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

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

James Hoover: on 4/8/17 at 4:31am UTC, wrote James, Thanks for the comment and thanks for your rating. You were the...

Steven Andresen: on 4/8/17 at 2:57am UTC, wrote Dear James Putnam As you are already aware, I have an acute appreciation...

James Putnam: on 4/8/17 at 1:44am UTC, wrote Vladimir, Your essay will receive a high rating before the contest...

Vladimir Tamari: on 4/8/17 at 0:56am UTC, wrote Dear James "None of the physics properties have any potential for the...

Peter Jackson: on 4/7/17 at 23:42pm UTC, wrote James, Thanks for your kind message on my blog. I agree Stevens essay was...

James Putnam: on 4/7/17 at 20:11pm UTC, wrote I recommend a new Author and his Essay by Steven Andresen

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 4/7/17 at 3:26am UTC, wrote Dear Sirs! Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of...

James Putnam: on 4/6/17 at 23:27pm UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir, "But aren't you anthropomorphizing the Universe imbuing it...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Agnew: "The universe is finite and not infinite. The notion of infinity or..." in Watching the Observers

Anonymous: ""According to quantum mechanics, a vacuum isn't empty at all. It's actually..." in Manipulating the Quantum...

Lorraine Ford: "Dear Rajiv, I have already addressed your 3 points, but I will put it to..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Georgina, That is very interesting, but please remember that the..." in Watching the Observers

Peter Morgan: "An e-mail sent to me by Springer Nature today tells me that because I am at..." in Manipulating the Quantum...

munized ward: "Variety exists inside all populaces of life forms. This happens somewhat in..." in Natural Selection in...

Pentcho Valev: "Not Even Wrong Concepts in Physics: Entropy The following argument is..." in We Are All Connected

Rajiv Singh: "Dear Lorraine, Oh! I did not check your recent responses. Let me address..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.


FQXi FORUM
June 23, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: How can Mindless Mathematical Laws give rise to Aims and Intentions? by James A Putnam [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author James A Putnam wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 22:44 GMT
Essay Abstract

It is argued that physics is best served by mindless mathematics. Its dedication to a mechanical interpretation of the universe makes it a science for the study of mindless action. In contrast to this way, physics equations are infiltrated by many inventive ideas from the minds of physicists. The insertion of those ideas into equations either as new properties or new interpretations of properties, defeats the role of mindless mathematics to keep physics an empirical science. It is concluded that those ideas that are inventions of the mind need to be removed from physics. It is expected that the new physics will follow the guidance of empirical evidence. It is asserted that everything we will ever learn about the mechanics of the Universe will be learned from empirical evidence.

Author Bio

James A. Putnam is the author and owner of newphysicstheory.com. He has essay entries in all of the FQXi.org contests; and, has participated for many years in forum and blog discussions. His ideas contest strongly against the teachings of theoretical physics.

Download Essay PDF File




Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 16:04 GMT
James,

I think you've excelled yourself this year, drilling down to real fundamental errors underpinning theory blocking advancement of understanding. Our shared focus on empiricism has led us to the same undeniable rational truth for 'SR'

"..the speed of light in the specific medium. This relationship is approximate for a gas and accurate for solids " (as my first fqXi essay...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 23:07 GMT
Dear Peter Jackson,

You have written the most cordial and cogent message I have received during all of the FQXi.org Essay Contests. I thank you for reading my essay and giving of your precious time to write such a message. You have taken a risk and have my admiration. My intention at this time is to read essays, comment on some of them, and save my ratings for submission in the last minutes of the contest.

James Putnam



Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 17:21 GMT
James

You're very welcome. I haven't entered your score yet so can wait if you prefer. The only reason sometimes not to is that do think those near the top are likely to get more reads which should be helpful.

I look forwards to you comments and questions on mine. Almost nobody so far has recognised, or seen the the importance of the classical reproduction of the QM predictions. I expect as so few really understand the (not very empirical!) roots of QM. Data is all very well but where most go wrong is in the interpretation!

The very condensed 100sec version of the video is here, (but missing over 90%!);

https://youtu.be/WKTXNvbkhhI

best

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 00:09 GMT
Peter,

My experience has been that the one's fly freely in the last couple of hours of scoring. The main level of high negative activity is at the cutoff score for making it into the finals. I had a sufficient score for the last contest. It took several attacks on my score to knock me out, but, they got their way in the end. Maybe being a little low will be less of an 'attractor'. What is the case is that I will do what I can to make my ratings for others count. Submitting them in the last few minutes will at least make it difficult for attackers to react quickly enough to negate the scores I give. Follow your own procedure for your own reasons. I appreciate what you said. It counts for more and will last longer than a decent rating that will probably get wiped out if I am doing well at the end. I did print off your essay and will be reading it shortly. Thank you again.

James Putnam




Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 20:15 GMT
Dear James A. Putnam

I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I’m not a physicist.

How people interested in “Time” could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as “Time” definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,… a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander…..

6) ….worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn’t a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time “existence” is exclusive as a “measuring system”, its physical existence can’t be proved by science, as the “time system” is. Experimentally “time” is “movement”, we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure “constant and uniform” movement and not “the so called Time”.

12)The original “time manuscript” has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in “time” and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

Héctor

report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 05:40 GMT
Dear James Putnam,

Your essay is masterful. I kept looking for you – it was worth the wait. Your first paragraph is exquisite. Your last sentence captures my essay.

Your 2nd paragraph, on meaning and order, agrees completely with my statement:

"Yet either one seamless reality exists, or the universe is simply a sum of disjointed parts, which have no conceivable reason for "hanging together" in such elegant and enduring fashion."

I think your first 2 paragraphs would been a powerful essay!

Also: "There is limited merit in a dumb mechanical interpretation. The merit is that mechanical problems can be solved…"

Yes, and realistic "structures" imposed on physical reality. But after the description became probabilistic, "unrealistic" (mathematical) structures were imposed on reality, and the confusion led to "unrealistic" understandings of reality. It is good that you always aim for the core. You've traced this back to the first "projection", the undefined 'm' of Newton. You were the first to make me aware of that aspect of physics.

As you note, intelligence 'understands' the universe, as necessary and appropriate. "Unreal" projections only confuse this understanding.

James, I wish you had submitted a shorter essay. I do not believe it's possible to argue with your overview of the intelligent universe. However anyone can argue with details of a physical model, and they will -- those that even bother to study it. As you know, I have my own models, but my current essay is more like your first 4 pages. It aims for a current comprehensive overview.

I'm so glad to see you here, and I hope you enjoy my essay as much as I did yours. As you will find as you read others, many here, like you, like Vladimir Tamari, keep improving their presentation, year after year. I find this supremely rewarding.

Good luck, my friend,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 16:54 GMT
Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Dear Friend,

My essay could have been written better. Its not up to the standards that you set for yourself. I know that I should remember your advice when each new contest arrives. My goal gets in my way. The general content does not change. The mathematical examples are three of what I believe are many corrections in method or understanding in theoretical physics. The one that I repeat most often is the undefined status of mass. That is because once it becomes acknowledged, it follows that physics will change drastically.

The words before and after those examples hopefully make scientific sense, I think that they do; but, I feel the mathematics should be put on the record repeatedly. FQXi.org represents the theoretical physics community. My message is understandingly not welcome here. But, I have followers, at other sites, including some physicists. I have presented more ideas elsewhere where progress is easier.

Another contest has arrived and I know that you will do very well. The quality of your essays never fades. I should work harder to follow your advice while continuing to try to achieve my goal. Thank you for continuing to offer it in my best interest.

James Putnam




James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 00:13 GMT
James,

Good to see you again. Like Peter above I am stricken by the trolls striking in the deep of night w/o comments with the goal of dropping your score, but there are plenty of good guys like Peter and you to counteract this.

"It is asserted that everything we will ever learn about the mechanics of the Universe will be learned from empirical evidence." I subscribe to this concept and think my essay does as well. My speculative theory of dark matter needs to be field tested, not in the laboratory, observing the interrelationships of multitudinous physical objects and resulting forces where normal matter might produce dark matter through the intermingling of fusion with its strong and weak force, em forces, and the galactic roiling about the SMBH center.

As you say, "the unified original cause for all" is not mechanical. I see the natural law of entropy perhaps with the Jeremy England slant that rule small and large and perhaps brings the universe in trillions of years inexorably to a icy death, quoting Robert Frost's poem. We can accept this mindless law and try to understand how the universe lives and breathes checking its respiration without anthropomorphic prejudice.

Hope you can check out my essay and give your thoughts.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 02:25 GMT
Dear James Lee Hoover,

Thank you for visiting and your kind words. Your fair rating of my essay is appreciated. I will be reading your essay.

James Putnam



Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 15:49 GMT
Dear James A Putnam,

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 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.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 01:52 GMT
Hi James,

I have been in all essay contests except the last and am glad to be back in the mix with you.

I have to admit I had trouble with your abstract (probably my limit english). But I had no trouble with your first paragraph. This first paragraph introduces a superior essay. I repeat your paragraph below for other readers to encourage them to go on and read the essay.

The Universe has evolved to the level of providing for human free-will. That is a display of great purpose and dedication toward a long term goal. The Universe rose up parts of itself to form our beings. Our parts know the means by which the Universe operates. They have to know what it is that they are destined to do. It does not matter whether one resents the word ‘know’ and prefers the word ‘forced’. That choice is a matter of philosophical preference and does not pertain meaningfully to the Universe. We know what the Universe can do. Those parts of the Universe now working as individual beings are the means by which the Universe comprehends itself. Yet while the answers are part of our being, we do not know them without seeking to know them by our own efforts. We need to engage with the Universe in order to learn its nature.

And I appreciate your reminding me of how limited our current concepts of mass are. It is easy to forget.

Thanks for your essay,

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 03:11 GMT
Dear Don Limuti,

This is a very welcome message. I admit to having had a low level of enthusiasm for this contest. The ratings history has shown no improvement. I decided to enter late. I feel that this opportunity to place our views alongside professionals is so rare and so valuable that it deserves full support. My essay is not as well edited as it should have been. However, it says everything that I intended for it to say. The mathematical examples provided are intended to strike at the heart of theoretical physics with power. Several more could have been provided and have been provided beginning with the first essay contest. Your kind of message raises my enthusiasm. The point I have had to keep repeating about mass being an undefined property, points to the most urgent correction needed out of many. Mass must be defined. I have printed off your essay and will read it. Thank you very much for writing your message and giving a fair rating for my essay.

James Putnam



Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 15:33 GMT
Nice essay Putnam,

Real visible mass has a real visible surface. Only abstract conjecture about invisible mass purportedly has any “undefined properties.”

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 10:35 GMT
Nice essay Putnam,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg…

“1. We see that the Universe is orderly and all parts of it are meaningful. There does not exist any lack of purpose anywhere

2. During the evolution of the universe, the nature of intelligence has not varied. Our intelligence is of the same source as for the rest of the Universe. Intelligence has not...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 04:25 GMT
Hi James

I'm reading your essay for the second time now. I find myself pausing constantly in my reading, while considering so many further implications of your ideas. Considerations that cascade to so many other contemplation's. Takes me ages to read a piece when this happens.

I have enormous respect for your interpretation of physics and your consistent theme towards unification....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 04:28 GMT
James

I suspect this essay might be to your liking by George Gantz. Have you come across this one yet?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2840

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steven Andresen replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 04:48 GMT
James

So I think this enables me to agree with your notion of intelligence to a certain extent. That in a sense intelligence is just compounded agency that begins with the nature of atoms and physics, that is then manifested to greater extent as collective interactions. So intelligence would be a sliding scale.

So if Atoms are at an extreme end of the intelligence scale, but none the less on the scale, then how did atoms get the very particular character and behaviors that they have? These properties require an organisational principle, which makes a sense of their very particular order and complexity. I believe I have this within a concept for which the title "Darwinian Universal" is perhaps the best fit.

I have expressed some of my ideas here, however I have a multitude of further considerations which I belief makes a very solid argument. They are waiting for the right person to come along and be inquisitive enough to ask and test me. That hasn't happened in response to my essay yet. I would have thought there would be enough content within it to spark curiosity, but apparently not. Oh well, do I keep trying?

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 05:37 GMT
Hi Steven,

"You have settled on the notion of the intelligence of the cosmos as an explanation for this, however the problem I have with this is that I believe the type of intelligence we associate with ourselves that can be said to conspire intellectually, is emergent of complex systems such as the brain. And so I am reluctant to ascribe intelligence of this type to simpler universal physical configurations, or the cosmos at large."

Before I provide a link to Universal Intelligence, please read, if you have not already, my

essay from the How Should Humanity Steer the Future? contest of 2014.

James Putnam




Michael Zane Tyree wrote on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 07:01 GMT
Dear James . . .

I like the purity of your approach. You have what seems to be a clean perspective on the science of physics. I did not follow your mathematics as I'm not a scientist, but I did follow your line of reasoning and it seems sound. I do agree that much of what I read nowadays in science books and magazines is speculation and mathematical models. Your method of accepting only the empirical, I think, will lead to a more consistent and integrated physics.

One question: Intelligence is seen to be an innate property of the universe, which gave rise to human minds. These two quotes from your essay express that view:

"We see that the Universe is orderly and all parts of it are meaningful. There does not exist any lack of purpose anywhere. This can be known by recognizing that any lack of purpose or meaning, if such a thing could exist, in any amount, anywhere in the Universe would destroy order. If such a circumstance had ever existed, then the Universe would not now exist. It could not have evolved passed the time when meaninglessness was made part of it."

"During the evolution of the universe, the nature of intelligence has not varied. Our intelligence is of the same source as for the rest of the Universe. Intelligence has not wandered from that which was always intended by the universe. That is why life was capable of understanding what was needed for survival at all levels of evolution."

If this is so, how is it that human minds, being a direct expression of the intelligence of the universe, seem to make mistakes and errors, and choose false ideas, which lead to lack of understanding about the universe in which they live? It seems a paradox that intelligence could ever not understand itself.

At any rate, your essay was one of my favorites, being easy to read and understand. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Michael Z. Tyree

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 12:47 GMT
Dear Michael Z. Tyree,

Thank very much for your kind words. With regard to human intelligence please read my essay Lead With Innate Knowledge from the 2016 essay contest. It is just 5 pages long. The means by which we learn and think is not exact. The explanation begins with photons. There is no mathematics. I have downloaded your essay and will be reading it soon.

James Putnam




Author James A Putnam wrote on Mar. 27, 2017 @ 21:23 GMT
There are three mathematical examples provided in my essay. Each demonstrates a correction to physics. Here I deal with the first example and add to it. It covers the correct method for solving for photon energy and photon momentum:

I showed that increasing the energy of a charged particle by an incremental amount allows one to solve for that incremental amount of energy. That incremental energy is what a photon carries away. The equation for photon energy that I presented is: EKc=(delta)EKp where (delta) is the Greek letter that I use to represent the word 'incremental'. The procedure used is that of taking a derivative. Nothing new to that. Now I add the solution for the momentum of a photon: Pc=mVc1(delta)vc2)/Vc1=m(delta)vc2. Einstein's energy equation gets replaced with an energy equation derived using defined mass. It leads then to a replacement for Einstein's photon momentum equation that no longer predicts excessive momentum. It predicts the correct momentum.

Neither of these two new solutions involves the use of time-dilation. This is an improvement because there is no empirical evidence that time dilates. There is empirical evidence for clock's slowing, but, clocks are not time. Clock's don't even measure time. Clocks are imprecise mechanical cyclic activity. There is a precise universally constant measure of real time. It was introduced in my essay for the very first essay contest. It has nothing to do with Einstein's misuse of the 't' in physics equations. That 't' has always represented mechanical cyclic activity, and, never has real time, as a unique fundamental property, been included in physics equations.



Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 01:10 GMT
The second mathematical example presents the very close equality of magnitudes in the equation:

h=keC

Where:

h=Planck's Constant=6.625x10-34(joules*seconds)

k=Boltzmann's Constant=1.38x10-23(joules/(molecule*degree-kelvin))

e=electr
on charge=1.602x10-19 coulombs

C=speed of Light=2.998x108(meters/second)

Clearly the units of this equation do not match in any system of today's theoretical physics. Yet, look at those numbers. They each are important constants that come from different branches of physics: Relativity, quantum, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics. Those magnitudes are far too odd to expect that they could ever be arranged to appear to form an equation by chance. In a fundamentally unified theory, it is expected that such a powerful link would exist between those four branches of physics. That is where this equation has come from. It was derived from the fundamentally unified work that I do. When the units of physics are derived solely from dependence upon the two units of empirical evidence, the units for this equation match; and, the equation makes great sense. Physics needs it now.

James Putnam



Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 02:03 GMT
The third mathematical example demonstrates that direct dependency upon empirical evidence for derivations of properties and their units, makes it clear that proportionality constants of important property relationships should be left to have their meanings revealed by the mathematics of equations that are not those of theoretical physics, but, rather equations that have been returned to their...

view entire post




Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 17:46 GMT
Example 1 from above shows that Einsteins' idea that setting rest energy equal to zero leaves an equation for the energy of a photon.is wrong. Yet his solution does predict photon energy accurately. The reason is that energy is derived from force times distance. The rest energy term does not result from applying a force across a distance. The product of force and distance yields kinetic energy....

view entire post





Anonymous wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 01:32 GMT
Dear James

An interesting and engaging essay. I have picked just the following to respond to:

"inanimate and mechanical ...representative of dumbness "

But aren't you anthropomorphizing the Universe imbuing it with fundamental intelligence and purposefulness, based on the relatively ephemeral instance of human intelligence, a very very small event in space and time?

"The physics of theoretical physics is a physics that is fundamentally dis-unified"

I could not agree with you more, hence my Beautiful Universe Model and current fqxi essay on what to do about it.

"The mind of Einstein has invaded physics equations and installed imaginary meanings onto space and time"

Absolutely! My essay is all about the dead-ends at the end of the road Einstein's imagination has unwittingly set for physics.

You have made other equally interesting assertions, but time and energy (mine) force me to limit myself to the above.

In admiration of search for meaning and consistancy in our knowledge of the Universe.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 23:27 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

"But aren't you anthropomorphizing the Universe imbuing it with fundamental intelligence and purposefulness, based on the relatively ephemeral instance of human intelligence, a very very small event in space and time?"

Yes, of course. We were formed by the Universe from parts of itself. Those parts are fully responsible for our lives and our intelligence. The...

view entire post




Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 00:56 GMT
Dear James

"None of the physics properties have any potential for the existence of intelligence"

Not directly - physics is a product of intelligence, a set of intellectual tools directed at dumb nature, if you will, to pry its secrets. As such it would be superfluous for it to backtrack to rediscover its maker, as it were.

Another check of your world-view is to ask if computers are or soon will be intelligent. If so, they are entirely the product of physics and mathematics, transistors, electrical circuits and signals manipulating binary arithmetical algorithms. Dumb nature is suddenly not so dumd!

Do not mind me - you have a right to your feeling of wonder and joy at humanity's gift of consciousness and ability to wonder at our glorious Universe.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 01:44 GMT
Vladimir,

Your essay will receive a high rating before the contest closes. Agreement isn't necessary at all. I appreciate reading your opinion. My response is that it cannot be established that there is separation of the intelligence of physics' tools from the nature that gave rise to it. The potential in full had to already be provided for. This may sound creator like. It matters not...

view entire post





Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 01:32 GMT
Oops that was my comment above

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 05:18 GMT
James,

The contest is drawing to an end, and I am reviewing those I've read and am not sure that I rated. Yours I did on 3/16. Short memory.

Hope you enjoyed the interchange of ideas as much as I did and still do.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate


Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 13:00 GMT
Dear James

You are quite right on your analysis on the way Physics faces the properties of the universe – namely when you say “The physics fundamental view of the properties of the Universe is that they are dumb. Dumbness is mechanically compatible with orderliness. There is limited merit in a dumb mechanical interpretation. The merit is that mechanical problems can be solved;...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 03:26 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 on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate


Author James A Putnam wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 20:11 GMT
I recommend a new Author and his Essay by Steven Andresen




Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 23:42 GMT
James,

Thanks for your kind message on my blog. I agree Stevens essay was excellent. I also strongly recommend Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri's essay if you haven't read it and have time to see & rate it. I've just rated yours as I'm now off to bed (00:40) and have an long early drive (a well earned 9 this year out of interest).

I hope yours is a finalist.

Very best

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 02:57 GMT
Dear James Putnam

As you are already aware, I have an acute appreciation for your work. I genuinely believe that you have recognized the inadequacies of the way our physical units of measure have been formulated, and that the number of disparate units in our employ can be whittled away to but two indefinables. I think this has advanced the conventional approach, and has enabled you to obtain a clearer vision of physics and relativity. I am convinced that your approach to unifying the units of measure, and your descriptions in and around your "light field" conceptualization, are going to closely resemble the future of scientific method and understanding. You might not be widely recognized for your achievements at this time in history, but I have to believe you will be in time.

My believing of this makes you stand out like no other in my mind. And I believe that with the right people around you to help develop the conversation, what I have come to realize will become evident to more people. It is essentially a very simple message to convey, so I will do what I can to help you in this endeavor.

Thank you for your support in helping me to understand so much, and also for supporting my essay.

Kind regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 04:31 GMT
James,

Thanks for the comment and thanks for your rating. You were the stake in the vampire's heart.

Jim

PS Glad to see you came up in score.

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.