WikiMechanics

Many thanks for that clarification. That explains why linking thermal and visual sensations first with acoustic sensations makes sense as a first order foundation. I must say, though, that I'm still having trouble seeing the reasoning behind the pairing of Anaxagorean sensations. From a presentation point of view, the way these connections are introduced seems arbitrary. The main question I'm left with after finishing the wikimechanics pages that are already posted is the following: What do the model's elementary sensations have to do with the seeds, quarks and particles they define. For a physics neophyte like myself, the easiest way to think of it intuitively is in functional terms — the sensations appear to allow for a priori definitions of concepts like time and earth-based chronology (e.g. through visual sensations related to diurnal and nocturnal), lateral imbalances and electric charges (e.g through aural distinctions between left and right), and mass (e.g. through thermal distinctions between hot and cold). Is such an "instrumental" interpretation of the usefulness of sensations at the base of this model legitimate in any way?

Yes I agree that the Anaxagorean pairs need to be moved. I've taken them out of the green-arrow flow of presentation, and tucked them in behind the quarks. Let's see if that's better. I'll try to get back to the rest of your comment tomorrow.

Okay. Now about the second part of your comment. It seems to me that you are reaching for some kind of introductory overview. And I agree that a brief outline is much needed to put some direction and motivation in the discussion. Thank you for taking a crack at it. I think your interpretation is perfectly "legitimate", but I'd place the emphasis somewhat differently. Let's bounce it back and forth here in the forum for a while, and then make a new page, perhaps to go in right after Events. Now here's my try…

WikiMechanics is empirical, as good science should be: we start from sensations and observations. Some simple common experiences are used to define little particles called seeds. Seeds are combined to define larger particles like quarks, protons, atoms and molecules. Seeds are also counted and used to define a bunch of other numbers that are the usual fare of physics; charge, mass, time, postition, etc. In this way we see theoretical physics as an explicit description of sensation. The whole effort is justifed because it; 1) accurately states mass and lifetime data in simple formulae that hopefully makes them more accessible to engineers, and 2) clarifies the origins of physics by puting ideas in a well-defined, logically ordered structure that can be experimentally tested and easily taught.

Whew, that's enough for me for now. I've got a toothache and my dentist is on holidays. Ugh!

Yes, I can see the overarching logic of the movement from sensations through to seeds, larger particles such as quarks, and then the usual building blocks of physics. Where I get stuck is in the details (the "mechanics of wikimechanics" as it were) in the logical movement from "sensation" adjectives to "particle" nouns. And it so happens that at this point in the narrative things are presently running at an extremely fast and lapidary clip. For me, the key page (which at the moment can be found only by clicking on the heading in the outline) is the one entitled Pairs of Sensation. This, to me, seems to be the key point where the shift from epistemological adjective to noun takes place. But there is as yet no text specifically linked to this page to give an intuitive commentary. I think such a commentary right at that point would be very useful, to cement in layperson's terms the argument up to that point…

Okay, I have included the presentation of pairs of Anaxagorean sensations in the same page as the Quarks. Hopefully this will make the connection between them clearer. Thanks for your comments. It's always somewhat confusing with this adjective/noun thing because there is never really a clean break between them. Almost as soon as we define some particle, we start bringing more adjectives into the discussion to describe it in further detail.

And lately I've been fleshing out the discussion of events/sensations/particles with some examples. There is a new introductory summary page for particles. And Hume's page on particles has been expanded a bit too. Thanks again for your comments. Anytime that you, or anyone else, finds something difficult, please make a note of it here in the forum so that hopefully we can do it better.