James
Each and every point and concept you have presented within your earlier message, could lead to an expanded conversation without bound. I sat down now to form reply, and limited to taking short hand notes I still filled two pages of text book. I feel like each and every point deserves my response, the reason partly being so that you understand I appreciate these considerations wholly. Writing communique might be limiting our conversation to a large extent, but as you pointed out, at least it has the benefit of making our conversation available to others, so they may better evaluate our reasonings and essay entry. But I do wonder what it might be like to sit down across a coffee table and accelerate our conversation. Perhaps one day. I'm in Australia if you happen by.
You refer to yours as an A-typcal approach. It is as a breath of fresh air to me. I think the simplest way to encapsulate relevance, is acknowledge another field which has benefited so thoroughly from these considerations. The need to understand ourselves, understanding language and environment of ideas we are embedder within, and how these influence our potentials, and also how these considerations play into how we conduct our investigative scientific inquiries. It is the developing sciences of criminal investigation which testify to the usefulness of your teachings. Modern criminal psychology and forensic investigation are essentially products of these ideas and methods. It is too broad a topic to do justice in a few words, but I can generalize. Physics inquirers should conduct themselves more as criminal detectives do, wary of the risks of inherited assumptions, importing unjustified stereotypes which lead to unjustified inferences. Physicists should treat the world as a detective treats a crime scene, for we are late to this scene and puzzling why pieces lay where they do. Newton and Einstein where detectives earlier on the scene, who have handed us their working case notes so that we may pick up their investigation. But we as detectives picking up their cold case, we would be amiss to base our new investigation souly off previous case conclusions, without looking at all the evidences afresh. Re-verifying every evidentiary aspect of the cold case. Retesting every conclusion without arbitrary bound.
Scientific institutions indoctrinate there would be detectives a scripted curriculum, and ask that they take up the investigation from these deliver assumptions. There are scolding terms that deter any would be investigator who strays from method, which only serves to alienate original concept. And the price science might pay for these methods serves as its own punishment.
Yes it takes time to get a feel for another's terminology. I as do you, struggle with word choices, agonise over them. But you have settled on good terms, and better than I. I don't use the term of "energy" barely at all. Its nebulous. I have identified that forces are a worthy central theme, and their actions and influences are not ambiguous. Referring to potentials is also useful, but not as useful as referring to actual actions.
Modelling thermodynamics. I agree with you that heat process is a secondary process, which emerges from a more primal system that is EM force. First we seek to understand what is EM?, and what motivates its function and characteristics? Then we consider why EM systems manifest the higher level characteristics that at heat processes.
Entropy, heat spreads out. Which was very nebulously associated as systems moving from orderly to disorderly states, in my opinion. Then somehow from here it is extrapolated to being an all pervasive universal principle from which nothing is exempt, entropies rule of the universe. But the world is made up of energetic compact bodies "atoms and planets" which the so called fundamental forces seem intent on maintaining their form. If entropy ruled why would the extraordinary sum of energy contained within matter, not break nuclear, elemental and gravitational bonds. Why would matter have condensed in the first instance if entropy ruled supreme? And if gravity and matters energetic bonds don't export disorder, then their actions towards order must be considered non-entropic. Where is the exported disorder? These forces build the entirety of the universes intricate structure, and despite they have not been redeemed as entropic, somehow entropy is considered to rule the universe.
Here is an interesting consideration to get you thinking in terms of cosmological relations.
Galaxies rotate as though their mass density is a constant from middle to edge. A disk of constant density. While infact star densities decline proportional to square of distance from galaxy centre. This illustrates a beautiful symmetry which represents the deviation from GR predictions and what is observed. The Dark Matter, or MOND puzzle.
I stepped off the proverbial mountain about five-six years ago. It took a crisis in my life for which I needed distraction, that lead me down the physics and cosmological puzzle solving path. The crisis passed, but my puzzling remained a habit.
What drives processes? It is Gluon, Photon force that drives all Baryonic processes. Diversity of processes are simply a matter of the diverse structures and behaviours that Gluons, Photons are animate within. The structures and behavers are evolved and optimised for natural circumstance and purpose. What began as a natural energy potential, has cascaded as a circumstance of gradual and compounded physical changes, that shaped the character of the world we witness around us. There was only ever one type of organisational principle capable of generating complex intricate systems. People might have taken note of that clue before now, and considered how Darwinian processes might be incorporated as a solution for universal complexity. But in the same way the search for a primal motivator was diverted, by placing the term "fundamental" in front of "forces". The complexity of the world was also neglected as clue, that might hint at underlaying physical processes. I know, because nobody wants to talk to me about complexity, even while I don't inject my special brand of solution. Complexity dumbfounds everybody, except within biological reference.
We share the common approach of treating this quest for answers as a puzzle solving exercise. A picture puzzle serves as a nice analogy for what you and I both do, except that we tinker with the grandest puzzle. Science makes observation and measure which can no-doubt be largely relied upon, while remaining cautions of interpretations, I might add. And so we incorporate these identified pieces but then reconsider associations. We don't divorce ourselves from science in these efforts, as people confronted by unfamiliar ideas seam to assume before taking the time to consider a supporting argument. They are trapped within their taught and repeating models.
Near the end of your message you refer to "what is resident to the universe" "most primal". Within my model force is not primal to the universe. Forces are a capacity of matter which only came to exist but for their ability to exploit an energy potential of space, represented as Auv and corresponding to Dark Energy observations. Auv, a field with regenerative qualities. My theory makes use of this observation and measure, then associates Auv field as being the contributor that enables atomic forces. The question of what is primal to the universe that enables Auv to regenerate, is beyond me. This is where I would direct your deepest questions. And happily confront another impenetrable layer of mystery. We might have need for mystery in our lives.
At some point we might discuss the measures of Auv which support my hypothesis. It is not complex, and the measures are suggestive in the extreme.
Thanks again for enabling a wonderful conversation
Kind regards
Steve