island@sundial.net (Island) opens:

Metaphysics is a system of fundamental principles that the physics is built upon and by that I would have to agree with you since I am suggesting the foundation for THE LAYERS THEORY which you do find appealing for its sense and common applicability.

prfbrown@magna.com.au (Mountain Man) recalls:

Now I was wondering when you were going to get around to this which I find a very appealing model of the way in which nature appears to work. IE: That there exists in nature varying layers of processing or interactive phenomena which might be on the one hand considered as relatively dependent subsystems, yet on the other hand, these layers are invariably interfaced to one another. Is this close to the mark?

island@sundial.net (Island) clarifies ...

Yes that is a good assessment to start with. If people are even just a very little bit willing to make an effort, then they can pretty much take it from there themselves, but I think that there are some important pointers that could be isssued anyway:

• This interface unifies the whole, and I do mean every aspect of the universe, including the human experience. Nature is the one absolute containing physical entity that is made up of an endless amount of similar, related, layers. Nature is THE inertial frame. It is the unmoved mover.

• Layers interact with each other in an effort to achieve mass equilibrium. This interaction is repeated, and is fundamental, at every "level" of nature, although it may be viewed as a similar, related, but different event, dependent on your frame.

• Opposing objects are as also opposing layers but they are all releated extensions of the whole, and an individual object is at the same time, a similar layer.

• An individual object is also comprised of similar opposing layers, ie., quark/anti-quark, proton/electrons, etc., etc..., make up the atom. A cloud is a cell, is made up of similar cells. There are as many examples as there are objcets/layers.

• Layers and their common interaction are the one universal constant that is prevalent at every "level" of nature. This fact is extremely valuable since it allows you to reduce complicity to this simplified level. You can understand what any theory is really pointing to if you can apply this. You can also use the logic to solve any problem, (conceptually anyway for now).

• Cooperation within layers is misleading since individual arguments are worked out to achieve a current of matter in motion or a common direction, but opposition still exists at differing levels between both, similar objects, and layers.
  Note: Ultimately, directional change is the one and only real trick here.

• Mass equilibrium is futile since the apparent neutrality within layers only makes for new layers. In other words, it just changes the magnitude or the "elevation" of opposition and this could also effect the appearance of cooperation vs opposition, again relative to you viewpoint.

• Opposition and cooperation occurs both internally and externally between objects as well as layers, but again, the difference between a layer and an object is totally relative to your perspective.

• Mass equilibrium is the common purpose of all things in nature be they "alive", "dead", or what-have-you. The meaning of life, as well as death, you might say.

• One point should be made before someone decides to chimes in about this, and that involves the fact that you can't get out of a gravity-well of one form or another, so Nature's First Law is UNIVERSAL.

Nature's theory is a truly unified theory that knows no boundaries of specialization. It crosses all lines and reaches right into the soul of understanding. Specialists have great difficulty with that claiming that it isn't pure physics or whatever, but it can be if you want to limit what you say, and by that, unfortunately, also what others will understand. That, I will never understand.

prfbrown@magna.com.au (Mountain Man) writes:

I would observe that the state of modern science might be improved if such a schema were able to be derived in some consistent manner which links the microscopic phenomena to the macroscopic phenomena. Presently there is but a range of scales commencing at the subatomic and extending in non formal increments through to the cosmic scales of gallaxies.

Nature might be represented in a more unified fashion, such as we might expect if there were at work systems within systems within systems.

This "Layers Theory" will have to be somehow formalised.

island@sundial.net (Island) responds:

Yes, I used to think that this needed to be done right away, but now that I've been forced to settle down and had a chance to compare the surreal conclusions of other theories, I've found that it is more important to work out all of the qualitative physical details before the math runs away with the theory. There is plenty of time to work things out as you go along.

It is more important to get it right, than to get it out there, and one hard lesson to be learned is that saying it correctly, and clearly, is more important than anything else. Theories that can't be easily understood by the masses aren't nearly as valuable as they could be. It must be kicked around and honed to its sharpest point using existing words, phrases, and maths, whenever possible, rather than trying to completely reinvent and redefine the wheel.

Accuracy is relative to understanding.

I didn't mention anything that doesn't have direct physical ramifications and if that is what you mean, then I would ask, how can nature not be considered to be a physical entity???

Unconventional perhaps, but still fundamentally sound and I don't see anything wrong with pushing convention in order to gain viable and realistic answers, do you Pete?

prfbrown@magna.com.au (Mountain Man) concludes:

Convention changes like the seasons.
I dont place too much stock in it.
Nature will run its course

All the best for now.

WWW-Address: Nature & Science