"If one could look out one's window ...
Further, I wish to express the fundamental principles of existence within the context of the English language (plus some mathematics descriptive of the concepts named in that language). If the truth of existence cannot ultimately be expressed in language I have most certainly wasted my time on this project.
If a thing is understood, its meaning is given in terms of words of greater simplicity than the thing being described. So that in solving the mystery of existence we would not expect to use such words as Jupiter or can opener or Jiggsino because these are a specific entity (non-general), a tool unrelated to natural processes and a word made up to denote a "lack of understanding".
We may fully expect to see an explanation not using perhaps more than the 2-4000 most commonly used words in the English language. The simple concepts denoted by these are the "stuff" of which we must be expected to construct a theory of existence.
As an example, we needn't necessarily use the word "proton" but could in fact use a set of words from our common words list if only we knew which words to use and in what order. We may use the word proton only if it has been previously defined in terms of the simpler words. If not so defined, "proton" becomes a linguistic symbol of ignorance instead of understanding.
Do you follow my reasoning ?
We can, in principle, use (as fundamentals) only such words as may be deemed irreducible. Meaning that they may not be broken down into further components of greater simplicity. For such words we look to elementary mathematics, logic and geometry and principally (inevitably) to our own clear observations (our common perception of reality).
These are words like identity, space, motion, rotation, point, line, plane, number, etc. and are common to all things or nearly all things. The most obvious concept is, by my criterion, of greatest import.
There are only two fundamentally different ex nihilo theories of existence (excluding religious "blanket" explanations).
All other hypotheses contain elements at the start which cannot be accepted as a true state of nothingness and therefore beg further explanation. (The point from which one derives, must itself be irreducible.)
There is a fundamental difference between them.
Why I am ConfidentImagine a room into which you invite people to throw a dart at a wall. Ask them to hit the target to the best of their ability. Ask a few thousand people to try their luck.
Now, go into the room and remove the target. There will be a bunch of holes all over the place (some even on the ceiling or opposite walls from people who were goofing off or accidentally 'let fly' at an inopportune moment). But most of the holes will cluster around where the target was.
Now, ask another person to enter the room and inquire as to whether he can pinpoint the location of the target at which other people were throwing.
No doubt, he will get it pretty nearly.
This is my position. I have examined so many possibilities that existence could not be substantially different than what I have given it to be, that is, not if it is to be explained within the confines of the English language.
You might, for instance, give an explanation in the following way.
I think you understand that making up a word to identify a phenomenon is not an explanation of that phenomenon (Richard Feynman's father).
Over the past few years I have had some objections to my "giving opinion as though it were fact". Apparently I am to preface every statement with some paean to humility thereby acknowledging my fallibility (or as is wished ... to wallow in it).
So let me state with clarity that I do indeed regard my general approach as ETERNALLY CORRECT. That is, what is here is in fact a fairly accurate skeletal rendition of truth. This IS what the universe basically IS.
IF ... there are multiplexes of universes ... THEN ... everything here is dead wrong and the product of my own imagination.
IF ... there is only one universe (as I suppose) ... THEN ... it must be approximately as I have given it.
There are no other fundamental alternatives.
The methods currently employed in particle physics, cosmology, astronomy are called the scientific method by dint of inheritance. The scientists now living are the formal inheritors of the scientific tradition (since Galileo). However, the methods now employed pale by comparison to those of Newton. Today, large groups of ''techies" (hundreds in the case of the recently 'discovered' top quark) sign their names to "documents of identification" reminiscent of modern artists who sign their names in 5 inch high letters while offering a few smudges and scribbles in the background.
These are the "half-scientists". They who gather data but fail to integrate it into any reasonable scheme. (The scheme offered is characteristic of these types. It is as inscrutable as the data that "generated" it.)
The reason is that finding quantitive relationships between parameters is part of identification not explanation as they would have you believe. Explanation is inherently philosophical (an endeavor which is nearly extinct). Identification, though completely necessary, is only the first step toward the unstated goal of Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Helmholtz, Hertz, etc. To say that men of this caliber sought only to find relationships is gross error. In fact, to find "just relationships" you must employ the "explanations" (read integrations) set forth by these men.
What is operative in science today is actually "fear of forced induction" (the most difficult task to be attempted by man). Induction means to experience almost continual failure and that is extremely wearing on one's soul. (Too much, apparently, for todays "scientists")
Gentlemen, we await the Pieta ...
you deliver to us ...