the organic principle

[jtwyler]

I've just read a new theory"the organic principle", although I am not exactly sure what it is, a theory, an idea, a different approach? At least it's a very novel approach to seeing things. Would anyone care to check it out? I'd like to hear other points of views, especially on what is it really? It is not commercial, it is not googleable, it's not referred to one specific science, it looks like a simple way to compare fields. The only reference I have is http://www.topthy.org .

JT

[meenkashi]

can u plz specify thru wat contxt r u posn d que????? u may luk into http://www.biochem.com ....bt dat isnt ne more hlpful dan google......
dats ol i cld do....

[canalon]

Considering this in the premises:

Now, if it applies to everything, it must also apply to a normal person.

And if it applies to a normal person, it must be understandable and explainable in plain language by any normal person.

This is a very wrong logical step, that makes all the rest irrelevant.

[jtwyler]

Considering this in the premises:

Now, if it applies to everything, it must also apply to a normal person.

And if it applies to a normal person, it must be understandable and explainable in plain language by any normal person.

This is a very wrong logical step, that makes all the rest irrelevant.

Seen out of context, yes, completely wrong. But how is it illogical in its context? AFAI understand it is about a general and common order that MUST be understandable in any language and not about something so specialized that it can only be understood by experts or expressed in hi-sci vocabulary. You imply that Einstein and Hawking were wrong when predicting that future theories shall be explainable in plain language to ordinary people and the author makes a point of adhering to exactly that. Quick dismissal after speedreading may not be good enough.

[jtwyler]

The quote was mentioned on the paper's site and the author insists that this was a conditio sine qua non of his theory. I googled "hawking quote" and found it on Wiki:

If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists.

And I concur. It is therefore in the logic of things that such theories should be easier to explain and read than the average modern theories. Galileo's seems obvious and simple today and it is daily explained in plain language and yet at the time he had a big problem. Too complex for their brains then so today's complexity might be tomorrow's simplicity . What if someone went immediately to tomorrow here?

[blcr11]

The paper, or whatever you want to call it, no longer comes up. All you get is the front page that is now linked to a non-existent page, or else it was moved and the link wasn’t updated. I’m all in favor of simple explanations—the simpler the better. I think Einstein would say things like that, too. But of course Einstein (and Hawking) was comfortable thinking in terms of tensors and potentials so, simple is as simple does, I guess. I couldn’t make much sense of the principle. I only glanced at it, so I don’t recall many of the details anymore. It seemed like a lot of numerological hand-waving to my mind. I don't want to be insulting to the author but "it needs work", as Santa said to the elves after listening distractedly to their song in the claymation version of Rudolf the Red-nosed Reindeer.

[jtwyler]

Considering this in the premises:

Now, if it applies to everything, it must also apply to a normal person.

And if it applies to a normal person, it must be understandable and explainable in plain language by any normal person.

This is a very wrong logical step, that makes all the rest irrelevant.

your quote should include the two sentences that preceed yours: To be valid this common order needs to conform to one single condition, it must be universal. This means that it must apply to everything in the Universe, including the Universe itself, at all times in all places on every level and in every state from every point of view.

from my understanding that means that it should also work in any language and not only the scientific. also to apply to a normal peson would then mean that a normal person too should be able to explain it therefore explainable in ordinary english.

[jtwyler]

The paper, or whatever you want to call it, no longer comes up. All you get is the front page that is now linked to a non-existent page, or else it was moved and the link wasn’t updated. I’m all in favor of simple explanations—the simpler the better. I think Einstein would say things like that, too. But of course Einstein (and Hawking) was comfortable thinking in terms of tensors and potentials so, simple is as simple does, I guess. I couldn’t make much sense of the principle. I only glanced at it, so I don’t recall many of the details anymore. It seemed like a lot of numerological hand-waving to my mind. I don't want to be insulting to the author but "it needs work", as Santa said to the elves after listening distractedly to their song in the claymation version of Rudolf the Red-nosed Reindeer.

just went there because it starts intriguing me and the site still works. after the main page it opens to a blank page then click one of the links in the top frame and the whatever appears. I agree with your point about its readability but that could be its initial problem that if it was written in physics or bio lingo it would not be simple enough to qualify by the standard set by Einstein that the laws of physics should be understandable by barmaids or by Hawking that it should be discussable by ordinary people. If it's too scientific it is not up to the standard the author wants to adhere to strictly and if it's too popular the scientists diss it. but it starts bugging me because it's either complete crap or there is more to it than one sees in fast-forward reading mode.

[canalon]

You are right, I read it a little more carefully, there are more logical flaws in the entire things than I thought after a fast-forward read. Besides whoever coded this page should start learning HTML. I had to correct all links by hand to be able to navigate in this site (for instance there is a difference between / and \ in the adress...).
And it is not because Einstein or Hawking have said that the basic rule of the universe should be understandable by anyone that they actually will be. Those are opinions, not fact. And both of those authors have proved that they master some physics that the average barmaid is usually not completely able to understand.

[jtwyler]

And it is not because Einstein or Hawking have said that the basic rule of the universe should be understandable by anyone that they actually will be. Those are opinions, not fact..

They must have had good reasons to say what they said. In fact I believe that it was their opinions which showed them the way to their results. What you are saying is that theory counts for nothing because what else is theory but an opinion that needs testing? The Princeton dic defines a theory as "a tentative insight into the natural world". In plain English, an opinion! And you are categorically saying that Einstein's and Hawking's opinions do not count? Every fact is a result from someone's opinion. If tested positive, the opinion becomes fact. No offence but I trust their opinions more than your judgment.

And both of those authors have proved that they master some physics that the average barmaid is usually not completely able to understand.

LOL, agree. Show me a barmaid who does not mistake an accelerator for a new shaker.

[mith]

site's broken, can't see anything.

[jtwyler]

site's broken, can't see anything.

I noticed that there have been a number of small corrections and additons so I see the site but I don't see fully through its content if you see what I mean I think it should be explained better or in more detail or is it a draft?