I'm not quite sure as to what you want to discuss. Perhaps you could elaborate a tad on this 'Diversifying Unity'.

On what grounds do you state this? Is it just a *feeling*? Can you detail any empirical evidence (a posteriori)? Any evidence from an objective method of rationalization (science, logic)? Do you believe this is just a priori knowledge?

Thanks,

Zeth

It's not science. There does not seem to be any falsifiability. It makes sense. It seems to fit.

Diversity - the state of being varied. 2. a range of different things.

Unity - the state of being united or forming a whole. 2. a thing forming a complex whole. 3. Math. the number one.
Oxford University Press (OUP)


There are many ways in which to discuss such a theory. The contention is that a qualitative description of the universe is: the processes in the universe are diversifying unity. The universe is finding new ways of balance.
'New ways of balance' is a step away from the consideration of both forces as one. The balanced drive of the universe is the state of being varied whilst being part of the whole.

One can say an atom is diversifying unity - velocity providing the diversification, and attraction forces the unity factor. One can apply it to human beings. If one were diversifying unity then one would be in a state of change whilst being united, or part of the whole.

Yes, I am forced to present it as a theory of everything, even though, I never went looking for one - at least not consciously.

I guess I am posting it to raise it as a possibility and request others to give it some consideration and share their opinions/logic.

I will approach this the same way that I approached MJA in his threads.

For anything to be truth on a universal level, it must be objective. The reason behind this is quite obvious and simple but for the sake of argument, I will explain. Anything subjective can only apply to the self. The self is not the universe and, in all actuality, is a miniscule portion of a miniscule portion of a of a very small portion of the universe. Truth MUST be beyond the self.

Now, please explain how this can be an objective truth. If you do not know, please make an attempt to explain it objectively or to explain, in more detail, your point of view.

To help out here, I want to point out that he has gone a lot further than MJA in providing "objective" explanation.

Doc is appealing to definitions whereas MJA appealed solely to values (unless you consider the personal definitions MJA threw out). Definitions and words themselves are used to bridge the separation between person's minds and subjectively held values and sensations.

He obviously stopped short, but I want to encourage Doc to continue along those lines and show that one definition necessarily implies the other.

I think it was Popper who suggested, man cannot achieve objectivity. Bias is applied, as it is necessary to our questioning sense. It was from such a base that Popper proposed experimental objectivity i.e. the null hypothesis and what eventually led to the Randomised Controlled Trials.

I see your point though. Perhaps the only discovery here is of self, and not even a generality of self, but myself as I am right now, a state if you like. This seems very plausible. And so to does the possibility that there is no universal truth in such theory.

If though, one considers there may be a basic truth behind the universe, apart from randomness, then as part of the universe it would be achievable to comprehend such basic force. One is part of the universe and therefore one's processes would also be based on such universal law.

The problem is that if there were such a thing as a Theory of Everything, then by definition it would not be testable. As it would be a theory of everything there would be no wrong answers, as it would explain everything. There would be no null hypothesis, and therefore it would not be scientific as per modern scientific thought.

I guess then we are left with the question does it make sense. Can it help understand processes, can it be applied and help solve problems?

So then, in what plane is it best to represent? Human condition; physics, biology...?

I don't like cutting and pasting out of previous work I have done on the subject, but I appreciate your curiosity and request for a more critical logic pertaining to it. I have been sitting with it for five years, exploring and trying to ignore it, but it does seem to be quite accurate (ultimately not truth, but a reasonable representation of it). I have told it in as simple terms as I can, and I appreciate it may be over-simplified for you.

Extract from previous work:

Each concept is easy to grasp on its own; when the two terms are placed into a single description it requires more effort to understand. Effort, in my opinion, well spent.
Biology has been around as a study area for millennia. It was one of the first pattern recognition disciplines of modern thought. One would see animals, for example, note the clear differences between them and propose them as organisms sharing the same heritage i.e. sharing features, but different species given the visible variation between them. Further discovery brought a more refined and differentiated discipline, culminating in the theory of natural selection and the discovery of DNA [The discovery of DNA can be argued as a chemistry related finding. Beyond the argument for which field discovered DNA, the question as to whether chemistry or biology is to be credited for DNA highlights the historical separation of scientific specialties and the modern re-convergence of them. An important consideration given this discussion.]
Certainly in regards to the concept of diversity applied to pattern recognition, biology gets the credit. In biology diversity has been used to describe the tangible variation - generally the variation in life or those structures that give rise to life - for centuries. From a biological school of thought, new entities or processes form creating new structures or orders. In this way biology views life as constantly changing or, more accurately, diversifying.
Succession is a recognisable progression of species variation. At the edge of the shore one can often see a few blades of grass. As one moves inland, shrubs, bushes and eventually trees can be found. It is thought that the grass - being less complex - requires less to sustain itself and therefore can grow on thin, sandy soil. The grass grows and as it does it begins to bring the thin soil together to form more packed soil. This enables more complex species to succeed.
The trees are essentially the same as the grass. They both convert sunlight to carbohydrate; they both have roots to utilise water and nutrients. They are also unique. It is here we see another reason why the term diversify is a better term than differ or change: something is new and kind of the same.
Diversity also allows us to consider both directions. A tree can diversify by forming fruit and then another tree. A tree can also diversify by becoming smoke and ashes. In both cases the raw materials are the same, just in one order is maintained or even progressed, but in another, the order is reduced.
Diverse, in this context, implies a range or degree of change. It is not a single occurrence. To say our environment is diverse, is to describe a quality as opposed to a specific occurrence. Certainly at the macroscopic level it is possible to consider the state of being varied as a common quality. By looking at the whole we can see its diverse nature. In biology though, diverse has a scale whereby one system or entity is more or less diverse than another. Here, it is the degree of complexity that is expressed as a higher degree of diversity. The collective entity known as human beings is more diverse - they have more functions making the whole - than plants. In this way humans are a higher order, biologically.
Whilst this type of categorization occurred before we had knowledge of the basic building blocks of life (atoms), the subsequent knowledge of chemists and physicists concurs with the pattern identified by the biologists. At a basic chemical level, humans have many more compounds than plants, and probably any other organism. From Sodium Chloride to Neurotransmitters, Iron Sulphate to Haemoglobin the range of complexity humans have achieved is second to none (probably). This is important because if diversity is one part of universal law (that is, if the state of being varied is a core value in our universe), then we, in regards to being varied, are one of the highest orders of such a law. Perhaps one can say, we operate closer to its greater limit than its lesser.

Hi Doc,

I'm glad you furnished the clarification above - your original post/discussion concept makes a little more sense now and I think I can furnish *some* feedback. I'm entering the assumption that what you're describing is a conceptual way of viewing 'all things'; a mindset that emphasizes every particle we see and sense as being different aspects of this 'universal diversity'. If this is incorrect, then I'm way off and you can stop reading here



I'm no expert, but I'm not sure there's anything new about this. That all things are part-and-parcel to larger 'organisms' is nothing new. If we step back to look at the totality of the universe it'd be no different; each 'thing' therein is a part of that whole. We could *call* the parts that make up the sum - of anything - elements of the whole, sub-processes, constituent elements or 'various forces' and it matters not. Forces will still act as they do, elements will still exist and change or not and so on into infinity. Is this even disputable?

So yes; while I'd agree that viewing 'all things as one' is fine in these contexts, I'm simultaneously struck with the question: Ok, so what? What does this do for us? What does it gain that was not there before? What insights might this mindset imbue?



This last sentence is tricky; and its 'plausibility' is deeply-contingent the context you're intending. If I take it on its face-value, I'd have one of two reactions:[INDENT](1) No, they're not - without further qualification you've just constructed a sentence that amounts to a built-in, ironclad contradiction and would drive even my house cat to drinking
[/INDENT][CENTER]-or- [/CENTER]
[INDENT](2) These forces may be viewed as 'one' only in the context of examination from the perspective of any successively inclusive 'whole'. Even in this case, it might be more-accurately said that they're different forces acting within the context of <whatever>. Even so, this still puts us at the back to where we were; having gained, seen, described or experienced nothing new or different but changing the nomenclature and a *large* chance at confusion.
[/INDENT]So I'm hoping I'm hitting close to the mark of where you're going. In any case, I'd ultimately have to ask: Yea, so?

Thanks - Looking forward to more clarification

Kethil

Thanks.

"a mindset that emphasizes every particle we see and sense as being different aspects of this 'universal diversity"

I think also it is very simple. I am not though, discussing a mindset. Nor is it a universal diversity, as such. I am proposing, or perhaps more accurately, I think I have discovered a description of the basic force of the universe (sounds quite surreal when I put it that way). It is not like MJAs discovery of an end-point. MJA seems to have found a constant in the universe, that without effect the cause or reason means nothing. It is quite an obvious statement with no inherent value in discerning different processes and discovering new truths (although, I think most useful in the base appreciation of humanity - that the effects of something, how it is equalled, is important to human behaviour and the appreciation of actions versus words or thought). But diversifying unity, I consider, is an actual description of the force, in-between which all other forces and processes exist.

If you don't mind, I would like to try and explain the logic behind the integration of diversity and unity as one core force using basic physics:

As time is part of the universe (i.e. contained within it) and our thought process is time based, there are limits. Once we begin to consider the separate parts of the universe we will fail to appreciate the effects of them on the whole entity that is the universe. Therefore, the accuracy diminishes further. To continue exploring the environment with such inherent inaccuracy it is easier to consider the universe as different planes. The first plane to be considered is that of the atom.
The atom is the presence of, perhaps, the simplest relatively balanced entity (of course some atoms are far from balanced, but at the atomic level there can be relative balance). Effectively, an atom's relatively balanced state can be considered as a stretching of the basic force of the universe: the attraction between nucleus and electron is the attraction or unity factor; the velocity of the nucleus (assuming an expanding, contracting or moving state of universal mass) and electron is the diversifying component. It is proposed here that the movement of the electron is the diversifying component, and the attraction between nucleus and electron is the unifying component.
The difference between the atom and the entire universe is that the atom only diversifies unity when time is considered. It is as if the formation of atoms stretches the force at the base of the universe. The space formed between the electron and nucleus (indeed within the seeming diversification of the force into other forces) is where time is created. The atom can essentially have more balance in one moment and more drive in the next; overall the balanced drive of the universe is almost achieved (the reason it is almost achieved is due to the need to consider the universe as one entity). The important consideration is that the atom is a simple stage in the development of time and potential.
By the atom being more dependent on its internal workings than the overall universe it compartmentalises the force of the universe (to some degree). Therefore, time is given some definition; the force can be separated slightly - more diversity going to the movement and more unity being present in the attraction or gravitation. Ultimately the atom is not a separate entity, as is witnessed in the formation of molecules and radiation. The nucleus has affects on other electrons and possibly nuclei, as the electron is affected by other nuclei and electrons. This allows further interaction and, effectively, another plane of interaction.
Molecules are, perhaps, the first example of two almost distinct entities combining to further stretch the force of the universe. The interaction between atoms to form molecules can be considered a separate plane. Arguably they are the simplest demonstration that unity (relative) can be formed with two separate entities.
The storage of time or stretching of the universal force is achieved to a greater extent in molecules than atoms. It is as if atoms tend to store more in the way of energy, whereas molecules raise the platform of the energy so as further diversification can occur.
The greatest achievement of such elongation of potential is that of genetic material; double stranded DNA achieving the greatest potential, at a molecular level, to stretch the force of the universe.
On its own, DNA is a relatively complete entity. It has great diversity in its base sequences and the unity of the hydrogen bonds and the coil. It, when time is accounted for, is diversifying unity i.e. expressing the whole in new ways.
One can assume that RNA (single stranded genetic sequence often found in viruses) is on a different plane than molecules due to its ability to replicate itself. It is also sensitive to environment in that its actual sequence can change (i.e. mutation). Double helix DNA, again on a similar plane, has more stability in its sequence with sensitivity being directed towards what parts of the DNA will replicate. It contributes to diversifying unity on a significant level. It is perhaps the simplest complex that is in itself an entity and also has a dynamic relationship with environment.
DNA diversifies unity more, as a single entity, than atoms or other molecules, due in part to its degree of reactivity and responsiveness to environment - the hydrogen bonds being sensitive to many external factors. Certain parts of it respond to certain environmental parameters; unlike RNA (viral) that repeats at every opportunity. The extension of DNA and its dynamic with environment can be considered another plane.
In the 'lower plane' of simple molecules compounds form by their direct effects, as and when. This can lead to great structures and elongated processes. The extension of DNA in a responsive manner (i.e. transcribing different polypeptides in response to different environments) differs in the co-operation or, more accurately, relationship it forms with environment.
Commonly we separate the information stored in the DNA to the physical representation of it. It is a fabricated division, unlikely to be absolute. More likely the relationship between genotype (the code of the genes) and phenotype (the physical outcome that started with the genotype) is continuous. Even the structure, the skeleton of an organism, requires an active DNA segment in order to maintain order and form. Clearer examples are the transcription required to generate hormones and enzymes. The DNA coil must be able to unzip and expose the appropriate segment in response to local stimuli. If one uses vast quantities of haem, such as during blood loss or infection, then the DNA must expose the part of the code that translates the enzymes needed for haemoglobulin synthesis, otherwise one will be unable to carry oxygen around the body. In such a way the DNA has a dynamic relationship with environment.


Looking forward to your thoughts

Doc,

I've read your post three times and am afraid that the only thing I can conclude is that you're 'all over the place' here; without a single direction.

You're discussing various phenomena and packaging them all up into "the basic force in the universe" without having discussed that common element betwixt which would constitute such a thing. Time, atomic composition, expansion and contraction, characteristics of DNA and so on all may have that common 'binding' thread - I just don't see where you've stated what that is.

The examples you gave are quite clear; yet they don't help. Your postulations on the nature, limits and origin of time are also debatable. Yet in each example, you reference specifics (which you said doing so would lead us to a place where, "... we will fail to appreciate the effects of them on the whole entity " - but I'll let that pass).

So I guess, in short, I'd like to say I'm happy for your inspiration on this and hope it gives you much joy for a long time to come.

Thanks for the exchange

Sorry I wasn't able to be clearer on the subject.

Perhaps it is because it is so simple, it is difficult to appreciate. Or, perhaps, it is nothing but association.

Just to say, diversifying unity on the highest realm I can comprehend, is an ever changing feeling of togetherness - love!

Peace
And much thanks for engagement,
Daniel

Much apologies to ICon and Fight The Power, I was totally unaware of your posts. for some reason no email notification was sent. I hope you can forgive the oversight.

I'll say, regardless of degree of accuracy pertaining the words diversifying unity, I am most please to have found such a free thinking forum.

Any other criticism or comments is greatly appreciated.

Doc

Any other comments or opinions are greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Doc

I would contend that the supposed diversification of the universe isn't really diversification at all; Rather, it's chaos misunderstood (or a system who's organization is yet to be fully understood). There is only congruency. However, I don't believe all of the forces of the universe are one -- that's just ridiculous.

What do we gain from having the knowledge of "Diversifying Unity"? Do we gain any more from this than other oxymorons, such as, "definite possibility", "virtual reality", "alone together", "bitter sweet"? Is the notion you speak of simply "true" based on association, a personal 'understanding' of each term conjoined?

Is "Diversifying Unity" a tautology? We acknowledge there are many things in coexistence, now what?



Of course it seems to fit - you've made it fit. It's similar to stating: Since all matter is composed of atoms, I will now call all matter, "The Atomical Unification".



I've read all of your examples (which you stated prior to be non-scientific, but turned out to be quite scientific), and I don't understand how you're using any of this to support your claim (I don't really even understand the claim you're making, actually). Just *what* is an actual description of the force, in-between which all other forces and process exist? Existence exists. Is this an actual description of all the forces and processes which exist?



What does any of this have to do with love?

I see your point Zethrin. It is not exactly logic nor is to sceintific. So what is it? And (most impressed by this question), what is its use? (I may not be able to satisfy you with the following answer, but I will try)

I did not seek an understanding of the universe, at least not consciously. I was studying the health behaviour's of children and was preparing a strategy for the Scottish Executive. I tried to insure we had covered most bases. It then dawned on me, that as people we like to be individual but we also want to belong. We seek new experiences, and new discoveries, but, for most, we want them to be shared or useful. Unity, or social cohesion, or belonging, seemed quite obvious, but there was also something else. Then I realised that we all, including kids, seek the new, want the new. When we talk, we look for the original around the central theme of the topic we are discussing. And one day I had a bit of an ureka moment. Diversifying! We are trying to diversify unity. We are trying to find new ways of belonging - trying to be original whilst being part of the whole... which led me to the term original belonging. And then onto the societal level of, diverse co-operative.

You are right. It is observational. I can reason it through exploring various processes, but I don't think I can ever prove it, and perhaps I am unable to explain it well enough for the two terms to be considered as one.

It's use Zethrin, looking at it after discovery, is that the idea of chaos and randomness is no longer accurate. The comfort we gain by thinking that there is no purpose that we are merely animals trying to survive becomes less complete. We are representations of the universal force, and are trying to achieve the state of diversifying unity, which is to say an ever-changing feeling of togetherness, which is to say love. I know, super-cheesy, and I never intended to justify a belief in love.

And, look at the ideal, there is no similarity. The need to abide by a certain set of rules or even concept does not exist, it is individuality that is integral, and it is the individual that makes the system work. Social cohesion and Personal Autonomy, are one in the same. That which is seen as opposing is in fact dependent. Social order without the space for individuality cannot be, at least cannot last. Individuality absent of use or relevancy to environment is not sustainable. According to the theory presented, it is only a diverse co-operative, that will succeed for any length of time.

Do you see the use now? I know it does not make it right. But if it were right, then do you see the importance of it?

Am I explaining it any better? Am I engaging your concerns or questions any better?

Thanks
Doc