Dear Israel,

You did a terrific job of conveying the rich theoretical landscape of modern physics! I wonder, though, if even something seemingly so certain -- "What is clear is that GR does not play a fundamental role in the realm of particles whatsoever" -- might not also be doubted by researchers who apply Mach's Principle to the many body problem on microscales.

No matter. It...

view entire post

Dear Israel,

You did a terrific job of conveying the rich theoretical landscape of modern physics! I wonder, though, if even something seemingly so certain -- "What is clear is that GR does not play a fundamental role in the realm of particles whatsoever" -- might not also be doubted by researchers who apply Mach's Principle to the many body problem on microscales.

No matter. It was fun to read your essay and I wish you the best in the competition.

Tom

view post as summary

Dear Israel,

Yeah, well done. Relevant and interesting. I should look at the references.

A few words that you use where I fully agree a) context: you can see my essay, b) geometry: again there is geometry in quantum contexts, c) correlation: David Mermin is fun of them d) the rules are simpler to manipulate: Henri Poincaré, e) compactified: I hope to become familiar with...

view entire post

Dear Israel,

Yeah, well done. Relevant and interesting. I should look at the references.

A few words that you use where I fully agree a) context: you can see my essay, b) geometry: again there is geometry in quantum contexts, c) correlation: David Mermin is fun of them d) the rules are simpler to manipulate: Henri Poincaré, e) compactified: I hope to become familiar with that.

Good luck,

Michel

view post as summary

Nice work, it was a pleasure to read it. Although, I do not think these are "common sense" thoughts... I do not think that any layman could write such kind of essay...

I liked your point that:

..."agreement with experiment" is not synonimous of "fundamentally correct".

particularly because the "agreement with experiment" is done on just a very few specific measurements. As...

view entire post

Nice work, it was a pleasure to read it. Although, I do not think these are "common sense" thoughts... I do not think that any layman could write such kind of essay...

I liked your point that:

..."agreement with experiment" is not synonimous of "fundamentally correct".

particularly because the "agreement with experiment" is done on just a very few specific measurements. As you wrote, even the epicycles were in agreement with experiment.

I wish you all the best for the competition!

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

show all replies (2 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Israel,

As already noted, I agree with your essay and with the point that common sense and intuition have served us well in the past. But the profession of physics has grown from a relative handful of brilliant individuals to a worldwide industry. And it's questionable whether the physics community (at least the theoretical side of it) could be kept busy if it were constrained to...

view entire post

Dear Israel,

As already noted, I agree with your essay and with the point that common sense and intuition have served us well in the past. But the profession of physics has grown from a relative handful of brilliant individuals to a worldwide industry. And it's questionable whether the physics community (at least the theoretical side of it) could be kept busy if it were constrained to common sense and intuitive physics. By allowing abstract theories of phenomena that are unobservable, either in practice or in principle, there is no limit to the papers that can be published. And if it's too abstract for the funders to understand so much the better. Such physicists can be kept busy forever while producing nothing of practical utility.

So while your idea is excellent, and, I believe, correct, it is nevertheless unlikely to take hold. On the other hand, the proliferation of abstract nonsense is so frustrating to those who seek understanding (versus professional advancement) that some kind of reaction appears to be brewing. We'll see.

You mentioned "the worst theoretical prediction in all physics," i.e., the 120 order error in vacuum energy. As I noted in my essay, this has not made a dent in the use of virtual particles in physics, despite the dependence of these entities on local energy. In order for sufficient energy to exist locally to support virtual particles, the vacuum energy must everywhere (i.e., globally) be stronger than it appears to be. On the other hand, the local gravitic energy need be strong only in collisions, where the concentrated energy can produce particle creation and associated jets. This is exactly the physics implied by the non-linearization procedure I describe in my essay.

But the physics I describe is based on interpretation of the gravitic field as a "material substance". Thus I was happy to see your discussion of the magnetic induction as indicative of materiality of the vacuum, versus some abstract geometric substance-less nature. A very nice example.

I would also mention that Vishwakarma's current essay discussing the fact that the GR stress-energy tensor does not support either the gravitational self-interaction or the angular momentum of the gravity field. The angular momentum 'is' the C-field, and the nonlinearity of this field is key to particle level concentrations of energy. As you noted on my essay page, the nine page limit constrains the number of equations one can present, but the trail of equations is growing quite long in my theory, and covering a growing number of phenomena. I hope and expect my n-GEM technique to apply to problems in which gravity has not been applied before (successfully!). And these applications are all compatible with intuition and common sense.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

Dear Sir,

Your essay begins with a conversation of Alice with her friend and ends with both enjoying the discussion. So is the reader, who is guided through a maze of analysis with suspense in each turn like the experience of Alice in the Wonderland till the reader – laymen included - ends with enjoying the essay. We must admit, midway we cheated and switched to the last para to come back...

view entire post

Dear Sir,

Your essay begins with a conversation of Alice with her friend and ends with both enjoying the discussion. So is the reader, who is guided through a maze of analysis with suspense in each turn like the experience of Alice in the Wonderland till the reader – laymen included - ends with enjoying the essay. We must admit, midway we cheated and switched to the last para to come back again after being satisfied with the conclusion.

A computer program is GIGO – garbage in garbage out. It cannot go beyond its programming. Hence it is bound by the ideas of the programmer like a work of fiction. In view of the chaos theory, can we trust simulations without back up data in the shape of independent information? A small mistake or lapse or ignorance in the initial conditions may make giants out of Lilliputians. Incidentally, believing space and time to be discrete does not make them discrete. Taking out pots of water from the ocean does not make the ocean full of pots of water.

Dimension of objects is the perception that differentiates the “internal structural space” from the “external relational space”. Since such perception is mediated by electromagnetic interaction, where an electric field and a magnetic field move perpendicular to each other in a direction perpendicular to both, we have three mutually perpendicular directions. Mathematical space always contains one dimension less than physical space.

The graph may represent space, but it is not space itself. The drawings of a circle, a square, a vector or any other physical representation, are similar abstractions. The circle represents only a two dimensional cross section of a three dimensional sphere. The square represents a surface of a cube. Without the cube or similar structure (including the paper), it has no physical existence. An ellipse may represent an orbit, but it is not the dynamical orbit itself. The vector is a fixed representation of velocity; it is not the dynamical velocity itself, and so on. The so-called simplification or scaling up or down of the drawing does not make it abstract. The basic abstraction is due to the fact that the mathematics that is applied to solve physical problems actually applies to the two dimensional diagram, and not to the three dimensional space. The numbers are assigned to points on the piece of paper or in the Cartesian graph, and not to points in space. If one assigns a number to a point in space, what one really means is that it is at a certain distance from an arbitrarily chosen origin. Thus, by assigning a number to a point in space, what one really does is assign an origin, which is another point in space leading to a contradiction. The point in space can exist by itself as the equilibrium position of various forces. But a point on a paper exists only with reference to the arbitrarily assigned origin. If additional force is applied, the locus of the point in space resolves into two equal but oppositely directed field lines. But the locus of a point on a graph is always unidirectional and depicts distance – linear or non-linear, but not force. Thus, a physical structure is different from its mathematical representation. Since the extra-dimensions have not been found even after more than a century, how long shall we perpetuate this fantasy?

The states of matter are described by their dimension, which differentiate the “internal structural space” – bare mass from the “external relational space” – the radiative mass. It is perceived through electromagnetic radiation (ocular perception), where an electric field and a magnetic field, move perpendicular to each other and also to the direction of their motion. Thus, we have three mutually perpendicular dimensions. For this reason, we classify the states of matter as solid, fluid or gaseous, depending upon whether the dimension is fixed, unfixed or unbound.

Your argument against multiverse includes argument against the equivalence principle. The light ray from outside can be related to the space craft only if we consider the bigger frame of reference containing both the space emitting light and the spacecraft. If the passengers could observe the scene outside the space-craft, they will notice this difference and know that the space craft is moving. In that case, the reasons for the apparent curvature will be known. If we consider outside space as a separate frame of reference unrelated to the space craft, the ray emitted by it cannot be considered inside the space craft. The emission of the ray will be restricted to those emanating from within the spacecraft. In that case, the ray will move straight inside the space craft. In either case, the description of Einstein is faulty. Thus, both SR and GR including the principles of equivalence are wrong descriptions of reality.

There is a problem with Tegmark’s views. Mathematics explains only “how much” one quantity accumulates or reduces in an interaction involving similar or partly similar quantities and not “what”, “why”, “when”, “where”, or “with whom” about the objects involved in such interactions. These are the subject matters of physics. These are not baggage. The left hand side of all equations depicts freewill since we are free to change the parameters. The right hand side depicts determinism, since once the parameters are changed, the outcome is fixed. The equality sign, which links both, depicts special conditions, which must be satisfied the reaction to take place (such as certain temperature threshold).

You are welcome to visit our essay:

“INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776” published here on May 31.

Regards,

basudeba

view post as summary

Dear Israel

A good story about a common desire - but it seems we need a specific proposal to solve the problems be existing in reality that related to information.

Anyway, wish you success.

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the...

view entire post

Dear Israel

A good story about a common desire - but it seems we need a specific proposal to solve the problems be existing in reality that related to information.

Anyway, wish you success.

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

1 . THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES

A. What thing is new and the difference in the absolute theory than other theories?

The first is concept of "Absolute" in my absolute theory is defined as: there is only one - do not have any similar - no two things exactly alike.

The most important difference of this theory is to build on the entirely new basis and different platforms compared to the current theory.

B. Why can claim: all things are absolute - have not of relative ?

It can be affirmed that : can not have the two of status or phenomenon is the same exists in the same location in space and at the same moment of time - so thus: everything must be absolute and can not have any of relative . The relative only is a concept to created by our .

C. Why can confirm that the conclusions of the absolute theory is the most specific and detailed - and is unique?

Conclusion of the absolute theory must always be unique and must be able to identify the most specific and detailed for all issues related to a situation or a phenomenon that any - that is the mandatory rules of this theory.

D. How the applicability of the absolute theory in practice is ?

The applicability of the absolute theory is for everything - there is no limit on the issue and there is no restriction on any field - because: This theory is a method to determine for all matters and of course not reserved for each area.

E. How to prove the claims of Absolute Theory?

To demonstrate - in fact - for the above statement,we will together come to a specific experience, I have a small testing - absolutely realistic - to you with title:

2 . A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT :

“Absolute determination to resolve for issues reality”

That is, based on my Absolute theory, I will help you determine by one new way to reasonable settlement and most effective for meet with difficulties of you - when not yet find out to appropriate remedies - for any problems that are actually happening in reality, only need you to clearly notice and specifically about the current status and the phenomena of problems included with requirements and expectations need to be resolved.

I may collect fees - by percentage of benefits that you get - and the commission rate for you, when you promote and recommend to others.

Condition : do not explaining for problems as impractical - no practical benefit - not able to determine in practice.

To avoid affecting the contest you can contact me via email : hoangcao_hai@yahoo.com

Hope will satisfy and bring real benefits for you along with the desire that we will find a common ground to live together in happily.

Hải.Caohoàng

Add another problem, which is:

USE OF THE EQUATIONS AND FORMULA IN ESSAY

There have been some comments to me to questions is: why in my essay did not use the equations and formulas to interpret?

The reason is:

1. The currently equations and formulas are not able to solve all problems for all concerned that they represent.

2. Through research, I found: The application of the equations and formulas when we can not yet be determined the true nature of the problem will create new problems - there is even more complex and difficult to resolve than the original.

I hope so that : you will sympathetic and consideration to avoid misunderstanding my comments.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

view post as summary

I found your historical perspective on the development of the ideas of physics to be very interesting – especially how over the centuries we've moved away from a balanced 'intuitive-abstract' take on reality, so that we presently greatly accentuate abstractions.

To pursue your thought, I'd say that we are progressively getting lost in abstraction, and that in a sense physics is painting...

view entire post

I found your historical perspective on the development of the ideas of physics to be very interesting – especially how over the centuries we've moved away from a balanced 'intuitive-abstract' take on reality, so that we presently greatly accentuate abstractions.

To pursue your thought, I'd say that we are progressively getting lost in abstraction, and that in a sense physics is painting itself into a corner where no-one can figure out the meaning of the phenomena that are being expressed.

This, I think you'll agree, is how we came to consider that the material universe is simply information. The concept that the universe is a computer-like system can only be taken so far – not very far, and probably not very usefully either.

The computer is cognition, and cognition is an imprint of observed phenomena, whether it occurs in the brain or in a machine.

In what way is the Cosmos an imprint?

I agree with you that our quest for a Unified Field cannot be framed in terms of computers 'taking over', but rather in those terms we have experienced and developed over the evolutionary span.

I was intrigued by the point you make about a vacuum not being devoid of electromagnetic properties. Does this not tie in with the concept of a field of Cosmae, all of which are interacting within a field of energy? Indeed, you speak of the correlation of space and time – and in this regard especially I think you will find much of interest in my essay: 'The Correlation of It and Bit in a Cosmic System'.

In it, I describe how this correlation occurs as a result with our Cosmic system's interaction with the General Field of Cosmae.

I describe our four fundamental forces as being the 'splitting up' of a 'Gravitational-Magnetic Force' that comes from the energy field that envelops our Cosmos – a Force that simultaneously affects each of its Particles individually, and sub-divides them into the three groups that define our Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive entities.

Both the Cosmos and the Observer are similarly affected by this Force, so that it maintains them in Correlation over billions of years.

Thus, the 'single-field' Cosmos (consisting of the Observer viewing the Cosmos) is replaced by a structure that accounts for our participatory Cosmos.

Your argument points us in a common direction: If we must retain the intuitions that are fundamental to our natures as evolving creatures, we must recognize the correlation that has always existed between the Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive realms.

Since you essentially conclude, I believe, that we cannot truly choose between 'Bit to It', or 'It to Bit' – is there not then simply a correlation between information and the physical universe? And in searching for a Unified Field, are we not simply searching for this correlation – not only as it applies to space and time, but also to the Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive realms?

I hope you will let me know if you think the points you raise are resolved in the Paradigm I've developed: Is it credible, does it contradict nothing that is known, and is it usefully applicable to all foundational questions – paving the way for these to be explored empirically?

Like you, I particularly value credibility – an equilibrium between intuition and abstraction that has always been, and will always be, a very strong and useful component in our evolution – and in the future of Physics.

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

show all replies (7 not shown)

hide replies

Hi Israel,

Indeed: ''Why should we believe that the information is more important than the stuff the universe is made of? ''

I have yet to read an essay which treats the question where all information comes from, how information becomes information. What I mean is this: If there would be only a single charged particle among uncharged particles in the universe, then it wouldn't be...

view entire post

Hi Israel,

Indeed: ''Why should we believe that the information is more important than the stuff the universe is made of? ''

I have yet to read an essay which treats the question where all information comes from, how information becomes information. What I mean is this: If there would be only a single charged particle among uncharged particles in the universe, then it wouldn't be able to express its charge in interactions. As it in that case it cannot be charged itself, charge, or any property, for that matter, must be something which is shared by particles, something which only exists, is expressed and preserved within their interactions. If particles, particle properties (its) are both cause and effect of their interactions, of the exchange of bits, if particles only exist to each other if and for as long as they interact, exchange information, then you cannot have one without the other nor can one be more fundamental than the other.

If the information as embodied in particle properties and the associated rules of behavior a.k.a. laws of physics must be the product of a trial-and-error evolution, then information only can survive, become actual information when tested in practice, when molded into physical, material particles (whatever we may mean with 'material'), particles, 'its' which exist to each other only if and for as long as they interact, exchange information, bits. Part of the confusion originates in the supposition that particles randomly emit and absorb virtual photons and gravitons to communicate forces between them. In this view they only would exist, receive information about particles in their environment at the times they absorb a virtual particle, but not in the periods in between. This supposition is the expression of the belief that particles, particle properties only are the cause, but not also the effect of their interactions, as if they would keep existing even when isolated from interactions, as if 'to be' is a passive state which requires no effort on the part of the particles, a noun instead of an activity, a verb. If we insist that particles at all times exist to each other, if they express and at the same time preserve their properties by interacting, then it is this continuous exchange of information which preserves the status quo, an exchange without which particles would vanish from each other's universe: being too inconspicuous to even suspect its existence, it in fact manages to do what the so-called 'hidden variables' are thought not to do.

As to the unification of forces: If particles are both the source and product of interactions, of forces between them, then a force obviously cannot be either attractive or repulsive, always. As long as we regard particles, particle properties as being only the cause of interactions, of forces (which is the assumption classical mechanics is based upon), we will never be able to unify forces even in principle.

Regards, Anton

view post as summary

Hello Dr. Perez

I came to FQXi web site only recently and to your essay many days later. In both cases, I feel like a guest arriving late to a fabulous banquet.

If I were a little more systematic in sampling the contest essays, your essay should have been the first on my reading list. The title “Common Sense Reflexions” should had been a dead giveaway to the likes of me who have...

view entire post

Hello Dr. Perez

I came to FQXi web site only recently and to your essay many days later. In both cases, I feel like a guest arriving late to a fabulous banquet.

If I were a little more systematic in sampling the contest essays, your essay should have been the first on my reading list. The title “Common Sense Reflexions” should had been a dead giveaway to the likes of me who have proclaimed grandly that “Common sense and analogy-making power of our mind is our own private THEORY OF EVERYTHING.” Despite the affinities, I missed your essay in the early rounds. (Lucky me I found it midway through the contest.)

My essay “Analogical Engine” is a paean to common sense and intuition as is yours. The tone of your essay is serious Socratic Q&E in a proper professional manner, while mine is less sober, more whimsical, but my intentions are as serious. And after discounting the differing styles of presentations, I hope our respective readership can see both essays as being on the same track.

I have taken the view that automatic thought processes (such as analogy, commonsense, intuition, and what have you) are precussors to rational thoughts (where arguments and scientific rationality rules with logic and math). Next, I take this view of MIND into the realm of MATTER (BODY?) by introducing analogical strings such as “What quantum (wave) is to classical (particle)” is similar to “what analogy (linear) is to reasoning (nonlinear).” Notationally, quantum-classical ~ analogy-reason; or wave-particle ~ analogy-reason; or wave-particle ~ linear-nonlinear.

All dualities can be put into this form, as for example, the variation-selection from Darwin’s theory of biological evolution, thus showing the mechanism underlying analogy can generate its own circle of self-referentialities and observations more quickly than other modalities that we know. In fact I consider analogy is a flag ship of thought as quantum physics is to the classical!

If you ask what is the point of the exercise? My answer is de-mystification of QT, by putting it on the same plane as other scientific theories that are more amenable to our way of thinking and understanding. Other insights that follow from this line of thoughts are a view of Planck constant that is different from the text-books, but compatible with the original historic derivation of it, and the generous extension of its meaning beyond its role in quantum theory.

I hope you are not put off by this kind of advertisement for an essay. When I catch up with contest obligations, I hope to say more about the parallels between our two essays.

In the meantime, I wish you the best.

Than Tin

view post as summary

Hello Israel,

Thanks for your detailed views on my site (I post this here, to be sure you get my message).

Many of your points are of interest to me.

Your reference to deChardin is apt (another commentator pointed this out also). But in reference to the relation between matter, life, and mind you say - 'I believe that current science is not yet well equipped to address these...

view entire post

Hello Israel,

Thanks for your detailed views on my site (I post this here, to be sure you get my message).

Many of your points are of interest to me.

Your reference to deChardin is apt (another commentator pointed this out also). But in reference to the relation between matter, life, and mind you say - 'I believe that current science is not yet well equipped to address these questions at this time".

You go on to say that such a scientific discovery might not come about for many generations - centuries, even. If this is what we believe, then this is what will happen ...

It is true that science moves much more slowly than common wisdom - I believe all discoveries were previously made (and a long time before) by artists, writers, and people living off the land. The evidence of this is overwhelming - penicillin, the evolution of the earth, genetic, etc. - and is in itself a fascinating phenomenon.

I'd be honored to be considered a forerunner of this sort. If I am considering something that scientists will address 500 years from now, that's not so bad.

It is true I don't use the conventional jargon of physics, and it shouldn't be too surprising since I am taking a departure from the mainstream, and I feel it is less confusing to use new terminology - you can't put the new wine in the old bottles, as the man said.

I have had to condense things quite considerably for the purpose of the essay, but let me explain the terms you mention. The General Field is the field of pure energy from which cosmae arise. Pure energy has no mass: it is un-correlated positive and negative charge. It is an infinite field. Within the course of infinity, charges inevitably become correlated here and there, and once in a while. Once they do, they 'come into existence' - as protons and electrons.

And the game begins.

Prior to correlation, the General Field is omni-dimensional - meaning that it cannot be described in any dimensional system - whether quantum or classical.

Space-time is referred to as a 'dimensional field'. There are others, and no such field is infinite. Space-time, for instance, is a field that is correlated - in the course of evolution – with a given observer, and that merges (almost seamlessly from the viewpoint of that observer) with other dimensional fields that are progressively less measurable (the Intermediary and Primal Zones), relative to the observer.

As for the supposed flat shape of the universe - this simply refers to the fact that the distances we can consider are far too small for the curvature to be relevant. It does not mean that the universe is actually flat. I must say that it is far from apparent to me that this distinction has any real meaning at all. It's like saying the earth is flat.

The occurrence of vortices in all aspects of the cosmos is as fundamental as energy-mass itself, and this should be considered very seriously.

As for the big bang, my view is that it is virtually meaningless - and as I point out in the essay, though the cosmos must have emerged from the General Field at some point, we cannot know when because our space-time parameter system (the Composite Zone) did not emerge till some unknowable length of time later.

The manner in which the three Principal Vortices of the Inorganic, Organic and Sensory-Cognitive realms continue to interact with the General Field, increasing their correlation and therefore affecting our evolution, is of far greater importance - and more knowable as well.

If you also question the big bang and space-time, then we might not be so far apart as you seem to think! We might even link up a century or two ahead of schedule ...

All the best, and thanks again for your input,

John

view post as summary

Dear Israel

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the...

view entire post

Dear Israel

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don’t know why that is – it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn’t look at all like the way you said it before. I don’t know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature.”

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that “Nature is simple” is however being expressed differently in my essay “Analogical Engine” linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said “Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities” and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism … and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as “what quantum is to classical” is similar to (~) “what wave is to particle.” You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since “Nature is Analogical”, we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.

Good luck and good cheers!

Than Tin

view post as summary

Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

If I may, I'd like to...

view entire post

Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

If I may, I'd like to express some of my newer conclusions - by themselves, so to speak, and independently of the logic that justifies them; the logic is, of course, outlined in my essay.

I now see the Cosmos as founded upon positive-negative charges: It is a binary structure and process that acquires its most elemental dimensional definition with the appearance of Hydrogen - one proton, one electron.

There is no other interaction so fundamental and all-pervasive as this binary phenomenon: Its continuance produces our elements – which are the array of all possible inorganic variants.

Once there exists a great enough correlation between protons and electrons - that is, once there are a great many Hydrogen atoms, and a great many other types of atoms as well - the continuing Cosmic binary process arranges them all into a new platform: Life.

This phenomenon is quite simply inherent to a Cosmos that has reached a certain volume of particles; and like the Cosmos from which it evolves, life behaves as a binary process.

Life therefore evolves not only by the chance events of natural selection, but also by the chance interactions of its underlying binary elements.

This means that ultimately, DNA behaves as does the atom - each is a particle defined by, and interacting within, its distinct Vortex - or 'platform'.

However, as the cosmic system expands, simple sensory activity is transformed into a third platform, one that is correlated with the Organic and Inorganic phenomena already in existence: This is the Sensory-Cognitive platform.

Most significantly, the development of Sensory-Cognition into a distinct platform, or Vortex, is the event that is responsible for creating (on Earth) the Human Species - in whom the mind has acquired the dexterity to focus upon itself.

Humans affect, and are affected by, the binary field of Sensory-Cognition: We can ask specific questions and enunciate specific answers - and we can also step back and contextualize our conclusions: That is to say, we can move beyond the specific, and create what might be termed 'Unified Binary Fields' - in the same way that the forces acting upon the Cosmos, and holding the whole structure together, simultaneously act upon its individual particles, giving them their motion and structure.

The mind mimics the Cosmos - or more exactly, it is correlated with it.

Thus, it transpires that the role of chance decreases with evolution, because this dual activity (by which we 'particularize' binary elements, while also unifying them into fields) clearly increases our control over the foundational binary process itself.

This in turn signifies that we are evolving, as life in general has always done, towards a new interaction with the Cosmos.

Clearly, the Cosmos is participatory to a far greater degree than Wheeler imagined - with the evolution of the observer continuously re-defining the system.

You might recall the logic by which these conclusions were originally reached in my essay, and the more detailed structure that I also outline there. These elements still hold; the details stated here simply put the paradigm into a sharper focus, I believe.

With many thanks and best wishes,

John

jselye@gmail.com

view post as summary

Israel,

It lays out a well rounded description of the current situation and, commonsensically, points out the various possibilities, without insisting on any particular one, other than laying the ground rule that they shouldn't involve suppositions that seem intuitively nonsensical.

An idea that occurred to me while reading it; Abstraction is a form of reductionism, in which the...

view entire post

Israel,

It lays out a well rounded description of the current situation and, commonsensically, points out the various possibilities, without insisting on any particular one, other than laying the ground rule that they shouldn't involve suppositions that seem intuitively nonsensical.

An idea that occurred to me while reading it; Abstraction is a form of reductionism, in which the unnecessary information is the baggage to be distilled away. The problem with this is that reality is in fact wholistic and does a very good job of eliminating superfluous information, so what does exist has passed nature's test and should not be taken lightly by human judgement. Yet we must constantly decide what is important, even though what might be necessary in one context, is not in another. This may well be a reason why QM and GR are not compatible.

So if we are to go the other direction and instead of eliminating all that is seemingly excess, what if we were to actually try going the other direction and figure out what has been eliminated in order to get to our current state of knowledge.

For example, one of the points I make, that irritates some, is that the process of addition means that when we do add things together, we get one of something larger. So that when we say 2+3=5, what we are really saying its that a set of 2+a set of 3=a set of 5. Now apply this to something as physical as your own body. It is not just the sum of the parts, but a whole entity which gives meaning, function and context to its parts. In other words, from a top down perspective, it makes more sense then it does from a bottom up perspective, where we can't figure out how and why all the parts seem to add up to this entity called a person. Now apply that to the problem of indeterminacy, where it seems as though "entangled" particles act as one, even though they apparently separated. In a linear, cause and effect, logical sense, it doesn't make sense, but in a more wholistic, non-linear, intuitive sense, it would seem quite reasonable.

For another example, consider how we treat space as three dimensional and time as a vector; As creatures moving about the surface of this planet, we exist as moving points of reference. So we model the spatial area in terms of a three dimensional coordinate system. Yet are distance, area and volume really the basis of space, or are they simply descriptions of it from the vantage of the point perspective? To say this mathematical modeling is foundational to space would be like arguing latitude, longitude and altitude are framework of what the surface of the planet is built on. The coordinate system is a model of space from the perspective of the point.

Treating time as a vector from past to future similarly is descriptive of the mobile point's relationship to its dynamic context. I frequently compare time and temperature, as two measures of activity; frequency and amplitude. Consider for a moment that you are a molecule of water in a pot; What would your experience be? A series of encounters with other molecules, in which you shed energy to those slower and receive it from those faster, until a state of thermal equilibrium is attained. Now consider the activities of the average person out in the world, as they are constantly trying to leverage more energy out of their context then they put in and equally feel resentful of all that is draining energy from them, without returning as much. Often economic statistics are described as a temperature reading of the economy.

Then consider how that person internalizes this process as a series of distinct events, since their mind must effectively work in a strobe-like fashion, in order to extract useful information from the overwhelming sea of potential input. This becomes their narrative sequence of events that compromise the passage of their life, as they first grow bigger, then plateau and eventually fade back into nature.

So it seems this effect of time is so much more consequential than the effect of temperature, yet anyone with any knowledge of nature knows how fundamental temperature is.

One could reasonably say thermodynamic activity creates temperature and temperature measures thermodynamic activity. As well as say change creates time and time measures change.

So in some sense, instead of examining nature in ever finer detail, in order to understand it, we should back up and simply take it in in whole and let it show us what is happening. Then use either method where appropriate. As I say in my essay, there is no central view that does all at once.

Regards,

John

view post as summary

Dear John

Thanks for reading and leaving your comments, I appreciate it.

You: Yet we must constantly decide what is important, even though what might be necessary in one context, is not in another.

Indeed, although it is difficult to find out what is important and what not. As to the problem of entanglement, it is not well understood, I'm working on that part.

To your...

view entire post

Dear John

Thanks for reading and leaving your comments, I appreciate it.

You: Yet we must constantly decide what is important, even though what might be necessary in one context, is not in another.

Indeed, although it is difficult to find out what is important and what not. As to the problem of entanglement, it is not well understood, I'm working on that part.

To your question: Yet are distance, area and volume really the basis of space, or are they simply descriptions of it from the vantage of the point perspective?

I think that there are two connotations of space. Space as the organizer of places and space as extension of substance (matter in this case). A coordinate system only represent a way to localize object embedded in the substance. The notions of breadth, width and height are abstractions taken from shape and extension of material objects. We should not confuse the abstractions with the essence or the substance the world is made of. We should be able to distinguish space in the sense of coordinate system that represents an empty container and space as the substance that extends to all directions.

Now you mention that time is a vector but I think you are misunderstanding. When we say that time has an arrow that doesn't mean that time is a vector. A vector is defined by its transformation properties. Time is just a parameter in Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics that denotes change, whereas in relativity it is a coordinate or the component of the four-dimensional vector of space-time position. The idea of arrow comes because the laws of physics are reversible under a change of sign of time. As we time were flowing in reverse direction. However, we don't observe events that occurred in reverse order, they seem to follow a preferred direction, this is what we call arrow of time. It's just a name to identify the apparent passage of events. So, what appears to be wrong is not our perception of the passage of time but the way in which the laws of physics are formulated.

You also say: So in some sense, instead of examining nature in ever finer detail, in order to understand it, we should back up and simply take it in in whole and let it show us what is happening. Then use either method where appropriate.

Well, the problem is quantification. In order to model and quantify nature we need to dissect nature into its most essential components. It's difficult to quantify it holistically.

Regards

Israel

view post as summary