Chimp

Yes, thanks lazcatluc and Jesse, I was trying to put everything in "layman'a terms" thanks

Some more "random thoughts":


Big bang-------->Inflation

Chaos---------->Order

Freedom-------->Constraint

Greater(infinite)symmetry-->lesser(finite)symmetry

Which one of the above logical implications is the most "general" ?

I say the symmetry definition is the most general and also the most fundamental. The universally distributive laws of nature are explained in terms of symmetry. Also, Cantor's "alephs" could be explained as cardinal identities, akin to "qualia" from which, elements of our universe can be derived.

I suppose we could say that the completed infinities of Cantor are distributive in nature, similar to the way that a set of "red" objects has the distributive property of redness. Predicates like "red" are numbers in the sense that they interact algebraically according to the laws of Boolean algebra. Take one object away from the set of red objects and the distributive number "red" still describes the set. The distributive identity "natural number" or "real number" describes an entire set of individual objects.

The Cantorian alephs can be set into a one to one correspondence with a proper subset of of themselves. So we see that these infinite Cantorian alephs are really distributive.

Yet, if we have a finite set of 7 objects, the cardinal number 7 does not really distribute over its individual subsets. Take anything away from the set and the number 7 ceases to describe it.

Symmetry is analogous to a self evident truth and is distributive via the laws of nature, and is distributed over the entire set called universe. Symmetry appears to be a stratification of Cantorian alephs with varying degrees of freedom. More freedom = greater symmetry = higher infinity-alephs. So the highest aleph, the "absolute-infinity" distrubutes over the entire set called reality and gives it "identity".

The highest symmetry is a distributive mathematical identity.
This fact is reflected in part, by the conservation laws.

So if an unbound potential and a constrained "bound" potential are somehow different yet the same, this difference and sameness relation is a symmetry and we see that freedom and constraint form a relation that can be described by an invariance principle.


On a flat Euclidean surface, the three angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees. On the curved surface of a sphere, the three angles add up to more than 180 degrees. The two types of surfaces are not equivalent.

There is a rotational invariance that seems to hold for both types of surface though.

ABC = BCA = CAB = CBA = BAC = ACB

Does this rotational invariance hold for all geometries? I say yes, but I am not 100% sure yet.

An interesting idea for a new "theory", which is, that symmetry, not logic, forms the basis of truth.

Truth = Invariance principle.

Symmetry = invariance = identity

Aristotle's law of excluded middle is really an invariance principle, which is a symmetry.

A V ~A

(T|F) = (F|T) = T

Russ

Chimp

Certain "invariants" are true for all(or most) geometries.

Let "I" stand for the generic invariant

E and N can be functions of the invariants.


E(I) = N(I)

So it could be possible to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics with *symmetry*? The duality of circle and square.




Chimp