Originally Posted By: Bill S.

I suspect that it is possible to derive such an explanation from the single assumption that the cosmos is infinite and timeless, and that however many other assumptions you have to make and keep or abandon along the way, your initial assumption will remain.


I would like to say that my model is nearly the same as you have visualized.In my model, the 'Ensemble' (which you call the cosmos)is infinite and timeless, ie, space and time are infinite (timeless in the sense that time has no relevance as far as the Ensemble is considered, because the Ensemble does not change with time).

But the observable part belongs to 'our universe', which has a finite space, and as the space associated with our universe remains changing, time has relevance. The fundamental particle always remains in motion; motion is a space- time relation caused by the particle. Starting with that fundamental particle, every thing can be explained, that is my claim.

Thus, as you have visualized, the initial assumption should not be changed, but the extra assumptions which you invoke in the course of explaining should be logical (both physically and mathematically) and the number of assumptions should be the barest minimum.

In my model, there is only one type of fundamental particle, and one basic force. 'How the other particles and atoms are formed', and 'how the basic force gets divided into other forces' are explained logically (both physically and mathematically). In the existing model, there are 'many fundamental particles', and 'four fundamental forces' to start with. And, if you go the GR way, there is the 'space-time' and if you go the QM way, there is the 'instant-duality at the quantum level'. My model does not require these additional fittings. So it is better than the existing model, I claim. However, it is 'just a claim' in the sense that it has not been verified by the scientific community. And, whether I have gone wrong anywhere, only a thorough analysis can reveal.