Single means single, “other things coming from” does not equal single … You’re simply stating that single is not single in the context of “unified field”. Sorry, couldn’t find italics, so I just used quotes…
We agree the point of this thread is discussing definition, we also agree that one aspect of discussing definition is a lack of heterogeneity, or positively, homogeneity. If a field is unified, which implies homogeneity, then something else cannot come from it.
Your logic doesn’t work James, your redefining unified in a way that it’s oppositionally defined!
And we’ve been discussing definition itself in that context. Definition very much is like affectance, I think you’d do well to understand this if it’s not already obvious from stating it.
The tree of life metaphor being used here doesn’t address the basic fact that an apple is not a tree. There is heterogeneity here. Unified field means homogeneity, non unified field means heterogeneity.
Heterogeneity is what we see, and must necessarily see to distinguish, in order to be.
Homogeneity is nothingness, lack of existence…
For example, if everyone is exactly the same, then there is only one person, everyone = 1
If we had a TRUE unified theory (non contradictory to its definition - homogeneity of all), everything would be equal to everything else with no asymmetry - nothing at all.
An apple stems from a tree, just as a magnetic field stems from an affectance field. No one ever said that they are identically the same. One is a more restricted subset or specific arrangement of the other. A statue is made of clay, but a statue is not identical to clay.
No. it does not. You are just imagining, supposing that is what it means. “UniFIED” means that many were brought into one, coherently assembled, “united”.
And note that it is the THEORY that is unified, not necessarily the physical substances. Affectance allows for all of the relevant theories to unite via a single affectance field (and also for all of the fields of science to unite for the same reason).
All kinds of social magic stems from playing with definitions from a position of the authority to arbitrarily dictate.
In mathematics, 0.999… is declared to be defined as equal to 1.0, despite a variety of logical reasons why it isn’t really true, just like the pig to fish transmutation.
You can call any piece of animal constructed clay that has been dried a statue.
That’s the definition of a statue.
It’s not just clay that comprises a statue, but the maker and it’s properties.
Unification theories are equalities.
1=1 is a unification theory.
It defies your definition “from one to many”
What about “a couple” and “two”
They equal each other - that is a unified theory.
The questions we have about definition are identity and plurality, in order to be distinct from everything else, it needs to be itself.
The issue of many coming from one is not innate, in fact, contradictory, to the process of equality of formulations - which is what a unified theory is.
If there are ten pies on a table and they are exactly the same (which might still be impossible), does that exclude the fact that there are ten pies on the table simply because they are exactly the same?
Ten pies remain to be 10 pies.
The word every suggests more than one - more than one individual, more than one tree, more than one post, et cetera.
Don’t discard the individual because he/she may be the exact replica of that one or that one.
It is perhaps only in English grammer that the term “everyone” is used in the singular as in diagramming a sentence but in reality that doesn’t discount the fact that everyone or every (plural) one - is still more than just one.