I'm a bit out of practice at this, so don't be too harsh with me...

Social-Spacetime wrote: The fabric defines the mathematical symmetry of physics, which defines the laws of the universe, giving rise to the complexity of the universe we see today.

Actually, I think you might need to revisit that. A huge portion of the laws of the universe such as those governing, for example, the existence of matter - not sure how important matter is in your schema, but it seems to have some import in the universe - arises not out of a mathematical symmetry of physics, but out of a violation of symmetry.

Of course you, being the expert in both your model and the physics it's modelled on, have no doubt taken that into account. There's no way you could construct a model contingent on symmetry describing something that exists precisely because a symmetry was violated.

I'll also be interested to see how you deal with how complexity can arise out of symmetry, when symmetry is inherently conservative. There's an old saw popular in these parts about a certain

German mathematician, wagers and shirts that I think will be rearing its head sometime soon. Oh, sorry. I just realised that I raised its head. Oh, well. I'm sure you've got it all sorted out.

And with that, of further complexity of matter (of constructive interference patterns, of matter that can preserve its energy state over time), giving rise to life itself ... which through the same processes of symmetry, has created the complexity the brain and the social behaviors we see today in society, as a result of this mathematical symmetry of the universe (which represents nesting, hierarchy, fractals, and self-recursion). This is the consilience of unified theory of our entire social world, from physics, to life, to human behavior.

I probably need to see clear definitions of your terms before I can grasp this, because it doesn't gel at all with my intuitions. I'm wondering in particular if we have different understandings of just what symmetry is. Do you think there's anything in the physical world that you can point to that will give me some handle on this? I'd hate to go off half-cocked just because I'm working on one definition and you're working on another. You can be as technical as you like, but try to be clear. What is symmetry, and what does it relate to in the physical world?

Social-spacetime and Einstein's spacetime are interchangeable, as the same fabric, called Social-Spacetime. Notice the 'id' of the human psyche is on the left, in blue. This represents subconsciousness. Everything to the right, in pink, represents consciousness. For example, the "ego" on the right in red, as "space" represents MASS. And the super-ego represents TIME itself as utility or the system of society or social system you may be part of as C², which is a feedback loop that creates culture. The laws of social fabrics (the rules that define human behavior based on survival mechanisms, "social mass", and Einstein's spacetime laws are listed accordingly underneath (see image below).

What is the value of C? Or have I got this wrong? In relativity,

c is a constant, and plays the role of a coefficient telling us the relationship between energy and mass, the variables in Einstein's equation. In order to make sense of this, I think I need to see how the math works. If I'm wrong about C, then M must be the coefficient. I assume that can't be right, because that would mean that the math works in a completely different way, because if M is the constant, then the variable is squared, which would entirely cock up the relationships. It can't be a matter of commutation because of the exponent. I admit, I'm not the most competent mathematician in this corner of the web, my skill falling somewhere between somewhat lacking and entirely absent, but if you take it slow and walk me through the equations I can generally brute-force my way to some grasp.

Also it looks like contagion is a gravity well, but that can't be right, can it? gravity wells don't appear in special relativity, because that's exactly what's special about special relativity, namely that, as

Potholer54 might say 'Oi, Dan! There's no fucking gravity in it!" If it does have gravity, why didn't you use Einstein's field equations as the basis for your model rather than the stationary version of his the mass-energy relationship. I mean, I know they're much harder to work with than the mass-energy relationship, but still... Or does that well only represent contagion, with gravity not being a feature of your model? That would make some sense, but special relativity can't have wells of any sort because there's no curvature in special relativity, because there's no term for the energy-momentum tensor describing curvature. We seem to be in a bit of a no-mans' land between two relativities (which I suppose is better than being being two warring relatives).

Notice how the Psychological Continuum Model (PCM) by Jeff James and Daniel C. Funk is consilient (unified) with everything in the model below. The Pcm represents how we come to psychologically attach to ideas (as awareness, attraction, attachment, and allegiance). This all unifies with each law, with the id,ego, and super-ego, with social-spacetime, and E=MC². If you read the PCM, you can visualize the networks they speak of, especially as they "crystallize" into greater connected neural networks in the mind, as we come to realize ideas as intrinsic, and intrinsically consistent. Each sub law on the left get nested into all the other laws, and each law into the rest, called the Nested Laws of Social Fabrics (representing a fractal design) of 1,2,3,5,8, and 13 (a fibonacci sequence). There is 1 mind, 2 parts of the human psyche which are subconsciousness and consciousness, 3 parts to the human psyche (id, ego, super-ego), 5 laws of social fabrics that define everything, 8 sub-laws that defines the id for survival (of simplicity to complexity), and 8 sub-laws + 5 Laws altogether is equal to 13. 1+3 = 4 (three spatial dimensions plus 1 of TIME, which is equal to Einstein's spacetime. "Space" is 3 spatial dimensions, and "Time" is one dimension as well. That makes 4 dimensions altogether. If you add in "Social" or "Energy" (of Einstein's E=MC²), you get the 5th dimension, which is LIFE itself (constructive interference patterns) -- matter that can look at itself in the mirror and preserve its ENERGY over TIME. Energy=Mass*Speed of Light (Time or C²).

OK, clearly I'm not clever enough for this, or I at least need some help understanding it. Most of it must just be too technical for me and I need further explanation. it mostly looks like word salad, but that's often the case with high-level jargon, so maybe that's it. There are a couple of bits I think I understand, but two of them look entirely wrong to my amateur eyes, so perhaps you could explain them for me. Here they are:

OK, first, there's a lot of stuff that's beyond my poor cognitive abilities, but then you go on to something I thought I understood, but the way you've presented it doesn't match what I thought I knew. You talk about space and time as the four dimensions of spacetime, and then you talk about energy as the 5th dimension. That's either simply wrong, or you're working in higher dimensions (or both, to be fair). That must mean you've worked this out in something like stringy terms, meaning you must be at least working in some quantum-compatible framework, since string theory is inherently quantum compatible. So which stringy framework are you working in? Are there any dualities in your model such that coupling constants are intercompatible? Can you present your model in a more mathematical form? I'm guessing that Dirac notation is going to serve us well here, since he's the one who made relativity and quantum theory play nicely, which is one of the reasons physicists use bra-ket notation, I'm told.

The you go on to say that energy is life itself, which is problematic in several ways.

This paragraph has cleared some things up for me (sorry, I'm reading as I go so I can keep it fresh; it can make for some hurdles along the way, but it's the easiest way for me to organise my thoughts, so progress is usually better despite the potential hurdles), namely a) that the constant is indeed C.

There does seem to be a bit of an issue with your text explanation in that last bit. You've given a natural language exposition of Einstein's equation as energy=mass*speed of light and the added terms in brackets (time or C

2). That can't be correct, because in Einstein's equation the speed of light was squared. Indeed, that's the first operation to be carried out on the equation by well-understood convention, even to a mathematical dilettante like me. Also, it looks for all the world as if the speed of light and C

2 are the same. That's wrong in one or both of two ways:

1. You're missing an exponent on the former.

2. C is the square root of

c and the entire mass-energy relationship fails to accord with reality.

I think I'll assume that you missed an exponent on the speed of light in your excitement to get the word out,

I have more, but I think that, for a first proper outing on the forum in a very long time, that's enough for now, at least until you clarify my earlier confusion over your terms. I'll try to catch up on the rest of the thread tomorrow, if I can find the requisite spoons.

(Edited to add link to information about the German mathematician in question, a truly incredible woman who was responsible for one of the greatest insights in modern physics.)