Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Joe Fisher: on 4/8/17 at 16:37pm UTC, wrote Dear Marts, Thank you for reading my essay. Just as visible surface am...

Marts Liena: on 4/7/17 at 23:11pm UTC, wrote joe, I stand in the middle of a crater with a bright laser on a fast...

Joe Fisher: on 4/6/17 at 16:49pm UTC, wrote Dear Lorraine, Thank you ever so much for reading my essay and for...

Lorraine Ford: on 4/6/17 at 8:19am UTC, wrote Joe, I found your essay to be better reading than some essays of more...

Joe Fisher: on 4/1/17 at 16:20pm UTC, wrote Dear Daniel, I read both of your very complicated comments and I am...

Daniel Rocha: on 3/31/17 at 18:28pm UTC, wrote Dear Joe Fisher, I think you did not see my answer: “Everything should...

Daniel Rocha: on 3/31/17 at 18:24pm UTC, wrote Dear Joe Fisher, I think you did not see my answer: “Everything should...

Joe Fisher: on 3/31/17 at 16:35pm UTC, wrote Dear Bill, Thank you ever so much for reading my essay, and for leaving...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Gary, the article was posted in regard your assertion that numbers don't..." in Wandering Towards a Goal:...

Gary Simpson: "Georgina, I am sure that you think you have answered my question but you..." in Wandering Towards a Goal:...

Georgina Woodward: "James, I'm sorry for getting the way you define mass wrong. It is clear to..." in Sounding the Drums to...

John Cox: "James, Now, please. Do not take umbrage. I fully accept covariance within..." in Sounding the Drums to...

ms office support: "There are many users of MS Office who use different applications of it for..." in Are We Merging With Our...

Samaira Khan: "Hi there, I enjoy reading through your article post. I like to write a..." in Retrocausality,...

Nitina oania: "http://freerobuxgenerator.net" in Quantum Replicants:...

Nitina oania: "We below at Chikara Video Game" understand exactly what it resembles to..." in Quantum Replicants:...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.


FQXi FORUM
August 20, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY by Joe Fisher [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 10, 2017 @ 21:50 GMT
Essay Abstract

“One way to think of physics is indeed as a (large) set of (complex) mathematical laws of (abstract invisible) dynamics. These (many complex abstract) laws provide (questionable) predictions by carrying (many abstract) conditions at one moment of time supposedly into the (abstract) future. But nature has provided us with only one real observable self-evident phenomenon that is unquestionably real and that is vastly more useful in its singular aim and sole intention.

Author Bio

I am a self-taut (thinking makes me tense) realist.

Download Essay PDF File




Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jan. 20, 2017 @ 18:00 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher,

you seem to be far ahead of the times and also long known to the fqxi community for regularily posting the same few sentences. Even having read your essay i cannot decipher what you mean by 'infinite non-surface light'. Is there also some surface or non-surface sound, non-surface smell and non-surface taste in your abstract of the real universe and how are they different to non-surface light or to your 'unified visible infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension'?

Stefan Weckbach

report post as inappropriate

Stephen I. Ternyik replied on Jan. 20, 2017 @ 19:36 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher ! The first 3 sentences on page 8 seem to be the core of your approach which is in contrast to the laboratory method of 'testing' nature. This view confirms the opinion of famous German writer Goethe who said that we should first try to understand nature by contemplation and that laboratory testing is limiting our view of natural reality as dominant method. Your viewpoint is actually classical, in humanistic terms. Best: S. Ternyik

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 17:08 GMT
Dear Stefaan Weckback,

Thank you ever so much for reading and commenting on my essay.

Infinite surface am capable of producing infinite sound, Infinite surface am capable of producing infinite smell. Infinite surface am capable of producing infinite taste. Infinite surface am capable of producing infinite touch. Infinite surface can only produce infinite visibility because infinite surface am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Infinte surface can only be occurring in one infinite dimension.

Joe Fisher



Author Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 17:14 GMT
Dear Stephen Ternyik,

Thank you ever so much for reading my essay, and for taking the time to leave such a positive comment about it.

Joe Fisher, Realist




Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 22, 2017 @ 06:56 GMT
Joe, Your very first line is a fallacy "All living creatures have eyes." No they don't. Though you are talking about seen things you don't allow for the necessary physics for sight to occur. You haven't addressed the set topic. I know you do not want to debate what you have written, from previous experience, so instead I am just letting you know that I have read it to the end.

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 22, 2017 @ 17:42 GMT
Dear Georgina,

A Google search asking if all creatures have eyes discloses only that ten species of animals are born without eyes including a species of spider (?) and a species of crayfish (?). As far as I know, my essay has as yet not been presented by audio tape. I am not “talking” about “seen (abstract) things” I am writing about the incontrovertible fact that the real Universe consists only of one unified visible infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Reality am not as complicated as theories of reality are. According to the theme of the essay contest written by Dr. Bendan Foster, contestants were asked to see if they could present a more reliable explanation of the Universe superior to the mathematical one. I did that.

Joe Fisher, Realist



Karl H Coryat replied on Jan. 24, 2017 @ 01:24 GMT
A few questions for Joe:

1. Do plants and fungi have eyes, or are plants and fungi not living creatures?

2. Do sponges and corals have eyes, or are sponges and corals not animals? Are they not living?

3. When you say "infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension," do you mean a line? (Traditionally, a surface in one dimension is a line.) If not, what do you mean by one dimension?

4. When you say "infinite light," in what way is light infinite? Infinite in quantity? Energy? Extension?

5. What evidence do we have that light is infinite or that it must necessarily be infinite?

6. Why do you write "am" in place of of "is"?

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 24, 2017 @ 16:53 GMT
Dear Karl,

Had you read my essay a bit more carefully, you would have been informed that I use the term “am” because of its accuracy. Using the word “is” always implies that a different state could be imminent and interchanged by using the word, “was”

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

A physical eye must be infinite in size and number. I know that every cell, germ and bacterium must have eyes because of natural consistency. A dimension am not linear.

Non-surface light must be infinite because as I explained in my essay, only infinity exists.

Joe Fisher, Realist




Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Jan. 25, 2017 @ 08:30 GMT
Only nature can produce viable reality (p.8), i.e. finite experiments can limit our understanding of (the one infinite) reality or even destroy it. Archiving knowledge (professional academia) and creating knowledge (human learning) are not equal categories in real life; real viability is tight to infinity (non-surface light). The sentence on p.8 is practically a motto for the whole essay. These are the thoughts that I wanted to add to my last comment, Joe.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 25, 2017 @ 16:22 GMT
Dear Stephen,

Thank you ever so much for your sagacious comment

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 29, 2017 @ 12:32 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher,

I got some observations…

1. In introduction line 1…. Correction …Trees,corals etc., don’t have eyes

2. In introduction Line 6:… How can you say empty space never existed anywhere?

3. In introduction Line 9:…. There are different un-connected surfaces, but not single surface. Single surface may be inside of the eye there is only retina ....

4. 3rd Para Middle sentence… It is not single surface / Not infinite surface

5. 4th Para line2… You are attributing every unknown to God…. Science should develop…

6. Page 3 line 5…Is there any ZERO sized initial Bigbang mass?? I dont think EVEN expanding universe models predicted such ZERO sized INFINITE Density mass was present at the time of Bigbang.

7. Page 4 line 1 to 3… What is real infinite dimension…?

8. Page 4 line 12… Why only two surfaces will travel … in Galileo experiment… there are many surfaces

9. Page 7 line 11…. Why all infinite surfaces travel with same speed… (Based on Newton’s laws the whole engineering and technology are working today…)

10. In Abstract: Simple Mathematical laws will explain… Eg Use dynamic Universe Model

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 29, 2017 @ 16:41 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu Gupta,

“I got some observations…

1. In introduction line 1…. Correction …Trees,corals etc., don’t have eyes

Simplicity cannot be simplified. Nature must have provided a reality that all creatures could be capable of dealing with. As all of the creatures I have seen have eyes, in order for all creatures to be able to deal with simple natural...

view entire post




Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jan. 30, 2017 @ 01:32 GMT
Nice essay sir,

Probably I did not understand what is meant by surface....

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 30, 2017 @ 17:11 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu Gupta,

Thank you ever so much for reading my essay and for asking such probing questions about its veracity. Thank you slso for your compliment. I do hope that your essay does well in the competition.

Joe Fisher, Realist




Paul N Butler wrote on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 02:50 GMT
Your comment to me on my page:

Dear Mr. Butler,

Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about imaginary “laws of the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 16:56 GMT
Dear Paul,

You really ought to have read my essay first. There is nothing complicated about a single celled amoeba’s surface. The whole point of my essay am that the real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist



Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 19:14 GMT
Dear Joe,

I read your paper and at the beginning you talk about a plethora of surfaces and you then mention several things and say that they have complete surfaces. This leads me to believe that each thing has its own complete surface that is not a part of other surfaces. Later in your paper you seem to be saying that there is only one surface. How can both be true or am I misunderstanding what you are saying in some way? Please clarify what you mean. You say that light is a nonentity, are you saying that it does not exist? You mention invisible radiance causes light to appear on infinite surface. What is the nature of this invisible radiance and how does it make light to appear on surface? If light does not exist, how can I see it on a surface?

An amoeba’s surface is not as simple as you might think. It has sensors or as you would call them eyes that help it to observe obstacles and food and when it finds food it has protein machines that move parts of its surface to enclose it around the food, which is then taken into it and digested. It appears from what you say that to you the base of all things is an infinite dimension. Are there any characteristics of this dimension other than that it is infinite and that it contains an infinite visible physical surface? Is the dimension completely filled by the surface that is contained in it or does it also contain anything else in it or is there any empty part of this dimension? Is this dimension also illuminated by the light or just the surface that is contained within it?

Sincerely,

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 2, 2017 @ 17:38 GMT
Dear Paul,

Simplicity cannot be simplified. You have a complete surface do you not? And your complete surface am always in contact with parts of other surfaces am it not? It logically follows that only a single physical visible infinite surface could ever exist. I never stated that light did not exist. I stated that only infinite non-surface light existed. I also implied that if you looked directly at the sun, you could verify that sunlight never moved away from the surface of the sun. Sunbeams, however, do seem to move from the surface of the sun. This could only happen if the sun sheds radiants that turn into non-surface light when they strike the atmospheric surface that exists between earth and the sun, and illuminates the earth’s surface when they strike it as well. An amoeba’s surface has to be as simple as all other surface am. One single, sole, unified, visible, infinite surface that am occurring in one, single, sole, infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light am not my idea. It am the only way that one, single, sole, physical state could ever exist.

Joe Fisher, Realist




Anonymous wrote on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 03:23 GMT
Dear Joe,

If there is only one dimension it still must present to us the things that we see as we see them. In man’s standard concept of a one dimensional world, you could only have point objects or line objects. Even the discs or squares that you mention would be considered two dimensional objects. This means that your concept of a single dimension would have to be different than...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 15:41 GMT
Dear anonymous Paul,

You wrote: “If there is only one dimension it still must present to us the things that we see as we see them” Every real “thing” that you see has a real visible surface. That means that only a single infinite visible surface could possibly exist. Obviously, you can manufacture a finite number of boxes. But each box has to have a real visible surface, Each real tree that produced the wood from which some of the finite number of boxes were made had to have a real visible surface. Each of the nails used to hold a box together must have had a real visible surface. As I explained in my baseball item, the real visible surface of a baseball never travels at a finite speed between two measured points. You can clearly see the real surface of a baseball whether it is purportedly moving at 90 miles an hour, or whether it am stationary. The disc that you actually see merely changes size infinitely throughout the game.

Joe Fisher, Realist



Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 5, 2017 @ 01:27 GMT
Dear Joe,

Here is my previous message edited to remove objects. I hope that is more understandable to you.

If there is only one dimension it still must present to us the entities that we see as we see them. In man’s standard concept of a one dimensional world, you could only have point entities or line entities. Even the discs or squares that you mention would be considered two...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Paul N Butler wrote on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 03:29 GMT
Dear Joe,

Even though I logged in and it said I was logged into my account, my above post went in as anonymous. You probably could have figured out that it was me, but I am sending this to make sure and to see if this login works ok.

Sincerely,

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 16:25 GMT
Joe,

I have decided that I will vote on the essays written by everyone that posts a comment in my forum. You posted your usual boilerplate in my forum. Therefore, I am following your succinct instruction and I am scoring 1 for simplicity.

Good Luck with That.

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 6, 2017 @ 15:49 GMT
Gary,

Thank you ever so much. Every little thing helps.

Joe Fisher, Realist



Gary D. Simpson replied on Feb. 6, 2017 @ 17:26 GMT
It was my pleasure ... I only wish I could have given you a zero.

It sickens me to think of how much of other people's time you have wasted.

report post as inappropriate


Declan Andrew Traill wrote on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 06:13 GMT
Interesting, but incorrect. Many creatures do not have eyes: bacteria, worms etc etc

Eyes give an advantage to creatures in environments where light exists and so their emergence through evolution allows these creatures to survive and persist better than other creatures without eyes.

Declan

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 16:07 GMT
Dear Declan,

All real visible creatures have a real visible surface. This means that only infinite surface am capable of existing. It follows that only an infinite number of eyes of infinite size could exist. Had you read the comments, you would have learned that I had already answered this question of creatures supposedly born without eyes.

Joe Fisher, Realist




Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 14:53 GMT
Hi Joe

As esoteric as always! It took two reads but I think I clicked into the essence of your concept. I suspect you deliberately obscured it, and if so - from the comments above - it worked!

You may recall my own view, which may be reduced to effectively the conditions of a 'refractive plane' existing everywhere, and in 3D (a cloud of plasma refracts light, but may take 3 parsecs rather than 3 microns) If all electrons' re-emit light at 'c' in the only rest frame each knows, then neither Special Relativity or QM need be paradoxical or weird any more, and fit together.

All electrons 'see' (and 'couple with') all wavelengths of light, but, to borrow the universal number from Srittadev, have a refractive index of 1, so zero 'spectroscopic signature'.

I therefore 'see' a simple logical beauty in your, probably deliberately, obtuse description. Unless I've imagined connections that don't exist? By the way my essay (lodged but not 'popped up' from the 'dark energy' field yet) describes how evolution, 'intent' and 'goals' can simply emerge from such fermion coupling.

Best of luck. I know you know you'd need it!

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 16:24 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank you for reading my essay. I cannot understand why anyone would think that my contention that the real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light, would be difficult to understand. I also cannot understand why some of the readers of my contention have made no attempt to refute it, but have instead chosen to insult me for suggesting that only nature could produce such a singular simplest reality as the one I have accurately described.

Joe Fisher, Realist



Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 20:52 GMT
Joe,

Good point. Maybe it's irrefutable!

Insults reveal limitations and lack of understanding.

Unfortunately all three seem endemic in physics

report post as inappropriate


Patrick Tonin wrote on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 12:42 GMT
Dear Joe,

Thank you for your "classic" comment on my essay.

I have read your essay and although most of it doesn't make much sense to me, I must say that there might be an element of truth in what you are saying (if I understand you correctly). In a certain way, I could conceive that the Universe consists only of one unified visible infinite physical surface but maybe I would add "at only one invisible "abstract" moment in invisible "abstract" time".

Cheers !

Patrick

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 14:50 GMT
Dear Patrick,

Thank you ever so much for reading my essay and for taking the time to leave a comment about it. Visible infinite surface must be infinite in all visible aspects including duration. As there am no real finite time, there also could never be any finite abstract moment in time.

Joe Fisher, Realist




William Walker wrote on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 20:03 GMT
Hey Joe,

Do me a favor, next time you are in the bathroom... take a look in the mirror ... then imagine the mirror encompasses you completely. Now when you look into the mirror and stare into the parallel universe known as your eyes... imagine you are a hyper-sonic vibrating clear butterfly. Tell me what you see... ;)

William Walker

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 16:12 GMT
Dear William,

Every time I have looked into the real surface of a real bathroom mirror, I have seen a real reflection of part of my real front surface seamlessly enmeshed into partial real surfaces of the walls and knock-knacks in the real bathroom. It is physically impossible to gaze into an imaginary mirror.

Joe Fisher, Realist




William Walker wrote on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 17:04 GMT
No, its not impossible, just close your eyes... which is typically what we do when we imagine things... or you can stare off into space and forget the image in the mirror... See, it's called consciousness. Which is the only thing that makes anything real. Even your one dimensional surface that you are trying so desperately to convince every person that submitted a paper in this contest to believe in by sending them basically the same carbon copy message...

can you see the light?

Good luck in the contest

WW... aka consciousness

report post as inappropriate

William Walker replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 15:53 GMT
Hey Joe,

I would like to say one more thing to you...

I think your essay (and your ideas) are quite brilliant after reading it one more time...

Just don't try to hard to get it to win... politicking will only turn people off... have faith that your ideas are brilliant and will stand up on their own merits against other brilliant ideas... from the papers I have read, there are some incredibly smart people in this contest and to force your ideas down their throat using a disguise of being humble is easy to see through... your surface right now is pretty transparent and it is one that is condescending if you really look at the way you approach people with your carbon copy post...

Take care - good luck - and God Bless :)

report post as inappropriate


Gene H Barbee wrote on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 22:05 GMT
Joe, I read your essay and was reminded about simplicity. Please do not read mine. It is about complexity.

report post as inappropriate

William Walker replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 22:27 GMT
Gene,

Don't be harsh on Joe... he's a little arrogant with how he's politicking the contest... but show him a little love ;);), he is partially right in my opinion... that one dimension of surface light is an all encompassing mirror that causes light to basically freak out trying to get out of that sliver like tube (wormhole - string - hologram) using imagination...causing it to vibrate... when it vibrates past a certain frequency it actually starts to escape / emit into the space God created when she put darkness into the light (so he could see again)... Now my theory is music is the darkness and light that fuels the strings...

Now the contest does call for simplicity but maybe he was trying to make it too easy to understand... don't make your essay too complex... it should be made understandable to those with some advanced education, but not like the likes of Steven Hawking...

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 16:21 GMT
Honorable Gentlemen,

Thank you for reading my essay, and for commenting on it. William, when one closes one’s eyes, one sees only a black surface. That is why I mentioned in my essay, the need one has for rapid eye movement when one sees surface in one’s dreams.

I know my essay will not win any prizes in this contest and it does not matter. The Indian Institute of Science Journal of Current Science is reviewing my essay, THE SIMPLEST UNIVERSE. I am hoping with all of my heart that it am published. I am probably the only member of ORCID who has never had a single paper published in any reputable science journal. I regret appearing to be arrogant and groveling for attention for that is not how I wish to be castigated for. I am an old lonely frightened man.

Joe Fisher, Realist



William Walker replied on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 12:30 GMT
Hey Joe,

I am definitely a fan of yours now... because you see that you are the same as everyone else... frightened and lonely... and why we try so desperately to get acceptance in this world... so don't feel bad... you are just like me and everyone else that was separated from the 0neness of God...

I really believe your ideas are brilliant and I believe you will get published... and don't sell yourself short on this contest... have a little faith and maybe your dream will manifest itself in the real world... ;)

and thanks for the revelation... when we close our eyes to use imagination... we see darkness... and why the strings are invisible to us... the light disappears... because the strings are transparent (clear)... they are hidden to the 5 senses (thus they are dark)... they are hidden by dark matter... it takes light inside the strings (the dark and light energy of consciousness - sound vibrations) to turn them into something consciousness can see as being real (emit into space)... dark matter becomes light matter and moves the particles found in the Higgs Force Field to create physical matter as we know it... and it all comes from that one dimensional surface you talk about in your essay... I believe you are describing how the strings work... they create the surfaces that consciousness can believe (have faith in)... :)

I wish you the best Joe!

William Walker

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 16:23 GMT
I wanted to echo Stephen Ternyik's comment above..

There is some resemblance in your arguments Joe, to the views of Goethe - as expressed in his classic work 'Zur Farbenlehre (Theory of Colors).' This work documents Goethe's dispute with the theory of Optics championed by Newton, as a proper explanation for the phenomenon of color and the properties of light. It can be found here - if you are interested.

Zur Farbenlehre (Theory of Colors)

While you are trying to focus on simplicity, and Goethe is much more complicated for the sake of thoroughness; there is some substantial agreement between you. Heisenberg commented "Goethe’s colour theory has in many ways borne fruit in art, physiology and aesthetics. But victory, and hence influence on the research of the following century, has been Newton’s." I think you are trying to bring back the view that the perceptual basis of light is its true nature, or reveals a fundamental level of reality.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 15:01 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for reading my essay, and for commenting about it.

Reality does not have an abstract resemblance. Goethe certainly expressed himself quite admirably, but Goethe never wrote: “The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.”

I am not trying to focus on writing about simplicity. I am arguing rather strenuously that only naturally visible simple physical structure has ever existed.

Joe Fisher, Realist




basudeba mishra wrote on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 14:11 GMT
Dear Sir,

You have brought out a very interesting detail about eye and vision. We will like to extend your logic. We see through eyes because this is the only sense organ that has the capability to measure electromagnetic radiation. What we say as color is the net reflected wavelengths of light after the full spectrum hits the object and some of it are absorbed by it. We see only these...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 15:17 GMT
Dear basudeba,

Thank you for reading my essay and for commenting about it. Unfortunately, you do not appear to have understood what I was trying to achieve. An eye sees surface because only infinite visible surface exists. It has nothing to do with whether an eye can be affected by any finite measurement of invisible magnetic waves. Newton, Galileo, Einstein and Hawking were all wrong because they thought that the dual condition of matter and space existed independently of each other.

Joe Fisher, Realist




Joseph Murphy Brisendine wrote on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 22:11 GMT
Dear Joe,

I read your essay as requested and, rather than ask a question or make a comment that has been made already, I'm curious what "simplicity" means to you? Given two objects or phenomena or explanations or theories or whatever, how do we tell which is simpler?

-Joe Brisendine, realist as well but also biophysicist

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 16:40 GMT
Dear Joseph,

Thank you for reading my essay and for your comment. We can easily identify natural simplicity by noticing that all real objects and real phenomena have a real visible surface. All religious and scientific theories are complex and cannot be applied to natural reality.

Joe Fisher, Realist




Author Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 16:42 GMT
As usual, the ignorant NASA white male scientists lied to us yesterday about supposedly finding seven planets comparable to earth orbiting a far distant star. One real visible Universe must only have one visible physical condition. Each real star in the real Universe must have real planets and real asteroid belts and real comets orbiting it. One wishes that the white scientists would visit Bedford Stuyvesant. The white scientists could find out that despite having ideal human life supporting physical conditions, many black residents in Bedford Stuyvesant are forced to live in squalid housing conditions that would be unfit to maintain farm animals in. Not one more penny ought to be spent on utterly wasteful white male space exploration.

Joe Fisher, Realist




Author Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 16:39 GMT
It was good of Pope Francis to declare that it was better for a person to be an atheist rather than that person be a hypocritical Christian. Unfortunately, atheists are just as hypocritical as anybody else for they tend to believe in unnatural science Just as fervently as religious people believe in unnatural religion.

Joe Fisher, Realist




Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 07:12 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher

Your essay has original content. To some extent we have with you, there is one common view about the importance of surfaces. Being an engineer, I prefer to use and explore for solutions of specific problems very specific surface in the form of gravitational shells with specific properties and structure of their elements. For example.

«The outer surfaces of the spiral arms of galaxy have gravitational shells at the same temperature in the same gravitational potential and stars have same speed of forced orbital motion, which does not correspond to Newton's law of gravitation».

«It is known that on the surface of the flat bodies there is Casimir effect, which is associated with the presence of turbulent gravitational shell and large gradient of the gravitational potential».

However, I can not imagine a single one unified visible infinite physical surface, which limits the specific objects of the universe. Please provide analogues in nature, or analyze specific examples from my essay.

Kind regards,

Vladimir Fedorov

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 15:50 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Simplicity cannot be simplified. There are not different types of surfaces for that would mean that there would also have to be different types of separations of surfaces. That would also give rise to the possibility of there being some sort of anti-surface.

Joe Fisher, Realist




Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 08:53 GMT
Dear Joe, I too am a self-taut (thinking makes me tense) realist.

It was explained to me and I realized what a three-dimensional space, when I was 20 years old.

When a child first opens his eyes again, he sees a flat picture of the world. When he makes the first step, we again see a flat picture of the world, but only different. Making a lot of...a lot of steps in his mind there is an objective world, but he sees it always flat. No matter what the two eyes of man giving him the amount of the world, but it is only close to, but away we again see a flat picture. If we fly in an airplane from new York to Moscow, we will perceive that we are moving over a flat surface and only when necessary can recall the learned in school that it is convex, but again only in the imagination.

Joe, you are right, in reality, we exist on an infinite plane. Everything else is a figment of our imagination. You're also right that this infinite plane cannot have a void, the Earth must be immersed in something. This is consistent with New Cartesian Physic, which is based on the formula of equivalence of mass-energy makes the conclusion about the equivalence of space-matter. Space is matter, matter is space. Thus, our infinite plane out into the Universe.

An essay is a literary genre, not a scientific report. It requires a description of something personal, Frank. You got it perfectly. I will give you the highest rating.



Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko. (Note that I did not know English and use online translator)



report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 15:57 GMT
Уважаемый Борис,

благодарю вас за прочтение моего эссе и для понимания его.

Джо Фишер, реалист



Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 04:55 GMT
Joe, your theory is similar to projective geometry - there is a science, she engaged serious people. Christian artists who paint icons, paint their way back prospects. The modern French painters are also in fashion to paint the world flat, with no desire to show its volume.

Levitation, which I gave a materialistic explanation in his essay, is also a movement on an infinite plane. Read it again and evaluate from the point of view of traffic on an infinite plane.



Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 16:29 GMT
Dear Boris,

It is not my theory. The fact that only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it, and the fact that the real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light, am irrefutable.

Joe Fisher, Realist.




Koorosh Shahdaei wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 20:52 GMT
Dear Joe,

Very interesting essay, could you explain a bit about what you mean by infinite dimensions of universe? I believe personally dimensions are in our mind and real universe apart from what we observe is not comprehensive.

Kind regards

Koorosh

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 16:42 GMT
Dear Koorosh,

Simplicity cannot be simplified. All of the physicists and philosophers who have ever lived have overlooked the fact that one real visible Universe must have only one ascertainable physical aspect and that real observable aspect must be infinite in all of its singular representation.

Joe Fisher, Realist




Bishal Banjara wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 05:48 GMT
Dear joe,

I think you are trying to tell a same case repeats at two different stages through your words-'Newton was clearly implying that there was more than one state of physicality'. But in reality it is never possible to be so...according to my concept there is vast difference between my and Newtonian concept...see my essay "Newtonian Dynamics: An explicit diversion from reality"

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 15:48 GMT
Dear Bishhal,,

I am not trying to describe different “stages” of anything. Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher,




Daniel de França Diniz Rocha wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 17:50 GMT
Joe Fisher,

I gave you a 10 because you intuitively grasped the concept of protective geometry (the one infinite dimension). So, I think this is great achievement. So, I think you must look for everything related to protective geometry and studied with a great care. If you do, you will eventually find algebraic geometry. Keep advancing. You will achieve great heights.

As for all living things have eyes, I agree. Eyes, as in the ability to perceive the environment through electromagnetic spectrum is common to all living beings. It is also by the EM field that all cell machinery works. In the end, only reduces to 1 measurement (which requires some kind of information processing, even in virus) in the EM field.

report post as inappropriate

Daniel de França Diniz Rocha replied on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 17:52 GMT
I just noticed that Boris Dizhechko made a similar comment, concerning projective geometry. So, you have the independent view of 2 different researchers which might help you expand your ideas.

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 16:26 GMT
Dear Daniel,

Thank you ever so much for reading my essay and for rating it so highly.

Joe Fisher, Realist




Peter Bauch wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 00:31 GMT
Dear Joe,

Your essay is thought provoking, well written and entertaining. I agree with you that there is an underlying simplicity to reality that defies a complex mathematical approach. You have a strength of conviction that not many have.

Regards,

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 14:48 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank you ever so much for reading my essay properly, and for your exceptionally kind comment.

Joe Fisher, Realist




Robert Groess wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 17:20 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher,

Thank you very much for your comment on my essay. I am a great fan of simplicity myself. simplicity on the far side of complexity.

You have asked me to comment on the merit of your essay and I have in the meantime taken the time to read through it and vote. In your words, “Everything should be made as simple as possible”, so I was excited to expect a simple, concise elucidation on the emergence of aims and intentions from the universe that you describe. Perhaps it is not such a simple concept and I may have missed the mark. Would you be so kind as to clarify on this point when you have some time.

Regards,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 15:32 GMT
Dear Robert Groess,

Simplicity cannot be simplified. As I have carefully explained in my essay: Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it, and the real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. All of the theoretical physicists and philosophers who have ever lived have been wrong about the visible real Universe because they have only described what they thought it consisted of instead of believing what they actually saw.

Joe Fisher, Realist




Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 12:35 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher

You start with a finding: all our eyes see from the outside world is surface. Ok. Then I was expecting that you developed the reasoning, go beyond what eyes can see. But I did not find that. The universe is not just what we see, or touch, or ear or taste or smell. Our senses gave us an initial information and our aim is to find what is behind that. That is what allows us to predict how systems evolve; and when we predict it correctly, we assume that to a certain extent we have approached the reality.

Therefore, here you present your starting point; now I would like to see the continuation.

Best regards

Alfredo Oliveira

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 15:40 GMT
Dear Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira,

Simplicity cannot be simplified. As I have carefully explained in my essay: Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it, and the real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. All of the theoretical physicists and philosophers who have ever lived have been wrong about the visible real Universe because they have only described what they thought it consisted of instead of believing what they actually saw.

Joe Fisher, Realist



Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 18:23 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher

On seeing the comments to your essay, i got a suspicious, but I do not want to be unfair, so I am here to ask you: is it true that to those that comment favorable, you give a high vote, no matter their essay; and to those that are not so favorable, you vote "1"?

Alfredo Oliveira

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 15:45 GMT
Dear Alfredo,

I have not voted on any of the essays that have been published so far, and I will not vote on any of the essays yet to be published when they are published in this competition. I am not trying to bargain with my fellow complex abstractions addicted essayists, I am trying my very best to educate them enough so that they will accept simple natural reality.

Joe Fisher, Realist




Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 08:36 GMT
Hi Jo I read your well-written essay, enjoyable for that and for the delightful pun " self-taut " great!

As an artist I could well understand the logic of accepting the reality of only what is literally seen at any one time. In Mideaval art each figure and shape is seen solid and whole, but the trend since the Rainnescance has been to only see from one viewpoint - and necessarily surfaces.

However..

if you look at a video of a baseball being manufactred like this one you can see all the stuff filling its insides. What happens to that material to justify your saying only the surface exists? Another problyem is with transparent materials such as a vase. Inside you can see a solid spca full of flower stems, water bubles and so forth. You will prbably say we are only seeing the surface of that.

OK no problem thanks to FQXI we are tfree to express our ideas here whatever they are.

Keep well

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 16:03 GMT
Dear Vladimir ,

No matter in which direction an eye looks in, that eye will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed surfaces. All “stuff” and all “material” including all gasses and atmospheres are seamlessly merged into one single visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light occurring in one infinite dimension.

Joe Fisher, Realist




Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira wrote on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 18:38 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher

OK! I though so, that is why I put the question, to give you the opportunity to clarify the subject. You know, it seems that there are some "trolls" around that are voting "1" by reasons that are certainly not the best. This is not a "reality show", at least it should not be. The important point is that we can friendly discuss each other ideas.

On my side, I up vote the essays that interest me the most, I do not down vote anybody. Community members can do it, but I think that authors of the essays should restrain to positive appreciations (above 5) when they consider that an essay presents a relevant contribution.

All the best

Alfredo

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 14:56 GMT
Dear Alfredo,,

I think a fairer method of scoring would be if each essay contestant had to list from 1 to 5, the five other essays he or she thought were the best in the completion. The winner would then have an aggregate superiority, rather than a distorted averaged number as happens now. My problem is that most of the essays I have read are far better written than mine. I am hoping that the judges will judge my essay on the originality of its expressed idea of nature only being capable of furnishing a reality that could be understood by all creatures.

All the best to you.

Joe Fisher, Realist




James A Putnam wrote on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 01:50 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher,

Thank you for visiting my essay and saying it is nice. I have downloaded your essay and will be reading it next week. We have communicated before in a past essay contest. I need to look at your position again. I remember that our approaches were different. I will see. Best wishes to you.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 11:01 GMT
Dear Joe,

I am inspired by your deep criticism and enthusiasm for promoting the idea of simplicity of complexity (reality). I think that only the deepest criticism of the philosophical foundations of modern "fundamental science" will make it possible to overcome the crisis of understanding and "trouble with physics" (Lee Smolin) and build a model of the Universum that is uniform for physicists and lyricists , filled with the meanings of the "LifiWorld" (E. Husserl ). My high score for the promotion of the principle of simplicity.

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 15:23 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thank you ever so much for taking the time to read and understand my essay, and for rating it so highly.

Joe Fisher, Realist




William L Stubbs wrote on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 13:05 GMT
Joe,

I don't quite follow all that you say, but I know what you're trying to say. Your message has no less merit than many of the essays presented here carrying much better ratings. Good luck to you.

Bill.

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 16:35 GMT
Dear Bill,

Thank you ever so much for reading my essay, and for leaving such a kind, positive comment about its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist




Daniel de França Diniz Rocha wrote on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 18:24 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher, I think you did not see my answer:

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” That's my intention, indeed, with the essay. In this case, I deal with the problems dealt with the cornerstones of evolution, mainly the beginning, the origin. The proposal for chemical clocks is quite complicated in itself, as you can check in the additional notes and references. All you can do is approximate set of approximate chemical equations, which describe quite well the mechanism, but secondary products might be left out. I also made some simplified arguments using arrows on section 2, in order to show how to deal with the most important operators or regulators of the reaction.

The problem it is that the usual programs are extremely complicated and do not have a realistic expectation of a path from "primitive soup" to a cell. So, as you can see in the abstract, what I propose is more in the direction of an invitation to a new experimental program.

report post as inappropriate


Daniel de França Diniz Rocha wrote on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 18:28 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher, I think you did not see my answer:

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” That's my intention, indeed, with the essay. In this case, I deal with the problems dealt with the cornerstones of evolution, mainly the beginning, the origin. The proposal for chemical clocks is quite complicated in itself, as you can check in the additional notes and references. All you can do is approximate set of approximate chemical equations, which describe quite well the mechanism, but secondary products might be left out. I also made some simplified arguments using arrows on section 2, in order to show how to deal with the most important operators or regulators of the reaction.

The problem it is that the usual programs are extremely complicated and do not have a realistic expectation of a path from "primitive soup" to a cell. So, as you can see in the abstract, what I propose is more in the direction of an invitation to a new experimental program.

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 16:20 GMT
Dear Daniel,

I read both of your very complicated comments and I am somewhat disheartened that you seem not to have any understanding of simplicity. You are not alone.

I repeat:

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist




Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 08:19 GMT
Joe,

I found your essay to be better reading than some essays of more highly credentialed people. I particularly like the following:

“Men have never believed that Nature could ever produce a reality that was so simple, even single celled amoeba could deal with it.”

and

“For some peculiar reason, scientists are convinced that their finite experiments in a laboratory are superior in the understanding of reality. They all fail to realize just how unnatural their activity is. Only nature can produce viable reality.”

Lorraine

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 16:49 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

Thank you ever so much for reading my essay and for understanding it.

Joe Fisher, Realist




Marts Liena wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 23:11 GMT
joe,

I stand in the middle of a crater with a bright laser on a fast rotating table. I spin up the table and turn on the laser. With my fantastic equipment the laser spot on the crater wall moves at warp 3 (three times the speed of light). Given that the laser light never moves from the surface of the laser how can the illuminated spot on the crater (a real surface) can move faster than light? Is the spot an object in motion or just my emotion?

Thanks for your essay.

Regards

Marts

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 16:37 GMT
Dear Marts,

Thank you for reading my essay. Just as visible surface am infinite, the only physical way one can see any surface am because it am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Your equipment has a complete visible surface . You and the crater have complete visible surfaces. Only the laser light when it is activated does not have a surface. The laser light spot that appears on the crater wall surface remains the same no matter which surface it appears on.

Joe Fisher, Realist




Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.