This is an attempt to discern a unified field theory. In the following pages I shall draw from many area of human knowledge. As I shall be trying to be as terse as possible in this current paper, I must ask the reader to be of open mind and to bear with any analogies etc. which might not be immediately clear but which have been more explicitly developed in my other notes and writings.
The concept of a unified field theory has two major aspects. In acknowledging the possible existence of such a theory we are working with a basic a priori ceptualization that there is a singular foundation for all things that exist in the universe. We posit this not for philosophical convenience, but because of hard physical reality. The universe exists as a working functioning extant, from sub-atomic to molecular to astronomical, and because we are all constructed from (the same) basic material, must operate in accord with activities extant at the "lowest" level of existence. Continual interaction capability of particles in the universe demands similarity, or at minimum, adjustable similarities , for all parameters involved. Thus, all extants which do or can interact must be describable by the same energetics and configurational phenomena.
Theorem q, of the Theory of Relativity, sets the tone for this, as well as the second aspect of a unified field theory (which deals with our capacity and capability for objective determination of (just) such a ceptualization). Theorem q points up the situation of 1) non-Cantorian set theory...the definition defined by itself, and, 2) the situation of life structure...the "inclusiveness limitation" which all things are subject to ; i.e., if a "mind" is extant within the framework of a particular space, it is subject to the same forces (F) which exist within that space. Therefore, all thoughts, thought goals, etc. are directed by that same force. All actions and attitudes not only strive to enlighten the total nature of existence, but by their existence and functioning, reiterate that reality of total existence.
As an aside, this is the ultimate urobic paradox - and is the most frustrating - because, by definition, any deviations must be accountable for within the structure of a "norm" and all things are "normal", "valid", and "acceptable", even though "appropriateness" might alter, relative to the "specific context". In the sense that, "electron tunneling" was an "aberrant" phenomenon in the paradigm of "classical" chemistry. The paradigm had to change, expand and improve, to include the newly observed process. Before proceeding, the immediate question becomes one of subjectivity.
Is it possible, under this aspect of relativity, to arrive at a truly objective ceptualization of the universe ? Objectivity implies non-involvement with an occurrence to such a degree that it can be encountered and examined without affecting the system. But since observation and examination occur under the same fields and conditions, subjectivity is "designed" into the system. To get around this problem we must invoke a concept which will be further discussed at a later time. That is, the special theory of relativity.
If we allow that localization of mass-energy assumes the character of a mini-universe, so to speak, and that there are external sources of energy (information) which can enter this sub-universe, then we can say that if that information has passed through or been derived from other sub-universes, then that "received information" is objective, as it is information which has the characteristics only of those fields and areas that the information had previously passed through. Then, by enlarging the frame of reference back to the universe in toto, and by assuming total coherence and consistency for the universe, we can apply that information to be valid for our, or any, localized frame of reference. If something is operationally correct then we can assume it to be correct until the conditions of operation change.
Since all things are relative within any given reference system and therefore "subjective" by consideration, in searching for an objective understanding of the universe, it is absolutely mandatory to state those conditions (such as boundary parameters) which permit reference point separation and sufficient diminishing of disruptive interaction such that we can approach a paradigmatic understanding of systems, events, and phenomena which are "not ourselves" in models that correspond to actual activity and relationships in as close to objectively factual consideration as possible.
One of the primary reasons that I will later stress the illusory aspect of "free will" is that we are so much a part of the relativistic structure of nature that we don't know if our ceptualizations are valid actual models (i.e. give a maximization of information) or are models derivative from an innate systemic need for wholism...or at least, defined wholism. [*Author's note: This idea was amended in 1992. "Free will" is appreciated as truly existing by the statistical latitude of behaviors possible when strongly bounded Integrity systems encounter each other.] It is necessary to break through, so to speak, the conditional limiting factors of our own relativistic identities and motivational construction in order to, again, by limiting interaction disruption, arrive at a model which 1) mimics actuality and 2) simultaneously defines our posture regarding both our objective understanding of ourselves as well as what and where and why and how we are in relation to the motivational schematics of the universe.
It is my idea then that metaphilosophical paradigms are not enough. We must obligatorily consider actual quantitative information of time-matter-energy in a final optimum objective schema of the universe. No separation is allowable. Concurrence is mandatory. It is not enough to give operational considerations if by doing so we differentiate mechanism from motivation. These two aspects are qualitatively and conceptually separable due to our neuro-ceptual construct which tends toward component visualization of any mass phenomena (in conjunction with Gestaltic tendencies). But, to carry that differentiation into a model of the state of existence, is not allowable, as the complete functioning event or system ceases its time flow operations as a unit phenomena. A "thing" acts in accord to forces concurrent with its actual structure and not in separate context from those forces. If they could be separated we would then have to posit the possibility of an infinite number of possible separately existing operational and "motivational" forces which could impinge in ways not concurrent with the conservation of energy in a closed system...for example: irregular motion of mass through space in quantized time sequences in which there is no real flow, but only a "time" of distinct units which have a differentiation so small that we can never measure it; thus, for all practical purposes, time is a smooth continuum...not actually, only ceptually.
The ramifications of quality separation as actual fact are innumerable and can only be disruptive of not only conceptual paradigms, but would, by opening up the possibility for a vast number of simultaneous yet differently based operations, have the result that the basic a priorical cept of continual interaction capability would have to be negated. We would have no way of justifying the obvious state of constant interaction which is the world we are.
Structural individuality is as obvious as the permutation of possible states determined by the number of interacting sub-units as well as the interaction resultant from time-space-matter-energy differentiation of extants and extants in particular context (i.e., the differentiation of instantaneous structure of a complete event and an event in an environment). But, and this cannot be stressed enough, there is absolute singularity of operating force (motivation) which displays itself through various basic energetics mechanisms...gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear binding, light, etc....and through all states of matter/energy. Diversity is as numerous as the permutation of the number of particulate matter in the universe, but "motivation" is pan-extant and singular. It is this singularity which marks the universe as totally coherent and cohesive.
Resolving the current conflict between biological theory and physical theory can be neatly accomplished. What we actually have is a situation in which two very high rating Integrity seeking mechanisms are confronting each other head to head. The first is Integrity seeking "wholistic integration" (incorporation), the need for singular ceptual unification of quantitative and qualitative facts. The second is Integrity achieving "identity" (individualization) and its concurrent implication of "separation from environment"...defined structure, identity, and operations distinctly set within an unlimited range of possible activity. The former demands a closed system. The latter demands an open one (and is therefore prone to embrace "probability" and other paradigms which permit "degrees of freedom").
Kinetic stability ..."Integrity"... is the singular motivation for all things that exist in the universe.
To talk of models and not describe things themselves, means we do not make assumptions of truth or fallacy concerning the uniformity of nature, but are explicit to the scope of what is discussable. We do not discuss the things themselves, but the symbols which represent those things; and symbols can only be true or false to the extent that they do or do not adequately represent what is being talked about...within the limitations of our ability to correctly give and apply proper models and symbols, which are, again, within the limitations of our ability to symbolize...and within the limitations of our language to be meaningful in regard to those symbols.
More than anything else, this concept depends upon an awareness of the relationship between ourselves and things external to us. An awareness that what is experienced (the event or thing external to our minds) and what does the final experiencing (our "consciousness") is intervened by the physical apparatus of sensations. The experiencing "consciousness" becomes cordoned off, distinct from the mechanisms which allow experience. It is an affirmation of a belief in the duality of mind and body, and additionally makes further the separation of the mind from the world.
Our consciousness then is attributed with the ability to symbolize, to apply representative meaning to experience, to translate experience into consciousness...with our bodies being the tool of that function. But, is our consciousness derived from the inherent activity of our construction to symbolize, translate and re-form? Or is our consciousness that something which is pre-extant, and guides us from some type of so far unexplained or undetermined knowledge, awareness or whatever, of a more profound type, enabling a "higher" plane of consciousness?
In other words, is consciousness the ability to be aware, or is it the awareness itself? If it is the awareness itself, the discussion ends there. But if it is the ability for awareness, this in turn is dependent on a more primal form of awareness which is "prepared" for the final active form. Using this approach, the primal awareness becomes dependent on an even more primal form for its existence, ad infinitum. An unacceptable situation. To come to some final conclusions then, two possibilities become available. The first is to apply a concept of supranatural force coming into play, which acts as the driving power for the whole system. The other possibility, which is the concept I believe true, is to conclude that the innate forces connected with atomic and sub-atomic activity are the driving forces of the entire system.
This is true to the degree that the existence of a single particle of matter or energy "defines" the entire system; defines all possible forms which any extants can assume. It is the ultimate information load carrier, in that it also defines what forms will occur when they do occur. At this level there is no consciousness per se, only capacity of activity derived from construction.
Sometime after arriving at this conclusion I came across work done by Brillouin in which he states that a vast amount of information is needed to correspond to any detectable change in entropy. (Boltzmann, Planck)
Po = domain
P1 = expected errors I1 = ln (Po -P1)
Theoretical information for an "Ideal Theory" :
I = k ln (Po theory/ P1 theory)
Po = infinite
P1 = one
I = k ln (Po/P1) = k ln (infinity) = infinity.
The only problem with this schema is, basically, that it is not superior to any other schemas which have previously been formulated. The reason I say that is this: to describe something is to work with a specific range or possible range of information concerning that thing. At some point in all these schemas a limit is reached beyond which there is no information which can be incorporated into an understanding of the system. In science the term "black box" refers to just such a condition. It is applied when a known phenomena occurs, but an explanation of the causes or the forces of the phenomena is beyond existing knowledge. The search for knowledge throughout history gives a pattern of trying to push back the walls of those limits. And, putting pragmatic considerations aside for a moment, this is the primary motivation for scientific inquiry. In fact, for inquiry of any kind.
It is interesting to note though that where ever such a black box limit is reached, there is always a concurrent concept incorporated into the schema which either tries to explain what is beyond that limit, or at the very least, attempts to label that region. This is an implicit indication of a need for wholism in any thesis or schema. In just this manner we can begin to understand why specific ideas were, and are, held during various stages of man's development, as well as any activity or concept which attempts to label and/or explain what lies beyond the limits of existing knowledge.
For my proposal too, there is a point that it also reaches beyond which there is neither understanding nor explanation. But, what I believe I have accomplished, is the pushing back of the walls of these limits to what I feel are the ultimate limits of knowledge and understanding.
Most important though, is that I am trying to make a paradigmatic shift in how we talk about our world. Mass-energy-space-time is not enough. It is not enough to acknowledge that "physical laws expect simplicity and generality" whereas "biological and evolutionary theory expect complexity and individualism". Since it takes no great intellectual prowess to realize that there must be some direct correlation between the macro-structure and microstructure of our world, the only immediate conclusion to be drawn from this is that our current models are inadequate to fill in this most important point in seeking a unified concept of the universe.
My premise is very simple. Mass-energy-space-time are actually functional components of the pan-extant phenomenon of "Information". Energy is information. Spatiality is information. Time is information. They are separate variable parameters which determine information transfer as well as information channel formation, each in regard to its own range of operation. Information is not the just the intangible codification of energy. Energy is information, be it light, electromagnetic radiation, stimulus-response or whatever. And energy, as information, is transmitted under those conditions and through those channels as the nature and construction of the environment permits. An environment therefore is defined as that region through which information can be differentiated by means of multiple loci. And, since an event (which could be genericly "identical" to another event whose only difference is the location where it happens, or the time it happens) coexists in co-referenced "space" and "time", there is distinct and separate information available concerning the "where" and the "when", distinguishable from "what" transpired. This includes any given frame of reference, be it "internal" or "external" to any observed system or sub-system.
Space/Time "enables" an event, and carries its own information. The "information" that "force varies inversely with the square of the distance between two bodies", is separate from the "information": "there is an extent of 847 meters" or "3 hours and 51 minutes elapsed" or "the rotation of the planet was 27 degrees to the elliptic of the solar plane and 90 degrees to the galactic plane. The planet revolved in an orbit opposite to all the companion planets in that star system. We can deduce that it was "captured" after the rest of the planetary system was formed."
The operation of these parameters follows strictly the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but here in regard to Information. Entropy of information is the strict rule which operates in accord to each range and level of activity. This obviously includes all situations where component systems and sub-systems are united to the same materials of construction but differ in their direction of entropic flow because of differing ranges and levels of activity. Entropy can be evaluated in regard to the whole of a system. It can also be attributed to sub-components. Mathematically, this means separate entropies can be at work per each partial derivative of a function.
In this regard entropy is replaced by stability as the foundational drive of the universe, and entropy becomes a functional mechanism for achieving stability. Here I propose the concept of Integrity, which is the mandatory form of kinetic stability. This, because of the nature of motion and time which will be discussed later.
For any given system, its drive is to increase it's Integrity. In regard to its construction and those field and relativistic effects which "define" sub-universe regions, a system increases its Integrity through increases in information up to the optimum levels for its construction. In some cases, such as radiation, a closely defined system might show information bleed into its external environment in order to reach its optimum information level. Thus Integrity does not correspond directly to maximization of information for a given construct. But, since most systems have a nominative information load which is beneath that at which Integrity maximizes and structural additions and changes are occurring concurrently with this activity, information capacity is continually increasing (relative to original construction) and the information load for maximizing Integrity (relative to the new system) increases correspondingly.
Integrity increases as the spatial range of occupancy increases. Spatial range being that area bounded by sub-universe limitations. This is because as the spatial range increases information channels increase due to an increase in the number of differentiable loci.
For any system with a definable material construction, its information capacity is the maximum information load before disruption occurs due to excessive internal forces. At the point the adjustable parameters of space/time also reach their limits. Information load is that amount of codified and uncodified energy that a system can contain and still retain its capacity for elastic form retention. Sub-system noise is also included, but unless transmission channels exist which might permit amplification thereby inducing structural disordering, it plays a minimal role in any calculations.
Integrity is kinetic stability and is measured in terms of information load for any given system construction. For a given system (closed), information capacity is set at 1 (one), with information load varying from greaterthanzero to one, [0<I.L.£1]. Integrity is also arbitrarily set with values ranging from zero to one, 0< I £1. Integrity maximizes between zero and one.
*************************************
Note: This diagram "instinctively" "maximizes" Integrity in the normal visual sense. However, the final diagram formis more accurately inverted, as maximization of "potential" (to handle information) at a stability plateau "minimum.
*************************************
INTEGRITY
Information requirement (to maximize Integrity) is the absolute value of Integrity at (x) minus actual IL/IC .... *(IL/IC)x - (IL/IC)a* = IR. If (IL/IC)a > (IL/IC)x, then the rate at which IR decreases in the natural log of internal pressure. If (IL/IC)a < (IL/IC)x, then the rate is due to differential pressure plus available external energy. External energy affects both rates, but when it does not exist or is negligible, for (IL/IC)a >(IL/IC)x, the rate at which IR decreases is "ln(jekt)".
A system ceases its original mode of functioning (disrupts, becomes extinct, dies) when the slope of the graph - the rate of moving from one Integrity configuration to another - exceeds a specified value which is determined by a prorated total time shift and the conditional time change capability limits of the system involved. That is, if construction does not warrant it, adjustive adaptation will not occur. Integrity is always considered in regard to the time at which Integrity is required for the system, and is therefore grounded in the capabilities of its construction.
Digressing for a moment, we can explain the existence of complex macromolecular structures, as well as their nature of activity, if we determine the operational boundaries of the function of entropy. Nuclear proton-neutron resonance displays a degree of stability not found in the separate particles...the electron and anti-neutrino components of a neutron stabilize as their region of occupancy increases by the localization of a proton in close proximity to the neutron. {a dynamic interpretation of the strong and weak forces}. The enlarged entropic type diffusion of the sub-particles through an enlarged region of functioning congeals the two larger masses. A similar activity occurs for electron clouds and the resultant congealing of atoms. A "small field entropy" of sorts, counters general entropy found at the next level of activity, with the result that systems of greater and greater complexity and greater and greater relative Integrity occur (when construction, interaction and environment permit).
Two points are of major importance here. First, this paradigm falls well within the currently accepted idea that for an energy transfer, a system is more stable if the number of steps necessary for that transfer is large. Second, it accounts for localization of matter-energy forms from which a the multitude of complex biological organisms.
What is required now is a re-evaluation of current concepts and terminology - in all fields and for all subjects. Without information flow, all life ceases, be that "information" called food for metabolism, or sensory input, or economic markets. Consolidation of energy, and increasing sub-universe information boundaries, marks a degree of wholism for a system and distinguishes its individuality. Individuality. The hallmark of biological and biologically related systems. Now founded in the nonliving structures from which it a.
Life force is synonymous with egotism and tantamount to the force behind evolution. Unification flows as the twin to dis-order; strife is the relationship, and human discontent is the bridge to self understanding.
The primary point to understand is that we cannot separate energy from information. At most, we can distinguish forms of information, one from another, and, regarding the imperative of the Integrity drive, designate the varying levels and types of information transfer. I.e., what energy levels correspond to which channels of information transfer. Just as the Special Theory of Relativity posits the indeterminacy of a fixed frame of reference, we also cannot posit a fixed frame for a discussion of information, regardless of how convenient it may be for our linguistic structure, our neurological construction, our level of activity or even the tenuous "stable" base it provides for our communication systems.
Coding, for example, is merely the process of adjusting information channels between differing levels of construction, each with its own range and capacity, in order to accomplish an ordered correspondence between them. Perpetual interaction capability permits this !!
As an aside, one reason for setting Integrity maximization at a level considerably less than information capacity is just this capability for perpetual interaction. For each system construction, it must be such that there is information present to maintain construction, as well as a range which allows additional information (energy) thereby permitting interaction activity. The inert gasses for example, as complete in their construction as anything in the universe, can still be combined with other elements (under specific conditions), due to the fact that their information capacity (energy state available to accept or meld with environmental energy states) can be altered. Current techniques usually increase the range of information capacity minus information load by cryogenic bleeding of energy into the environment...(opening quantum electron shells, allowing the atom in toto to be more interactively responsive with its kinetic environment).
But of all problems connected with information, the most important is "coding". Given a set of more than two energy forms, or a set of more than two information channel constructions, each differing in energy intensity range or forms of energy, coding is proportionally distinguishable only between any two of the total set, but, all are related according to the Trichotomy Axiom. X energy units for system (A) corresponds to Y energy units for system (B), but also corresponds to J energy units for system (C)...for any given message relative to system (A). This produces a specific set of ratios of "energy per information" (sic), but, only relative to system (A). This last set of 'ratios' will, obviously, vary given a different base system.
Now, at which point and for which system do we label one form "information" and all else "energy" ? Obviously we cannot. Energy equals information.
Integrity of basic particles depends upon the potential to disperse equally through any spacial sub-universe (moderated by harmonic quantum plateaus); this is because of the stability inherent in the existence of optimum information channels; thus, in a spacial universe under which a unique locus is differentiable from any other locus, and is <currently> determinant in 3 (four, including Time) linear or radial dimension coordinates, then optimum information channel existence is achieved through spherical equidistance in as close to simultaneous occupancy as possible. Given that any specific particle occupies a finite space (locus), in order for that dispersion over a spherical (orbital) range to occur, it is necessary for that particle to "move" through a distinctly determinable spacial region in order to satisfy its 'motivation' of structural integrity. <Homogeneity is a related but distinct occurrence>
Displacement of mass-energy through space occurs through a phenomenon termed 'time'. In this form time is a directional continuum....non-reversible and non-quantized (i.e., a time lapse may become infinitely small but at no point is there an instantaneous event which is 'separably' distinct).
The reason for a form of time which is nonreversible/nonquantized is this: if we allow that it could exist, then we would have to posit an interim "instant" during which positional change occurred and a mass or energy did not occupy the loci (Lt1-Lt0). In other words, allowing that distinct space occurs prior to matter-energy extantcy, then we would have to conclude a situation where extancy is alternately negated and affirmed.
The analogy of time-space possibly being like frames of a strip of acetate motion picture film is wholly unsatisfactory. Just as we could manipulate a single frame to incorporate images that have nothing what so ever to do with the main sequence, we would have to allow that for time and space, if they were quantized in the same way. We would have to allow that "discontinuity" could happen at any moment, for any duration, and that statisticly, we should in fact be seeing lots of disjointed randomness... rather than none !!!
Secondly, given distinct time quanta, we would have to allow the interrelationship balance of forces and energies a 'non-moment' when innate forces, irrespective of motion, would be allowed to take precedence over any motion induced forces, resulting in structural collapse...or at minimum...uneven perturbations.
The space-time continuum is therefore integral with Integrity in that it determines kinetic constancy, and 'defines' "stability" an terms of an on-going <dynamic continuous> functioning, and not staticly balanced instantaneous juxtapositions. Integrity is a pan-extant phenomenon of "process", of continual information transfer. The field of information flow (that is, any occupiable space) is the total environment in which an extant exists (or can exist), and, functions in regards to both internal regions bounded by structure, as well as external regions which are beyond that interkinetic structure.
Moreover, these limit bounds are not strictly determinable by 'structural form' but rather by the spherical and linear fields of force. Spherical, as related directly to integral constructive parts; linear and radiative, as to the directional position between two distinguishable and different extants (in space-time coordinates).
Keeping in mind innate structural qualities, Integrity is information load proportional to information capacity. Integrity determines continuation and continuity. This latter factor could be unit or process, where either information must increase or structure must change, resulting in higher Integrity form. Time extancy increases all related levels and complexities of information flow, and structural constancy.
Concurrently, as the region of actual occupancy increases through the combining of particles-atoms-molecules, the Integrity increases...... via entropy of the partial derivative.
Integrity may be seen from several different perspectives. The first in regard to complexity and "largeness"...thus Integrity increases to infinity as these coordinated factors increase. The second would give Integrity values of 0 to 1 (zero to one)...where Integrity is solely in regard to Information Capacity minus Information Load, for an entire "unitary" structure.
In the first I am giving consideration to the structural components and then the entire structure as regards those components. In the second, the final total structure is the frame of reference in which I note, but smooth over, the sub-structure.
All "bounded" sets are compatible with unbounded set environments.
