Philosophy Now Forum

I have the pleasure to join this forum, and really, I am here for only one thing … I spent a great time developing a philosophical theory called: "The Theory of Opposites – The Mathematical Principles of the Philosophy of Nature", and I am looking for all kinds of help and support to evaluate and popularize this theory, so, I’ll be grateful for everybody for any advice in that respect. The details of this theory can be found on my blog:
http://universal-theory.blogspot.com, and I hope it to be interesting for everyone interested in philosophy.

I'll be lucky if I could publish parts of it in this reputable magazine "Philosophy Now" and I'm welcoming any discussions or comments.

Hoping for any advice and evaluation of this work.

I will try reading it. But first please give me a few lines explaining what I'm gonna try to understand, first, especially since I have the great fortune of being able to ask the writer, who should know better than me.

With all my gratitude and respect

A concise idea about this theory:
We all know the sign rules of mathematics which are: +x+=+, -x-=+,-x+=-
But this is not the only possible one, but we can deduce a consistent sets of sign rules between any number of states which have a physical meaning, so we can deduce sign rules between the three states like: positive, negative, and neutral.

at least if we apply this set of rules, imaginary roots would not be imaginary (because in this set it can be: +x+=- , -x-=+ which can replace equally the known ones).

The situation here is like the Euclidean geometry and discovering non-Euclidean geometries and the logical consequences based on that, and the issues of applicability of any set of axioms on reality.

Moreover, a computer program has been developed that is able to deduce a consistent set of states (including the known ones) for any number of states, based on the mentioned concepts.

The aim behind all that is to unify the different sciences and all the human knowledge based on the concepts of opposites and states. This part of theory deals only with three states.

.






............................................................................................




LOVE your site & your concept constructions.


I hope you can obtain some support to promote your philosophical perspectives.



Well done.






You know Mamdouh, Rick Lewis my be interested in your writings?





.

Mr. Bill

Thanks a lot for your enthusiasm, hoping for more support and any ideas to prompt this work.

Mamdouh Mofid wrote:With all my gratitude and respect

A concise idea about this theory:
We all know the sign rules of mathematics which are: +x+=+, -x-=+,-x+=-
But this is not the only possible one, but we can deduce a consistent sets of sign rules between any number of states which have a physical meaning, so we can deduce sign rules between the three states like: positive, negative, and neutral.

at least if we apply this set of rules, imaginary roots would not be imaginary (because in this set it can be: +x+=- , -x-=+ which can replace equally the known ones).

The situation here is like the Euclidean geometry and discovering non-Euclidean geometries and the logical consequences based on that, and the issues of applicability of any set of axioms on reality.

Moreover, a computer program has been developed that is able to deduce a consistent set of states (including the known ones) for any number of states, based on the mentioned concepts.

The aim behind all that is to unify the different sciences and all the human knowledge based on the concepts of opposites and states. This part of theory deals only with three states.

Would you go to the Philosophy of Science forum? I'm gonna make a thread there and I'll point of out things and ask you questions about that which you have written in the blog. You must excuse me if I take it in a step-by-step fashion, because I read slowly and try to understand each bit better in a progressive manner.

Hi Mamdouh,

I might have missed it but what do the " / " and " \ " mean in things like " \ +=+/+ " , i.e. what does " \ + " stand for?

Hi Arising_uk

Can you kindly tell me in which subject such symbols appear .. or it may be a font problem.

Hi Mamdouh,
Chapter 3 (The Sign Rules of Opposites) in "The First Set of Sign Rules", in "The deduction of the first set as it is known goes as follows:", paragraph 4 that starts, "The relatively better method (just for the time being of explanation) is to deduce these rules by following the trail and error method as follows:"

It reads to me as;

"Suppose that: + x + = + (1) , \ +=+/+
Then suppose: + x - = + , \ -=+/+ but this contradicts with (1) because that way: +/+ gives two different results, then we have to change our second assumption to be: + x - = - (2) , \ +=-/- which is ok.

Then suppose: –x-=- , \ -=-/- but this contradicts with (2), thus we have to change it to be: -x-=+ (3)."

Could be my fonts, what are you using on the site?

.





When you have a chance Mamdouh...How are things in Egypt?


Can you relate to us the status of your government and any updates on local civic movements in Cairo?





.

Hi Arising_uk

Thanks for your notice, you are right, the editor of the blog does accept special mathematical symbols, and the strange marks that appeared are just (.. two dots with another dot above and between ) which means Ergo, which can not be written here too, to the best of my knowledge.

I made the necessary corrections.