Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Unification theory (2nd nomination)

However i have to say, as stated before that you might not like string theory because it is not proved bu you dont delete it: it is a theory!. and you might not like organicism and GST but it is a theory with over 50.000 scientists working on different versions of it.) - 81.41.234.221
 * Comment. The problem remains that virtually all content of consequence in this article is scientifically wrong.  Not to mention that this reads like an essay.  If you can't provide sources for all or at least most of the information contained within (English sources, preferably), there is no choice but to delete this.  Someguy1221 10:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

- Ok someguy. I put the 2 main references for this work in sections 3 and 4. 1 and 2 are indeed small essays i just wrote but being a historic description of our science and its main principle organicism, is by no means original material. All articles are in that sense small essays isnt. Finally im going to have to address the constant attack to my discipline as seudo-science. someguy this is not scientifically wrong. I go to all system science congresses for years, listen and learn and now teach in a University. I know my discipline. The article is based in the work of the two leading General System scientists in the past congresses i assisted, mentioned above (troncale and sancho), each of them with 20 years of work behind. ill try to get the exact references. Now the discussion should be i think about a fact:

- That biologists have 2 theories, evolution and organicism that also have to say something about the Unification of different sciences. And in fact today are leading many physicists like smolin into fields parallel to those wework in. For example fractal Relativity is today the hottest item on the last congresses i assisted, and it is pure system sciences. It is what i am starting to explain here, if you let me: a fractal unvierse that repeats the basic forms of energy (the line) and inforamtion (the cycle) in all scales of reality, from lineal and cyclical strings to lineal bodies of energy and heads of inforamtion. That is General System Science or unification theiory. It is not grand unification, the field of physicists. And so we should not redirect unification theory to them. It is a unification, based in organicism not in mechanism, an entire philosophical different point of view that you might not share, which is ok. But please do respect other sciences. Organicism is in fact in objective terms much more real than mechanism. Cause organicism works by itself. Mechanism still needs the God of Newton or the clocker of Kepler to put the mechanism at work...

Let us be fair. We respect here truly scientifically wrong theories quite bizarre, created by physicists that plague this encyclopedia, (and i wont mention them, we all know what stuff is here, ok?) not to mention totally irrelevant pop culture and marketing material, issues totally ignored. And yet weare trying to delete one of the most advanced new disciplines of science, just because it is relatively new or it just doesnt follow the ideologies of Descartes? Please behave yourself guys, dont vandalize something that interesting. Improve it!... The references, i know is a problem, they were in the original document and now they are lost so if you tell me where it is i will retrieve them back. It was based mainly in the conferences at Sonoma's 50th aniversary by Mr. Sancho and the courses I took with Mr. Troncale. Ill try to look for them in a few days but the general reference is above and also quoted by phoenix. I have them in my office but im in a small holiday break. Maybe i should have waited to do the best article. You are right on that. My apoligies. I just entered by chance and saw that the origianl article who was for a year here had suddenly disappeared and rewrote something again cause it is plainly wrong to redirect this to Physics. Physicists have 2 names already TOE and Grand Unification, ok? It is like the meteorite that kill dinosaurs. We biologist always beleive the oedipux/black hole paradox, the mammals killed them because they were faster, though smaller and worked in groups and ate their eggs, in conjuction with an age of gaia's volcanic activity. Physicists came in with that bizarre theory and now is 'true science'. Well this year we found in china mammals with pieces of small dinos inside and found that volcanic activity not the explosive meteorite did it. We beleive in the arrow of information and complexity with as much power as the energy, explosive arrow of physicsts. But we respect physics. Do respect system sciences. Now the origianl article that greng say it was deleted, has much more story. It stand for a year! In fact there were about 7 people contributing further to it during the entire year that people read it. In fact they even cathegorized it properly as a dualist theory with hegelianism, taoism and dialectics. The article when i contributed was already wrote in its beginning i guess by some other GST scientist and stated exactly to the point what we are looking in GST: an equation, that we believe is the feed-back cycle or principle of tranformation of energy and information, from where Einstein's Mass equation and many more were deduced by Mr. Sancho and exposed in those congresses (i also quoted his spanish book of 1000 pages with all the mathematical models on the first article but i cant find now that refernece, im not at home, if you give me a week i will retrieve all that from my office). The attempt of biologists to unify the laws of the Universe is based in the biological duality of energy and information, and it is as old and respectable as similar attempts from taoism (yin=information and yang=energy)or german philosophical idealism (hegel thesis antithesis) and was already insinuated in the seminal papers of boltzmann and fully accepted in our discipline. I think the feed-back cycles they create, not based only in physical laws and 'monism', hardly present in this encyclopedia - should have some proper representation here. Now you can google troncale and sancho, youll get more from troncale since he teaches in la and google is from there, sancho seems to have an extensive bibliography in his original language (basque of which i recognize speak nill) so it get less but up there phoenix quoted him. Yet even if those people dont get so many qyuotes, on my opinion though we should not penalize work relatively new writen either in other languages or with few references. On the contrary if they are worthy we should keep them. After all only a century ago a little known author wrote an article without references in my original language... about the relativity of certain truths... What if it had never been published? But specially i think we should respect that relativity and consider unification theories based also in biology and philosophy instead of physics. i wouldnt say is censorship but certainly a little bit arrogant to reject other aproaches specially after a century of physicist's faillures to unify knowledge with the monist/mechanist approach... So please, you guys raise the level of this erasing discussion and stop using insulting terms for our science like pseudo-science, etc.That got me finally angry. Networks, systems, feed-back equation, etc. are common terms. What i wish is collaboration not deletion. Of course i will accept deleation but i think is a pity because I believe as many other scientists that biology will be the science of this century as physics was leading in the XX C. and evolution in the XIX. THey seem to alternate and what we system scientists do is merge them together. Probably the desired unification theory will be a mixture of biological, evolutionary laws and physical laws as General system. A work in progress as this article but far more relevant for the quest of knowlege that all the pseuydo-physical theories i see in this web. And yet it is obvious that very few know about general systems theory. i think a budding doctrine - what physics was in the XVII - is quite interesting for people looking for the most recent advances on scientific thought. Thats why i took the time to write this. I apologize if it didn't have enough quality.

On memory the main abstracts and pdfs are in the 50th anniversary of system sciences at isss.org which was the biggest ever and gathered the most prominent scientist of the field (so it should be respected as any world congress on physics) And there is a collective effort going on at unificationtheory.com to describe that fracgtal Universe. Now a Theory is not experimental science but it is not pseudo-science. It puts together many experimental facts. Ok?. And the description i put there is the most simple level of a Unification theory that explain with some very simple wide concepts, networks, energy, information etc, most systems of the Universe. Ok? And the world seems to many a game of two substances not one single equation. Parmenides already prove that from one nothing else can be created but from 2 infinity is possible. Anyway. As said i will respect your collective decision though i wish it were more thoughtful and with knowledg e of this matter. But if you give a chance to General system theory i promise to do from my office during the next month a small 20 pages or so treaty based in the work of those 2 leading figures of our discipline exoplaining in depth with the quality i see in physical articles this matter, even in good english with the help of a friend (im german sorry). Now i cant do it unless i copy cat mr. troncale and sancho's work from ISSS congresses which are available in the web, something i just found out is forbidden as mentioned above by one of you, so i erased it already. But please be aware that today complexity is part of physics too. Mr. Gell-Mann is now a system scientist working in Santa Fe. Or Quoting a physicist you probably know (by memory but very close): 'We make an equation and then we rewrite it and make another equation trying to describe the Universe, but then we move them and they dont fly, but the Universe flies, the Universe has a life to it and we are all part of it. Wheeler Best regards


 * Comment. Descartes?  Oh good God no, Descartes was an idiot when it came to science.  Mammals did not wipe out dinosaurs, the earth being smacked with a meteor explains it all very nicely.  Ginourmous lizards fail miserably on the biomass pyramid if there's almost no sunlight for several months to years, little things fair well (and the small dinosaurs when extinct millions of years earlier).  Some mammals had dino bones inside?  There was volcanic activity?  A few dino eggs getting eaten in China doesn't prove this theory in the slightest, but a massive crater shaped iridium deposit in the Yucatan is quite suggestive (and there's always volcanic activity.  Yes, it's possible volcanos did it, but there is nothing approaching substantial evidence).  Oh, and biology leading to a unification of...anything?  NO.  Biological actions would be reducable to chemistry if they weren't too complex for us to understand and model at the current time (not to mention observe).  And everything biological that is somewhat irrespective of chemistry, population genetics and the such, are widely cosidered by scientists to be "decoupled" from the rest of science.  As in, the laws of chemistry and physics are completely irrelevant to its understanding, so to claim that biology will lead to any sort of unification I would highly doubt is held by a single mainstreem scientist.  And for all of your comparisons to this theory with the development of physics, modern physics has always sought to predict things, anything.  This is actually included in the mainstream definition of science.  Does this theory predict anything?  As such, it appears to me a pseudoscience at worst, and a philosophy at best.  Unless you can provide substantial sources proving the notability of this topic, I still support delete.  Also note, while journal articles written about the subject are proper sources for writing about it, they prove nothing with regards to the notability thereof.  Someguy1221 07:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

SIMPLE ANSWERS: - If it is a 'philosophy (of science) at best' why we erase it? Are we going to erase all philosphies? Also art? Anything which is not 'true science' according to physics? - If 'unification theory' was indeed coined by Bertalanffy, why we have to steal the name and give it to Physicists as it was before i reposted it? Are we going to steal all names of all theories and connect it to the never found Grand Unification? - General Systems is NOT biology NEITHER physics, buT mixes both arrows, the partial arrow of energy of physics and the partial arrow of complexity of information. ONLY BOTH TOGETHER WILL EXPLAIN THE WHOLE, The arrow of energy, explains 'down causes', the how, as you rightly mention in biology: the down scales of chemistry and physics. The arrow of complexity explaisn the 'up tendencies', the why, the arrow of social, organic evolution, the fact that the Universe has grown in scales of social complesxity gathered by networks into herds from quarks to atoms to molecules to organisms and planets to galaxies. The arrow of complexity EXISTS, is the main engine of social evolution. - Species survive when they evolve better braisn not only better bodies, more complex systems of reproduction, information adn energy. So reptiles were more complex than amphibia and when they came in more amphibia disappread. Then mammals were more complex and ate the eggs indeed. The small dinos disappear first cause they competed in the same econiche than the mammals. ONLY BIRDS=EVOLVED DINOSAURS, survived cause they put eggs far away from rats. By the time the rock felt in mexico most dinosaur species had been extinct previously. There were left less than 10 orders. Why? The competence of a new class of species that reproduced faster, worked in herds hunting 'organically' dwelt on the ground and fed on the eggs. This is the biological pov share by many colleagues as respectable as Mr. Alvarez rock. Recently (sci am) we found volcanic activity which also can stop sunlight. Those processes 'raise the stakes' of survival as it happened in the cambric extinction by crust activity. This is the standard biological theory: meteorites plus volcanic activity provoke higher stakes in the competence for survival. It triggers the process which is however ultimately a competence of species, as it happened when men, MORE COMPLEX entered america. When you see it all only with energy, you feel impressed by the big body of dinosaurs. Who rules the universe? the smallest densest form the black hole/ Who rules life, the most complex, small mammal, the man. Who rules the economy, the small bit of metal information, money. Who rules you? Your neurons (i hope :) Who rules the machine? The chip. Who rules the Universe, in metaphoric terms, god, the laws of complexity that shape the energy of it.

LONG, PHILOSOPHICAL DISPUTE... ON PREDICTIONS AND PROBABLE TRUTHS

Now when physicists widen his ideas about the arrow of energy being the reason of it all, beyond his discipline invading biological issues ruled by the arrow of complexity, evolution and information or metaphysical issues, known to philosophers (like Mr. Hawkings) are ok? Expressions like the search for God's particle are Ok? is not theory? is not a model? But we biologist cannot talk of time and its circadian cycles, even on our main themes of study? That's nt ok? uhm. It sounds to me like vatican priests invading astronomy and putting galileo to rest. This i think is indeed a very interesting debate... The predictions of system theory are multiple. A simple one on the organic models of machines and economic ecosystems published in 1992 by this author: 'The cycles of economics and history' (my specific field on GST theory - i trained first as biologist and economist, but i didn't put any of that anywhere in this web as that is indeed my original research (-:

- In the XIX century we made 'bodies of machines', energy systems like steams, trains and boats.

- In the XX century in the II Industrial R=evolution, we made heads of machines, information systems: mobile-ears, eye-cameras, brain-chips. - In the XXI century the III industrial r=evolution will make 'company-mothers' to 're=produce' robots that merge energy bodies and information heads, as it happens in all organic life systems that first build the body then complete the brain and then give birth to an organic species. Now check march sci am: bill gates, the dawn of robots, 15 years latter...

The dates and reasons: the so called 72 years generational cycle of human beings used previously by historians to determine dynastic cycles. The prediction was that each human generation would carry every 72 years one industrial phase of evolution of machines to its conclusion followed by a Kondratieff 'crash' or exhaustion of the wave a phase of crisis and possible war and then a new take-off with the new machines.

1857: crash of trains, followed by military use of trains in civil war and german unification wars (Moltke)

1929 (ad 72 years): crash of thee car/radio industry followed by its massive use in war by Hitler who transformed cars in tanks and radios in hate radio ad 72 years

2001: chip/computer (minds of metal) crash, followed by its use in smart weapons.

This prediction made my career in my country (obviously continental europe has a very different, much more organic view of history and economics based in socialism and we wont enter on that discussion here, ok?). The fact is only GST science, using biological models of evolution - the main science dealing with the issue of time- was able to predict the most difficult of all predictions: one economical prediction.

What did classic economics meanwhile?

The Economist published a poll of 4 economical groups with predictions:

- Economic ministries, homeless, taxidrivers and nobel prizes: result best prediction, taxi drivers, 2nd homeless, last ministries. And we call Economic a science... (in progress of course).

I put you the most far away prediction. Now mr. troncale and mr. sancho have hundres of pages with deep analysis of the cycles of energy and information in all other sciences with a common pattern:

Things evolve from an age of energy (youth), to an age of information (3rd age) through an intermediate age that combines energy and information (reproductive age). Then when all is inforamtion, quark information in a black hole, neurons that have syucked in the energy of the body, etc. The cycle restarts, you explode info into energy, you become erased.

That prediction is applied in full detail by those researchers from physics (we go from the big bang of energy to the big crunch of in-form-ation, of form), to your cycle:

you are born pure energy, you corrugate, you in-form and wrinkle and you die. So that i predict we are all finally at the end of the energy/inforamtion cycle food for worms. Einstein said that time bended space. So in Asilomar congress 10 years ago Tessier from Mexico University predicted a simple scheme BASED on that cycle: the universe was born as a flat sheet of pure energy, after the explosion of a black hole of information and then it would corrugate with time (time bends space said einstein). Now we believe the Universe is almost a perfect flat hyperbolic surface with both tendencies still fighting corrugating it in galactic vortex of information and the intermediate dark energy expanding. I predict though at the end there would be a big crunch Because once is all corrugated, then the game restarts again in its eternal cycle of big bangs and big crunch, since death is the explosion of information into energy E<=>i, being the fundamental symmetry of the Universe, with e->i the arrow of life and complexity and i->E the arrow of death and energy. You want another? I can give you 2000 pages of articles and books made the past decade. So Please someguy just recognize you have little idea of GST and what we have done in the past decade. Thats ok. There are many things i dont know of physics but im always interested in learning... WHAT SYSTEM SCIENCE DOES PUTING TOGETHER BIOLOGY AND PHYSICS IS TO EXPLAIN FOR THE FIRST TIME THE WHY. CALL IT A PHILOSOPHY IF YOU WANT BUT DONT ERASE PHILOSOPHY. Only Feymann feels happy saying, 'the why is the wrong question in physics'. Call it philosophy as it was first c9onsidered and cathegorized AS SUCH FOR A YEAR. PHILOSOPHY deserves existence.people like philosophies with whys. The models of GST unification theories are doing predictions in all sciences. Other matter is that each specific discipline tends to be in the scholar world and if you work there you know, quite reclusive within itself and doestn welcome 'generalists' with their models.WHAT HAPPENED TO GODEL WHO DISCOVERED THE 3RD solution to Einstein? People still consider him not very serious physicist because he was mathematician and rebel into its field.He crossed borders and denied absolute truth. I consider him the highest mind of the XX c. Since if you consider the Universe a quantum space-time system (wheeler, smolin, etc.) Then it turns out that a galaxy is a vortex of growing information (a quantum island Universe in itself that doesnt follow the expansive rule of the outer Universe, so as Woody Allen's put it: 'Brooklyin is not expanding'. A galaxy then is also ruled by increasing complexity as all informative matter is, it is ruled by the quantic laws of fractal Relativistic gravity recently discovered (new scientists fall last year) with an arrow of information towards the center, and the entire sum of expanding dark energy and imploding godelian vortices of matter in galaxies and in-between space cancel each other and finally will provke the big crush.... Those are a few models of the delights for thought you obtain when you learn to combine both arrows. Gst Unification models apply the same laws combined both arrows in all discipliens. They are a model worth to explore, certainly worth to be put here. If you let me do it ill do it. im in the process of getting permission from sancho and troncale to use their graphs and materials... The fact is that what many of you call 'true science' are also models, theories, 'linguistic information'. Only the universe stores all inforamtion about itself (haldane). As per Godel, even mathematics is a language which carries a partial, probabilistic truth. So neither us, nor other disciplines should hold this kind of absolute truths they all hold. Godel published almost a century ago and it has been put aside. All mathematicians still pretend that their language is the language of god and the language of verbal, temporal information used in evolutionary theory is not. Why? cause we arrrogant people who want to hold a 0-1 false-truth. But precisely because the future is probabilistic and all paths are possible, words are very sophisticated as they are 'ambiguous', probabilistic.

I believe wikipedia is a wonderful effort. Though it is i believe biased to the mechanism and the western tradition. And mechanism is infused by the jewish-christian tradition... I dont believe in personal gods. im sorry. im worm food. Newton thought God sent him comets. Now i hear all that anthropic chat in physcist congresses (-:. It remembers me kepler's idea: 'God is a clocker waited 5000 (biblical years) to find an intelligent equal to his'.

This is the issue i want to repair if you guy let me.There is a 2000 years tradition of dualism coming from Eastern asia which infused the German Hegelian school, which in turn was the origin of organicism and the amazing pre-nazi age of german thought, worth to keep evolving and certainly worth to be put here. Butif not, well we will stick with the ministries of economics (in my specific field) for a decade, and with the God's particle for another century... Well i think there are 2 more days to go before you erase GST? Nobody voted in favor! Depressing. i have to take a plane back home to keep working on predictions though... i tried my best. Maybe as someone put it here, in a decade or 20 years you will let me rewrite this article. After all between copernicus finding and the catholic church recognizing it has passed 400 years (-: lol pd. At least if possiblekeep somewhere my argument and/or the article in the historic reminder. I expect and accept humbly all your comments against the quality of my writing and tried to improve that. i thought though you would collaborate on that. What surprised me is the not very subtle attack to the philosophy of our science... That i had to respond but obviously is a theme of beliefs i cant change. Specially because most scientists cannot recognize as per Kuhn that science is also human, faillable, a work in progress, with many subconscious beliefs provided by the 2 main influences of western thought: the jewish-christian tradition and the awe that causes us the sensorial machines we use to describe the universe. shalom


 * Prove that your philosphy is in any way notable and it can stay. Someguy1221 17:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And I might not be an expert on GST but I know enough science to recognize bollocks. Someguy1221 17:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well someguy thanks for doubting at least..., that might be all what we general system scientists or philosophers can get from the leading ideals of today's science (monism, mechanism, mathematical reductionism) which is far more than galileo got from the leading scientists then (vatican priests )-: Now seriously, cASES on NOTABILITY, as a philosophy:

SIMPLE ANSWER- THE PHILOSPPHICAL MERIT: - To have a non-religious explanation of the meaning of THE LIFE-death cycle is not notable for a philosopphy?

- To reduce so many other equations of science to a simple 2 term equation, is not notable as a philosophy of science (as per troncale and sancho which derive them from the feed-back energy-information cycle)?

- Then the details of those 'thoughts of god' are science, no longer philosophy on my view, but well, to judge them is needed to become a specialist on GST go through the 80 process of troncale and the 1000 pages of sancho and the entire encyclopedic knowledge of west and the santa fe institute, just to talk of the leading generation in that filed... i dont pretend atwork is finish but so far is on my view more promising than what physicists are doing, since even if they find the maths of grand unification it will only explain the 2 forces of the Universe. not their whys and nothing of the rest of science and history. That is the awe of gst: all comes together. aLL ARE HERDS/WEBS/NETWORKS/WAVES of quanta that beomce whole and we are the only people explaining that fundamental process of the Universe

You can check those pdfs quoted for the details. This is a probe. I await your judgment, though it seems it wont pass as we have been moved even into this secondary window?. Depends on you people if you want wikpedia to have unification theory... Point is you will in the future have a version of gst more complex that waht you hve, (-; Things are growing. And paradigms change. But i accept for what i have seen so far your many rules of security, i know you do the work and that makes wikipedia good, so if you think we are not ready to be here, probably you are right, specially if you want to be an image of the present world. You should ad even more pop culture. THats what people care about. That penalty failled by the chelsea is not still on. maybe ill put a comment on the match. im sure nobody will qualify it for deletion. That is really important (-: che sera sera. and forgive my irony please. i just arrive to london for some conferences and that seems to be the only theme on pubs. I aprreciate your work truly.

COMPLEX ANSWER - THE SCIENTIFIC DEBATE

If you want math, no logic models, there is thee an analysis of quantic space-time based in the 3 MAIN non-riemannian geometries (lobachevsky, riemann sphere and klein disks) equivalent to the 3 unique topographies of the 4-D Universe, which define the 3 sub-zones of any organic system (the informative center with hyperboilic geometry, the energetic membrane with riemannian, spherical geometry and the intermediate zone with klein disk). Thats the beginning. Math explains its unfolding in space with non-euclidean fractal relativity, logic its evolution in time with the organic principle of increasing complexity... That is so far where unification theories based in gst stands today. Of my work in organic social models, and the evolution of machines i dont talk in that text. Though certainly to explaijn the cycles of evolution of machines has in a world rule by them certain interest. What im putting here is the leading thought of the past decade on General System sciences (capra, west, troncale, sancho). All what can i say is that those 4 guys in that temporal order have been advancing GST science to a point that has now a notable logical formalism... capra was vague but deeply intuitive of the 'miseries' (as one put it here about is article) of the mechanist tradition, west did well the first years at santa fe, but in the last congresses he kind of repeats itself with its power laws, though that mathematical part of GST would be probably more of the likeness here, troncale is methodic and works analytically, his 80 fundamental sub-cycles of the Feed-back cycle are encyclopedic, sancho was the last to come in the english circuit and his work complements troncale in the opposite arrow, it is synthetic. i like his logic formalisms a lot. All together i think they form the most interesting philosophy of science around today.

BOTH ARROWS TOGETHER: AN EXAMPLE: THE SOLUTION OF THE COPENAGHEN Take for example the eternal argument between quantum physics and relativity (i think you are a physicist?). How organicism explains philosophically that mystery? Well you know that a probability has the same bell curve than a population. Take then an electron as a 'herd' of dense photonic particles that - as a school of fishes does - it chooses multiple paths when it moves in a quantic herd/wave. Yet when it confronts a predator (a shark or a bigger particle thrown by the observer) it gathers together into a particle. The behavior is the same in the fish scale and the electromagnetic scale. The mathematical description of a probability that ads finally 1 (the electron) in the abstract feymann paths, is the same description than if it were a population/herd that divides into quantic individuals. Again the pictures we have of them as a cloud of electromagnetic fluctuations is equal to a herd of photonic components but we call it a nebulae of probabilities. The pictures of electrons look like a mass of electromagnetic rays. What is then the electron? A mathematical probability or a herd of photons that chooses the best survival strategies? Physicists obey its philosophy of abstract mechanism and mathematical platonism so they choose the probability but then they run into many absurds never solve about the substance of probabilities. And cant accept in philosophical grounds the herd concept: 'the moon doesnt change because i see at it' said Einstein. But it turns out that Organicism allows you to describe with the same basic concepts and mathematical tools the electron herd, the school herd and the human herd that packages in a theater to escape fire and have all the same movements... Because the big particle will feed in the electron herd, the shakr will kill the fishes and those hgumans who dont gather around the door will die... Are electrons somehow perceiving or mechanically they have evolved to choose the best path because those who didn't died and became extinct? You see, Capra thinks they are a herd so does sancho who puts other example: quarks receive energy and they feed on it and reproduce other quarks... Again it can be mechanic or organic but particles that reproduce easily as electrons who absorb light and emit a seminal ray that makes a small electron for sure will survive the pass of eons of time... So i dont care about the philosophy but the facts prove that even in those e3xtreme, bizarre examples organic properties favor survival. All what i say is that organicism and Unification Theories departed from GSTs are an alternative vision of the Universe as valid and asabstrct platonism and deserve to be told even if it goes against the western tradition of man as the only organic, intelligent being and look more like the eastern budhist tradition. This as per philosophy. Now the big advance of Troncale and Sancho is introducing the logical formalisms that allow to use the same mathematical tools and widen them... specially the use of non-euclidean geometries to describe the 3 fundamental regions of any organic system (as per the quoted papers). We are lving in our science a flux point which happens in all sciences which start as a philosophy and reach finally the formalism required to be upgraded. I put a very simple version there but all those links will lead you to far more complex versions and formalisms. As wheeler already quoted said: 'the big principle wont be an equation,it will be an idea, and when we find it, we all realize it was always there, it was obvious, it was simple, how did we miss it'. To many of us that idea is organicism, the laws that make quanta become herds and evolve socially into new 'scales of reality'. It is so far the only formalism and philosophy that explains why quanta evolve into wholes that become quanta of new wholes...mechanically or organically it doesnt matter, a big DNA molecule survives and so does a society well organized. That is why that arrow exists.

It is always dualities at work in any universe. black and white create all the greys. What can you see only with black, the color of information and white the color of energy, nothing.

More
THE NAME DEBATE reasonable doesnt mean accurate. So if someone looks for Mann which is reasonbly similar to Man, should be redirected to Human Being instead of Thomas Mann? After all is more important Man than mann. Then Mr.Mann will fade away. That subtle way to 'hide' information about a certain science, theory philosophy or seudo-science, is not correct. Accuracy in terminology is at least the minimum an enclypoedia should look for. Unification Theory was coined by Bertalanffy, 'the systemic view could provide a Unification Theory of all sciences under the concepts of organicism'. It was considered 20 years ago in the debates at ISSS over the new name for the society. It was adopted by Sancho in his conferences and books at that time, and now is part of a collective, growing effort 'a la partaki' at www.unificationtheory.com to complete a GST based in the fundamental philosophical differences between abstract and organic science.

THE PSEUDO SCIENCE DEBATE. WHAT IS PSEUDO SCIENCE ABSTRACT POSTULATES/SCIENCES OR ORGANIC POSTULATES/SCIENCES? both..

it seems few are aware of the relativity of all sciences based all of them in 'postulates without prove'hence realtive (including hard sciences like maths as per godel and euclid 5 postulates, and physics: relativity has a never proved c-speed limit postulate denied today by quasars, black holes, and always by non-local gravitation, phenomena, explained ad hoc with ptolmeic epicycles to keep the 'Idol of the tribe' (Bacon) in the altar; quantum theory has its probabilities; economics has its Smith postulate that the wealth of nation is measure in monetary not human values, etc ). Son in brief the main different postulates of organic vs abstract science equally valid/wrong, based in cultural traditions are:

- Monism (a single equation, a single force) Vs dualism (two fundamental elements or forms in the Universe. But dualism works better: - in math, the cycle and the line, (which as per desargues can create all the conics of the Universe)Irreductible to monism. as per the classic problem: the squaring of the cycle. - in theoretical physics, the Beta function (which describes essentially cyclical and lineal strings), in Real physics (oibservable), the particle and the force, the lineal and cycical movement, the gravitational relativistic vortex and the electromagnetic force). So far Irreductible to monism. in biology the lineal, eergy body and the cylical head, in economics the lineal weapon of metal and the cyclical metal of information (money). Irreductible to monism. So why you look for monism: PHYSICISTS LOOK FOR MONIST UNIFICATIONS NOT BECAUSE IS more truth but BECAUSE THE CHRISTIAN GOD of his founding fathers iS UNIQUE, IF Lamaitre had been taoist, they would have felt that unification ended when Heisenberg showed the linearity of quantum physics and einstein the cyclicality of temporal, gravitationl vortices. Then we would have said, oh that is the yin cycle and the yang line. But Lamaitre was christia and he said, oh, the big-bang is truth because it must be the unique particle. (Yet for dualism it was just the informative particle,. aka black hole, in a sea, lienal plane of dark, gravitational energy becaue that is duality). If Lamaitre had been Indian he would have said, uhm, that particle was the initial cell of the Universal organism that re=produced into infinite quantic new particles. THere areALWAYS POSTULATES AND PHILOSOPHIES HIDDEN IN ALL SCIENCES, not to talk of the logic side of it.

- ABstract science accepts the mathematical method aka scientific method and the aristotelian logic of 0-1 truth: only numbers accurately carry the truth. GST accepts the linguistic method: all languages are partial descriptions of the universe with a fraction of truth equivalent to the information they have. so a description that shows the same truth from the pov of several languages (a logic, visual, verbal and spatial analysis) is a higher truth. Ie. we use in biology temporal, verbal evolution, math, spatial descriptions of populations/probabilites, morphological visual analysis of the lineal energetic, cuyclical informative organs, and a paradoxical logic not aristotelian based in the subjective victim Vs predator pov...

- continuity of sapce-time vs quantic, fractal space-time. This derives from the correction not only of the 5th postulate but also the first postualte: points, as in strings have inner dimensional inner parts, they are not as euclid say 'abstract no breath points' but spheres with a discontinuity that includes a new fractal world within it and permit infinite relative parallels to cross it (the hidden dimensions of strings, the Einsteinian Space-time now proved to be fractal etc.) So GST theories are based in relativistic points as in string theory, and when we approach to them they acquire its quantic, formal nature.

- lineal inertia vs cyclical inertia, In dual theories, both movements are inertial one is energetic inertia the other informative. Proved ad infinitum when we found that all particles spin and turn in eternal cycles (do electrons stop). And yet we are stuck to the fact that galileo defined speed in lineal terms and so did with time, cause he was using his experiments to study energetic weapons (canonballs) for the dogo.

- Lineal, continuous time vs cyclical quantic time forms. Time was always cyclical prior to its spatialization by physics, by Descartes and galileo with its continuous cartesian. For gst there are infinite clockws and rhythms, all cyclical as the sun's year or the clock in your wrist. Proved by einstein with its difeomorphic postulate, its relativity of time speed, etc.

- mechanism vs organicism (explained in depth in the erased article).

- a single entropic arrow from a relative evolved future to a simple past vs 2 arrows, one of evolution and complesxity from past to future and one of energy and simplicity from future to past that merge in inifnite quantic presents as per einstein. (also expained before).

Both kind of postualtes are equally valid/wrong, as neither of both are proved, by experimental facts and the increasing tendency to change paradigm favor the GST view. So do call too, euclidean sciences, continuous physics, etc pseudo-science if you please., When you change all those postulates you build a totally accurate but different vision of the Universe. A totally correct pseudo- science or partial truth, with totally correct results. Now western science has been built on the 1st postualtes based in the greek-christian tradition of the western first scientists. Also a totally correct pesudo-science or partial truth. Religion is built on vitalism. Those postualtes define the 'satisfaction of truth', in Paretto terms a curve of subjective truth/hapiness/beleifs. When a believer (religious) hears the word God, its unifiction equation he feels happy on prior believes. When physicists hear the beta function, just a complex version of the cyclical/lineal duality it feels happy because it looks monism. We feel happy when we explain the copenaguen debate in terms of cellular quanta of electromagnetic nature that gathers as fishes or soldiers in front of danger, in a packed particle or spreads accordig to organic conditions. (as per my talk with some guy). All i ask is respect for the 3 versions and its names. Organcism and Unification Theories are born in the 30s when germany where the influence of eastern cultures was deep since Hegel and Leibniz translated iching and taois, returned to the initial paradigms of mankind. And then Unification theories and GST theories were reborn. Apropiation of names do nto define truth:

'the name that can be named is not the eternal name... it is the principle of yin=information and yang=energy that combine to create the infinite quanta of the universe'

That new philosophy of science (cause all sciences have a philosophy behind) will create as it is often said at ISSS congress, a 3rd age of science, after the vitalism of religion and the mechanism of cartesian/newtonian paradigms. The minimum fairness would be to admit the right of system scientists to develop unification theories, which here are totally absent. And i see why, if all what doesnt conform to the postulates without proves of the western tradition are 'redirected' after erasing them, to Physics. This again is exactly the kind of things religion (vitalism) did first with the paradigms of mechanism when they were born. Now the new popes of science keep hard at job. The harder they fall (-:.

Now a unification theory of all sciences wll always be a philosophy of science in its synthetic aproach (that's sancho's team) which explaisn all those dualities, and a science of details in its analytic aproach (thats troncale). So far i have put here more of the synthetic, and would have completed the task before the Tokyo 51 congress. Obviously im too german in my style (essay-like, bad english, too long/deep, etc.) and so i accepted your decision and erased myself, on the grounds of poor quality writing not on the grounds of irrelevance or seudoscience. None in this 'true science vs pseudoscience debate' acknolwedged that as long as any science is based in postualtes without prove they wont be more than a work in progess. pseudoscience and i went through the pages here is all over this place specially in some new physical theories. It has other 'aspect'. But its not me the one to target those articles. simply speaking, wikipedia which is a reflection of the common scientific thought in an age that has rejected socialism and all organicism on ideological=individualism, free markets, or religious=christianity postulate, might find orgaqnicism strange, as a new paradigm. But not seudo-science... BUt now that asia grows in importance, organicism and duality which are their philosophies will grow in value. as Kuhn said, a new paradigm is never established by reason but by custom. Or as Planck put it: for scientists to accept the quantic view, we have to wait till all the old scholars die away. But debate is good, i dont share leonardo's view: 'the only harmonious sounds of a group of schollars are the winds of their asses' (-:, at the end there will be unification and harmony in the final spheres... time permitted

Even more
oh well thanks jacobi, you are the first guy who is nice here. i will do the mandala other day. so far i just deleted it myself. But left a tab with the definition of this term, which is the first fact that should be addressed here: semantics. What is totally injust is to direct our terms from our science to physics. As per the long talk i had with someguy (and you didn't disprove any of my points), this were my SIMPLE ANSWERS why you should keep the tab and in the future me or other system scientists coming here will do a better job to explain it:
 * Delete, per WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE. Amazingly this article version looks rather different than the previously deleted one (are there two fringe theories by this name?), so CSD G4 doesn't apply. After deletion a disambih should be created, pointing to the topics in physics and artificial intelligence respectively. To the anom editor: I can't fully exclude the possibility, that there is something worth including in all this, but you just didn't get the message across in this attempt. Do some reading in Wikipedia, both articles and policies, starting with WP:5P. Ask at the Philosophy Portal for suggestions. --Pjacobi 21:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

- If as someguy says this is a 'philosophy (of science) at best' why we erase it? Are we going to erase all philosphies? Also art? Anything which is not 'true science' according to physics? This article was for a year here made by 7 different people and one cathegorized it correctly as a dualist philosophy with hegelian dialectics. Do again that.

- If 'unification theory' was indeed coined by Bertalanffy, why we have to steal the name and give it to Physicists as it was before i reposted it? Unification Theory is a term we use in GST not a physicist's term. If you expect that by accumulating all the names of 'God' you will find that grand unification and its chimeric single equation i recommend you to read 'the 1001 names of God' by al-fidursi... They have more than you do (-: Are we going to steal all names of all theories and connect it to the never found Grand Unification so nobody else can say anything about how to unify human knowledge? That is fundamentalism which also exist in science 0-:

- General Systems is NOT biology NEITHER physics, buT that doesnt make it pseudoscience.It tries precisely to unify them both by mixing the 2 arrows of those sciences, the partial arrow of energy of physics and the partial arrow of complexity of information. So instead of saying like physicists 'energy never dies but transforms itself' or like biology, 'all forms evolve in complexity' it says 'energy trans=forms back and forthitself into in-form-ation', forms in action, that share the properties of that primordial energy and information in infnite fractal feed-back cycles which put together create the tapestrty of the Universe. ONLY BOTH TOGETHER WILL EXPLAIN THE WHOLE, The arrow of energy, explains down causes, in biology the down scales of chemistry and physics.

The arrow of complexity explaisn the 'up tendencies', the why, the arrow of social, organic evolution, the fact that the Universe has grown in scales of social complesxity gathered by networks into herds from quarks to atoms to molecules to organisms and planets to galaxies. The arrow of complexity EXISTS, is the main engine of social evolution. And social evolution works because a herd of cells is more powerful than a single cell. Social Evolution is the engine of complexity: atoms gather in herds in growing scale to survive. The article didn't do. The tab should. Let others come and explain you better the two arrows of GodoG, the dynamic duality of life<=>death, space<=>time, energy<=>information. One thing i have enjoyed though, the argument, the tension of the ephimerous... this wikipedia thing is adictive, its like being in the school again, no respect all judgment, very tao, humbling... In any case, 'the name that can be named is not the eternal name.