A lingual theory of everything

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Mike Smith Cosmos,

We've been a bit lax with this thread and have probably let certain posts continue without staff intervention when it was probably needed. That has to end. This is a science discussion site and your thread claims to be a TOE, which would be scientific in nature. You need to stop posting difficult to comprehend and scientifically meaningless statements and come up with something that is testable in the real world rather than simply as a vague thought experiment, that has precise, unambiguous solutions, makes predictions and has evidence, or we will be closing this. It is not other people's job to find evidence for your theory or make real predictions about it, it is yours and you cannot simply tell someone to go away because you don't wish to respond to their criticisms.

That being said, physica, you don't get to throw around insults to other members because you don't agree with what they've said either. That also stops.

One other request, Mike. Could you please stop with the overuse of weird fonts. It's difficult to have to read.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

!

Moderator Note

Mike Smith Cosmos,We've been a bit lax with this thread ............

I appreciate what you are saying,. I will do my best .

I do have a slight problem on two counts ( however I acknowledge that is my problem ) because ..

 

1) For a genuine reason , I chose to look for an absolute " theory of everything " , as opposed to a theory of unifying forces, or unifying particles or waves or both as many scientists are involved with. ( string theory, standard model etc)

 

We all have our interests, and growing up and being educated in the science sector, but also in the philosophical era of the 1960's and 1970's led me to choose an ABSOLUTE theory of everything. As ,(as yet it is not proven that either MATH or the current PHYSICS standard model, string theory or various other models) , are even viewed as a ' Theory of everything ' I Chose language as a medium for developing a theory of everything , as it could at least speak about it. As indeed is to a greater extent still used on this forum as a versatile medium of communication.

 

2) Because I have gone for absolutely EVERYTHING , I have left myself wide open to people saying " give me something specific " . Which is a fair request, which I am trying to handle by going for things, like rivers, cathode ray tubes, fibre optic cables as specific examples, as well as saying a generalisation approach of " - Initiative, -Opportunity,- Goal, -Anything Happening " , which I appreciate are the ' vagueries '. Which you are picking me up on. Understandably!

 

I appreciate it needs to fit within the wider scientific framework , however it is pointless me saying " here is a maths formula " or a deterministic path like " this does this , that does that, then this other thing does this followed by that". When I am finding out , this is not the true picture ( only ) of how the universe appears to work ( which is my personal brief ) , all-be-it that there are aspects of how the universe works that ARE DETERMINISTIC. But there appear to be a whole lot of other systems , that are not ( maths based, deterministic based , predictive , etc ) yet are none-the-less very much a part of the ' greater scientific nature of the cosmos '

 

I will think up some ways that will deal with this potential conflict, as I do believe in the development of this particular 'Lingual theory of everything '. , which many people like (. TAR and others ) have helped me develop.

 

Mike

Edited May 1, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[physica]

Mike you continue to ignore the fact that there are many counter intuitive outcomes and paradoxes in the universe. You don't address the fact that if something is vague enough to encompass everything it will not be specific enough to give direction in these paradoxes and counter-intuitive outcomes. Zeno's paradox was raised to make the point even describing how a faster moving object overtakes a slower moving one isn't as straightforward as it looks and that the lingual theory failed, we had to wait for calculus to explain it. However, instead you've just ignored it again and again. If you can't use your lingual theory of everything to explain Zeno's paradox then the whole premise of you lingual theory of everything is flawed. This is a classic example of why people should read before coming up with theories.

 

 

 

I appreciate what you are saying,. I will do my best .
I do have a slight problem on two counts ( however I acknowledge that is my problem ) because ..

1) For a genuine reason , I chose to look for an absolute " theory of everything " , as opposed to a theory of unifying forces, or unifying particles or waves or both as many scientists are involved with. ( string theory, standard model etc)

We all have our interests, and growing up and being educated in the science sector, but also in the philosophical era of the 1960's and 1970's led me to choose an ABSOLUTE theory of everything. As ,(as yet it is not proven that either MATH or the current PHYSICS standard model, string theory or various other models) , are even viewed as a ' Theory of everything ' I Chose language as a medium for developing a theory of everything , as it could at least speak about it. As indeed is to a greater extent still used on this forum as a versatile medium of communication.

 

Zeno's paradox is just one of the many paradoxes that illustrated that lingual theories failed even in the BC era and we had to wait for advancements in maths to describe these. This is why scientists ask for maths, because the lingual approach was proven to be inferior.

 

Now there's a lot of work in developing a theory. The premise of a lingual theory is flawed majorly. Before you even work on developing a lingual theory you will have to read Zeno's paradox (and the other paradoxes that I've listed) and prove that they can be solved by the lingual method. If you cannot do this (many others have failed and it was an achievement of mathematical philosophy that solved it) then working on a lingual theory of everything is a complete waste of time.

Edited May 1, 2014 by physica

[tar]

Mike,

 

I like this thread, because a lingual theory of everything takes both the thing as it is, and what we can say about it, on at the same time. It is completely possible that an adjustment of the model is require when two components of the model do not fit together. It is not so likely that reality its self would require adjustment to fit our model of it. Not that we cannot make reality fit our model, we do it all the time, but in the greater scheme of things, gravity, and great attractors, Lagrange points and strings of Galaxies stretching for unimaginable distances in all directions, what a human mind can model seems very weak and small and second hand, compared to the size and strength and duration of the thing that the human mind models.

 

Of course we are not going to come up with a theory of everything. Millions of people for 10s of thousands of years have not managed the feat. We don't have the reach and info to even take a vague quess at what is going on in the neighborhood.

 

However, a theory that included both the thing as it is, and what we can say about it, is going to, by definition be more complete than a theory that ignored what we could say about the thing, or ignored the thing and concentrated only on what we could say about it.

 

I was, very impressed by the tsunami in Japan two years ago. How our certainty in our mastery of the place, and our control over matter and energy, was wiped away in a couple of minutes. Made us humble, so to speak. At least made me humble. And over the last two years or so, the storms in the Northeast of the U.S. have been uncharacteristically strong. Global warming, and CO2 emmisions and the like, as well as how we are to handle radioactive waste and accidents are REAL concerns for all of us, from scientist to fool.

 

What we think of ourselves, and what we think of the place are the exact same conversation. A theory of everything would have to include us, and the place, because neither means a whit, without the other. What we find suprising or counter intuitive, is only the case for a minute or two. Once we know the thing is so, we adust our model to include the thing, and then the thing is as intuitive as it gets.

 

Regards, TAR

[tar]

Mike,

 

The tidal bores and Morning Glory waves related to the solitions idea in your latest links, were and interesting read. Nice pictures too of those clouds in the bay in Australia. Interesting in regards to an earlier related childhood thought you related of the "running down the chute shaped slope" is the fact that glider pilots from all over the world, congregate to ride the waves, in that area during the time of year the phenomena is most likely.

 

Was wondering about the tides between the Black Sea and the Mediteranian, and was "surprised" to learn that the Med doesn't really have tides of much amplitude, like the Atlantic. More of a landlocked lake, than an ocean. I probably knew this already from school, and forgot about it, but it raises some nice questions about boundry conditions and waves and tubes of opportunity and manifolds and surfaces and such.

 

The gravity waves you linked, like the ripples coming off the boat, are caused when the boat is no longer keeping the water from its "equilibrium" state, in regards, to gravity and surface tension and the like, and this "rebound" to equalibrium causes a wave, and even the wave causes subharmonic motions as each subcomponent of the media occilates around the equilibrium point.

 

Ideas not foreign to the stochastics of the stock market, or the touching of a guitar string at exactly 1/2 or 1/3 or 1/4 or 1/5th its length creates a harmonic "ringing" note.

 

Frequency certainly has an incredible amount to due with life and waves and cycles, and orbits, from subatomic to galactic systems. The returning to equilibrium, and the discussions we were having earlier concerning strange loops and the "outliers" several SD from the norm, and the negative and positive feedback loops, all involve each other, and are related to each other.

 

Boundry conditions and manifolds, and translations and charts and models are all part of the the same conversation...as if we are talking about everything at once.

 

Imagine that.

 

Regards, TAR

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The essence of this thread , is that Initiative and Space to fulfill the initiative are Key.

 

At the start of the Universe there was nearly all space, thus plenty of opportunity to fulfill initiatives.

 

Since then there has been a lot of activity of initiatives being fulfilled. Like we have Two major players [ Dark Energy and dark matter fulfilling a large opportunity throughout the universe, acting as threads about which ordinary matter may form , and expansion of space by way of Dark energy.

 

Even the way of matter and photons is having its day, in seizing the opportunities in space to condense, combine, radiate and form the very matter of the universe as well as the photons of radiation. ,

 

Particularly on our home planet, life has seized many of the space or opportunities about the surface of Earth to live and exist.

Many of these fulfilled opportunities can be examined in the context of this particular "Lingual Theory of everything"

 

However, i would imagine there are many yet unfulfilled opportunities waiting for 'The right Initiative , to fulfill in the right space ' ,namely a space where the initiative is free to be fulfilled [happen] ' . Some of these opportunities more valued than others.

 

One completely trivial initiative is to " move my right arm forward 10 cms" , no problem , fulfilled in three seconds. [ Utterly trivial. there was the space, and initiative and away we go , yet trivial. However this can be expanded to extra ordinary levels.

 

We do need to examine the playing field. :- EUCLIDEAN SPACE link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-dimensional_space Euclidean space is basically 3 dimensions . Point, Plane, Volume x,y,z

 

The following Artists illustration shows 2 or 3 examples of how nature has initiated [made an initiative to occupy the space presented], or has an opportunity and thus has no reason but to fulfill their initiative in the three opportunities offered by Euclidean Geometric Space . : -

 

.

 

Now the evidence that supports the artists science predictions.

 

Mike

 

Explanation of the above. :-

The first sketch is an abstract picture of a very still mill pond. The water within the pond has assumed the level, that water does of complete flat plane. At this scale the surface of the water has assumed the two dimensions x,y. Of Euclidean geometry. A flat plane parallel to the surface of the earth. The picture also shows trees growing exactly at right angles to the surface of the pond. Straight upward. Similarly the grass blades are growing perpendicular to the water surface. Straight up. Bothe the trees and the grass have assumed the third dimension of the Euclidean geometry.

 

The next three photos show the real evidence of this phenomenon. Straight up tree 90 degrees to surface. Of the earth. Straight up grass 90 degrees to surface of the earth. Self levelling water in the canal. Parallel to the surface of the earth.

 

Thus without any human intervention, the trees grass and water have ' happened' along the three Euclidean dimensions , because there is no reason for them not to, and some self levelling system that allows a least resistance to operate on the water and the plants. :-

. IN THE THREE DIMENSIONS OF SPACE. As described by Euclid. .

 

You could say that the innate initiative in water is to self level, using a combination of gravity and flow. With plants grass and trees have some inbuilt or there exists something systemic in the environment, for plants to grow along the vertical field line of gravity or some other driver ?

 

What quite makes grass and trees grow at 90 to surface of earth . . .?

Edited May 8, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[physica]

I'm confused as to how this addresses the problems that I have raised. You have completely bypassed the point that lingual statements cannot logically clear the paradoxes in BC times. Why do you continue to avoid addressing this? This pushes forward that the whole premise of a lingual theory is flawed. I'm guessing that you haven't really read up on the paradox considering that you don't tackle it. Below is a link to a video that concisely sums up the paradox and makes the point that maths can logically solve it but lingual statements can't

 

 

Now can we spare the waffle and address this. You cannot ignore a concept that completely destroys the whole foundation of you approach because you don't like it or you don't understand it. Now I understand that it is hard accept that something you've worked on is completely flawed and useless. However, your posts on this thread are borderline religious cult preaching.

Edited May 8, 2014 by physica

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I'm confused a........

 

Out of courtesy , I have listened to your mathematician on the video on Zeno paradoxes.

 

I used to use an example of this in the classroom teaching environment, when amusing the students with puzzles , that trip you up easily , yet appear correct. I used to speak of a frog on a leaf in the middle of a pool jumping half way out. Over and over he jumped , but never ever got out. Zeno paradox.

 

I do remember doing convergence and divergence at uni, and was quite captivated at the time how maths had amazing powers.

 

I do not doubt for a moment the power of maths to manipulate and restrain. And am thankful for the strength of such and many more concrete rules. I am quite convinced the universe would fall apart if it did not have such strength in many underpinning laws within the sub atomic particles.

 

I do however , just me, not everyone, find maths and logic far too restrictive and outright painful at times. And for that reason , respond to some of the less deterministic elements of modern physics, where things work from a statistical, random , emergent, selective, trial and error, feedback approach to determine an outcome. I in no way hold that either could exist without the other. Deterministic is absolutely essential , yet so is emergence by randomness, feedback and selection essential . ( allowing the hand to clap, the frog to jump out of the pool etc by " half and a bit, or whatever and a bit " )

 

That allows atoms to hold the universe from falling apart, but at the same time to grow into the most incredible structure in the entire cosmos.

 

Although , I can follow maths to a reasonable extent, and can follow philosophy to a certain extent , I prefer not to battle in those two arenas maths and philosophy because of the problems of " stranglehold " which can limit ( as far as I am concerned ) being able to move forward ( as is the case with Zeno, Achilles , and the clapping hand and the frog. )

 

So I appreciate the concern you have with Zeno paradoxes, but I respectfully must say I do not wish to enter either a mathematical or a philosophical debate around this thread , lest it detracts from its goal to seek out a possible " Theory of Everything " .

Call it the " Lingual (and a bit) theory of everything " if you will .

 

I think the Zeno paradox is addressed by a) Achilles running half way ( and a bit ) , the clapping hand moving half way ( and a bit ) , and the frog jumping half way out ( and a bit ) .

 

If you wish to discuss Zeno's paradoxes any more I would , and I imagine others would be prepared to discuss it either/ or/ both in the philosophy and mathematics threads .

 

Part of the idea behind " A lingual theory of everything " was to have the very flexibility that is required to be free of some of the limitations of maths and axioms, so as to take advantage of the freedom and spaces that are available in an emergent universe. This is not un-scientific, just a little more difficult to get your head around than A+B=C.

 

Mike

Edited May 8, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[rktpro]

Mike Smith. Math is all about imagination. IMHO, it might be that you have not enjoyed the subject or didn't have had influential teachers and classmates. Let us start with algebra. You see that if I know that a new leaf appears everyday on your tree, you can tell the no. of leaves at any time starting from the appearance of the first leaf. Lingually, you can't do that. Next, lets come to combinatorics. Lingual theory can't tell how in how many ways you can choose 100 seeds in total out of 57 bags of all different seeds. In the field of geometry, where it is all imagination, lingually you can't tell what a parabola is. You can't even say, a tree is 90 degree to a pond. Lingually, you can't differentiate between angles. Math is all necessary. As one mathematician puts it: "why to climb a mountain-because it is there. Why to study math-because it is there"

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Mike Smith. Math is all about imagination. IMHO, it might be that you have not enjoyed the subject or didn't have had influential teachers and classmates. Let us start with algebra. You see that if I know that a new leaf appears everyday on your tree, you can tell the no. of leaves at any time starting from the appearance of the first leaf. Lingually, you can't do that. Next, lets come to combinatorics. Lingual theory can't tell how in how many ways you can choose 100 seeds in total out of 57 bags of all different seeds. In the field of geometry, where it is all imagination, lingually you can't tell what a parabola is. You can't even say, a tree is 90 degree to a pond. Lingually, you can't differentiate between angles. Math is all necessary. As one mathematician puts it: "why to climb a mountain-because it is there. Why to study math-because it is there"

 

Yes. I do believe all you say. In fact i did have a love affair with maths up to 3 dimentional field theory, with Div. Grad and Curl . to mathematically describe Wave propagation. [ All three dimensions Complex numbers ] And all the TRANSFORMS . But she made my head hurt.

So I fell out of love with her. I still love her from a distance . As long as she does not get too close !

In fact as I said before , I do respect she holds HALF the universe together [ only HALF ] .

She won that half as her part of our divorce settlement !

 

mike

Edited May 8, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

I think the point is that Zeno's paradoxes were unsolved until the math was developed to show why they weren't paradoxes. "Lingual theories" lack the power to do what's needed.

 

 

Part of the idea behind " A lingual theory of everything " was to have the very flexibility that is required to be free of some of the limitations of maths and axioms, so as to take advantage of the freedom and spaces that are available in an emergent universe. This is not un-scientific, just a little more difficult to get your head around than A+B=C.

 

If it doesn't make specific predictions and is not, in principle, falsifiable, it is unscientific. Repeating "this is scientific" for 500+ posts doesn't change that.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I think the point is that Zeno's paradoxes were unsolved until the math was developed to show why they weren't paradoxes. "Lingual theories" lack the power to do what's needed.

 

I do not necessarily think maths is required, its just common sense . One may require one rigorous discipline to deconstruct another rigorous discipline. But if you are outside of maths at the time, then common sense is enough. If you are inside maths, because you have built maths into your logic or reasoning , then you might well need maths to deconstruct. There is a danger maths is painting science into a corner. Very pretty floor surface, but now you can not get out of the corner. Better to have been the other side of the painted area. Hence , I am not presenting a mathematical argument, Neither am I presenting a lingual argument, I am merely using language to explain it. Should maths be used in some of the threads through the theory , all well and good , but not necessarily so.

swansont, on 08 May 2014 - 1:00 PM, said:

If it doesn't make specific predictions and is not, in principle, falsifiable, it is unscientific.

To some extent , it sounds like you are trying to say .." unless it has maths to prove it, it is not science " If that is what you are saying I thought we discussed that in another thread... ? which is where that argument should be ,no?

 

I have made specific predictions and intend to make more. I think they have been falsifiable.

 

As the subject of the theory is " Everything " I clearly cannot make "everything " happen or I would have to make the Universe .

So I can only pick one 'specific' out of " anything and everything " .

 

Much of the anything has already been and happened one way or another. [ which should be some form of evidence already], though there may be differences of opinion as to the happening mechanism.

 

That just leaves "the rest " not yet "happened" , "happening ".or " yet to happen "

 

Or at least

 

an individual happening of something, that has not yet happened . With the initiative and space for it to happen, and evidence that it has happened and :-

 

So that it is falsifiable,,;That evidence that it will or has not happened, if there was not the space and the initiative , for it to happen. !

Wow ! a tall order ! But as you say ,no good if I can not do it,

 

Or perhaps have already done it ! Maybe you want a repeat performance ?

 

######################. ######################################## ##########

 

 

An artist [ ABSTRACT ] impression of :-

 

an individual ..initiative (top left ) ..opportunity tube...(middle diagonal) ..Happening (Bottom right )

 

Mike

Edited May 8, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[physica]

 

I do not necessarily think maths is required, its just common sense . One may require one rigorous discipline to deconstruct another rigorous discipline. But if you are outside of maths at the time, then common sense is enough.

 

This statement is dripping with arrogance. So you're telling me that your brain is so amazing that if you lived before space travel you would be able to look at your surroundings and work out through common sense that the earth is round and that we orbit the sun without any mathematical guidance????

 

 

 

There is a danger maths is painting science into a corner.

can you give me an example where a lingual theory has solved a problem that maths can't???

[swansont]

To some extent , it sounds like you are trying to say .." unless it has maths to prove it, it is not science " If that is what you are saying I thought we discussed that in another thread... ? which is where that argument should be ,no?

 

I have made specific predictions and intend to make more. I think they have been falsifiable.

 

When I asked you for an example you provided me one that was dripping with math, i.e. not a lingual theory, and the math isn't actually included in your thesis. You just borrowed it from something else.

[Phi for All]

 

I do not necessarily think maths is required, its just common sense .

 

This very sentence is inscribed on the tombstones of many failed inquiries. Common sense is anything but common, and certainly isn't objective enough to be used in a scientific setting, and therefore makes a shaky foundation at best.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

My goodness , I think I accidentally open the lid on a hornets nest.

In Italy hornets can fell an escaping horse at 20 meters, so they tell me.

 

Eek ! I need to do some smart thinking here!

 

Where shall I start ! Swansont and the maths , as I said to .RKTpro. ...

.... "... In fact i did have a love affair with maths up to 3 dimentional field theory, with Div. Grad and Curl . to mathematically describe Wave propagation. [ All three dimensions Complex numbers ] And all the TRANSFORMS . But she made my head hurt.

So I fell out of love with her. I still love her from a distance . As long as she does not get too close !

In fact as I said before , I do respect she holds HALF the universe together [ only HALF ] .

She won that half as her part of our divorce settlement ! ".....

 

SPECIFIC PREDICTION ..that is ok . We can make a specific prediction ,that something is not there now, but will be there / here soon . If we define in words what it is we want to be there . We clearly need to seek out a free venue for the arrival site. Equally we need to seek out the space for both the arrival tube and the destination site. I need to remember that these tubes or pathways are often " paths of least resistance"

 

I may first describe a recent predictive version of the above , then conduct a fresh one after set up (initiative, opportunity tube / track , happening . )

 

Then you can judge whether this is a valid SPECIFIC PREDICTION .

 

MIKE

Edited May 8, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Phi for All]

It seems like the parts of your concept you enjoy the most, the... elasticity of a math-free environment and the ability to leap tall objections with a single dismissive bound, these parts are what's frustrating the folks who're trained to spot where the rigor is weak. The more vague you are about how you arrive at your conclusions, the more people try to show how the math doesn't support you, the more you say math isn't needed for what you want to do, the more they say that what you're doing isn't science.

 

I don't see a way smart thinking by itself can help. The methodology insists you take the reviews of your peers on board and answer all their rebuttals, but you've hobbled this review process by insisting on a lingual approach.

 

Invoking common sense won't work. Is it common sense to put out a forest fire, or to let it burn naturally? Most of the scientific method is designed to minimize subjective claims and the opinions and biases of the scientist.

 

Sorry for the gloom and doom, but I know you're concerned that folks are getting frustrated and it's starting to affect your reputation. You're a sweetheart of a guy, Mike, but you're not kicking a stubborn old badger here; you're jumping from ice floe to ice floe with no ground in sight and your peers are trying to tell you it's not safe to do science that way.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

It seems like the parts of your concept you enjoy the most, the... elasticity of a math-free environment and the ability to leap tall objections with a single dismissive bound, these parts are what's frustrating the folks who're trained to spot where the rigor is weak. The more vague you are about how you arrive at your conclusions, the more people try to show how the math doesn't support you, the more you say math isn't needed for what you want to do, the more they say that what you're doing isn't science.

 

I don't see a way smart thinking by itself can help. The methodology insists you take the reviews of your peers on board and answer all their rebuttals, but you've hobbled this review process by insisting on a lingual approach.

 

Invoking common sense won't work. Is it common sense to put out a forest fire, or to let it burn naturally? Most of the scientific method is designed to minimize subjective claims and the opinions and biases of the scientist.

 

Sorry for the gloom and doom, but I know you're concerned that folks are getting frustrated and it's starting to affect your reputation. You're a sweetheart of a guy, Mike, but you're not kicking a stubborn old badger here; you're jumping from ice floe to ice floe with no ground in sight and your peers are trying to tell you it's not safe to do science that way.

I appreciate ,all that you say , which is sort of fair comment.. BUT I am not singing from the same hymn sheet . A lot of very well qualified mathematicians including ABJ , are beavering away in maths , which is absolutely essential. BUT we are not all plumbers, mechanics , electricians ,whatever. If you need someone to operate on a dying man, none are these artisans are any use.

 

I genuinely believe you need people like me , not just me , 4000 of me's to fly high in the lithosphere to see if there is anything there we can use on a dying world , All very symbolic , you need to understand .

 

I vowed to myself , to fly high in my latter years and take a perspective on .. Quantum theory, Einstein, emergence, lovelock , maths ( yes maths , I have just got half way through Mark Tegmarks book. String theory , quarks, higgs, astronomy etc etc and see what I see.

 

Today , I picked up TRESPASSING ON EINSTEIN's LAWN by Amanda Gefter one of you guys recommended it. She is was a writer in the English New Scientist. Her book is about interviews with

John Archibald Wheeler ..at his symposium ' science and ultimate reality '

Stephen Hawkins , etc one conference was agenda " the really big questions that dr wheeler loves will be on the table when prominent scientists gather here to honor his symposium ' with the soft spoken...Ed Whitton etc ...

 

The point being , I am by far not the only one , who sees other processes afoot in the universe , such as emergence, that transcend conventional maths as we know it. Not that maths is not present , but other issues arise that need to be thought about. We are talking about maths being like the car and it's workings . But where is the car going, where did it actually come from , what is its purpose. Etc etc of course someone needs to keep the car running . But what is it for, why is it .... Etc etc. ( figurative car of course ) . The answers may be in the way the whole thing really works, functions , traces of history, deep history , deep meaning, deep structure,top down in addition to bottom up, deep origin ,blue sky things .

 

Mike

Edited May 8, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

 

I do not necessarily think maths is required, its just common sense . One may require one rigorous discipline to deconstruct another rigorous discipline. But if you are outside of maths at the time, then common sense is enough.

 

To be science you have to have a comparison to nature. How can common sense give you a specific prediction to compare with what we observe, in order to exclude a flawed theory?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

To be science you have to have a comparison to nature. How can common sense give you a specific prediction to compare with what we observe, in order to exclude a flawed theory?

O.K I am not trying to detatch from nature, far from it , I am a great observer. like today

 

 

Both growing in z axis ( light or Gravity ? )

 

 

Self levelling into x, y, axis ( water )

 

Observation :- still water levels to x,y plane Grass and trees appear to orientate at z plane

 

Mike

Edited May 8, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Mike,

 

What you are presenting here is not science. We have given you every opportunity to provide evidence and support your ideas with specificity, but you have failed to do this at every turn. The fact that your theory is so vague and over-inclusive so as to not be falsifiable and that you think somehow the world/universe should obey your idea of common sense should be a very good indication to you that this doesn't work as a model of reality. If not, at least know that after 29 pages and close to 600 posts, it's no longer going to work here. Thread closed.