The Nature of the Universe

[James Putnam]

Although respected, not many people support Julian Barbour's theory mainly because it so clearly invokes circular reasoning: "I have a theory that unites Gravity and Quantum Mechanics. It involves assuming there is no such thing as time. Since we know that Gravity and Quantum mechanics are unified, we know that my theory is true, therefore there is no time. QED."

 

Many of us probably like time as something showing direction: it is easily measurable (albeit in a relativisitic manner) and widely accepted. Are you saying this is an unacceptable definition of direction?

 

Maybe I should have thought about it more. My feeling at the time I saw it was it would have to established how we know time exists. It seems to be dependent upon the fact that events exist. If events didn't exist, how would we be able to establish that time existed. It seemed to me this would return us to having to debate physical evidence and its interpretation.

 

Here is my definition of direction: The empirical evidence can be analyzed in an orderly fashion.

 

That sounds like a fine definition, although I'm somewhat confused as to what this definition has to do with "direction," you could probably proceed on that definition because I know of few people here who would argue with it.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

My definition is based upon orderliness being evidence of direction. I should have made clear that in my definition I am not concerned with limitations such as irreversiblity. If reversibility occurs, I consider that to still be direction. The direction may have been reversed, but it is still direction. The point being that direction is always present even when direction changes. For me a universe that oscillated between maximum expansion and minimum compression would still have direction.

 

If others feel like I do, I am impatient to begin. However, I think it is best to get it right. It should not be rushed. Just trying to get it right may be a valuable learning esperience.

 

James

[James Putnam]

I think that for the sake of argument, I have no problems accepting that given the 5 points James listed, these all have an impact on the direction the universe will take.

 

I also am a bit unsure as to what lies in the term "direction" but if my earlier understanding of it as "irreversible change" is correct then I think I can grasp the meaning of that.

 

You had previously offered a definition for direction. I followed up by saying your definition was what I intended. I have since given a definition of my own. I want to explain why. I did not at first define direction, because, I thought the group would adopt a definition that is typically put forward by physicists. Your definition was that kind. It was what I anticipated. I thought it was good. When restarting the thread, I worded it myself, and it didn't work as well as your wording. Due to disagreement, I soon was bogged down on it. I assumed, as a result, that others would really like to see me define direction. So, I offered my definition. I don't think mine is more appropriate or valuable for the purposes of this discussion. It is just different. I do not anticipate others will readily accept it. So, I am attempting to work around the problem. I have proposed a different way of proceding. However, it is not crucial to me which way we proceed. I am not of the opinion that the beginning can be made perfectly correct to everyone's satisfaction.

 

James

[James Putnam]

To all,

 

I have been thinking, (about time right? :( ) I propose a different begining. I think it is not really appropriate for me to ask for agreement on the universe having direction. The arguments I am using to justify my position rely upon after-the-fact conclusions. It would be appropriate for me to debate in favor of a direction for the universe only after physics knowledge had been established. For example I might try to use it as a lead into a discussion about the origin of intelligence. However, it seems to me that the analysis of a mechanical nature should be established before direction can be established. Also, I think I am already in the box. I think it is not necessary for it to be built. I have, by my own conclusions, already jumped into it.

 

I think that a discussion about the nature of the universe would normally involve discerning the meaning of a lot of already 'established' knowledge. The problem I face is that I have questions about the validity of 'established' knowledge. I know from looking around at some other forums here, that there is valuable input. And, I recognize I am very probably alone in my ideas. My participation in this discussion would put me at odds with probably everyone else. That circumstance may be interpreted as my already being in the box. I think discussions about the nature of the universe are rewarding. Now, because of the unique position I have taken, this discussion of the nature of the universe would probably be quite different from the other types. This does not mean a discussion with my involvement would make it better than the others. It may prove to be fruitless. However, it would test not just my interpretation, but also that of others. I would like to experiment with it just far enough for us to judge its value.

 

My proposal then is to begin with a simple example problem. We each look at it and try to confirm its meaning. It is mechanical. Even thought my hope is to reach beyond mechanical interpretations, I think it is an adequate test just to see what develops. Maybe it will lead to new insights that energize us to go farther or it may show quickly that little is to be gained. The example problem I suggest we use is the one I put forward in my first post here. We can skip any of the extra irrelevant conclusions of mine. My thoughts about how I think f=ma should be evaluated for meaning are put forward. Other participants can look ahead and know where I am going. Opposing viewpoints can then be formulated to show where I am going wrong. Here is the relevant quote from my first post:

Looking back at the beginning fundamentals, here is an example of how quickly you will have gone astray. Lets assume you observe objects undergoing changes of velocity. You model this information with the equation f=ma. Your empirical evidence consists only of measurements of distance and time. You do not know what is force and you do not know what is resistance to force. So you do not know what is 'f' or what is 'm'.

 

Two out of three properties in your equation have unknown natures. Your theory is already in crisis. In order to proceed, you must guess, i.e. theorize, one of the unknown properties into existence. In other words, you must invent a nature for one. Lets say you invent mass to account for resistance to force. Now you are able to define the second unknown property 'f' in terms of the empirically known 'a' and the theoretically invented 'm'.

 

If you are wrong about your guess for 'm', then your definition of force is also wrong. This early error spreads quickly into higher-level theory. The incorrect nature of force infects your definitions of both energy and momentum.

I am not going to try to reword it. I think most people are aware that I have been adjusting to life at Hypography. If its wording is too strong, please excuse it. I would like to have the viewpoint of others about this part of the quote.

In order to proceed, you must guess, i.e. theorize, one of the unknown properties into existence. In other words, you must invent a nature for one. Lets say you invent mass to account for resistance to force.

What do you think?

 

James

[Turtle]

Hi James. Goodel's Hammer aside for the moment, your last posts proffer an opportunity for comment. You said: "Originally Posted by James

In order to proceed, you must guess, i.e. theorize, one of the unknown properties into existence. In other words, you must invent a nature for one. Lets say you invent mass to account for resistance to force."

___Must theory precede experiment? What of Galileo's experiments with rolling balls down planes, or the Eureka guy (I forget his name just now) in the tub? Perhaps one may experiment unknown propertys into existence. :( I suppose this amounts to induction versus deduction then? :( :(

[TeleMad]

... or the Eureka guy (I forget his name just now) in the tub?

 

Archimedes, I believe.

[Tormod]

Turtle, you consume far too many virtual cups of coffee.

[James Putnam]

Hi James. Goodel's Hammer aside for the moment, your last posts proffer an opportunity for comment. You said: "Originally Posted by James

In order to proceed, you must guess, i.e. theorize, one of the unknown properties into existence. In other words, you must invent a nature for one. Lets say you invent mass to account for resistance to force."

___Must theory precede experiment? What of Galileo's experiments with rolling balls down planes, or the Eureka guy (I forget his name just now) in the tub? Perhaps one may experiment unknown propertys into existence. :( I suppose this amounts to induction versus deduction then? :( :(

 

Hi,

 

In this post f=ma is introduced as an equation formed to imitate patterns of motion observed by objects. It begins with no meaning more than to accurately reflect empirical numerical data. I see the equation, at this beginning stage, as being a straight forward representation of empirical evidence. The question is: Does the later integration of theoretical ideas into the equation add to or detract from it? The question may have to be altered depending upon what others think. It is my position it is a very important question. I feel it addresses the validity of theory. I think it is important to know this before the theory is used for the purpose of explaining the nature of the universe.

 

 

James

[Lazlo Toth]

It begins with no meaning more than to accurately reflect empirical numerical data. I see the equation, at this beginning stage, as being a straight forward representation of empirical evidence. The question is: Does the later integration of theoretical ideas into the equation add to or detract from it? ...It is my position it is a very important question. I feel it addresses the validity of theory. I think it is important to know this before the theory is used for the purpose of explaining the nature of the universe.

So, are you saying that if someone comes up with a theory to explain the data after its been measured that the theory is by definition invalid? But I thought you were saying that theories that do not have data aren't valid. Are you saying all theories are invalid? Or are you saying by having a theory that the empirical data will change, or make the equations incorrect? Also, as I interpret it, F=ma, is the theory, and all data seems to agree with it except at near light-speed or at quantum scales, but the equation is the theory, so how is it that the equation becomes incorrect? Obviously at the extremes mentioned its better to bring in the quantum and relativistic refinements of the F=ma to match the observed data at those scales, but all those equations always work, don't they? Are you saying the equations are wrong? Do you know of data where they are wrong? I guess maybe I'm not following.

 

Lazlo

[James Putnam]

So, are you saying that if someone comes up with a theory to explain the data after its been measured that the theory is by definition invalid? But I thought you were saying that theories that do not have data aren't valid. Are you saying all theories are invalid? Or are you saying by having a theory that the empirical data will change, or make the equations incorrect? Also, as I interpret it, F=ma, is the theory, and all data seems to agree with it except at near light-speed or at quantum scales, but the equation is the theory, so how is it that the equation becomes incorrect? Obviously at the extremes mentioned its better to bring in the quantum and relativistic refinements of the F=ma to match the observed data at those scales, but all those equations always work, don't they? Are you saying the equations are wrong? Do you know of data where they are wrong? I guess maybe I'm not following.

 

Lazlo

 

I seem to be struggling with making my case. This point I am making seems so clear to me that I may not be anticipating that it could seem obscure to others. That doesn't mean I am smarter, it only means I am so used to it. I will repost this question with more elaboration. I will try to make the point of the question now. If it isn't clear, please be patient. I will return with a new effort to make it clear. Here it is: If the definitions of the properties is not handled properly, then, it appears to me that, disunity is artificially introduced into theory. We do not know that the fundamentals are not capable of demonstrating unity. I have performed a lot of work to see what difference this makes. I have learned to my satisfaction that it makes a great deal of difference.

 

In answer to your first question:

So, are you saying that if someone comes up with a theory to explain the data after its been measured that the theory is by definition invalid?

No. I am not saying that. I am saying that if the theory introduces information that is not made known by the empirical information, then a guess is being introduced as a part of the theory. This act has a high probability of introducing error into the interpretation. Here is the whole relevant context from my first post at this forum. I am assuming that this still will not make my point clear. Hopefully it will help some. I will reply again with more elaboration.

If you investigate empirical evidence with the intention of developing a theory by which to describe your beliefs about why action occurs, I expect your first step would necessarily be to form equations that imitate the patterns observed in the empirical evidence. At this very beginning of your theory you face your first major hurdle. Your do not know what are the causes. This is why you must formulate your theory. You need theory in order to talk as if you did know the nature of cause.

 

Your theory will be successful in extrapolating future empirical results so long as your equations accurately imitate the pattern you are testing. Even if your theory includes wrong interpretations, your mathematical analysis will reveal connections between various patterns. However, your faulty interpretations, depending upon how often you strayed from simplicity, i.e. unity, can make these mathematical revelations more or less awkward to achieve.

 

So you may find rather easily that force times distance, i.e. energy, is conserved. However, you also might then find that it is awfully awkward trying to theoretically establish a unifying link between gravitational effects and electromagnetic effects. This problem would result from your having interpreted, when deriving your fundamentals, gravity and electromagnetism as being uniquely different phenomenon.

 

You couldn't have known absolutely that they are fundamentally unique. However, if their empirical patterns of action seemed to you to be unrelated, then your theory would include this in its interpretation. Later when you attempt to find a way to unify them, you must overcome a difficult hurdle you placed in your way. If you said they were unique and now wish to show they are not unique, you have a very difficult adjustment to try to make in your theory.

 

For example, you may find you need to invent extra, unverifiable dimensions hiding somewhere in the universe in order to achieve the appearance of theoretical unity. This kind of solution is a real stretch, however, your theory has worked very well in making predictions, so it is tempting to believe that perhaps the theory is able to reveal phantom like properties that we are incapable of discerning by our own means.

 

No doubt your theory was designed to be internally consistent. Therefore, if you want to reverse the order of the work you have done, you could begin with your phantom like properties and show how your theory can be viewed backwards ending with the fundamentals.

 

If you then put your new work forward as demonstrating that the fundamentals are based upon the phantom like properties, you are way out on a limb. You did not know what is `cause' from the beginning of your theory, and you do not now know that your phantom properties are that `cause'.

 

Looking back at the beginning fundamentals, here is an example of how quickly you will have gone astray. Lets assume you observe objects undergoing changes of velocity. You model this information with the equation f=ma. Your empirical evidence consists only of measurements of distance and time. You do not know what is force and you do not know what is resistance to force. So you do not know what is 'f' or what is 'm'.

 

Two out of three properties in your equation have unknown natures. Your theory is already in crisis. In order to proceed, you must guess, i.e. theorize, one of the unknown properties into existence. In other words, you must invent a nature for one. Lets say you invent mass to account for resistance to force. Now you are able to define the second unknown property 'f' in terms of the empirically known 'a' and the theoretically invented 'm'.

 

If you are wrong about your guess for 'm', then your definition of force is also wrong. This early error spreads quickly into higher-level theory. The incorrect nature of force infects your definitions of both energy and momentum. Your problems do not end here. There are patterns of effects such as gravity and electromagnetism that have unknown causes. You must invent causes for them to continue with your theory.

 

In the case of electromagnetism, you might decide to theorize there is a cause you name as electric charge. Now you have included another major guess into your theory. Every time you imagine a separate unique cause for unexplained differences in patterns, you go further and further out on that limb.

 

If this is all just theory, does it really matter all that much? The answer is that it matters very much right from the start. The reason is that you aren't just inventing names; you are also inventing new units of measurement. You might have defined kilograms for mass and coulombs for electric charge.

 

These units are the means by which your theoretical guesses become a concrete part of your mathematical equations. Your equations were empirical and now you have transformed them into theoretical tools. The disunity and errors of your theory are now properties of your equations.

 

How does this all relate to modern theoretical physics? Today's orthodox theories have these human invented problems. They have the lack of fundamental knowledge in their fundamentals and the need to resort to phantom properties in higher-level theory. Whether the theories are viewed from the bottom up or the top down makes no difference in what they reveal to us. In either case they are reflections of our inadequacy. We are unable to know the nature of cause.

[James Putnam]

The question I am asking is being posed under the topic of the nature of the universe for good reason. The question is more than a simple physics question. Depending upon how we answer this question can change almost completely how we view the nature of the universe. The question is the most concise way that I could think of to demonstrate the box I am in and to answer whether or not I escape. If I have answered this question wrong, then the work I have posted at my website is incorrect. If I have answered it correctly, it can establish the identity of a single mechanical property to which all effects can be traced. In other words, there is unity beginning right from the start of theory. I will stay with this question until I have posed it so others have a chance to answer it for themselves. I will prepare a more detailed version of the question before reposing it.

 

James

[BEAKER]

1. The increase of entropy gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

2. Gravity gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

3. Electric charge gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

4. The strong nuclear force gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

5. The weak nuclear force gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

I offer the meaning of direction here to be an irreversible change from one state with a recognizable trend toward a new, future state.

 

James

 

So what's the question? Irriversible change is inevitable within all these catagories.

[James Putnam]

So what's the question?

 

Hi BEAKER,

 

Sorry about that. The question should have been presented fully in its own message. I have prepared it. Here it is in long form:

 

You experiment with objects undergoing changes of velocity. You model this information with the equation f=ma. Your empirical evidence consists only of measurements of distance and time. You do not know what is force and you do not know what is resistance to force. You know they exist, but you do not know their natures. So, in the equation, you have two unique properties distance and time that are used to define acceleration. But you do not know that 'f' or 'm' (resistance to force) are also unique properties. They may be related to each other. There may be a single cause that manifests itself differently under different circumstances. Perhaps it is responsible for all effects. In other words, maybe unity exists on the fundamental level.

 

There are different possibilities of choice. In order to proceed to theorize about the meaning of f=ma, you either assume that force and mass have a relationship and try to determine what it is, or perhaps you decide their natures are fundamentally different. If you choose the second possibility, then you must theorize into existence a nature for one of these two unknown properties. The second choice is the one that was historically adopted. Either force or mass could have been chosen to be assigned a unique fundamental nature. This act would put one of these properties into a class with distance and time. The common choice was to assign a unique nature to mass. Force is then defined in terms of mass and acceleration.

 

So far, the act has consisted of words and ideas. The equation is not directly affected. It represents the pattern observed in the data. Now though there is the need to define units of measurement for each property. Both distance and time are true unique fundamental properties. Their units can be chosen arbitrarily and no harm is done to the usefulness of the equation. However, mass has been arbitraily chosen to be a unique fundamental property. It also needs units of measurement. Because it is assigned a unique nature, its units cannot be defined in terms of other units anymore than can those of distance and time. In the mks system of units it has been assigned the units of kilograms. Now there are three indefinable units of measurement, kilograms, meters, and seconds. The units of force are given the name of newtons. Newtons are definable. They can be defined in terms of kilograms, meters, and seconds.

 

By this act of assigning indefinable units of measurement to mass, the theory that mass is a unique fundamental property becomes solidified into the equation. The equation has a theoretical interpretation that will make itself felt in all cases where mass and force are used in higher level theory. If the nature of mass has been misrepresented, the effect of this is carried over into the definitions of energy (force x distance) and momentum (force x time). Now, nothing done so far has diminished the usefulness of the equation to make accurate predictions. So, successful predictions are not enough to establish for us whether or not the equation has been defined properly. Where will any detrimental effects reveal themselves? The detrimental effects would result from the act of arbitrarily introducing disunity into the fundamentals. They will reveal themselves when an attempt is made to unify theory.

 

Unity may have been possible at the fundamental level; however, we will have missed the opportunity to discover this. This act, that may have been in error for mass, is repeated for electric charge. Conventionally speaking, no one knows what is electric charge. It is not known that its nature is unique and not caused by some other property. However, it also received the special treatment of being assumed to be a fundamentally unique property. It was also assigned a unique, indefinable unit of measurement. There are then four indefinable units, coulombs, kilograms, meters, and seconds. If it is the case that gravitational force and electromagnetic force are different manifestations of a single fundamental cause, we have ruled out the possibility of our theory to reveal this to us. We cannot combine that which we have defined as having uniquely different natures.

 

This practice has a direct effect on how we view the nature of the universe. Our perspective on the nature of the universe is drawn from the definitions we introduce into our equations of theoretical physics. We picture the properties responsible for the operation of the universe to be those which we ourselves designed, theoretically speaking. If this practice that began with f=ma was wrong, then the properties we use to form our view of the nature of the universe are also wrong. And now, finally getting to the question:

 

Is the standard, fundamental, theoretical interpretation of f=ma correct?

 

If you answer a definite yes, then your view of the nature of the universe is the one currently adopted. If you are undecided, then you are stepping back away from the adopted view of the universe and considering the possibility of there being another, very different nature of the universe. My position is that the historical theoretical interpretation of f=ma is wrong. I have done work to investigate this possibility. I have results I feel strongly support my position. The most significant one is that unity does exist at the fundamental level. Unity has a constant presence from the fundamentals up into higher level theory. This change reintroduces the fundamental properties with very different natures. It is not important for the purposes of this question for my theory to be correct. The question is raised in order to bring to light that our current view of the nature of the universe is as tenuous as was the act of assigning unique, fundamental natures and units of measurement to properties whose nature's were then and remain now unknown to us.

 

James

[James Putnam]

There were no responses to my last post. I will pursue a different appraoch. Here is a quote from my website:

 

The fundamental question to be answered is: What is the cause of our intelligence? The answer to this question cannot be made known to us by the empirical measurements of physicists. If it is possible to learn of this cause, it can only be made known to us through a study, with universal breadth, of intelligence. It must be presumed that life and intelligence are the products of physical (I am inserting this qualification for Hypography: Physical here does not mean mechanical. It is my position, physical existence was never mechanical.) properties that can be traced downward and backward to the origin of the universe. As these properties are reduced to simpler and simpler complexity they must be presumed to exist in some form at all levels and for all time. This is required for the continuity and order by which the universe has evolved.

 

It is continuity, order and unity that should lead us to answers about the nature of the universe. One problem we encounter is that we are no longer able to become knowledgeable in all fields of study. Specialization has become necessary for us to learn everything we need to know. Unfortunately specialization is not conducive to maintaining continuity. The work of physicists does not establish our knowledge of chemistry. The work of chemists does not establish our knowledge of life or intelligence. The best answers are known only after the problem is in full view. We do not have the problem in full view. We have pieces of the problem divided up among persons having widely diverse expertise. Each area of study could be in error and we would find it hard to recognize this.

 

The problem is that unity is the key to removing error. The divisions that exist between disciplines are not the divisions of convenience they are intended to be. They are representative of many discontinuities in our knowledge of the universe. If all of our knowledge of separate fields cannot be brought together into a harmonious unity, then one or more are in error. So long as disunity is incorporated into the study of the problem, our solutions will not produce unity. Each branch of science should become guided by the necessity to find unity even in the approaches that each follows. Their approaches should be chosen to be in unison with one another. This challenge is analogous to the problem faced by theoretical physicists. If they establish their fundamentals by including disunity, then they cannot later find unity in their higher-level theory.

 

Scientific analysis should begin from the point of view of using empirical knowledge learned in all fields to formulate a unified approach to determining the nature of the universe. The key or foundation to this approach cannot be the mechanical theory of physics. The key is to look to the common interpretive approach used by our collective intelligence. That is where the nature of the universe is contained. Life can provide the answers because life is where all answers are contained.

 

The original condition of the universe made possible all properties for all time. If it is assumed that it is still possible for life to evolve at this time in the universe, then the properties of the universe that makes this possible are still in existence. The universe still knows these properties. We can also come to know them. Their existence is as physical as any other property of the universe. The continuing existence of life demonstrates that those properties are still available for us to analyze today. We were formed by and function because of those properties of the universe.

 

The answers about the nature of the universe are a part of us. Our intelligence gives us all of our answers. Any answers we will ever learn about the universe will be given to us by our own intelligence. Our full potential for understanding the operation of the universe is fully contained within our intelligence. Our potential for understanding ourselves is a part of understanding the universe. Since the universe came first we can anticipate that we will understand ourselves when we understand the universe. However, it is our intelligence by which we are made able to understand the universe. Therefore, paradoxically, we may also anticipate that we will understand the universe when we understand ourselves.

 

 

James

[Turtle]

James, you said "It is continuity, order and unity that should lead us to answers about the nature of the universe."

 

___I suggest your three points need reversed in order; unity, order, continuity. Altogether they spell pattern. The nature of the Universe is pattern.

[James Putnam]

James, you said "It is continuity, order and unity that should lead us to answers about the nature of the universe."

 

___I suggest your three points need reversed in order; unity, order, continuity. Altogether they spell pattern. The nature of the Universe is pattern.

 

HI Turtle,

 

Sorry it has taken me so long to answer. I needed to direct my attention to other matters. I wrote continuity, order and unity in that order, because I felt that was the order in which they should be followed to lead to an understanding of the nature of the universe. However, when I developed my own work on this question, I used them in the order that you list. I began with unity. I used unity to argue for the existence of order at all times and at all places. I used order to demonstrate that the properties of the universe are continuous. This last remark will seem to be contradictory of earlier statements I made in previous posts. I have argued here that we see the universe through means that are discontinuous. This apparent contradiction can be explained, but not in a few messages. The reason I started with unity is because physicists are seeking unity. It seems to be generally accepted that unity exists and, it is worth our efforts to learn how to express it mathematically. I consider this approach to be wholly inadequate; however, the belief is strong enough that I can take advantage of it to begin my analysis. The ideas of order and continuity are not so readily accepted.

 

Regarding your last point concerning the universe exhibiting pattern, I am not certain about your view. When you use the word pattern, I get the impression that you are speaking in terms of a mechanical interpretation of the nature of the universe. Please tell me if this is a correct impression. My own view is that the mechanical interpretation of the universe as represented by theoretical physics is artificial. When I speak of continuity, order and unity I have motion, life and intelligence in mind. Does your opinion about pattern pertain to all three of these properties?

 

James

[Turtle]

James said, "Regarding your last point concerning the universe exhibiting pattern, I am not certain about your view. When you use the word pattern, I get the impression that you are speaking in terms of a mechanical interpretation of the nature of the universe. Please tell me if this is a correct impression. My own view is that the mechanical interpretation of the universe as represented by theoretical physics is artificial. When I speak of continuity, order and unity I have motion, life and intelligence in mind. Does your opinion about pattern pertain to all three of these properties? "

 

___I don't mean to limit pattern to mechanical interpretation. We use 'gracefull' to name some patterns of movement, but it is not a strictly mechanical attribute. One's life through time is a pattern, & perhaps this is movment too now that I write that. Moving through time I mean. Finally the pattern of inteligence I don't find mechanical inasmuch as all attempts to explain intelligence mechanically fall short.

___Back for a minute to unity & order; I was trying to express that by starting the thread 'primary particle implies primary rule'. (it never really took off) Your unity is my primary 'particle' or thing, & your order is my primary rule. An ordering rule, or whatever you think the most basic thing a smallest thing can 'do', whether in regard to order or some other activity.

___I'll have to think over continuity. :)

[James Putnam]

James said, "Regarding your last point concerning the universe exhibiting pattern, I am not certain about your view. When you use the word pattern, I get the impression that you are speaking in terms of a mechanical interpretation of the nature of the universe. Please tell me if this is a correct impression. My own view is that the mechanical interpretation of the universe as represented by theoretical physics is artificial. When I speak of continuity, order and unity I have motion, life and intelligence in mind. Does your opinion about pattern pertain to all three of these properties? "

 

___I don't mean to limit pattern to mechanical interpretation. We use 'gracefull' to name some patterns of movement, but it is not a strictly mechanical attribute. One's life through time is a pattern, & perhaps this is movment too now that I write that. Moving through time I mean. Finally the pattern of inteligence I don't find mechanical inasmuch as all attempts to explain intelligence mechanically fall short.

___Back for a minute to unity & order; I was trying to express that by starting the thread 'primary particle implies primary rule'. (it never really took off) Your unity is my primary 'particle' or thing, & your order is my primary rule. An ordering rule, or whatever you think the most basic thing a smallest thing can 'do', whether in regard to order or some other activity.

___I'll have to think over continuity. :)

 

Ok, thank you. That helps me decide how I should answer. Here is your previous message for reference?

 

James, you said "It is continuity, order and unity that should lead us to answers about the nature of the universe."

 

___I suggest your three points need reversed in order; unity, order, continuity. Altogether they spell pattern. The nature of the Universe is pattern.

 

I would say that pattern is an intrinsic, always present, property of the nature of the universe. Now, I leap to the conclusion. When I choose one word to describe what I believe is the nature of the universe, it is Intelligence.

 

James