A Theory of Everything: Geometric Generalization is updated

[erk]

A theory of everything, and a mathematical formulation of a philosophy:
Geometric Generalization of the Structure of Nature is reviewed and extended.

The updated version of this elegant theory is presented on its new website:

unitytheory.info

The new website now includes an Introduction – Quick Overview page. The list of readers’ comments and other similar theories are also added.

Serious comments are appreciated.

Regards,
Erk

[Epsilon=One]

A theory of everything, and a mathematical formulation of a philosophy:
Geometric Generalization of the Structure of Nature...

Serious comments are appreciated.Your alternative theory, the Geometric Generalization of the Structure of Nature (GG) that attempts to rationalize the Universe shows some interesting insight; however, its elegance lacks poetic brilliance and it falls far short of being a Theory of Everything (TOE).

GG appears to lack many fundamental definitions; such as: linking a proof of mathematics to Nature; definitions of: fundamental, intrinsic time; the boundaries of the Universe; the Inverse Square Law; etc.

GG also appears to overly rely upon concepts of the standard models (SM), which are metaphysical; such as: conventional forces; the linking of space and time as General Relativity's (GR) "space-time"; the speed of light as a constant; the perceived expansion of the Universe; Big Bang concepts as they relate to Inflation Theory (IT); time dilation; electromagnetic fields; etc.

GG, as a TOE, doesn’t appear to adequately address: life and its evolution; emergent phenomena; universal entanglement; speed of Cosmic “gravitational” motion; and, Cosmic inertia; fermionic half-spin; etc.

Though, there are a few general concepts of GG that are quite prescient of inevitable truth; such as: physical reality as a complete unity; the importance of self-consistent logic; reality as an unending “flux”; the importance of non-Euclidean geometry; the importance of helical “paths” and compression; implied universal connection; fundamental phenomena as not being “hard objects”; “matter and energy can be classified mathematically according to a few basic principles”; problems related to multiple “constants”; the importance of integers; emphasis on oscillations; time as “clock-ticks”; etc. Possibly, the most important truth is the observation that “Planck’s constant” be defined “as one (1)” (though, GG is incorrect to also so define the speed of light).

GG is far from complete, has great internal inconsistencies, flaws, and outright errors; however, it is refreshing to appreciate its alternative concepts and occasional powerful insight.

It is possible to continue for another hundred or so pages that would most likely be counterproductive until you have responded to some of the above issues.

I trust that you will continue the effort towards TOE and that you will discuss the included critiques, that lack much detail, until a consensus can be achieved.

[erk]

Thank you very much, One.

As soon as possible, I will compose a detailed reply and discuss each of your statements.

[erk]

Epsilon,

Thank you very much for your comments.

Your alternative theory, the Geometric Generalization of the Structure of Nature (GG) that attempts to rationalize the Universe shows some interesting insight; however, its elegance lacks poetic brilliance and it falls far short of being a Theory of Everything (TOE).Well, it is a very emotional assumption that the ToE should have poetic brilliance. I think that this is a result of your respect to the “poetic” beauty of the reality. However, I did not attempt to write a poem, I only attempted to describe it. The elegance of a ToE should be measured by its self-consistent logical structure, which should be able to derive well-known and experimentally testable phenomena.

GG appears to lack many fundamental definitions; such as: linking a proof of mathematics to Nature; definitions of: fundamental, intrinsic time; the boundaries of the Universe; the Inverse Square Law; etc.The two different concepts of time and the universe at large scale are deeply discussed in separate sections in the paper (sections 6.2, 6.3, 9.4).

However, as it is discussed in the paper, “linking a proof of mathematics to Nature” should not be a topic of a ToE (section 9.1). I consider that a ToE should describe the physical reality, which we can be examined directly. However, there is no reason that limits the existence of abstract mathematics within physical reality. Conversely, it is the language that this “poem” (reality) is written.

As a result, GG formulates the mathematical principles of Nature, but not the logic of the existence of abstract mathematics, since abstract mathematics is not a physical THING.

GG also appears to overly rely upon concepts of the standard models (SM), which are metaphysical; such as: conventional forces; the linking of space and time as General Relativity's (GR) "space-time"; the speed of light as a constant; the perceived expansion of the Universe; Big Bang concepts as they relate to Inflation Theory (IT); time dilation; electromagnetic fields; etc.No, this statement is false. GG builds a logical structure on geometric principles (the solution to Euclid’s 5th postulate, section 4.3), and it does not accept any kind of mainstream assumptions. As a result, it derives many phenomena as a natural result of itself. The details about those concepts you mentioned are clearly discussed in the various pages of GG.

GG, as a TOE, doesn’t appear to adequately address: life and its evolution; emergent phenomena; universal entanglement; speed of Cosmic “gravitational” motion; and, Cosmic inertia; fermionic half-spin; etc.You are right, I haven’t publish the last chapter of the paper on “12. Self-Organization, Consciousness, and Future of the Universe”. However, “Mechanism of Gravity at the Smallest Scale” is discussed in section 7.6.; “Gravity” in section 7.7; and “Spin Phenomenon” in section 10.7

Though, there are a few general concepts of GG that are quite prescient of inevitable truth; such as: physical reality as a complete unity; the importance of self-consistent logic; reality as an unending “flux”; the importance of non-Euclidean geometry; the importance of helical “paths” and compression; implied universal connection; fundamental phenomena as not being “hard objects”; “matter and energy can be classified mathematically according to a few basic principles”; problems related to multiple “constants”; the importance of integers; emphasis on oscillations; time as “clock-ticks”; etc. Possibly, the most important truth is the observation that “Planck’s constant” be defined “as one (1)” (though, GG is incorrect to also so define the speed of light).I wonder how you conclude that GG is incorrect to define the numeric value of the speed of light as a inconsistency in unit systems. The numeric value of SoL simply appears because unit systems define the distance and time units irrelevantly. Otherwise, please enlighten me, what does the numeric value of speed of light represent?

GG is far from complete, has great internal inconsistencies, flaws, and outright errors; however, it is refreshing to appreciate its alternative concepts and occasional powerful insight.Well, I am surprised by your self-confidence as if you assume you are the “Poet”. I consider that one should be very doubtful to place himself in judge’s seat. Are you definitely sure that you have analyzed the self-consistency of the paper, or did you simply compared GG to your personal opinions. Is it inconsistent with your assumptions or is it self-inconsistent?

I would appreciate if you spend some of your valuable time to read and analyze the entire paper.

www.unitytheory.info

Erk