String theory ~ the theory of physical theory?

[Pointy]

Good focus!

Is there a way at all to by means of poolproof deductions find universal statements from existential ones?

If the answer is no, then to me, that suggests that more than ever changes the focus of the nature of law. And it my suggest an alternative quest.

I could have an answer to your quest..

There is such a thing as the Curry-Howard correspondence which combines logicality with
mathmatical proof. From deduction we can see that physics/mathmatics and logicality/metaphysics could in fact be related.
As the Curry-Howard correspondence is the direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical proofs. Also known as Curry-Howard isomorphism, proofs-as-programs correspondence and formulae-as-types correspondence, it refers to the generalization of a syntactic analogy between systems of formal logic and computational calculi that was first discovered by the American mathematician Haskell Curry and logician William Alvin Howard.

And I see no universal way to implement this rating system either. So the observed problem here, keeps getting back at each level like a torch in our behind.

But MAYBE in each particular case, there is a "preferred" logic that can be locally attained like a sort of local steady state equilibrium. And maybe we can related the structure of this logic to the structure of space-time and also matter. And maybe there is even a bound to the "set of logic". IF you consider logic as a set of rules from manipulating structures, then if the structures are limited in complexity then the logic that can live there may also be bounded. Maybe if we look at the simplest possible systems (...)

I am trying to ask these questions, like what is the logic in line with the above, of Einsteins Gravity. And what is the logic of the standard model of particle physics?

/Fredrik

Curved space often refers to a spatial geometry which is not “flat” where a flat space is described by Euclidean Geometry. Curved spaces can generally be described by Riemannian Geometry though some simple cases can be described in other ways. Curved spaces play an essential role in General Relativity where gravity is often visualized as curved space. The Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric is a curved metric which forms the current foundation for the description of the expansion of space and shape of the universe.

This curvature can be seen in many ways. Some logic suggests that logical 'spira mirabilis' are metaphysically and physically explainable.

A logarithmic spiral, equiangular spiral or growth spiral is a special kind of spiral curve which often appears in nature. The logarithmic spiral was first described by Descartes and later extensively investigated by Jakob Bernoulli, who called it Spira mirabilis, "the marvelous spiral".

Spira mirabilis is another name for the logarithmic spiral. Although this curve had already been named by other mathematicians, the specific name ("miraculous" or "marvelous" spiral) was given to this curve by Jakob Bernoulli, because he was fascinated by one of its unique mathematical properties
Logarithmic spirals are self-similar in that they are self-congruent under all similarity transformations (scaling them gives the same result as rotating them). They are also congruent to their own involutes, evolutes, and the pedal curves based on their centers.
The size of the spiral increases but its shape is unaltered with each successive curve. Possibly as a result of this unique property, the spira mirabilis has evolved in nature, appearing in certain growing forms such as nautilus shells and sunflower heads. Bernoulli eventually chose a figure of a logarithmic spiral and the motto Eadem mutata resurgo ("Changed and yet the same, I rise again") for his gravestone.

 

[Pointy]

Next to curved space there's also KK

There are also some older standing theories about combining Einstein's relativity with quantifiable gravity.

There is the Kaluza–Klein theory, or KK theory, for short, which is a model that seeks to unify the two fundamental forces of gravitation and electromagnetism. The theory was first discovered by the mathematician Theodor Kaluza who extended general relativity to a five-dimensional spacetime. The resulting equations can be separated out into further sets of equations, one of which is equivalent to Einstein field equations, another set equivalent to Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic field and the final part an extra scalar field now termed the "radion".

In the attempt to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment, Lorentz proposed that moving bodies contract in the direction of motion ( George FitzGerald had already arrived at this conclusion with length contraction.)
Length contraction, according to Hendrik Lorentz, is the physical phenomenon of a decrease in length detected by an observer in objects that travel at any non-zero velocity relative to that observer. This contraction (more formally called Lorentz contraction or Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction) only becomes noticeable, however, at a substantial fraction of the speed of light; and the contraction is only in the direction parallel to the direction in which the observed body is travelling.
Lorentz worked on describing electromagentic phenomena (the propagation of light) in reference frames that moved relative to each other. He discovered that the transition from one to another reference frame could be simplified by using a new time variable which he called local time. The local time depended on the universal time and the location under consideration. Lorentz publications made use of the term local time without giving a detailed interpretation of its physical relevance. In 1900, Henri Poincaré called Lorentz's local time a "wonderful invention" and illustrated it by showing that clocks in moving frames are synchronized by exchanging light signals that are assumed to travel at the same speed against and with the motion of the frame.

By 1904, Lorentz added time dilation to his transformations and published what Poincaré named Lorentz transformations. It was apparently unknown to Lorentz that Joseph Larmor had used identical transformations to describe orbiting electrons. Larmor's and Lorentz's equations look somewhat unfamiliar, but they are algebraically equivalent to those presented by Poincaré and Einstein.
Lorentz' '1904' paper includes the covariant formulation of electrodynamics, in which electrodynamic phenomena in different reference frames are described by identical equations with well defined transformation properties. The paper clearly recognizes the significance of this formulation, namely that the outcomes of electrodynamic experiments do not depend on the relative motion of the reference frame. The '1904' paper includes a detailed discussion of the increase of the inertial mass of rapidly moving objects. In 1905, Einstein would use many of the concepts, mathematical tools and results discussed to write his paper entitled "Electrodynamics" known today as the theory of special relativity. Because Lorentz laid the fundaments for the work by Einstein, this theory was called the Lorentz-Einstein theory originally.The increase of mass was the first prediction of special relativity to be tested, but from early experiments it appeared that his prediction was wrong; this led Lorentz to the famous remark that he was "at the end of his Latin."
The confirmation of his prediction had to wait until 1909 when Lorentz published his "Theory of Electrons" based on a series of lectures in Mathematical Physics he gave at Columbia University.

If one would apply one of the more recent postulates in relativity, a supposed super relativity, being 'Space' is not a void but is in fact a solid composed of variations of three fields; Gravitational, Magnetic and Electrostatic in an unconfigured format and it as such is continuous and unbounded; one could come to some different conclusion as to Lorentz's non-moving frame.
Einstein added that no kind of observation at all, even measuring the speed of light across your frame of reference to any accuracy you like, would help find out if your frame of reference was "really at rest". This implies, of course, that the concept of being "at rest" is meaningless. If Einstein is right, there is also no natural rest-frame in the universe

 

[Fra]

I recently read a bit of Nancy Cartwright. Heard her talk, a year or so ago, and was impressed, but didn't immediately follow up until now:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPA10,M1

see if that will get you the introduction to her book "The Dappled World"
It might interest you.
I suppose it could be argued that Cartwright presents a more practical and realistic view of physical law than Emam seems to have.
I can't say this is a special interest of mine or that I know much about it, but since you think generally about physical law you might get something out of her introduction.

As a note, I forgot you give feedback on this long time ago. I did order this book (several months ago) on your advice, and started reading it. I think what I supposed was her point (about the world not beeing unity, but rather "dapply" and that "looking for unity" may be a flawed guide etc) was more than clear from the foreword and in a sense I agree with her, but it's something about her writing style that I disliked and drove me nuts. So I dropped the book during the first chapters. I got the feeling that she kept repeating the same point over and over again and kept coming up with analogies, but I didn't see what I think would be the constructive thing, what does this insight suggest we do. It seems to me the book was trying to make a point (that I think she made early on), but I didn't see the constructive part.

Maybe I gave up too early, but her reasoning and writing style drove me nuts :)

Marcus did you read this, all of it? If so, what did you think?

/Fredrik