Implicate Order

At the more fundamental level, I would give a thumbs up for Pauli's exclusion principle. The exclusion principle and electron 'spin' is the current way we describe how fermions (eg. 'fuzzy' electrons fill atomic orbitals) and give structural composition to things. In my opinion it is the half-spin nature of fermions and the defence of their spatial volume that best demonstrates this feature. If you are simply talking electrical repulsion from the merging of two atom's electron clouds, then you would also have to explain why attraction can also be caused in say ionic bonding.

Hi Rettich Interesting ideas. You have obviously spent considerable time thinking about them. One of the issues I have with your thoughts however deals with the importance of inertial motion in SR which provides a context to understand how moving reference frames under inertial motion do not enable any physics experiment to be undertaken which can deduce whether one reference frame is moving with respect to another. This is a clincher for me when reading your alternative. Your alternative theory addresses some issues as you have stated but SR seems to me at least, to address many more issues as a more comprehensive theory dealing with a special condition of inertial motion in euclidean space and we can then go and extend the theory to GR where we can competently deal with all forms of classical mechanics in curved space. For example, let's assume we are playing ping-pong here on earth in a 'stationery' reference frame (a comoving reference frame with respect to us as hypothetical observers). Also assume for this exercise that there are no additional forces to consider such as winds etc. We play our normal game of ping pong. Now let's get into a moving train and get up to a constant velocity (inertial conditions) and we can now go about playing our normal game of ping pong in the train. Then get in a plane travelling at supersonic speeds (yet in inertial motion) and we can still play our ping pong. This is well understood in terms of SR. With your alternate hypothesis, how would this stack up given the balancing act with respect to all the different gravitational fields that you would need to take into account to allow this game of ping pong to be played in each of these different conditions? I can see where you are coming from, but there are a number of conclusions from inertial motion alone that are incredibly powerful reasons to take SR seriously even though it appears to be counter-intuitive. I always need to keep in my mind that we as human beings have been sheltered in a particular 'goldilocks' region of our universe where speeds are slow and gravitation is relatively weak. The counter-intuitivity of it all to me lies in my assumption that the universe needs to take heed of my earthly condition when it is more likely that the universe doesn't care at all what I think. Also aside from the point above relating to inertial conditions, while I can see in your alternate description how you might be striving for a unification of SR and GR with an amended version of a gravitational theory, from my initial read this attempt of yours is resurrecting the need to re-instate the notion of 'force' in terms of gravitation. One of the powerful points of GR is how this theory actually does away with the notion of a force and replaces it with a more robust solution in terms of spacetime curvature. In our attempts to unify different theories that are applicable in different domains, it is helpful to be able to unify forces or reduce their number as opposed to necessitating their inclusion. Anyway, these are just my opinions and I appreciate reading your views.

Greetings all. I am a newbie to this forum and looking forward to participating in it........now into it ! The term a conscious mind is in itself a conundrum due to its definitional vagaries. If one's definition of 'consciousness' relates to a degree of 'self awareness' then it is helpful to consider this notion by examining life's evolutionary record. While humans themselves would categorically conclude that we are conscious beings, then you need to determine, at which point in our evolutionary tree did consciousness spring into being. Was it when a brain first evolved, or when a ganglion first emerged and so on and so forth? Inevitably you can progress right back to an individual cellular lifeform with this query, tracing a progressive reduction in the sophistication of measuring devices and how these measurements are analysed to produce a behavioural or physiological response. To be self aware, a notion of self requires the organism to be able to treat 'themselves' as seperate from the environment. A way to do this is through the process of measurement and analysis of an external context. While at the simple levels of primitive lifeforms it is hard to define such a notion of consciousness, it is certainly easier when dealing with a complex multicellular lifeform loaded with an advanced and powerful brain, to treat this entire life form as 'one entity' that is self-regulating and distinct from the environment. For example, I treat myself as 'one organism' simply because my brain regulates and manages my mutli-cellular form in an holistic manner. I therefore have an inbuilt notion of self arising from this notion. I don't see myself for example as a multicellular colony of individual specialised cells all acting individually. I treat myself as a complex 'complete' organism that is distinct from my environment. I make my own decisions and my physiological and behavioural responses are self-regulated by my brain. What however I am blinded to is that this sense of self-awareness has been manifested by complexity and specialisation. Perhaps then a sense of 'self awareness' is simply an emergent condition from the progressive enhancement and magnification of measurement and analysis through the need for a more complex brain to be able to comprehensively analyse the feedback from its array of progressively more specialised and powerful measuring devices. Looking at things from this point of view, a computer programmer might conclude that 'consciousness' therefore may just be a similar emergent phenomena and suggest that one day, probably in our extreme distant future, consciousness may indeed emerge when the measuring instruments and analysis undertaken reaches a sufficient 'critical mass' for a notion of self awareness to emerge in its fully fledged form. I am of the opinion that conscious awareness however in terms of the internet will relate to an awareness of self in a 'virtual' environment (being cyberspace) as opposed to self awareness in our physical universe. Alternatively in the realm of robotics where measurements and analysis is undertaken of our physical environment, then a level of self-awareness similar to our own notion will one day emerge.