8 hours ago, KJW said:

I have an idea. If I had no idea, I would not have said anything. Obviously, anything said about life elsewhere in the universe is going to be speculative. I think we all understand that. But I think we can apply knowledge from physics, chemistry, and life on earth to say something that is better than nothing.

Indeed, but why is it better than nothing, life is a constant surprise even here on earth.

Plastics that the planet can't ingest, is being eaten by fungus' and bacteria...

7 hours ago, KJW said:

And it isn't because water is such a great solvent. In organic chemistry, water is a fairly poor solvent. It's because water provides a sharp delineation between the hydrophobic and the hydrophilic. For example, reaction sites of enzymes tend to be hydrophobic. But these sites are geometrically stabilised by water molecules forcing the protein structure into a conformation that has the hydrophilic groups on the outside surface and the hydrophobic groups on the inside. A solvent that tends to dissolve both hydrophilic and hydrophobic substances would tend to disrupt the secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structure of proteins.

Well it is a decent solvent for a great many things, including a wide range of gases and metal ions and, perhaps more important, is liquid over a temperature range at which chemical reactions proceed at a decent speed but sufficiently gently that complex molecules can form and avoid decomposition. But I take your point that the insolubility of catenated hydrocarbon chains offers a 2 phase environment that is exploited by life. Given that carbon's propensity for catenation is unique in the Periodic Table , a solvent that dissolved any complex carbon chain structure would not seem to be a good one for life.

On 10/9/2025 at 6:03 AM, Nia20855 said:

The quest for a unified “Theory of Everything” that explains the fundamental nature of the universe has long been a holy grail for scientists and philosophers, dating back to the ancient Greeks’ search for Arche. The mainstream of this research primarily focuses on the lifeless phenomena and laws of physics while ignores the realm of biology. However, a fundamentally different approach to the ToE has been put forward, presenting a viable alternative to address the challenge of a Theory of Everything. This approach does not seek the ultimate “building block” but rather aims to uncover the intangible rules that fundamentally govern everything in the universe, seeking their universality across the vast spectrum, from the minute subatomic world to the mega mass cosmic world and the magical biological world. This article explores how the Fundamental Interrelationships Model unifies our understanding of the evolution of the universe, encompassing the evolution of multicellularity, development of multicellular organisms, societal evolution, and the four fundamental forces, all within the context of the fundamental interrelationships. Thus, unlike most existing candidates, the Fundamental Interrelationships Model offers a comprehensive framework, encompassing both non-biological and living phenomena. As a truly all-inclusive theory, ToE shouldn’t only encompass non-biological processes and the laws of physics but extend to all facets of life, including evolution of life, evolution of society (civilization), humour, and justice, because life is an integral part of the dynamic cosmic system - the universe. Therefore, any hypothesis failing to integrate biology and sociology shouldn’t be considered a comprehensive Theory of Everything

22 hours ago, Nia20855 said:

On 10/9/2025 at 10:42 AM, exchemist said:

"I hope I am talking to a real person here. 😃" Yes!

Well Gavin, you discover new things in the most suprising places.

It has taken me some while to untangle your underlying thoughts from all the tens of pages of AI responses in your article.

Let me just say two things about that.

Firstly docx documents are not acceptable on this website.

Asking an AI to answer technical 'questions' is fraught with dangers as the AI is worse than unintelligent, so their output is often technically incorrrect or inappropriate.
Of course, sometimes it is OK, but the trouble is the user doesn't know when or how to distinguish so can be seriously misled.

AI's are presently unreliable and their output is not acceptable here.

Having said all that +1 for leading me to learn about 'arche' Thank you.

Buried in all that hype you have a germ of a good Idea that I agree with, along with lots of other mathematicians (did you think there is only Physics and Biology ?).

Mathematicians have been busy these last few decades reshaping maths to widen ideas rooted on 19th century Physics to acomodate many other disciplines.

One example is my thread here on metrics and measurement and another concerns biological applications of this widening.

For some a 'TOE' is like a red rag to a bull.

In my opinion it is the ultimate exposition of the human desire to classify and categorise, as is the notion of any sort of arche.

But your inter-relationships model is being accomodated within the body of current maths at fundamental level.

I look forward to your response with interest.

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

Well it is a decent solvent for a great many things, including a wide range of gases and metal ions and, perhaps more important, is liquid over a temperature range at which chemical reactions proceed at a decent speed but sufficiently gently that complex molecules can form and avoid decomposition.

On Pluto H₂O is a rock which forms molten lava (ie liquid water) through plate tectonics.

The NASA film of the last transmissions of the New Horizons fly by is fascinating.

Nasa believe that Pluto could be a good candidate for extra terrestrial biogenesis, and NH even discovered complex molecules in its spectral analyses.

On 10/10/2025 at 12:08 PM, KJW said:

And it isn't because water is such a great solvent. In organic chemistry, water is a fairly poor solvent

You don't use it for the organics, Chloroform was my choice back in the day.

That was getting novel chemistry into solution for NMR.

Distilled water or Chloroform did the trick once we looked at the structural formula, or at least what the synthetic chemist thought it is was.

A lowly graduate, I was presented with a bitch of a formula and sample so tried both, nothing worked.

It looked nasty too, like rock salt, contaminants, intermediates, something.

Super smart PhD on hand (really, I'm not being facetious) so I brought her in, she immediately went to the concentrated stuff, I think it was sulphuric, 10 molar? Serious tackle.

Anyway, full PPE in the fume cupboard , I stood back, wire wool filter in case there were contaminants.

It dissolved, also dissolved the wire wool, it's a metal.....so.

PhD. "What just happened?"

Me. " Strong acid so..."

PhD. "Oh yeah (laughs)"

On 10/11/2025 at 9:09 AM, studiot said:

"Buried in all that hype you have a germ of a good Idea that I agree with, along with lots of other mathematicians (did you think there is only Physics and Biology ?).

Mathematicians have been busy these last few decades reshaping maths to widen ideas rooted on 19th century Physics to acomodate many other disciplines.

One example is my thread here on metrics and measurement and another concerns biological applications of this widening."

I am not sure what exactly you mean but the IRM can certainly be used to represent some mathematics:

1. Calculus:
Divergence represents the process of breaking an irregular area into multiple (though not perfectly accurate) smaller parts. Convergence refers to these smaller parts coming together to approximate the total area. Transition involves converting an incalculable, irregular area into a calculable, regular one. Limitlessness reflects the idea of an infinite number of increasingly small regular areas.

2. Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometries:
Divergent and convergent lines, when considered together, can represent both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries. In the mid-section of the diagram—where divergence shifts into convergence (rather than the reverse)—the curvature approaches zero. This region corresponds to Euclidean geometry. The remaining sections, where curvature deviates more significantly, can be interpreted as representing non-Euclidean geometry.

3 Convergence-Divergence Diagram:
The convergence-divergence diagram can be used to mathematically represent the relationships between the left and right sides of an equation or expression. The central point in the diagram may symbolize various relational operators, such as =, >, <, ≈ (approximately equal), ∼ (similar), or even a combination of these. This allows the diagram to reflect nuanced or complex relationships between the two sides.

4 Trigonometric Representation:
The curved lines within the convergence-divergence diagram can represent trigonometric functions. These curves—such as sine, cosine, or tangent—naturally model periodic and oscillatory behavior, making them useful for illustrating relationships involving angular change, waveforms, or circular motion. Their inclusion adds a dynamic, functional dimension to the diagram, enhancing its ability to represent mathematical transformations and relationships.

5 Permutations and Combinations Representation:
The model can also represent permutations and combinations. In this context, each line within the diagram symbolizes a distinct number or element. The arrangement of lines on the right side corresponds to specific combinations or permutations formed from the elements on the left. Divergence illustrates the distribution of elements into multiple possible groupings, while convergence reflects the organization of these groupings into distinct, structured outcomes.

6 The continuity–discontinuity framework of the IRM aligns with topological principles, which study the preservation or disruption of structure under continuous transformations.

In my research on the IRM, I focus primarily on biological systems—such as society, the human body, the evolution of life, and physics—rather than delving into the mathematical aspects. I prefer to leave it to mathematicians to explore the potential of using the model to represent various branches of mathematics. Anyone who succeeds in this aspect will make a significant contribution to this fundamental area of study.

On 10/11/2025 at 9:09 AM, studiot said:

Well Gavin, you discover new things in the most suprising places.

It has taken me some while to untangle your underlying thoughts from all the tens of pages of AI responses in your article.

Let me just say two things about that.

Firstly docx documents are not acceptable on this website.

Asking an AI to answer technical 'questions' is fraught with dangers as the AI is worse than unintelligent, so their output is often technically incorrrect or inappropriate.
Of course, sometimes it is OK, but the trouble is the user doesn't know when or how to distinguish so can be seriously misled.

AI's are presently unreliable and their output is not acceptable here.

Having said all that +1 for leading me to learn about 'arche' Thank you.

Buried in all that hype you have a germ of a good Idea that I agree with, along with lots of other mathematicians (did you think there is only Physics and Biology ?).

Mathematicians have been busy these last few decades reshaping maths to widen ideas rooted on 19th century Physics to acomodate many other disciplines.

One example is my thread here on metrics and measurement and another concerns biological applications of this widening.

For some a 'TOE' is like a red rag to a bull.

In my opinion it is the ultimate exposition of the human desire to classify and categorise, as is the notion of any sort of arche.

But your inter-relationships model is being accomodated within the body of current maths at fundamental level.

I look forward to your response with interest.

On Pluto H₂O is a rock which forms molten lava (ie liquid water) through plate tectonics.

The NASA film of the last transmissions of the New Horizons fly by is fascinating.

Nasa believe that Pluto could be a good candidate for extra terrestrial biogenesis, and NH even discovered complex molecules in its spectral analyses.

On 10/11/2025 at 9:09 AM, studiot said:

"Asking an AI to answer technical 'questions' is fraught with dangers as the AI is worse than unintelligent, so their output is often technically incorrrect or inappropriate.
Of course, sometimes it is OK, but the trouble is the user doesn't know when or how to distinguish so can be seriously misled.

AI's are presently unreliable and their output is not acceptable here."

Artificial intelligence is playing an increasingly important role in solving research problems, including those in mathematics. There are reports that mathematician Terence Tao recently described using ChatGPT to help solve a mathematical problem on MathOverflow.

Just a quick note @Nia20855; the quotes seems messed up; your answers are posted as quotes from studiot.

First of all, thank you for trying to reply.

Unfortunately you may have missed moderator swansont's helpful short post about replying.

In line with your love of AI, I have enhanced the important line

On 10/9/2025 at 11:58 PM, swansont said:

You need to have your answers be outside of the quote box

https://scienceforums.net/topic/135919-using-the-quote-function-2025-edition/

“To break up the quoted material, to respond to a specific section, put the cursor in the text box and hit return/enter a few times, and it will split the quote box in two, with a place for you to respond in between them.”

If you are having trouble with this please ask

Otherwise place your quote and then press return a couple of times to leave the quote box and add your own stuff.

As you can see there are plenty of folks here with an interest in discussing your ideas .

But they will soon give up if you make it too dificult for them.

When you have more experience of the fomat here we can help you further with the clever stuff like extracting a bit from a misplaced quote box and putting it in a different sort of quote or picking out quotes from different pages.

We all try to help each other here.

5 hours ago, Nia20855 said:

I am not sure what exactly you mean but the IRM can certainly be used to represent some mathematics:

Really it is the other way round.

You will not arrive at a TOE without maths.

5 hours ago, Nia20855 said:

In the mid-section of the diagram

I see no diagram.

You need to post discussion material here.

This is a very important part of the rules.

21 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

On 10/10/2025 at 9:08 PM, KJW said:

And it isn't because water is such a great solvent. In organic chemistry, water is a fairly poor solvent.

You don't use it for the organics,

What exactly do you mean by this? I've already said that water is a fairly poor solvent in organic chemistry. Also, many reagents used to perform chemical reactions in organic chemistry react with water, and therefore water is an unsuitable solvent for such reactions even if the substances are soluble. And many organic compounds are soluble in water, a property that can be exploited in various ways, as well as a possible difficulty to be overcome.

21 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

Chloroform was my choice back in the day.

My preferred work-up extraction solvent was dichloromethane for its relatively low boiling point compared to chloroform.

On 10/11/2025 at 4:28 AM, exchemist said:

Well it is a decent solvent for a great many things, including a wide range of gases and metal ions and, perhaps more important, is liquid over a temperature range at which chemical reactions proceed at a decent speed but sufficiently gently that complex molecules can form and avoid decomposition. But I take your point that the insolubility of catenated hydrocarbon chains offers a 2 phase environment that is exploited by life. Given that carbon's propensity for catenation is unique in the Periodic Table , a solvent that dissolved any complex carbon chain structure would not seem to be a good one for life.

I think I may have been wrong to attribute the importance of water to life to a single property. However, I do feel that the importance of water's ability to dissolve substances is somewhat overstated and simplistic. Water molecules have two hydrogen atoms and two lone pairs of electrons, a perfect match for an extensive hydrogen-bonded network in the liquid phase, especially considering oxygen's high electronegativity compared to the elements below it in the periodic table. Thus, water not only has the ability to solvate ions and other polar molecules, but also the ability to force hydrophobic substances into a separate phase to minimise the disruption of the hydrogen-bonding of the water molecules. It's worth noting that most biomolecules are water-soluble. This is either because the molecules used as an energy source and their metabolic pathways are highly polar (eg glucose, its metabolic pathway, and the molecules of the tricarboxylic acid cycle), but also because the molecules that biochemistry "chooses" as its reagents, catalysts, etc appear purposely to have highly polar groups (I'm referring to such molecules as adenosine triphosphate (ATP), nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD⁺/NADH), and coenzyme A (all three of which have nucleotides in their structure)). This would suggest that biochemistry has adapted to an aqueous environment more so than water being necessary for a hypothetical biochemistry.

Edited October 12Oct 12 by KJW

46 minutes ago, KJW said:

I think I may have been wrong to attribute the importance of water to life to a single property. However, I do feel that the importance of water's ability to dissolve substances is somewhat overstated and simplistic. Water molecules have two hydrogen atoms and two lone pairs of electrons, a perfect match for an extensive hydrogen-bonded network in the liquid phase, especially considering oxygen's high electronegativity compared to the elements below it in the periodic table. Thus, water not only has the ability to solvate ions and other polar molecules, but also the ability to force hydrophobic substances into a separate phase to minimise the disruption of the hydrogen-bonding of the water molecules. It's worth noting that most biomolecules are water-soluble. This is either because the molecules used as an energy source and their metabolic pathways are highly polar (eg glucose, its metabolic pathway, and the molecules of the tricarboxylic acid cycle), but also because the molecules that biochemistry "chooses" as its reagents, catalysts, etc appear purposely to have highly polar groups (I'm referring to such molecules as adenosine triphosphate (ATP), nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD⁺/NADH), and coenzyme A (all three of which have nucleotides in their structure)). This would suggest that biochemistry has adapted to an aqueous environment more so than water being necessary for a hypothetical biochemistry.

I found your comment about the (H-bonded) polarity of water as a solvent leading to the exploitation by life of 2 phases (hydrophilic and hydrophobic) rather insightful. I immediately thought of bi-lipid membranes, for instance and the mechanisms for selective transport across them.

Your final remark suggests we could try to imagine life developing with the use of other solvents. Liquid ammonia perhaps? Liquid CO2? Under suitable pressures, these could perhaps be feasible at temperatures high enough to give reasonable rates of reaction.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

I immediately thought of bi-lipid membranes, for instance and the mechanisms for selective transport across them.

Consider mitochondria. It solves a fundamental problem facing living organisms. That problem is the conversion of energy obtained from redox reactions to energy that is to be used for dehydration reactions. How surprisingly difficult is such a conversion is highlighted by the extraordinary way mitochondria achieve it.

First, it creates a hydrogen ion concentration gradient across a membrane. It achieves this in a step of the electron transport chain where a lipophilic quinone inside the membrane is reduced on one side of the membrane, taking up two hydrogen ions in the process, and the resulting hydroquinone is subsequently oxidised to the quinone on the other side of the membrane, releasing those two hydrogen ions.

Second, the hydrogen ion concentration gradient across a membrane is used to convert adenosine diphosphate (ADP) to adenosine triphosphate (ATP). It achieves this using a membrane protein called ATPase which couples the passage of hydrogen ions across the membrane through the protein with the phosphorylation of ADP. The reaction is reversible, but with the hydrogen ion concentration gradient formed as above from the oxidation of food, ATP is produced.

19 hours ago, studiot said:

Unfortunately you may have missed moderator swansont's helpful short post about replying.

If you are having trouble with this please ask

Thank you

19 hours ago, studiot said:

19 hours ago, studiot said:

I see no diagram.

You need to post discussion material here.

@Nia20855

OK thanks for the pretty pink lnes which appear to have no significance, in relation to your incorrect understanding to phase diagrams and the critical points of water.

How do you account for the triple point of water ?

Let's discuss some actual physics because this is not the complete behaviour of water.

Transition of State and Critical Point

Transition of state is a widespread phenomenon in the universe and serves as an expression of a serial relationship. An illustrative example of this phenomenon is observed when ice is heated, causing it to melt into water, and when water is further heated, transforming it into steam. Notably, with each transition, the physical properties of the substance undergo corresponding changes. Ice exists in a solid form, water in a liquid state, and steam as a gaseous entity.

The critical point marks the juncture at which such transitions initiate. For instance, 0°C represents the critical point at which ice transitions into water, and 100°C is the critical point[5] for water evolving into steam.

Visualizing and understanding the process of the transition of state can be facilitated by the Interrelationships Model, as depicted in Fig-3. In this model, the convergence and subsequent divergence of lines signify the critical point – a recognized turning point. The left side of the model signifies the state before transition, while the right side represents the state after transition. Thus, the model effectively captures the entire process of the transition of state. Applying this model to the example of ice melting into water, the left side represents ice, where water molecules (H2O) exist in a solid form. At the center, the critical point (0°C) signifies the transition from a solid to a liquid state. The right side represents water, where water molecules exist in a liquid form.

The region between two critical points signifies a distinct form of existence. Beyond this region, an object adopt different forms of existence.

The transition of state and critical points are evident in various physical, chemical, and biological phenomena, such as the boiling of water. In the case of water, temperature and pressure, represented by lines to the left of the critical point, determine its phase. To the left of the critical point, water exists in a liquid state, and to the right, it exists in a gaseous state. The precise moment water starts to boil represents a phase transition[6], with the boiling point serving as the critical point. A similar principle applies to nuclear substances, where reaching a critical point, known as critical mass[7], triggers a nuclear reaction, transforming energy from matter to nuclear energy.

This is further complicated by the Chemistry when the water is not pure.

Which amplifies my point that Physics and Biology are not the only sciences.

Edited October 13Oct 13 by studiot

On 10/8/2025 at 10:03 PM, Nia20855 said:

The quest for a unified “Theory of Everything” that explains the fundamental nature of the universe has long been a holy grail for scientists and philosophers, dating back to the ancient Greeks’ search for Arche. The mainstream of this research primarily focuses on the lifeless phenomena and laws of physics while ignores the realm of biology. However, a fundamentally different approach to the ToE has been put forward, presenting a viable alternative to address the challenge of a Theory of Everything. This approach does not seek the ultimate “building block” but rather aims to uncover the intangible rules that fundamentally govern everything in the universe, seeking their universality across the vast spectrum, from the minute subatomic world to the mega mass cosmic world and the magical biological world. This article explores how the Fundamental Interrelationships Model unifies our understanding of the evolution of the universe, encompassing the evolution of multicellularity, development of multicellular organisms, societal evolution, and the four fundamental forces, all within the context of the fundamental interrelationships. Thus, unlike most existing candidates, the Fundamental Interrelationships Model offers a comprehensive framework, encompassing both non-biological and living phenomena. As a truly all-inclusive theory, ToE shouldn’t only encompass non-biological processes and the laws of physics but extend to all facets of life, including evolution of life, evolution of society (civilization), humour, and justice, because life is an integral part of the dynamic cosmic system - the universe. Therefore, any hypothesis failing to integrate biology and sociology shouldn’t be considered a comprehensive Theory of Everything

The full article is on Philpapers https://philarchive.org/rec/HUATFI-2

This scope would make a Theory of Everything impossible. First let's get a complete definition of theory:
"A theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena.
An explanation is a set of statements usually constructed to describe a set of facts that clarifies the causes, context, and consequences of those facts."

By this definition a true Theory of Everything would have to account for all possible facts which is an unbounded number of facts.
But why would there be an unbounded number of facts?
Because if we suppose that this universe is limited in some way, containing a limited set of facts, we have excluded all the facts which fall outside the limits of this universe.
But those facts which this universe excludes play a part in describing or explaining the way this universe is limited, and this is because meaning only arises through difference or contrast.
If two things were perfectly identical, being alike in every respect, they would not be two but one and the same thing. That is to say, two different things cannot be identical.
So whatever this universe excludes limits what this universe includes, thus describing this universe and not some other universe.
Now you might be thinking well what if the facts this universe excludes are finite or limited?
But finite or limited in relation to what? To posit that something is finite or limited means it must exclude something from itself,
otherwise it would have no boundaries which define what it is, it wouldn't be different from anything, it would be unbounded.
Therefore in order to have a truly exhaustive Theory of Everything we must account for all possible facts which are unbounded.

But then you might ask why would it be impossible to cover an unbounded number of facts?
Because two different things cannot be identical, no two facts can be the same, each fact must be completely unique.
So as you attempt to include more and more facts into your explanation, you encounter more and more edge cases.
This is because your explanation must be bounded and limited, otherwise your explanation could not describe anything in particular,
which amounts to saying it wouldn't describe anything at all.
To try to account for each fact or set of facts in a compounded explanation would be an endless task directly in relation to the unbounded number of facts.
It would be an explanation which wouldn't have an end, it would never be finished, always incomplete,
meaning it wouldn't constitute an explanation at all.

20 minutes ago, nyquistfreq said:

This scope would make a Theory of Everything impossible. First let's get a complete definition of theory:
"A theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena.
An explanation is a set of statements usually constructed to describe a set of facts that clarifies the causes, context, and consequences of those facts."

By this definition a true Theory of Everything would have to account for all possible facts which is an unbounded number of facts.
But why would there be an unbounded number of facts?
Because if we suppose that this universe is limited in some way, containing a limited set of facts, we have excluded all the facts which fall outside the limits of this universe.
But those facts which this universe excludes play a part in describing or explaining the way this universe is limited, and this is because meaning only arises through difference or contrast.
If two things were perfectly identical, being alike in every respect, they would not be two but one and the same thing. That is to say, two different things cannot be identical.
So whatever this universe excludes limits what this universe includes, thus describing this universe and not some other universe.
Now you might be thinking well what if the facts this universe excludes are finite or limited?
But finite or limited in relation to what? To posit that something is finite or limited means it must exclude something from itself,
otherwise it would have no boundaries which define what it is, it wouldn't be different from anything, it would be unbounded.
Therefore in order to have a truly exhaustive Theory of Everything we must account for all possible facts which are unbounded.

But then you might ask why would it be impossible to cover an unbounded number of facts?
Because two different things cannot be identical, no two facts can be the same, each fact must be completely unique.
So as you attempt to include more and more facts into your explanation, you encounter more and more edge cases.
This is because your explanation must be bounded and limited, otherwise your explanation could not describe anything in particular,
which amounts to saying it wouldn't describe anything at all.
To try to account for each fact or set of facts in a compounded explanation would be an endless task directly in relation to the unbounded number of facts.
It would be an explanation which wouldn't have an end, it would never be finished, always incomplete,
meaning it wouldn't constitute an explanation at all.

Clever words indeed, but perhaps a chink ?

Hopefully you are not claiming that Charles Francis Douglas Stewart is not the same identical person as the King of England ?

Just now, studiot said:

Clever words indeed, but perhaps a chink ?

Hopefully you are not claiming that Charles Francis Douglas Stewart is not the same identical person as the King of England ?

I don't know what you mean by this, and I don't want to try to guess and perhaps misunderstand, if you could express it more clearly perhaps I would understand.
Tell me exactly what I have said that you are referencing and what your objection is.

Well you have repeated several times that

29 minutes ago, nyquistfreq said:

That is to say, two different things cannot be identical.

But you have also invoked set theory with non empty disjoint subsets, but have offered no reason why this universe cannot hold an infinity of facts.

Many facts are compound or complex so do not fit into this requirement.

My King Charles thoughts (quickly off the top of my head) are an example of such.

There is a difference between unbounded and finite.

The domain of the sine function is infinite yet the function itself is bounded.

Similarly you need to take care of the difference between an identity and an equality.

Just now, studiot said:

Well you have repeated several times that

But you have also invoked set theory with non empty disjoint subsets, but have offered no reason why this universe cannot hold an infinity of facts.

Many facts are compound or complex so do not fit into this requirement.

My King Charles thoughts (quickly off the top of my head) are an example of such.

There is a difference between unbounded and finite.

The domain of the sine function is infinite yet the function itself is bounded.

Similarly you need to take care of the difference between an identity and an equality.

Okay I am now confident I understand what you are saying.

When I say two different things cannot be identical and the like, I am invoking Leibniz' Identity of Indiscernibles, not some formal set theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles
Who the King of England at a particular date (which is a temporal title) clearly does not have all its properties common with the person themselves,
thus these are two separate facts which may have some properties in common such as the name of the person.
The two different things you supposed were the same were simply not fully defined, which made them appear the same but only at a certain level.

I only supposed that this universe was limited as a "thought experiment", I never said it wasn't unbounded.
After all it all depends on what you define as this universe, but any positive definition must thereby be limited.
Anyways lets suppose the universe is unbounded, this means that there are still an unbounded number of unique facts, which cannot all be accounted for.

"There is a difference between unbounded and finite. The domain of the sine function is infinite yet the function itself is bounded."
Yes this points to an important distinction that I didn't cover.
I was trying to use simple language here so that anyone can get a picture of what I am talking about.
I used unbounded instead of endless, because of course the endless evokes the image as being unbounded in a single direction along a single line.
Unbounded can mean unbounded in any arbitrary way.

When I use the word unbounded I mean not limited to the domain of any pattern, or conception such as: time, space, even number in their most extended conceptions.
What I am actually talking about is the Absolute whose dictionary definition is:
"Loosed from any limitation or condition; uncontrolled; unrestricted; unconditional.
Complete in itself; perfect; consummate; faultless. "
Although I use the summation of all possible facts as an example, this does not limit its definition to "facts", it was just an example to attempt to bring about understanding.

1 hour ago, nyquistfreq said:

This is because your explanation must be bounded and limited, otherwise your explanation could not describe anything in particular,
which amounts to saying it wouldn't describe anything at all.

Aren't you just misunderstanding Zenos paradox?

Just now, dimreepr said:

Aren't you just misunderstanding Zenos paradox?

What exactly does this have to do with Zeno's paradox? I don't see the relationship please explain how you understand what I have written.

Just now, nyquistfreq said:

What exactly does this have to do with Zeno's paradox? I don't see the relationship please explain how you understand what I have written.

Limits, of understanding... Unless you believe you could win a race against an a faster human, just by thinking about it. 😉

Just now, dimreepr said:

Limits, of understanding... Unless you believe you could win a race against an a faster human, just by thinking about it. 😉

I know about Zeno's paradox, the conclusion of the ancients was that time cannot be broken down into instants, the whole cannot be derived from the innumerable parts or instants of time,
Zeno's paradox, although this fact has been forgotten, was used as an argument against Democritus' atomism.

Now what exactly does this have to do with the argument I posed, you haven't told me the exact relationship to or even how you understood what you quoted of me here:
"This is because your explanation must be bounded and limited, otherwise your explanation could not describe anything in particular,
which amounts to saying it wouldn't describe anything at all."

9 minutes ago, nyquistfreq said:

"This is because your explanation must be bounded and limited, otherwise your explanation could not describe anything in particular,
which amounts to saying it wouldn't describe anything at all."

Why?

I'm fairly sure I won that race, please explain how I didn't?

Edited October 16Oct 16 by dimreepr

2 hours ago, nyquistfreq said:

So as you attempt to include more and more facts into your explanation, you encounter more and more edge cases.
This is because your explanation must be bounded and limited, otherwise your explanation could not describe anything in particular

All electrons are spin 1/2 particles with a -1 fundamental charge. How would that be “diluted” by having an infinite number of them?

How are Newton’s laws of motion “diluted” by having an infinite number of entities? Or the theory of evolution?

1 hour ago, nyquistfreq said:

What I am actually talking about is the Absolute whose dictionary definition is:
"Loosed from any limitation or condition; uncontrolled; unrestricted; unconditional.
Complete in itself; perfect; consummate; faultless. "

Well I think that is poor definition of absolute.

Absolute things may be limited or restricted.

For example Pi is definitely less than 4 .

But it does mean not referred to any other value.

But thank you for your thoughts, they just need some tightening up.

I find this very common with 'philosophy'.

People sometimes use terms which are too general or all embracing.

On 10/12/2025 at 4:12 AM, KJW said:

This would suggest that biochemistry has adapted to an aqueous environment more so than water being necessary for a hypothetical biochemistry.

I've wondered about that. Water's polarity and its enabling the transport of nutrients and waste so well, may not be enough to make it de rigeur for biochemistry, but it also has really high heat capacity which nicely moderates temp changes within organisms. The other one that does that well would be ammonia - I'm not sure how liquid ammonia environments work in terms of reactions rates that foster complex multicellular life. And they have a narrower liquid range than water. At our atmospheric pressure, you don't get a liquid until temp is down to -33 C. This is an area where my knowledge is thin (beyond SF speculations): can "slow life" in principle reach the levels of complexity that terrestrial life does? Also, while ammonia is an excellent solvent it's less effective than water for dissolving highly polar organic molecules. So that's another slowing factor. I guess I'm asking how important speed is. Maybe we'll find out someday. (I suppose we will be "slow life" compared to sentient AGI, if we ever develop that)

"Ammonia Bird in a Gilded Cage."