The Fundamentals of Necessity...

All I'm saying when speaking of such things Lloyd is that there are those things being satisfied within the macro and micro and the path to me is to understand what such things are whereby we might just find that with the proper paradigm and perspective it is the very same thing being satisfied at all scales due to conservation of c mechanics.

Tim, I agree it is the 'conservation of c mechanics'__that's a given in my book, also, as I do respect the discovered laws of physics, but one must also respect what John Wheeler, Feynman's professor, said about the laws of physics__so, so__"The laws of physics do not create the Universe; The Universe creates the laws of physics..." And herein lies most of science's(as per people's interpretations) problems, as far too many people think it the wrong way around, which extremely affects/effects their most fundamental logical theorizing, though I'm not saying you are one of these, as I don't know. What I am saying, is the mind of anyone's thought mechanics, must start from the most fundamental position of matter-motion-action, before laws, to discover the deepest necessary actions of the facts; absolute fundamentals. Thinking about what makes thinking possible, and what actually makes up 'the logical atom of thought' is what I'm speaking of__as it allows one to see exactly what it truly takes to self-build 'the most fundamental logical atom of pure thought'. Here's a para of Clifford's to somewhat make my point:

"That element of which, as we have seen, even the simplest feeling is a complex, I shall call Mind-stuff. A moving molecule of inorganic matter does not possess mind or consciousness ; but it possesses a small piece of 'mind-stuff'. When molecules are so combined together as to form the film on the under side of a jelly-fish, the elements of 'mind-stuff' which go along with them are so combined as to form the faint beginnings of Sentience. When the molecules are so combined as to form the brain and nervous system of a vertebrate, the corresponding elements of 'mind-stuff' are so combined as to form some kind of consciousness; that is to say, changes in the complex which take place at the same time get so linked together that the repetition of one implies the repetition of the other. When matter takes the complex form of a living human brain, the corresponding 'mind-stuff' takes the form of a human consciousness, having intelligence and volition." Clifford…

Now, I'm not saying this is totally true to the present-day facts, but one must realize this was written back in the middle of the 19th century, and is the central 'thesis argument' that started the entire modern debate between 'objective logical science' and 'subjective psychological consciousness', or 'realism and nominalism', as it now exists. Of course Clifford was the supreme 'materialist physicist intellect' of his day, and backed by many logical minds, and William James__'America's head nominalist psychologist'__bitterly attacked his doctrine 'mind stuff'__yet, which I think is quite remarkable as the initiation of the popularization of quantum mind mechanics, at this early date in history. My point being Tim__It not only takes a lot of mathematical and logical knowledge to fully understand the 'c mechanics' of the Universe__It also takes a lot of philosophical definition and interpretation of the facts, to thoroughly understand the 'c-mechanics...' Tim, in the final analysis, my last post already explained why the deepest fundamentals of necessity exist as they do__and there's no logical or mathematical path beyond the 'absolute calculus', as it makes up the entire 'c-mechanics' maths of the most intricate infinitesimals 'ever possible' to exist__the math, though absolute, was used by Einstein to develop both theories of relativity(absolute math to develop relativity__quite the fact), and has the variable ability to adapt to any equation possible of being created, or any logic possible of being thought__It simply takes interpreting and understanding 'The Absolute Calculus' as designed to function__There's just no deeper path to travel Tim, than 'one divided by/to infinity'__as that's the smallest infinitesimal speck of wave-matter possible of any 'c-mechanics...'

Thus, the geometric asymmetry we see before us is conserving a deeper symmetry or at least attempting to.

As per the last post__This is impossible and possible according to how the logic is worded, as there's just not the lattitude of either physical motion, thought or logic left to the 'logical atom of thought' to allow such speculation into the limits of the possible logic already mentioned, on the one hand, yet your possibility of asymmetry over symmetry also exists. Yet__As my challenge was; You'll have to offer the logical path of your ideas, that refutes all of history's collected knowledge of present maths and logics, to make your speculative point have the validity you wish__and I state again; "I don't think it's possible"__as pertains to the hard scientific logic of the facts... DeMorgan offered many examples of the extra-logical ideas' refutations, in his book; 'A Budget of Paradoxes', back in the 1870's__published after his death by his Sophia... http://www.amazon.com/Budget-Paradoxes-Augustus-Morgan/dp/1602063206

A Budget of Paradoxes, originally published in 1915, is mathematician Augustus De Morgan's most accessible and entertaining work. Well-known for his wit, De Morgan takes aim at those people he calls "paradoxers," which in modern terms would most closely resemble crackpots. Paradoxers, however, are not crazy, necessarily-rather, they hold views wildly outside the accepted sphere. If you believed the world was round when everyone else knew that it was flat, you would be a paradoxer. In this book, De Morgan reviews a number of books from his own library written by such "crackpots" who claim to have solved a great many of the puzzles of mathematics and science, including squaring a circle, creating perpetual motion, and overcoming gravity. Each is thoroughly put in his place in ways both entertaining and informative to readers. Skeptics, students of science, and anyone who likes pondering a puzzle will find this book a delightful read. British mathematician AUGUSTUS DE MORGAN (1806-1871) invented the term mathematical induction. Among his many published works is Trigonometry and Double Algebra (1849).

Let me also state the logical facts of whether our minds are processing 'psychologically generally', or 'logically particularly'__Either my point or your's can be true here__according to whether processing from the Universals to the particulars, or from the particulars to the Universals__as that's just the way the mind works(the two dynamics of mental processing/thinking). But, if we are to stay within science and physics' hard laws and facts, we must process from the particulars to the finite Universals, as psychology is more limited to the generalities of processing from the infinite Universals to the general infinitism of the particulars(often exaggerated imaginations)__which gives the mind the lattitude of easy speculative descriptions and intepretations, but little exacting facts of scientific reality, if you know what I mean... This is why logical philosophy is such a handy background to have, as it allows one to see all these historical arguments, as they've long existed, from both sides of 'the realms...'

There must remain the unsolvable problem of the fundamentals of matter, space and time which allows for the state changes that perhaps cycle such a universal volume as the one we find ourselves within. I'm speaking at the most fundamental level of course.

Almost agreed here, Tim... I still state the fact; "We can figure the decay math dynamics, to at the least, form a decent Universal cycling hypothesis"__at least one far better than the 'Big Pop' or 'Pseudo-Inflation'__whose foolish logics, maths and theories forces one into the ridiculous state of 'High Infinitesimal Mass Points Producing Universes From Pseudo-Nothings...'

It's merely how the volume morphs itself internally whereby we might find existence. Following such a progression through time and space allows for all asymmetries and symmetries which we know of to exist, but just as we often find laws which seem to be homogenous throughout the universe, 'all are plausibly relational' due to an underlying function which is perhaps due to the very quantization aspects I was referring to or something similar.

I think we're stating exactly the same here, Tim... Peirce even was one of the first physicists, mathematicians, logicians to state the relational systems functions most clearly, along with DeMorgan and Clifford, as well as Hamilton and Bain... Their logic and math books, papers and pamphlets are all very clear to these fundamental quantum and infinitesimal facts, which have since been clearly proved true...

I'm not certain how we would have motion at all if an underlying rule was constantly satisfied per a maintained state of symmetry as every measurable aspect we know of is made possible due to the unsatisfied side of the equation and is testament thereof.

That's why I keep mentioning so much about random motion, uncertainty and chance motions. Everybody seems to want an 'Over-Extended Uniformity'__when in point of fact, not realizing the Universe has no need of such 'Exaggerated Uniformity'__and, if 'absolute uniformity' existed, most all motion would be absolutely impossible, and we clearly know this is impossible... Iff one thinks deep enough within one's own logical necessities of pure thought, one will clearly see 'Randomness Easily Produces Uniformeity'(it's simply how we think randomness to uniformity, every day of our lives__the Universe just does it by necessity__simple c-mechanics)__Just think of all the millions, possibly billions, of quantum frequencies entering the brain/mind, just to make up the 'physical/mental structure/s' of a single atom of thinking capacity, then transfer that similar/same thinking capacity process of real wave-matter motion out into the formation 'c-mechanics' of the real 'Structured Universal Formation Mechanics', from such random integrations of trillions of swirling tornadic em-field waves/frequencies of the FS, polarizing and possibly double polarising +__'Absolutely Fundamentally', by the 'Total All Necessary c-Cycling Mechanics'__'Toward A Necessary Universal General Uniformeity...' It's just obvious to me, 'There's no other path Possible...!!!' This is simply fundamental 'Modal Necessity Logic'(primitive primary logic), around since the ancients__'The Absolute Calculus' can prove such, the most possible hypothesis/theory, imo...

Tim, imo, this is all still far simpler than most people think. As I've so often mentioned; "It's more about defining and interpreting what we do not yet know and can't know, that's more important to our thinking, than what we do and can already know..." Imo, we 'must' accept the fact, that we can not know certain pieces of knowledge, and worse still, we far too often try to 'over-know' what we do not yet know, or think we know__and therein lies all the problems of our abductive hypotheses building processes. I can't really give you any short-cuts to knowing what you may not yet know, but I can tell you the most important aspect of knowing the yet unknown, is to know your own deep thinking 'c-mechanics'__as thoroughly as is humanly possible... Such clarity of thinking, imo, at the deep personal thinking level, easily transfers to the most fundamental of 'c-Universal' mechanics, as best as we can know and theorize it__But I do not really look for any ToE, as I think the Universe is oh so much more complex, than such simple-minded theorizing as trying to produce a ToE... This point was well stated here in Post #4 of "East Meets West Logic": http://www.toequest.com/forum/logic-reasoning/4690-east-meets-west-logic.html#post95972

Hope that's some clarity, instead of confusion...

Regards,
Lloyd

Addendum:
A Single TOE For Everyone? Everything For Everyone? Maybe Not...

Everyone seems to be looking for a theory of everything, but what if it's a theory of one thing, everyone really wants? What if a TOE truth is actually just a very simple system, to solve the world's problems, and not some grand scheme describing everything? Everyone may be searching in the wrong direction.

I just got thinking about this a second ago, after reading many posts over the last few days, and realized I could apply my inverse conflexivity ideas to the very TOE. By doing so, the inverse of a TOE is a TOAT, or Theory Of A Thing__just the opposite of Everything.

It seems much more promising to hunt for one simple thing, to possibly solve the world's arguments and problems, than to solve for everything. And by doing so, it just may be the answer to the big everything problem...???

I seem to be headed in that direction, anyway...
..............................................................
"To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel
"Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein
"The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G.
"The tick-tick-tick of the caesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.