The Complete and Consistent Theory by Erik David Andrulis

Gregory Bateson is very interesting sharp-eyed thinker

As well as many people from this listing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macy_conferences

William Ross Ashby

Heinz von Foerster

Warren Sturgis McCulloch

John von Neumann

Norbert Wiener

Claude Shannon

They have made a huge contribution in the world-view XX century.

Dear Erik

All my life i remember Hans Selye slogan:

"Neither the prestige of your subject, and the power of your instruments, nor the extent of your learnedness and the precision of your planning, can substitute for the originality of your approach and the keeness of your observation."

You are welcome.

The anthropical principle dances with the entropical principle. We are coded in our main central spheres in fact since the begining of this big polarization, this hypothetical BB. I see it like a sphere of light and its meiosis mitosis more the multiplication of the system of uniqueness. It is relevant considering the quantization of mass.This uniqueness serie is relevant considering the number of particules inside a closed evolutive sphere and its quantum and cosmological spheres.

We polarize, all mass polarizes and increases in mass at all momment. The mass polarises the light informations.

fascinating all this evolution.

Regards

Erik

B.t.w read my essay and send your opinion please...

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

Dear Eric,

In the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter (my essay about it) alive beings and the matter carriers (nucleons, stars and so on) exist as equal opposite parts of Universe. What do you about it?

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Erik Andrulis,

I enjoyed immensely reading your essay and agree with what you say. You have done a great job outlining characteristics of a "complete and consistent theory". That is should be "explanatory" and "parsimonious " and "unifying " and "testable " and "revolutionary". And that "The complete and consistent theory foments that definitive revolution. It is the end of the quest for knowledge about the ultimate nature of reality and the beginning of knowing the ultimate nature of ... Truth". You are very correct in saying, "assumptions that undergird scientific theories are, quite shockingly, just like religious beliefs".

In my essay, "The Metaphysics of Physics", I delve into such issues and argue much of modern physics is metaphysical in essence. Mathematical models that seek to describe 'what is' the Universe are metaphysical and will ultimately fail. And I suggest in order for physics not to morph into metaphysics, we should limit our scope to measurements of 'what is' (what we do know to be true) and mathematical tautologies (not models) applied to measurements (what we know to be logically certain).

I hoped for more detail from you as to what such a theory might be, in your view. You hint at such revelations that have come to you through your own research. And I also have notions of what such a Theory of Everything may be. Like you, I also draw great inspiration from the wisdom of ancient Greece. And I see that wisdom in all areas of human experience. Including physics! One of my favorite such edicts is "know thyself" and "all things in balance" and "man is the measure of all things" and "all knowledge is self-knowledge". I use these to guide my thinking. And I would be very interested in your thoughts and reflections on the arguments and research I present in my essay. Please read and rate!

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Erik

My present for you

Crystallographic picture of the world

http://www.galiulin.narod.ru/ufn022f.pdf

Erik

A very pertinent review of pertinent views. Wheelers "utterly simple idea" is correct for me, but the real problem seems to be recognising it. As Feynman said; The real answer will at first look wrong as It'l be unfamiliar.

I'm quite convinced that in my essay I've demonstrated an 'utterly simple idea' that takes us a giant step out of the current bog, based on solid logical foundations. Perhaps you may have a look as I'd value your views as someone with an understanding of the issues.

Well written, and best of luck.

Peter

Hi Peter, thanks for your comment. I will take a look at your essay.

Peace,

Erik

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Erik,

I greatly admire your essay. Your characterization of how would be the "final theory" brings clarity and insights into its nature. You could describe very well what kind of theory might solve the problems on the foundations of physics and even other fields. And I deeply agree with the core of your ideas. In fact, in my essay, "The Final theory and the Language of Physics", you will see many points of convergence between our views. But you go beyond me and try to extend you ideas not only to physics but to all science. I restricted myself, not completely, to physics and physical sciences. It is good to know that there are others thinking the same thing as I. Your notion of "the complete and consistent theory", if restricted to physics, would be exactly my notion of "the final theory of physics".

I suggest you reading and rating my essay, but please, consider my notion of mathematics and of mathematical theory a bit more wide. I mean, I consider being mathematical anything that is being described in a more formal sense, which is not limited to usual algebra. So as algorithms, programming languages, sets, fractals, geometrical forms can (at least in principle) be described in a formal (unambiguous) way they could all be considered mathematical in my sense. And I agree with you first wrong assumption; we should not limit ourselves to ordinary math and mathematical models. They are too restrictive. I also agree that this theory will, at some point of development, be able to describe ourselves and so we cannot keep observers and conscience out of it. If it is complete it can describe anything, so it must describe us at some point, and say how human agents are related with the physical world.

Wish you all the best!

Frederico

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin