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

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

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

bliherbal .: on 11/10/17 at 1:17am UTC, wrote thank you Steven Andresen. The globe is truly transforming fast. people...

Steven Andresen: on 9/23/17 at 10:13am UTC, wrote Thank you go diherbal Which aspect did you find most of interest please? ...

go diherbal: on 9/22/17 at 2:46am UTC, wrote The clarity in your put up is just cool and i could think you're a...

Steven Andresen: on 7/19/17 at 11:18am UTC, wrote I was asked this question! Aside from the word "evolution" what parallels...

Steven Andresen: on 7/18/17 at 5:06am UTC, wrote Halton Arp's observations that demonstrate an association between quasars...

Steven Andresen: on 7/7/17 at 5:22am UTC, wrote The physicists in the room are all going to give you an answer straight...

Steven Andresen: on 7/7/17 at 5:19am UTC, wrote An interesting idea, that Gluons are much the same as light, and light has...

Steven Andresen: on 7/2/17 at 7:59am UTC, wrote Dear Pavel and Marcelo This video is a wonderful discovery. So impressed...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

adel sadeq: "Victor I think Tegmark had some theory in mind that resembles..." in What Is...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Anthony Aguirre, The mission of the Foundational Questions Institute..." in FQXi's New Large Grant...

Suhani Mahajan: "I am a attractive female for pleasurable and delight service in only on..." in Is the Past Infinite?

thuy lien: "9 THINGS WE WERE SEEN FROM RED DEAD REDEMPTION 2 TRAILER ROCKSTAR HAVE US..." in Collapsing Physics: Q&A...

Anthony Aguirre: "Our mission at FQXi has always been to push boundaries, and to try to focus..." in FQXi's New Large Grant...

John Cox: "Victor, I have reread your post and still find agreement. Realism vs...." in What Is...

Anonymous: "hello Bob" in The Complexity Conundrum

shery williams: "Office Setup is the full suite of Microsoft productivity software that..." in Are We Merging With Our...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

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.


FQXi FORUM
December 17, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: Dirty Wet Chemical Universal Awakening by Steven Andresen [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Steven Andresen wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 16:36 GMT
Essay Abstract

The question of aims and intention, how can mindless mathematical laws give rise to them? Is one facet of a most pervasive topic of our time. The discussions relating the complexity and fine tuning problem. Some might wonder if I exaggerate, and to them I suggest looking at the following topics, and realize their themes are entirely motivated by the apparent and unexplained complexity of the world. These topics being prominent in the minds of people, evidences the complexity and fine tuning problem is a most pressing issue confronting our universal awareness. No matter we try, it will not find explanation in absence of a natural organisation principle.

Author Bio

An attentive student of nature

Download Essay PDF File




Author Steven Andresen wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 05:38 GMT
I wrote about how emergence of aims and intention in the universe, is basically just an aspect of the complexity problem facing our physical understanding. So I presented an explanation for universal complexities within a Darwinian context, that gives meaningful purpose to the structures observed in this universe. In doing this, the complexity problem is resolved.

In short, it explains that Auv is a regenerative field of space, from which Tuv photons came to emerge for evolutionary progressive reasons. The purpose of photons is to consume Auv, to allow Auv to regenerate, which is useful within a Darwinian context. So Auv field and Tuv photons have compounded complexity while entwined on a symbiotic Co-evolutionary relationship. Matter is just highly evolved structured photons, which are optimized for this purpose of existence. The properties and structures of atoms, planets, stars, galaxies, are optimized in terms of being spread out across space for example, to make for an efficient interaction between space and matter. In this respect the material universe exists to gravitate, and the energy which transfers from Auv to Tuv through the gravitation process, is what enables photons to perform energetic work within these evolved structures of matter. Mass owes its work function to photons, and this is the very simple reason the energy content of mass corresponds to photon velocity C. Infact every action the material universe is capable of engaging in, is mediated by photons. Or put another way, photons are the universes only way of imparting force on anything at all. A profound truth which indicates all physical measures will be derivable from photon velocity, and its sub units of length and duration. Allowing unified physical description.

Steven Andresen



Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 16:21 GMT
Dear Steven Andresen,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

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

The real...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


George Gantz wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 16:00 GMT
Steven -

I thoroughly enjoyed your essay, and your effort to ascribe Darwinian principles to our cosmic origins. I take a slightly different approach, discussing the feature of dynamic systems to evolve to specific pointer states (attractors). (This contrasts with the Multi-Verse hypothesis that simply assumes that all possible universes emerge.)

Good luck! - George Gantz

report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 02:57 GMT
Hi george

Thank you for the kind words. Much appreciated. I'm on a camp trip right now but will have a look at your essay when I return home.

Good luck with your essay and look forward to reading it

Steve




Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 09:49 GMT
Nice essay Andresen,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg…

What is the multiverse hypothesis, beyond attempt to explain the unlikely universal circumstances that enabled life to emerge? The answer is, it has proven to be not much more than. It is a mathematical trick of infinities, that makes inevitabilities of the most unlikely. A fascinating possibility and discussion I...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


James A Putnam wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 21:50 GMT
Hi Steven,

I have printed off your essay and will be reading it this weekend. The rating system can be a minefield. I will be keeping track of my rating for each essay I read. However, I will not be posting them until the last few minutes of the contest. I want them to count for something other than target practice by those who abuse the system. I do comment, if I have a comment, near the time that I read an essay. I expect to be back here talking with you. I already know that your deductive skills are very good. Good luck!

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 09:33 GMT
James

Hay its great to see people engaging your essay with so much positivity and support. I'm half way through reading it, then will read it again to let its message soak in a little, then I'll post remark to your page. But yes, what I have read is very good. My days have been filled with camping and surfing, so I havent had a look through many other essays yet, but the couple that I have...

view entire post




Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 09:58 GMT
James

I would have you ask yourself the question, from where does a photon derive its capacity for imparting force? Why and how does a photon undertake motion?

They seam unfair questions, except that my hypothesis makes a simple sense of them.

Steve



Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 13:05 GMT
James

Oh yeah, and also keeping in mind that intriguing conversation you and I have partaken in. Variable C equating to a variable baryon mass. Gluons being photons that share the same variable C potential that normal photons do, depending on the galaxies gravitation potential. not only an interesting idea, but also one that delivers a seemingly appropriate formula for solving anomalous galaxy motions. This is all part of the same conversation you and I had earlier, however I havent explained all of my reasoning before now, how I came to share a similar outlook to you. Different in many ways, but similar in many respects.

My hope is that some of what has been shared between us earlier, will encourage you to follow up on what I share in my essay now. It isnt like my theory delves in obscurities like added dimensions, or some other intangible. My concept is very simple in this respect, that I point to two equality's and say, "consider the possibility this equality exists because energy flows from A to B". And that it is a simplest type of relationship, a conversion from work potential into work. The mechanics of this idea couldn't be simpler.

Steve




Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 11:11 GMT
Dear Steve,

I read with great interest your deep analytical essay executed in the spirit of deep Carthusian doubt with ideas and conclusions that will help us overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science through the creation of a new comprehensive picture of the world, uniform for physicists, lyricists, poets and musicians filled with meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl).

I believe that the modern "crisis of understanding" (K.V.Kopeykin "Souls "of atoms and "atoms"of the soul: Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Carl Gustav Jung and the "three great problems of physics"), «trouble with physics (Lee Smolin," The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next") is the deep meta-physical crisis, the deep crisis of the ontological foundations of knowledge.

FQXI Contests are first of all new ideas. You give such ideas. I give my highest rating.

I believe, that only extremely constructive ontology, and the global "brain storm" with the most in-depth analysis of all the accumulated knowledge will help us to overcome the crisis of understanding, crisis of interpretation and representation: "An educated people without a metaphysics is like a richly decorated temple without a holy of holies." (G.W.F.Hegel)

I invite you to read my ontological ideas .

Best regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 03:59 GMT
Dear Vladimir

Thank you kindly. I am delighted to receive such a message and rating, an appreciation for new ideas. And I also very much enjoyed the links you provided. I have begun reading your essay and am up to page five, and it has to be said that I understand why you were able to tune into my concept and appreciate its merit. I think that you like I, are undertaking a personal quest to learn the nature of things. The universe is a single physical process, everything in existence related within one scope. Furthermore its explanation needs to be of a natural process, which makes articulated sense of the structures and complexities observed of the natural world, without having a sense of being a forced explanation. People seem to have a hard time recognizing that the nature of the complexity of this world requires an organisational principle. So it is very pleasing to meet people like yourself who are focused on the real issues confronting our collective scientific awareness.

I have many considerations which have not been made apart of this essay, so if you are interested to know more about my concept at some time or another, then your questions are welcome plz? I will read your essay and follow up on your page with comments soon.

Here are some inspirational videos you might enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvrOzYtnLMA

https://www
.youtube.com/watch?v=khySM1YBQvA

https://www.youtube.com/watc
h?v=DnQZoh_YG40&list=RDrnJ1kRWUuyg&index=9

Thank you once again

Kind regards

Steve



Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 09:59 GMT
Dear Steve,

I thank you for the deep and inspiring response to my commentary, as well as for the wonderful links! Magnificent music and the majestic beauty of the Cosmos enable us, earthlings, to realize the necessity of unity in diversity for the preservation and development of life on Mother Earth - our Common Space Home .

Kind regards

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 11:45 GMT
James

Here are a couple of diagrams that will help you to interpret the pole weight transition in comparison to photon probability curves.

The graph above, the length of the lines is proportional and represents the weight at that angle, 0, 22, 45, 67, 90 degrees. And so it shows the proportions of weight change through an arc of 90 degrees.

The graph underneath is an altered version of that wiki link. The way they set out the chart on wiki is not very conducing to visualizing what I wish to point out. The way I present it here, it does not matter if you visualize a pole at different relative angles to the ground, or gravitational field, or a photon at different angles to a light polarization filter. Please let me know if you have any questions?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8amvglg2qxqpkcd/Pole%20w
eight%20transition.jpg?dl=0

Steve




Anonymous wrote on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 05:54 GMT
Hi Steven,

1. This is an amazing essay. I have seen nothing like this taking Darwinian to the universe level. I like it and believe you are correct that "Life came to express aims and intention, in a universe of compounded complexity neither contrived not chance, but Darwinian".

2. You are much more than "an attentive student of nature". Out with it...how many degrees do you have.

3. Please forgive this criticism: Your abstract is not about this essay.... were you trying to mislead people?

Please take a look at my website, in particular the section: http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/30_A_Tale_of_Two_Wavelength
s.html

Then go to the index and check out everything concerning gravity including: http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/20_Dark_Energy_and_Mercurys
_Orbit.html

If you do this you will know why I support your thesis. I can see why others are having trouble rating your essay highly. They need to be trained in spotting good science and good art.

Thanks very much,

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 04:16 GMT
Hi Don

I could not be happier that you are persuaded by my arguments. Seeing evidence that people can agree with my conclusions is a wonderful thing. Thank you Kindly.

Regarding your second comment, I dont want to make the essay about me. As far as I am concerned it is the quality of the evidence provided for me by others, that made my observations possible. I feel as though I...

view entire post




Don Limuti replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 05:11 GMT
Hi Steven,

Appreciate your visiting my essay and your generous vote.

Yes, let's discuss gravity. My website has my e-mail in the about the author section. It is don.limuti@gmail.com

I should not have been able to make the calculation I made....something unexpected is going on. It would be really cool to see if we can create either a more complete theory or come up with some experiments that can be tried.

Thanks,

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 06:55 GMT
Hi dear Steven,

You have represented one well written and attractive essay.

You have touched there large cognitive problems of the nature and concerning to humanity also that is very interesting to read as these pushed to thinking on too many things. I like your work because I feel there the logic as well as the morality, without these we hardly can go ahead - to our "bright future." So I think your work deserved to good rating and more large attention of readers!

Try please to open my work, its written a little bit in hard style and it concerned to somewhat short aspects, but I hope you can find there also something logic and morality.

I hope hearing your impression in my page, and I will completed to study your work within short time.

Best wishes

report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 05:20 GMT
Dear George

Thank you kindly, I am delighted to receive these words from you. That there are people out there that follow my logic, and that realize it does have the promise of conforming to the observations of the world. That is everything I set out to achieve with my essay, and is what you have provided for me. Thank you once again.

I have read your abstract and have taken an immediate liking to it. I will make a start on your essay now and return to you soon with comment.

Best regards

Steve




Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 10:44 GMT
Steve,

I found that exceptionally well written, interesting, original, insightful and a very positive contribution to the subject. I also have some fundamental agreement with you hypothesis but suggest there's more underlying and different way to interpret the part Darwin identified.

I thank you for the comments on mine and look forward to more discussion when you've completed it. It builds to a powerful ontology and agrees Darwinism as a 'course grained' effect, so consistent in many ways.

I listened this morning to the brilliant Daniel Dennett interviewed by Jimal Khaleli on BBC Radio4 "The Life Scientific". Philosopher, scientist Darwin supporter and author of 'Darwins dangerous idea' as well as 'Conciousness Explained'. He'd also support both our approaches.

Other lines from yours I found particularly pertinent are;

"What is the anthropic principle, if not an effort to dismiss universal complexity as a needless discussion."

."..Progression is usually slowed by prior held expectations of what we think we are aware.

Are peoples eversions (sic. aversions) to Darwinian physics rational, or is it simply because no reasonable self-consistent hypothesis has been put forward?"

"...A feedback loop that drives toward ever increasing universal energy levels and fine-tuned purposeful structure


Very well done. I'm glad James pointed you to mine, and he was also right on yours. I've just awarded it the top score it deserves (it also needs to be in the upper groups to be a 'finalist').

Keep up the good work.

Very best of Luck

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 00:28 GMT
Peter

Wonderful, I'm glad you liked it. Thank you for reading, reviewing and rating.

I am intrigued by your suggestion we have some fundamental agreement. A conversation I will certainly pursue with you.

I read you're essay last night and am just on my way over to your page to place review.

Thank you once again for your support and I look forward to continued dialog with you.

Steve




Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 10:50 GMT
Steve,

after the contest do take a look at this; Identifying overwhelming evidence a recycling mechanism answering a lot of cosmological questions including evolution of galaxies and universes. Jackson, P.A. Minkowski, J.S. A Cyclic model of Galaxy Evolution, with Bars. HJ. Vol.36 No 6. 2013 pp.633-676.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 01:12 GMT
Peter

Thank you, I will definitely look this over. Sounds fascinating.

Steve



Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 09:13 GMT
Steve, (Copy);

Thanks. Yes there IS a video showing the visual dynamics Classic QM Video.

I've posted the link many times but clearly should do it more. I hope you'll be delighted! My essays in 2014 and last year are helpful in precursing this, but only this year did I identify the final piece solving the puzzle; Interaction Cascades squaring the cos values in fields, consistent with QCD.

I watched Henry's video. Very professional graphics. He's largely right but missed identifying exactly what John Bell did, and didn't prove! (which recognized identified and stated!) He did NOT exclude a classical solution, in fact he pointed to it without being able to tie it down. He only excluded normal 'local hidden variable' theories, which ClassicQM is NOT!.

The problem is most beliefs about Bell are heresay (and ignoring the heresay is heresey!) Few have actually read the compilation of his works so it's widely poorly and 'mis'understood.

After seeing the video read the 2nd half of the essay again and it should all come to light. Let me know.

Best

Peter

report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 16:50 GMT
Steven,

I agree with James Putnam that your deductive skills are established. I would say that your essay title is unappealing to readings who like catchy titles like "Are we dust in the wind?" or something like that.

I really like your meaningful "turns of phrase" like: "The question of the emergence of goals and intentions, for the most part is not a question of how biology achieved it, but rather how a non-biological universal order and structure, achieve biology?" or "The multiverse hypothesis might be an answer a bad science teacher invented, to quiet his students ceaseless questioning. The shame!"

For the latter, especially, it rings of a lot of truth.

Keep up the good work. I will be your next rating.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate


Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 10:42 GMT
Dear Steven

I fully agree with you in the problem you raise and how you identify and characterize it. Namely, I fully agree that “ The question of the emergence of goals and intentions, for the most part is not a question of how biology achieved it, but rather how a non-biological universal order and structure, achieve biology?” I also agree that “...the universe and everything within...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 09:06 GMT
Dear Alfredo

Thank you for your message of support and I do respect your limited agreement. I think too many people contingent the level of respect they show for others, on how much they agree or dont agree with that persons ideas or beliefs. Its almost an unconscious influence but something people should be more mindful of. You are a man with an unorthodox notion, so I know you know too what I refer.

I am glad to have your recognition that physics needs an explanation for the very particular order and structure observed of the world. Then our ideas diverge, but I would still find it interesting to rationalize your argument. I generally see how your idea conforms to known observations of the world, and I have to confess that my immediate thought is to a question, how much resistance to reason could that notion withstand? I think it would be fun to read your essay. I will be in touch.

Thank you once again

Kind regards

Steve




Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 15:39 GMT
Hi Steven,

I have read with much attention your well written contribution.

Some points that I liked to comment on :

Indeed the extreme measure to "create" a new universe any moment a decision is made is also in my opinion toooooo much. I made a new interpretation regarding this choices in my work. The eternal availability of Eternal Now Moments in Total...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 09:20 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus

Thank you for your message and rating. I have a feeling I will better understand what you have written above once I have read your essay. I like the notion that scientific instruments are broadening our range of senses, which broadens our awareness of the world. And that it takes time to make sense of the wider range of observations we have now made. How long before we know what the universe really is, and what it is doing?

Kind regards

Steve



Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 14:46 GMT
Dear Steven,

To answer your question is easy : It will take an infinity of time.

I hope it will not take so long to read my interpretation, I will give you

the link.

Still little time left to rate.

thanks

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 00:12 GMT
Dear Steven Andresen,

You do an analytical overview of the 'fine tuning' problem and critique the invention of multiple universes and anthropic principle as weak solutions. Gotta agree there! You are, in my opinion, correct to tie the problem of complexity to the fine-tuning problem. It is hard to recognize and frame the big problems, and then to critique the "current" solutions. And, as noted above, you do it with a nice turn of phrase.

If you've read my essay, you know that I accept the Darwinian narrative as the ideal mechanism for evolving complex living/ecosystems, but I do not believe this mechanism can produce awareness where none existed before. If it could, 'awareness' would have the status of artifact, and conditional at that. For me, awareness is primordial, while the physical 'logic' that evolves leads to increased intelligence, which I define as consciousness plus logic. It is the physical logic structures that evolve. I believe consciousness predates evolution.

What I particularly like about your essay is your focus on water as key. From your comments I believe you surf and sail and spend a lot of time on water. You've put some of that time to good use. I agree with your analysis of bonding, etc., but one tends to forget the necessity to dissolve materials and make them readily available in the soup. As you point out:

"Wouldn't it be such a shame to have a dry universe full of chemical potentials, no water lying around to express them."

Absolutely!

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 02:24 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman

Thank you kindly for these words. Knowing something of your mind from having read your essay, I am thrilled to have this review from you. I have praise for your work, so will head on over to your page today to place it. But to say for the moment, you have written something most extraordinary. Perhaps I should read more of the contending top spot essays for...

view entire post




James A Putnam replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 03:33 GMT
Thank you for your kind words Steven. I like my ideas. I appreciate your appreciation for them. However, it is the case the Edwin Eugene Klingman is more seriously educated and more seriously experienced in science. He also writes better. When I write well, it seems to be in relatively short blurbs. I think that, in the few weeks I have known you, you are advancing at a pace that is to be acknowledged as talent. Perhaps it isn't so much a matter of advancing as it is a matter of having the opportunity for opening up. I will rate your essay in the last few minutes of the contest.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 03:44 GMT
Edwin

Yes I grew up in a fishing family in a fishing town, and make full use of the ocean in every way. Surfing, boating, sailing, fishing, diving, etc etc. My obsession with surfing has offered me a unique opportunity to tune into a dynamic of nature, of liquid matter and energy flowing through it. It is as you say, a direct experience I have had that I could express somewhat for people, but my expressions would become their indirect theory. A lot is lost in translation. But the variety of moods and different swell characteristics that come and go from day to day, is stupendous. Each surf break is unique to all others in the entire world due to a seaming endless array of subtle influences, or swell frequency and direction, bottom contour, current, tide, the list goes on forever. In addition to the determinable factors, there is also a phenomenon we refer to as the x factor. The characteristics of a given day for which we cannot determine the cause. Surfing has anomalous. There is something truly amazing about tackling a large piece of heaving ocean, driving under its curtain of heavy water, only to emerge with dry hair. It is a very intimate experience with nature, one which also translates to a useful lesson in physics.

Surfers have coined an expression. "Only a surfer knows the feeling".

Steve




Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 04:49 GMT
Dear Sirs!

Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use «spam».

New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


James A Putnam wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 19:19 GMT
Dear Steven Andresen,

Your essay and you are valuable new additions to the mix of physics enthusiasts and our free flowing parade of ideas taking place here at FQXi.org. Your essay deserves a higher rating. I encourage visitors to read and fairly evaluate your good ideas. I can vouch for the quality of your deductive abilities.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 02:26 GMT
James

Thank you for these kind words and petition. I am entirely satisfied with this experience of the past few weeks and score how it stands. It is not a highly polished piece of writing, but yes my hope was that people would find the ideas interesting. I have meet some interesting people, learnt some of their ideas and shared mine, and it looks like the conversation might continue post contest. My full expectations are satisfied.

Thank you for sharing in the conversations with me, and referring me to some genuinely interesting people and their fine works. You are a scholar and gentleman, and ally and a friend.

Yours sinserely

Steve




Don Limuti wrote on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 22:27 GMT
Steve,

1. Yes the voting is over...thanks for your acknowledgment. I have a chance of taking a prize if the judges get fed up with the all the "emergence" essays and find my bit of dialog refreshing. And congratulations on your good showing in the contest.

2. The link to the 1968 Engelbart demo. It took me back nearly 50 years! (Thank you, Thank you) I never did see it till now. I never did know what happened to Doug until I heard Ted Nelson's Eulogy. Doug's goal was "group intelligence" ......nobody was that interested.

3. Digital Physics suggests that there exists, at least in principle, a program for a universal computer that computes the evolution of the universe. Could be ....however, the concept makes for very good movies :)

4. My digital wave theory starts from the premise that uncertainty and superposition were bad guesses and a better approach (my guess) is that reality is discontinuous (wavelength hopping) at the quantum level. Now this pisses off mathematicians because their precious tools become useless (the Schroedinger equation).

5. The one thing that I've done that bites is the calculation of the precession of Mercury. When I do this dark energy and dark matter become understandable as gravity. Space and gravity may be identical. You would think that this would clobber GR ....it does not. However, the link to GR is not complete.

6. That's why I invite you to look at my work. I have just spotted this really good wave, I think you may enjoy riding it. Bike riding is my thing.

Don Limuti (don.limuti@gmail.com)

report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 9, 2017 @ 08:24 GMT
Thank you Don

Yes good luck on taking a prize. Its a little hard to estimate judges discretion.

Yes, space, dark energy, gravity all being the same substance. It sounds like we are testing some similar views. So you have identified a pattern, a correlation? You mentioned having a formula that corresponds to Mercury's procession, which then extends corresponds to dark energy and gravity considerations. That is the kind of thing I could appreciate. I look for the proportions between things. Where is the best place to open this discussion?

I would be interested to hear about your idea in simple terms and then expanded if you will please?

Thank you

Steve



Don Limuti replied on Apr. 10, 2017 @ 03:07 GMT
Steve,

Here is my recommendation, browse my website in the following order:

1. http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/15_Planck_Units_and_Numerol
ogy.html

A bit of a background.

2. http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/29_Visualizing_Spin.html

Thi
s will give you a notion of how I visualize a graviton. Not quite the standard model.

3. ...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Apr. 11, 2017 @ 02:31 GMT
Don

Taking this at face value, I think it and you are exceedingly clever. Please dont take this as agreement, because I havent nor probably could validate your work on my own. But I like the parameters you play with, and I respect the skills you need to build those associations. Its great that such a short explanation of yours can bring the vision to my mind.

I think the following is especially ingenious.

"I make a wild guess that the graviton (even though is not light) is ruled by the Planck-Einstein equation. Now we know the energy of each graviton."

What I also find interesting about the parameters you play with and the associations they deliver, is how they can be interpreted within my framework. Would you be open to a brief explanation why I think this works? It might be helpful for us to know each others minds.

Steve




Don Limuti wrote on Apr. 20, 2017 @ 06:13 GMT
Hi Steve,

I believe Gluons have have short range and do not get out of the atom. They are not like Photons that can travel long distances.

But I do not know much more that this on nucleus phenomena. Sorry I cannot be of any help on your concept.

I have made a diagram of how I think gravitons (my goofy variety) can cause unanticipated accelerating expansion:

I tried to paste it here with no luck. So take a look at section 3c of "The Geometry of Dark Energy" paper.

http://prespacetime.com/index.php/pst/article/view/110
1/1089

Or just see the same thing on my website:

http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/19_Dark_Energy-Curv
ed_SpaceTime.html

Also, take a look on my website: http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/29_Visualizing_Spin.html

The
re is a diagram that shows visually how gravitons differ from photons. Gravitons look like photons that are trapped between mirrors, that is why they have mass.

Best of Luck with the sailboat. My brother in Florida had a 43 Mooney. Every time I called he was in the boat doing something.

Greetings from Missoula MT USA

Don L.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jun. 28, 2017 @ 08:10 GMT
Darwinian Universal

The nature of the interaction between space and matter, what causes gravitational acceleration? is a question forefront in people’s minds. But also the nature of the universal orders we observe, atomic and cosmological structures being very non-random and articulated. I will speak briefly to these now, but please bear in mind that I can corner these considerations with diverse justifications, if you should seek to test?.

In simplest terms. What is the nature of the interaction between space and matter? The one we are going to consider now is arguably the simplest conceptual possibility. That Tuv (matter) is embedded in, and in the business of "metabolizing" a field of Guv (space). Guv and Tuv share equality, so it would make sense in terms of an energy transfer and conversion flowing from space to matter. So A. where does this Guv energy potential originate from? and B. what is it converted into that explains atomic process? A. Space possesses a cosmological expansive property which takes its measure as Auv cosmological redshift, which enables us to speculate that space that is metabolized by matter is a renewable resource. B. Conventional theory does not attribute a cause for the work actions of the fundamental forces, so we speculate that the energy potential derived from Auv space is converted to the mechanical actions of Gluons and Photons, and both taking their measure as magnitudes of velocity C.

Summarizing

Cosmological Auv represents the emergence rate of a universal energy field, which is then metabolized by matter on a local basis represented by the equation Guv = Tuv, enabling the atomic mechanical actions attributed to Gluons and Photons. So this is a really simple conceptualization, and an effective test would be to ask, do the following values possess equality, Auv = Guv = Tuv? Yes they do.

Thats so far pretty brief and simple. I've put forward a hypothesis which relies on the extraordinary equality of various universal measures as evidence. But also provides an appealing chain of cause and effect that takes us beyond the notion of photons and Gluons being fundamental force. The theory of fundamental force being that of “force without a prior cause”. The idea that Gluons and Photons are energy conserved systems, which somehow perform “work” functions as by-product, is aesthetically displeasing. It ascribes to theory of causeless work, and the actions of electron bonds being good example. Electron bonds manifest a property we can appreciate at the human scale of existence, evident as the glue that binds objects together. We can directly sense these bonds as we wrap our hands around objects and apply force against them, which hold resistant against our efforts. How can their persistent resistance to your forceful actions, be described in terms other than that of “work action”? We need to move past the notion of “causeless work actions”.

In addition to this, I will briefly mention a prospective explanation for atomic and cosmological structure, order, complexity, fine tuning. The code for which is written in photon and Gluon mechanics, a product of a long standing Co-evolution between two universal elements, Auv and Tuv. Auv being a regenerative elemental field of space, and the elemental aspect of Tuv being the Photons and Gluons that form the material universe.

This hypothesis paints Auv as a regenerative field, and it can be speculated that anything that is continually regenerative, is capable of compounding changes, evolving, advancing its physical state. Tuv (matter) also demonstrates a capacity suggestive of re-generation, in the form of quark separations that generate identical copies of themselves. Not conceptually dissimilar to biological cellular divisions, which we understand leads to compounded changes we identify as Darwinian process. The standard theory of matter synthesis holds that photons created by a big bang event will spontaneously condense and precipitate to form atoms. This prescribes a whole lot of givens without adequate explanation. Atoms are wonderfully complex articulated machines, their properties evidenced by the universe they collectively build, including the form that makes you. The “given” that you must currently except for lack of an alternative explanation, is that “this can occur purely on basis of chance”. However that is no longer the case as of the realizations presented here within, that allows for compounded changes to occur, leading to ever increased levels of complexity and fine tuning, an explanation for the world around us.

This hypothesis brings to mind a scenario whereby the universe first emerges as a simplest possible configuration field quanta, and through continual regeneration compounded changes, evolved through ever shifting circumstances that eventuated as the universe we observe. A scenario like this might not easily come to mind, however I have begun to uncover a possible interpretation which can be judged for merit. And there is a persuasive case that can be made that the structure of the universe we observe around us, is evolved optimally for a purposeful interaction between space and matter, in terms of matter being spread out across space, optimized for atmospheric interaction.

I opened this post with a question towards the nature of the interaction between space and matter. And I wouldn’t really be doing the subject justice without prescribing cause, the motivation for gravitational acceleration. The main aspect of the puzzle of gravity, that holds us all spellbound. The before mentioned prescribes a scenario whereby natures forces are mediated via Photons and Gluons, which are enabled via a process of metabolism of the Auv elemental field of space. This being the case, it informs us where the motivation for universal force originates, and how it is mediated and subsequently expressed. The conventional take is that the strong nuclear force and gravity are two independent forces or phenomenon. But that ignores the rather obvious association between the two, that Gluons are the strong nuclear force from which mass is an emergent property, and it is the mass that responds to gravitational fields. So it is basic deduction that the (strong nuclear force) (Gluons) and (Mass) are all representative of one and the same property of matter. It is Gluonic Mass that both responds to gravitational fields and also possesses the capacity to mediate force, which is expressed as gravitational acceleration. In simplest terms, Gluons mediate the force that causes gravitational acceleration. If you want to qualify this possibility, then study the similarities that are known to exist between Gluons and Photons, and ask the question (if Photons can express motion, then could it be that Gluons can also express motion via the same general mechanism as Photons?

These associations are made trivial within the wider context of the theory I refer to as Darwinian Universal, which theorizes that the differences between Photons and Gluons are mainly that of structural complexity, from which Gluons manifest the additional emergent properties of matter, being mass, nuclear and molecular bonds, heat process etc. Gluons that form matter are evolved Photons. My contest essay, which I should have titled Darwinian Universal, elaborates beyond what I have mentioned here.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2890

I would like to engage this subject with the FQXi community please? I propose that my essay discussion page would be the right place to hold such a discussion, so I invite you to join me here please? Nobody would stumble across it otherwise, so I’ll sprinkle a couple of these invitations around the forum. Please keep in mind that I will only be notified of your reply, if you post it here on my essay page.

Thank you kindly for your considerations

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Jun. 29, 2017 @ 05:22 GMT
Here is another way to put it

I'm very pleased with the reviews my essay received, and for the community score that tallied. However I havent engaged with the community in discussions about it yet, either in a sense that might test it or allow me to elaborate further. I have added a post to my essay thread titled Darwinian Universal, which presents an explanation for why the concept of...

view entire post




Anonymous replied on Jun. 29, 2017 @ 09:09 GMT
The following concept has not been vetted by peer review

The concept of “fundamental forces” including the strong nuclear force which gives rise to mass, is flawed, in terms of being considered an energy conserving system which undertakes perpetual work effort without a cause being assigned. The question of what the nature of the interaction is that exists between space and matter, that...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Jul. 1, 2017 @ 05:27 GMT
Within this context, an explanation for anomalous galaxy motions?

The relationship described above whereby Tuv Gluons and Photons have a relative value, dependent on the variable local energy density of Auv elemental field, space. Gluons give mass, so variable Gluon values equate to a variable Baryon mass theory which allows the redistribution of mass densities throughout galaxy disks. And...

view entire post





Author Steven Andresen wrote on Jul. 2, 2017 @ 07:59 GMT
Dear Pavel and Marcelo

This video is a wonderful discovery. So impressed by Pavel Kroupa’s cosmological work, that every once and awhile I punch his name into the search engine to see if anything new is available. And so having found this video I’m introduced to Marcelo Gleiser, another wonderful thinker who’s work I must investigate. Nice to meet you Marcelo.

I have...

view entire post





Author Steven Andresen wrote on Jul. 7, 2017 @ 05:19 GMT
An interesting idea, that Gluons are much the same as light, and light has the capacity for motion. That Gluons might be the force provider that motivates gravitational accelerations?

I would like to discuss the question of the origin of force? Again lets focus on gluons and photons, which is to say, strong nuclear force and electromagnetic force, whos actions are ascribed to the theory of “Fundamental Forces”. Within this context, the word fundamental might be interpreted as a theoretical “first cause”. Or force with no prior cause.

There are some basic problems with the theory of “force with no prior cause”. It raises the same general criticisms we might have for the notion of perpetual energy machines. But are these same general criticisms rightly directed towards the function of atomic forces? Fundamental forces do a lot of different things, but we want to identify an action which is clearly in the business of undertaking “work action” and therefore cannot be interpreted as energy conserving. So let us focus on EM electromagnetic electron bonds which glues matter together. I select electron bonds because they manifest a property of matter which we can appreciate at the macro scale of human existence, and which we can wrap our own hands around an object, and directly sense the “work effort” these electromagnetic forces are responsible for mediating.

The question is, how can perpetual work effort exist without prior cause? If we try to excuse this situation, as fundamental forces being energy conserved systems, then how do you extract work from such a system without affecting its internal checks and balances?

I know it seams as though I’m leading us toward an intangible circumstance, for which the activities of matter cannot be provided a rational explanation. But I’m not. I’m leading us down a well considered path, which I hope gives reason enough to entertain the novel solution I will provide. It is a solution which prescribes a prior cause for atomic forces, while solving a number of further problems confronting scientific understanding.

Let us consider the possibility that the following two questions have the same answer. What is the nature of the interaction between space and matter, that would marry quantum mechanics and general relativity? and what is the prior cause of atomic forces?

Let us envision, space containing a physical element which matter is in the business of consuming, to enable matters forceful activities. Guv = Tuv is the conventional interpretation of the interaction between space and matter. If it is indeed an energy transfer and conversion to atomic force, then the equality demonstrated of each of these terms bodes well. However, a conceptual challenge to this notion, would be as follows. If space contains an elemental field that is consumed by matter, then wouldn't it be a finite resource that would eventually be depleted? And on the face of it, you might think that presents an end to this conjecture. But it doesnt.

Space isn't only described in terms of Guv. Space also has a property which is described as cosmological expansion, and termed as Auv. For the benefit of this conjecture, I’ll ask you to consider the possibility that Auv is a measurement that corresponds to a regenerative process undertaken by an elemental field inhabiting space, which continually replenishes the potential, that in turn drives atomic forces. For this hypothesis to have any prospect, there would have to be a link between the value of Auv (cosmological expansion) and Tuv (atomic forces) that demonstrate an equality. And indeed, such a measure has been known about for many years. Those interested please quiz me?

Auv = Guv = Tuv.

This line of conjecture provides something further. Entities which continually regenerate have the prospect of compounding changes over time and evolving. Generationally compounded change, conceivably can lead simple systems toward heightened levels of order and complexity. The character of structures that evolve in such a system, as exampled by life, can be used to infer the circumstances of their evolution, revealing motives and purpose, which in turn convey reasons and meanings. Does this conjecture lead to an interpretation of universal emergence that explains for its very particular style of order, complexity, fine tuning? It does, and I am part way through the process of uncovering an interpretation of it.

It goes something like this. Give nature an energy potential and it will invent a circumstance of Darwinian emergence which leads to heightened levels of complexity. Whether that is Algae which evolves the ability for photosynthesis, which exploits the freely available natural energy potential of the sun, which then becomes the basis of a food chain that leads to diverse organisms of increasingly complex character. Algae eaten by krill, eaten by small fish, eaten by bigger fish and squid, eaten by tuna, sharks, dolphins and whales. Could this be how all complexities evolve in the world, including atomic and cosmological structure?

Could Auv cosmological emergence be the result of a natural energy potential, ( as yet unidentified physical process), which has lead to a Darwinian cascade that provides circumstance, reason and purpose for the structures, complexity, fine tuning, we observe in the world around us? I am building the case so that people might be able to judge merit. Writing to you now provides me an opportunity for practice.



Author Steven Andresen replied on Jul. 7, 2017 @ 05:22 GMT
The physicists in the room are all going to give you an answer straight from the text book. But thats not what you want, because you could have found that for yourself on wiki. Boring! I will point you in the direction of original insight which is all together far more interesting. But framing it for you in simple terms, you will still have to verify the connections I will join for you.

Electromagnetism is considered one of the four fundamental forces of nature.

Another force considered as fundamental is the strong nuclear force, for which the Gluon is the mediator, which importantly is the generator of “mass”, which is the property of matter which responds to gravitational fields. Or I could have said it like this “The strong nuclear force makes the “MASS” which motivates the gravitational acceleration”.

Why do people believe gravity is a forth fundamental force independent of the other three, when clearly the strong nuclear force generates the property of matter “mass” that responds to gravitational fields? Why dont they acknowledge that Gluons mediate the force that drives gravitational acceleration? Because they are not trained as detectives to follow evidentary clues.

But your question is about connecting magnetism to gravity, and it appears I have connected Gluon activity to gravity instead. What you have to realize is that Gluons and electromagnetism (EM) are very very similar entities as one another. So to relate gravitational interaction with EM, I show you that Gluons and EM are closely related.

How are Gluons and EM related? They are related in every way! Electromagnetism is light (photons), and a useful value we can attribute to light is its velocity C. Mass is a measure of Gluon activity, and mass is a very tidy sum multiple of the speed of light kg x C x C. Or famously E=MC2. So it can be said that Gluon activity and Photon activity are correlated via proportionate magnitude of one another. Gluons and Photons also perform very similar roles as one another, in much the same way as one another. Gluons create the bonds which hold the nucleolus together, and photons create the bonds that hold electron bonds together. The theory of charge applies to both the Gluon and the Photon in the mediation of their bond interactions. You can visualize them as operating in very much the same way as one another. I could go on all day long about the similarities between Gluons and Photons, but that should be enough to make my point of their relation.

So anyway, the key point to take home is that Gluons operate very much the same way as light (EM) does. Light can propel itself through the voids of space, so why couldn't Gluons be responsible for a similar capability of generating motion? Gluons generate mass, and mass motivates gravitational acceleration, so this is indeed how it can be interpreted.

Magnetism and gravity are related, because an entity which is very closely related to magnetism, that is to say “Gluons” are the driving force for gravitational acceleration. Simple! Why dont people realize this? Because they are to confused by the idea that somehow the concept of “spacetime” will inform them how, why objects are set to motion. How can time motivate motion? is a question which leads nowhere!




Author Steven Andresen wrote on Jul. 18, 2017 @ 05:06 GMT
Halton Arp's observations that demonstrate an association between quasars and a galaxy of their apparent origin. They are visually evident. At face value, its reminiscent of life's process of cellular division. Quark separation which spontaneously generates new quarks is also reminiscent of life's process of cellular division. Highly suggestive observations that imply matters ability to replicate...

view entire post





Author Steven Andresen wrote on Jul. 19, 2017 @ 11:18 GMT
I was asked this question!

Aside from the word "evolution" what parallels are there between a process occurring on a vast scale involving predictable nuclear processes, and one at a small scale involving random chemical mutations selected for and against by environmental pressures?

To which I answered!!

Nuclear fusion is a process occurring on a vast scale, involved in the process of generating heat within stars, providing the force that keeps stars buoyant against gravitational collapse. Whats interesting is that if fusion rates were other than what they are, stars wouldnt exist. To sensitive a reaction and stars explode as they form. Not sensitive enough and stars dont generate enough heat, gravity wins they collapse. This is one of the parameters attributed to the universal fine tuning problem.

Within my hypothesis, Stars are of an optimized physical state evolved for efficiency of interaction with Auv space. So the agency of matter we refer to as fusion is selectively calibrated to serve the purpose it is observed in the function of. The conventional approach by contrast, can only ascribe this agency of matter to being the product of lucky chance. As in, lucky the universe accidentally created this unlikely circumstance or else the universe would be dark, and wouldnt give rise to life.

You want a contrasted example concerning evolved biology.

Take your pick. Thats what typifies an evolved state, its calibrated state that enables the necessary agencies for an organisms survival. It is evolved as a state, that is also its reason for existence. A birds aerodynamics that enables it to fly. A dolphins hydrodynamics that enables efficient swimming. Human ability for comprehension which enables us to adapt, but also listen and rationalize new and novel ideas ;)




go diherbal wrote on Sep. 22, 2017 @ 02:46 GMT
The clarity in your put up is just cool and i could think you're a professional on this subject. obat gagal ginjal yang alami

Well together with your permission let me to grab your RSS feed to keep updated with impending post. obat alami kanker hati

Thank you a million and please continue the rewarding work. obat herbal radang paru paru

report post as inappropriate

Author Steven Andresen replied on Sep. 23, 2017 @ 10:13 GMT
Thank you go diherbal

Which aspect did you find most of interest please?

Steve




bliherbal . wrote on Nov. 10, 2017 @ 01:17 GMT
thank you Steven Andresen.

The globe is truly transforming fast. people are also being altered.day by day we are becoming more dependant on degital system.you're making me think of this really.You have a good technique of sharing your thoughts. obat herbal penyakit flek paru paru

This can be really a brilliant publish, many thanks for telling Excellent luck I found out concerning this specific page. obat herbal tbc ampuh

I really enjoy simply studying all of your weblogs. Simply wanted to inform you you have people like me who appreciate your work. Absolutely a great article. The information that you've provided is actually very valuable. obat herbal asam urat alami dan berkhasiat

report post as inappropriate


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.