with the philosophy based on the laws of rational thought.

In philosophy there are an establish 3 fundamental laws that can be used to describe what is needed for rational thought.

Wikipedia's Section on Laws of thought

The three laws can be expressed, as they commonly are, as:

1)Law of identity - Everything that is, exists.
2)Law of contradiction - Nothing can simultaneously be and not be.
3)Law of excluded middle - Each and every thing either is or is not.





It came to my attention that the principles derived from a fundamental system I have been developing, provided the expectation of those laws 3 to exist, however, the fundamental system does not have to obey those 3 laws exactly in the same way, in order to be rational.


What the fundamental system does is attempt to answer the question: What is the minimum requirement to complete all possible meaning in respect to actions that form events.

What I find is the following:


1)Singularality
2)Duality
3)Triality






Singularality is the logic and rational behaviors that can be applied to a system consisting of only one part, and therefore one observation frame.


Energy in the form of light can be considered to be a state of Singularality. Light can considered as particle-like, however these type of particles do have any means to communicate to any other particles. That is, if we treat light as photons, there is no secondary set of light wave emission coming from these photon particles. We can treat them as a singular object in an otherwise empty void. As we do so we discover there is limits to the meaning we can apply to this circumstance. For example: We can not give the singular object a sense of direction, nor an ideal velocity. Therefore the Singularality will behave only as Singularality can.



Duality is the logic and rational behaviors that can apply in a system consisting of only two parts and therefore two observation frames.

Elementary particles can be considered to be a state of duality. We can treat them as two objects in an otherwise empty void and their behaviors will be equal to that of the meaning we can apply under these circumstances. Their is a variety of meaning we can apply, however there are limits and conditions to obey. For example, in order for a measurement to be made under these circumstances both objects must be involved in the measurement. IE, a ruler must be placed between them an thought experiment observer -to obey these laws- must view from the location of one of these two objects and can not view outside to see 'from afar' (we can elaborate on meanings further on). One can say that a fundamental objects that have the ability to interact with each other, ie a measurable mass and volume must consist of an A and B. That is, to form duality behavior you must have two Singularalities.

In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a particle not known to have substructure; that is, it is not known to be made up of smaller particles. If an elementary particle truly has no substructure, then it is one of the basic building blocks of the universe from which all other particles are made. In the Standard Model, the quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons are elementary particles.




Triality is the final and complete stage of logic and rational behaviors that can apply in a system consisting of only 3 parts and therefore two observation frames.

Using our void and object concpet, we can place 3 objects in an otherwise empty void. The observer can choose to be viewing from any one of these 3 objects. If the observe is to make a measurement, he can place the ruler between objects A and B and exclude his location from the measurement in order to acquire results. A Triality system can be considered to be whole, in that it is closed and satisfied. We see that if we add another object we still remain under the conditions of a triality system.

Therefore any Triality system is formed by a minimum of 3 objects, while each one of the individual 3 objects must be a form of duality. It thus is expected that a duality system can only transfer to a singularality state or group into a Triality state.



As this topic moves on I will attempt to explain this further to provide connections between thought and fundamental behaviors.


(Post significantly edited June 15, 2009)

[arkain101]

These laws can be formed into principles of systems that apply to the theme of mechanics and other subsequent partnering themes.
They are the principles that explain rational-irrationalism, and rationalism. They influence eachother, and can also be mutually exclusive.

1)System of Singularality - Things can be, without inclusion of other limitations other than they are influenced by the other two systems. That is they have no property, thus they behave as the media of property.

2)System of Duality - A single part that has qualities and properties consists as a relationship of two such parts. As such, each part is demaned for any event between them. Therefore, it is uncertain to prove which elementary part is responsible for any such action, all that can be said is "given action x" requires duality.

3)System of Triality - Certainty is produced in this system, in the sense an observable "proof" can be developed. That is, in a 3 part system one part can consider itself excluded from action.

(While thinking of these in thought experiments, in order that they work correctly and remain consistent you must observe only from as many frames of reference there are. That is, in singularality, there is only "to be" and no meaning to apply (other than the notion of rotation); in the duality, there is only to be A looking at B, or B looking at A. It is not valid to visualize both objects; in triality, we observe two objects "B and C" from our position of A, etc.)


(Post significantly edited June 15, 2009)

[Jway]

Just playing around with the rationality of the fundamental laws you are addressing.

1. Everything that is, exists as everything (totality)
2. If some things exist, then everything can exist as it is, and it can exist as less than what it is, which is inherently a contradiction of every thing. Thus contradiction is permissible, where and when the belief / observation of some things are said to be existing.
3. Based on the perception of observer(s), everything is and/or it is not (everything). Existence of single solitary (and thus distinct) observers makes for plausibility that BOTH everything is and is not, while each thing is or is not.

Conclusion: Everything is No Thing and No Thing is Every Thing, except when an Observer is present and insisting that totality is (merely sum total of) some thing(s).

Measurement is prime example of "nothing" attempting to render Everything into something that is conceivably less than Everything, or that which is not (Everything).

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by arkain101

The three laws are (based on certain areas of philosophy):

1)Law of identity - Everything that is, exists.
2)Law of contradiction - Nothing can simultaneously be and not be.
3)Law of excluded middle - Each and every thing either is or is not.

A conclusive law formed by these 3 laws is a considerable 4th subsequential law:
4)Law of conclusion - Of everything that is, it can be found why it is.

I have not read the rest of the OP in detail, but was immediately struck by the illogicality of the 4th law. This assertion does NOT follow from the three laws. What is knowable is an entirely different question from what is. Defining what is does not make it knowable.

[HydrogenBond]

These laws might represent real time observation, but they can get contradicted in the future. In a plasma of H and O, molecular water or H2O, does not exist. It does not exist in that real time, but can exist in the future. Liquid water can exist in the future, even where it does not exist in the present. The future can violate the second law; It can (shall) be and not be (present).

[arkain101]

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

I have not read the rest of the OP in detail, but was immediately struck by the illogicality of the 4th law. This assertion does NOT follow from the three laws. What is knowable is an entirely different question from what is. Defining what is does not make it knowable.

Partially agreed. I used statments from wikipedia, as I thought it would be a good starting point to use what I interpreted as mainstream philosophy, maybe something that people would be familiar with. However, I later realized my mistake to consider those versions of the laws of thought to be complete and sufficient for where I planned to take them.

As you read on you can see that I produced a correction of these laws based on the principles I have been developing within the overall theory.

[arkain101]

Originally Posted by Jway

Just playing around with the rationality of the fundamental laws you are addressing.

1. Everything that is, exists as everything (totality)
2. If some things exist, then everything can exist as it is, and it can exist as less than what it is, which is inherently a contradiction of every thing. Thus contradiction is permissible, where and when the belief / observation of some things are said to be existing.
3. Based on the perception of observer(s), everything is and/or it is not (everything). Existence of single solitary (and thus distinct) observers makes for plausibility that BOTH everything is and is not, while each thing is or is not.

Conclusion: Everything is No Thing and No Thing is Every Thing, except when an Observer is present and insisting that totality is (merely sum total of) some thing(s).

Measurement is prime example of "nothing" attempting to render Everything into something that is conceivably less than Everything, or that which is not (Everything).

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.

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

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.

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

[arkain101]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

These laws might represent real time observation, but they can get contradicted in the future. In a plasma of H and O, molecular water or H2O, does not exist. It does not exist in that real time, but can exist in the future. Liquid water can exist in the future, even where it does not exist in the present. The future can violate the second law; It can (shall) be and not be (present).

I have difficulty respsonding, nay, I have an impossibility of forming an opinions on that without your inclusion of a articulate exposition on what time and/or future is in your words.

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by arkain101

Partially agreed. I used statments from wikipedia, as I thought it would be a good starting point to use what I interpreted as mainstream philosophy,

Please quote where in Wikipedia it says that your fourth "law" is a conclusion from the first three.

[Michael Mooney]

Re:

)Law of identity - Everything that is, exists.
2)Law of contradiction - Nothing can simultaneously be and not be.
3)Law of excluded middle - Each and every thing either is or is not.

A conclusive law formed by these 3 laws is a considerable 4th subsequential law:
4)Law of conclusion

#1 just says that what is is. Obvious, tho it doesn't address the epistemology of how we know "what is" or the ontology of what is real vs what is not... which requires a consensus on the meaning of "real" and on the vadidity of various ways of verification.

#2 and #3 seem the same to me. Both must be true on the face of it. But neither addresses what is possible or probable in the realm of the raw materials of the universe being in the dynamic process of forming new "entities" or forms. For instance certain clouds of cosmic dust and gases are not yet stars or galaxies (don't presently "exist" as such) but may in many cases eventually become them.

#4 "(Of everything that is, it can be found why it is.")
"Why" seems to me to be a teleological question... i.e., "what is the purpose of anything or everything?" This is not in the realm of science.

Also, I define "universe" as everything that *is* both known and unknown. And that which is beyond our limits of perception... either physically beyond our cosmic event horizon or metaphysically... in the realm of gnosis... may never be "known" as science defines knowledge.
Michael