# Proposal: ASD and ToE

## Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Of what use is it as a conceptual tool, if it doesn't work? How do you assess whether or not the idea applies to a specific situation? You need an objective way of determining this.

Here is a list of few ASD states to ascertain why it is wrong:

ASD States:

State 1 – Connection: For A and B or more to have a type of relationship between both or more, then both or more must establish a connection between both or more.

State 2 – Change Process: For either A and B or more to be less or greater than sum of both or more, then both or more must undergo a change process toward an equilibrium.

State 3 – Equilibrium: For A and B or more to be at equilibrium, then both or more must be equalized to each other.

Note 1 of 3: A and B or more refer to objects and / or systems.
Note 2 of 3: Connection refers to any type of connection (ie. any types of relationship).
Note 3 of 3: The change process refers to all known actionable words or processes (eg. bonding, creating, forming, decaying, etc).

Will you please explain which or even all states is/are wrong, an example of it being wrong, and why?

##### Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, tylers100 said:

State 1 – Connection: For A and B or more to have a type of relationship between both or more, then both or more must establish a connection between both or more.

In other words, if things have no way of interacting then they cannot affect each other. Blindingly obvious and not a useful insight.

9 minutes ago, tylers100 said:

State 2 – Change Process: For either A and B or more to be less or greater than sum of both or more, then both or more must undergo a change process toward an equilibrium.

So, if two or more things are not in equilibrium (and are able to interact, per 1) then they will tend towards equilibrium. Again, another statement of the obvious.

10 minutes ago, tylers100 said:

State 3 – Equilibrium: For A and B or more to be at equilibrium, then both or more must be equalized to each other.

A definition of the well-defined concept of equilibrium. (Not a very good definition, because you haven't said what "equal" means, but presumably it means they are in equilibrium.)

11 minutes ago, tylers100 said:

Will you please explain which or even all states is/are wrong, an example of it being wrong, and why?

I don't think any of them are wrong. They are just statements of well-known facts. It provides absolutely no new insights or any new way of using the knowledge.

Useless, rather than wrong.

##### Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Strange said:

In other words, if things have no way of interacting then they cannot affect each other. Blindingly obvious and not a useful insight.

So, if two or more things are not in equilibrium (and are able to interact, per 1) then they will tend towards equilibrium. Again, another statement of the obvious.

A definition of the well-defined concept of equilibrium. (Not a very good definition, because you haven't said what "equal" means, but presumably it means they are in equilibrium.)

I don't think any of them are wrong. They are just statements of well-known facts. It provides absolutely no new insights or any new way of using the knowledge.

Useless, rather than wrong.

Maybe ASD could be of tiny use:

'What is Quantum Gravity?' article, 'Is Quantum Gravity Proven?' section, dated March 21, 2018 - from: https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-quantum-gravity-2699360

quote: "Attempts to combine them generally run into the "renormalization problem," in which the sum of all of the forces do not cancel out and result in an infinite value. In quantum electrodynamics, this happened occasionally, but one could renormalize the mathematics to remove these issues. Such renormalization does not work in a quantum interpretation of gravity."

I'm wondering with a question as follow: Have you or anyone ever tried to use ASD to pit two or more incompatible theories against each other instead of combing both or more, to see what emerge as result?

The theories could include General Relativity, Quantum Gravity, Quantum Theory, or other ones which I'm not aware about.

##### Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, tylers100 said:

I'm wondering with a question as follow: Have you or anyone ever tried to use ASD to pit two or more incompatible theories against each other instead of combing both or more, to see what emerge as result?

So explain how your naive restatement of the blindingly obvious solves the mathematical conflict between GR and quantum theory; presumably you are an expert in both?

##### Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Strange said:

So explain how your naive restatement of the blindingly obvious solves the mathematical conflict between GR and quantum theory; presumably you are an expert in both?

I'm neither a qualified scientist / mathematician nor expert.

Idk. I'm a bit unsure whether if ASD is a concept construction based on a pattern or is a pattern that which I "see" kinda in something part of everywhere but then maybe it is just me.

I guess I thought I could make use of it to solve two or more incompatible things or something like that. Call it a contribution of sort.

If ASD is useless here, then I'll discuss ASD elsewhere where there might be more meaning to it.

Thanks for participating.

##### Share on other sites

^ A visual example of ASD result.

[note 1 of 2: Originally found from reading an article - link: https://getpocket.com/explore/item/physics-needs-philosophy-philosophy-needs-physics?utm_source=pocket-newtab]

[note 2 of 2: above 1st link - Photo by Dimitri Otis / Getty Images]

##### Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, tylers100 said:

^ A visual example of ASD result.

Cool picture. This can be described/explained conceptually in terms of equilibrium and balance, and quantitatively using mass, gravity, moments of force, etc.

I don't understand what ASD is supposed to add.

##### Share on other sites

You're cherry-picking the data. You can't check the premise that "all horses are white" by only showing pictures of white horses.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/7/2020 at 8:42 PM, tylers100 said:

ASD – “Mechanism”

Law: Adaptive semi-determine between a and b or more toward equilibrium.

When either a or b or more is less or greater than the sum of both or more, a change undergo between both or more until equilibrium is reached.

Since if the ASD is true then that means some things while asding can be perceived to be good, bad, or neutral as situational dependent.

On 4/20/2020 at 5:30 PM, tylers100 said:

State 3 – Equilibrium: For A and B or more to be at equilibrium, then both or more must be equalized to each other.

Science recognised many more types of equilibrium than the limited view you offer here.

So Science distinguishes for instance stable, metastable and unstable equilibrium in one classification; static and dynamic equilibrium in another, further your system is stated to require two or more entities. What about the equilibrium of a single entity or system ?

How does your assertion fit in with these ?

Edited by studiot

##### Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, studiot said:

further your system is stated to require two or more entities. What about the equilibrium of a single entity or system ?

Bazinga

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, studiot said:

What about the equilibrium of a single entity or system ?

How can a single entity be in equilibrium?

That's like asking "what's the difference between a duck?"

##### Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, swansont said:

How can a single entity be in equilibrium?

A single entity can be unstable (or meta stable). Like a muon, for example.

In "equilibrium"? Maybe not the best word. But then neither is ASD!

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, swansont said:

How can a single entity be in equilibrium?

Take a pure liquid substance in a sealed container.

What is the equilibrium state of the contents above the critical temperature?

However I would admit that I was thinking about a ball perched on a hill top, rolling down to a bench partway down and at the valley bottom when I originally wrote that bit.

Edited by studiot

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Strange said:

Cool picture. This can be described/explained conceptually in terms of equilibrium and balance, and quantitatively using mass, gravity, moments of force, etc.

I don't understand what ASD is supposed to add.

ASD seems to sums it up. At least for me, so far.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

You're cherry-picking the data. You can't check the premise that "all horses are white" by only showing pictures of white horses.

I "see" ASD kinda everywhere, perhaps interpreted to be understood probably for my way. But I thought I could share and contribute it.

"Where to begin?" is the question I asked myself, to find an example.

The picture is a perfect example of human(s) using (eg. including gravity, other factors) but I call it ASD, at a right condition (ASD is situational dependent) to construct that balanced rocks.

But I could find more examples if you want. But though, I'm layman person.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Science recognised many more types of equilibrium than the limited view you offer here.

So Science distinguishes for instance stable, metastable and unstable equilibrium in one classification; static and dynamic equilibrium in another, further your system is stated to require two or more entities. What about the equilibrium of a single entity or system ?

How does your assertion fit in with these ?

What is the ultimate beginning, middle, and inevitable destination of entities/objects/systems while in any equilibrium state as you said, also while in any type of relationship?

Is there such an absolute and singular of entity/object/system that is absolutely independent of any type of relationship?

I still think ASD could be a concept construction by myself to define and explain the general mechanism of The Nature, in seemingly unified way regarding any type of relationship between objects/systems. Probably appropriated for my level of understanding.

It is still important to see if ASD is right or wrong.

For some reason I keep thinking ASD could be an inference of pattern by gravity or something like that. But though, I'm only layman person.

I can't cognitize further beyond ASD, and into the intricate / complexity of science. This is my limitation.

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tylers100 said:

ASD seems to sums it up. At least for me, so far.

So you have come up with your own words and your own mental image. It doesn't seem you can communicate clearly what is new or different about it, or what value it has.

"It makes sense to me" is not much use to anyone else, especially when the principles and the details are already well understood.

##### Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, tylers100 said:

I "see" ASD kinda everywhere, perhaps interpreted to be understood probably for my way. But I thought I could share and contribute it.

It's called the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon (frequency bias). Coupled with confirmation bias.

##### Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, swansont said:

It's called the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon (frequency bias).

I've never heard it called that before. (But now I am going to be coming across it all the time.)

##### Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Strange said:

I've never heard it called that before. (But now I am going to be coming across it all the time.)

It's kinda like the Stockholm syndrome in that regard.

I didn't recall the name, either. I was double-checking which bias it was (wasn't sure if it fell under confirmation bias) and it popped up.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, tylers100 said:
3 hours ago, studiot said:

How does your assertion fit in with these ?

What is the ultimate beginning, middle, and inevitable destination of entities/objects/systems while in any equilibrium state as you said, also while in any type of relationship?

Is there such an absolute and singular of entity/object/system that is absolutely independent of any type of relationship?

Please explain to an idiot like me in simple baby steps how what you have said in any way answers my question ?

Edited by studiot

##### Share on other sites
On 4/27/2020 at 12:40 PM, studiot said:

Please explain to an idiot like me in simple baby steps how what you have said in any way answers my question ?

Think of ASD like Kernel used in Linux operating systems, a middle (drivers sort of) between hardware and software. That is kinda the best explanation I can could come up with atm.

##### Share on other sites
15 hours ago, tylers100 said:

Think of ASD like Kernel used in Linux operating systems, a middle (drivers sort of) between hardware and software. That is kinda the best explanation I can could come up with atm.

As you are unable to explain this vague feeling to anyone else, in meaningful terms, it seems to be the most spectacularly useless idea ever.

"My theory of everything is that things seem kind of right to me in a way I can't quite define"

##### Share on other sites

Afternoon, all.

The adaptive semi-determinism or ASD is a concept conceived by myself in an attempt to define and explain the universal mechanism behind everything, or at least I think so.

I thought I'd share about the ASD to all of you on here. I had hoped that by sharing about it, it could become more developed or evolved understanding via discussion between you and me.

Unfortunately, it became apparent that I performed poorly of job with the definition and explanation for the ASD mechanism. As result of that, I have decided to discontinue my contribution to philosophy / science. It is clear that I have no place in either domains or fields. I wasted your time, for that I am sorry and won't bother any of you again.

I wish you good luck with finding, proving, and putting the final theory to good use if there is any.

Good day to all of you.

##### Share on other sites
21 hours ago, tylers100 said:

Afternoon, all.

The adaptive semi-determinism or ASD is a concept conceived by myself in an attempt to define and explain the universal mechanism behind everything, or at least I think so.

I thought I'd share about the ASD to all of you on here. I had hoped that by sharing about it, it could become more developed or evolved understanding via discussion between you and me.

Unfortunately, it became apparent that I performed poorly of job with the definition and explanation for the ASD mechanism. As result of that, I have decided to discontinue my contribution to philosophy / science. It is clear that I have no place in either domains or fields. I wasted your time, for that I am sorry and won't bother any of you again.

I wish you good luck with finding, proving, and putting the final theory to good use if there is any.

Good day to all of you.

You could stick around and get involved in other discussions. That might be interesting and it might help you clarify your ideas in you own head so that you are able to explain them to others.

##### Share on other sites
On 7/6/2020 at 11:26 AM, tylers100 said:

I thought I'd share about the ASD to all of you on here. I had hoped that by sharing about it, it could become more developed or evolved understanding via discussion between you and me.

Unfortunately, it became apparent that I performed poorly of job with the definition and explanation for the ASD mechanism. As result of that, I have decided to discontinue my contribution to philosophy / science. It is clear that I have no place in either domains or fields. I wasted your time, for that I am sorry and won't bother any of you again.

Part of the problem is that science uses very specific definitions for most things. You've found it easier to make up some of your own, to describe what's in your head, because what you were reading didn't make immediate sense to you. It's a bad habit, that's all, like using too much slang that others don't know. Instead of making stuff up, you should be learning the definitions science uses, so you can better communicate what you're thinking. As Strange said, you should stick around and get involved in other discussions. It's a great way to learn.

##### Share on other sites

I think something that may help most people reading this post is to provide simple examples of what you mean just after you've introduced some of your definitions.

Great philosophers (especially philosophers of science, like, e.g., Bertrand Russell) always set up explanatory examples after an abstract notion was introduced. Examples are like the "laboratory" of philosophy. Help your potential readers know that you mean business.

On the whole, I don't think for a second that getting an idea of what a TOE will look like will be helped along by philosophical thinking alone. I'm pessimistic if you want.

## Create an account

Register a new account