In step with Plato’s musings in regards to* Forms* i.e. patterns, might there be a most general pattern in a description of nature? Entropy, in it’s various renditions, and as the Second Law of thermodynamics, is very general, and survived the quantum and relativistic revolutions. Might one generalize further from such entropy construct; thus perhaps resulting in a broader applicability?

MSM (Modified Set Model) Generality: an ongoing maximizing (or tendency toward maximizing) of the cardinality of sets (in comparison to alternative scenarios), for all stages and for all scales of manifold(s).

Even though entropy and information is just locally generated in the model, still the construct entropy summation for over a positive definite MGS instant, has been utilized sparingly as a modified global interdependent variable. However the alleged divergent non-smooth finer than Planck scale, and alleged divergent analytical temporal sequence, such as for System S≡{U_{T}^{‘}, …}, and thus set of MGSs (Modified Global Simultaneity) i.e. common cosmic time, could be considered as consistent with such Generality. Thus such Generality would seem to apply to both M^{3}_{m} and M^{1}_{m} manifolds i.e for all scales and for all stages of endless evolving System S≡{U_{T}^{‘}, …}.

MSM Generality is considered as an abstraction and generalization from entropy concept. That is, for greater cardinality of a set, then more re-arrangements, and hence increased contribution to alleged always monotonically increasing entropy generation. Likewise allegedly a concomitant ongoing maximizing of information generation in comparison to alternative scenarios; even though entropy can be defined as a loss of information, and information can be described as a loss of entropy. ∆s_{1}≡-∆I_{1 }and ∆I_{2 }Ξ-∆s_{2} respectively, with allegedly always ∆s_{1}>∆I_{2 }.

A practical example of such ongoing maximizing of entropy and information, would be *us*, and our ingestion of food (energy); most of which is broken down into smaller more numerous parts, and radiated as infrared radiation, in order for us to maintain a constant core etc. body temperature i.e. homothermic. Approximately 5% is utilized as free energy i.e. work, for structure and function (physiology); that is information generation.

What might be further predictions of such a model? The fermion mass spectrum would seem consistent with such MSM Generality. Also the modified black hole with polar jets, would seem consistent, and a prediction of, such model. That is, both scenarios would seem consistent with a further increasing entropy in comparison to alternative scenarios. For example, the increased surface area of such modified BH, with respective polar vertices, would be consistent with an increased entropy generation. Also the constraint of polar jets would seem to enhance information generation.

In addition, the presence of longitudinal polarization and thus mass in the universe, allows for more interactions, and hence is consistent with more entropy generation. Thus obviating the query as to the origin of mass. That is, MSM Generality would seem consistent with always the presence of mass, such as fermion mass spectrum, even at the extreme of r_{m} minimum stage of 3-manifold evolution.

Also MSM Generality would seem consistent with the System rendered as an evolving set of manifolds; and not consistent with the complement (i.e. null set) of such System, in domain of discourse. Thus MSM Generality would not seem consistent with a special condition scenario for the System (i.e. quanta and manifold) or number set, being generated from null set.** **In fact the null set would represent the minimizing of cardinality of a set; the antithesis i.e. opposite, of MSM Generality.

In context of the model, one might further compare the System and it’s complement, *null set*. What do they have in common; they both are *sets*. What do they not have in common? The System set(s) has elements; whereas the complement does not. For the System, one allegedly has MSM Generality: *an ongoing maximizing of cardinality of elements of sets*; whereas the complement has a minimizing of elements of a set. Also the System has a manifold (i.e. topology) description, in the form of a mixed continuity, consisting of M^{3}_{m} and M^{1}_{m} manifolds; whereas the complement does not have a continuity description. So other than *set* construct, the System and it’s complement, not-System, would seem to define each other, in the domain of discourse. TMM

also see https://sites.google.com/site/zankaon

the opposite** **of a great truth is also a great truth.

T. Mann