FQXi Community

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

Guidelines

FAQ

Read, discuss, and vote on essays

Latest FQXi news

Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - March 16, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners

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 Fund.
read/discuss • winners

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/discuss • winners

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/discuss • winners

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

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/discuss • winners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

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

Jonathan Dickau: on 6/7/14 at 2:59am UTC, wrote Interesting and excellent James.. A poignant reminder that sometimes our...

James Putnam: on 6/5/14 at 16:49pm UTC, wrote Hi Janko, The activity of our subconscious mind has to be demonstrating...

Janko Kokosar: on 6/5/14 at 14:24pm UTC, wrote Dear James Putnam I see that you advocate free will, as I too. I write...

Arthur Woods: on 6/5/14 at 4:55am UTC, wrote Dear James Thank you for reading my essay and for your comments. I really...

James Putnam: on 6/4/14 at 21:06pm UTC, wrote Dear Christian, I am appreciative of your taking the time to return and...

James Putnam: on 6/4/14 at 12:30pm UTC, wrote Margarita, I recommend The future is the past by Roger Schlafly for...

Christian Corda: on 6/4/14 at 7:49am UTC, wrote Hi James, Thanks for your kind replies with clarifications. Again, I wish...

Margarita Iudin: on 6/4/14 at 5:43am UTC, wrote Hello James, Do not worry. It is not about the rating or peer-to-peer...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Agnew: "I agree that we and the universe exist together as a whole, but be careful..." in Alternative Models of...

Eckard Blumschein: "Robert and Malcom, See me itinerant and a bit worried by Feynman’s..." in The Quantum Agent

Peter Morgan: "That's not what the preview showed! Grrrrr. Aaaaannnnndddd I can't edit it...." in An algebraic approach to...

Peter Morgan: "I have to hope that better understanding the relationship between the..." in An algebraic approach to...

John Wilson: "Hi Malcolm, Thanks for reading some of my paper, I really appreciate it. ..." in Alternative Models of...

Amrit Sorli: "BB cosmology has some troubles. I think that it will not last for a long..." in Alternative Models of...

Joe Fisher: "A visible person could dig or bore a fixed hole with visible sides in a..." in The Quantum Agent

Joe Fisher: "The most compelling evidence that the ability of white men of only being..." in Undecidability,...

RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Quantum Agent
Investigating how the quantum measurement process might be related to the emergence of intelligence, agency and free will.

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

read & discuss all articles

FQXi FORUM

February 28, 2020

CATEGORY: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? Essay Contest (2014) [back]
TOPIC: Lead With Innate Knowledge by James A Putnam [refresh]

Author James A Putnam wrote on Apr. 18, 2014 @ 16:03 GMT

Essay Abstract

The essay presents the author's view on a process for leading humanity. It discusses: How we learn; Innate knowledge; Emotions; Innate meanings; Human free will; and, Good leadership.

Author Bio

Author & owner of newphysicstheory.com: Peer reviewed paper #133 for ICCS 2011 The Nature of Thermodynamic Entropy; Invited speaker for COFE 2012 Calculating the Universal Gravitational Constant; COFE 2013 Origins of Force and Acceleration; Essay entries in each of the five previous contests.

Download Essay PDF File

Georgina Woodward wrote on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 04:07 GMT

The question is How should Humanity steer the future? You have given us a lesson on'how', through leadership and connection with innate knowledge that we 'feel', but no indication of destination or navigation.You wrote "Followers follow along because they are feeling along. Stir their emotions with words of caring and unity for both social and scientific goals. Care and unity are emotionally satisfying." That sounds like sage advice. I can hear the people saying "yes we are following , where are we going O leader?" That is to say I half wanted you to continue with where that manifesto might take us. What are the social and scientific goals you have in mind, or is it straight ahead business as usual? Best wishes, Georgina

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 06:32 GMT

Georgina,

I eliminated them. That is why my essay is five pages long. I reduced it from what began as 11 pages. I left only the beginning foundational part to the answer to the question: How should humanity steer the future? One answer might have been to not set up steering committees. I wrote a disapproving paragraph about where I think that practice leads us. I dumped it. It wasn't really a helpful part of the point I decided to make.

If it is taken to be the case that the question relates to conditions of a free people, then our system allows for the people to steer themselves. I am not speaking about an ideal society where all matters are resolved perfectly. I am thinking in terms of real humanity and the struggle to try for balance among many competing needs.

However, steering was a given in the question. So hypothetically, if it is a given that humanity should be steered, then the best I could hope for is that leaders would have both good intentions and more importantly good ideas. I presented my case for how we might improve on our existing good ideas. I think my argument for innate knowledge is both socially and scientifically important. Its foundational on both points for me.

Specific examples of my ideas would have distracted attention away from the main objective of this essay. I expected that I might find myself primarily defending those ideas. I like and stand by the ideas I presented in my other essays. For this essay, I prefer defending the case for the source of knowledge and our process for learning it.

I did not give concrete examples for two other reasons. One is that many others will write about their good ideas that are their conclusions. I think it is important to know the process for how we reach our conclusions. The second reason is that I have already offered, in five previous essays and five years of discussions, my good ideas. I had a different good idea for this contest. That idea was to explain the source of our knowledge and how we might access it better.

It is a view that I think is in contrast to what I think is the prevailing, perhaps a better word might be respected, view. The view I presented is, in my opinion, the most concrete and important point to be made to those who would steer. As for destination and navigation, I already covered those.

Each essay I write is designed to minimize repeating myself. I wrote about a subject that I consider to be very much to the point of the question. My opinion is that it is foundational. Thank you for sharing your opinion. I assume that we both know that we have adopted different views about many of the subjects raised here.

In particular, I think that you don't agree with the view I presented in the essay for beginning the case for how we learn. If that is so, then I understand why you think that I didn't answer the question. Good luck with your own essay. I don't see one yet. I am assuming that you will have submitted one.

James Putnam

view post as summary

Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 11:17 GMT

James,

thanks for your reply. I wasn't implying that you hadn't answered the question because you have.In your own way, and all of the essays are unique. That what I meant by my first sentence. I think there is some ambiguity or openness in the question because it could be read as 'How?' as in how is steering to be accomplished or 'How?' as in which way / direction. I've gone more for which direction/s. Very different from my previous ones. Hopefully it is both entertaining and informative.

Georgina

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 12:12 GMT

Hi James,

How much different would your essay have been if you had framed it with your last words:

"Care and unity are emotionally satisfying."

Rather than your first:

"We know a lot of knowledge, but yearn for more."?

All best wishes in the competition!

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 14:30 GMT

Tom,

I wouldn't start with care and unity because that would miss presenting their natural foundation. My essay is technical. All of its important points are raised before I encourage the use of caring and unity. The focus was kept on the foundational development of ideas including caring and unity. Examples appeared as part of presenting the development process. This wasn't an essay about presenting my ideas about caring and unity. I have already done that.

The purpose of the essay was to present the process of learning; and, the importance for those who would lead others to understand it. It was kept general so that reader's might keep their focus on the process that was being presented. Apparently you would have preferred reading about my personal conclusions so that you might correct them. We have already been through that. We don't agree.

I don't agree with your physics. I argue that it contains both errors and inventions. My basis for saying this here and now is to point out that your foundational ideas about physics lack unity right from the start. My ideas include unity right from the start. This essay wasn't intended for the purpose of repeating ourselves. I was presenting something else. I was presenting something that I expect you strongly disagree with. If so then we disagree again. I strongly agree with it.

James Putnam

Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 15:35 GMT

James, I don't have any preference for what you should write. I merely imply that if knowledge is innate, as you claim, it is unified, and therefore it would be irrational to wish for more. So the foundation of that unified knowledge would be caring and unity at the beginning and the end, would it not?

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 18:42 GMT

Tom,

(I merely imply that if knowledge is innate, as you claim, it is unified, ...)

That is not known. Innate means we were born with it. That is all it means. What the innate standards for caring and unity are have to be discovered. In the case of caring, I gave an example of how easily the innate meaning of that can be learned. It comes to our conscious mind with an emotional response that distinguishes it. With regard to unity, the matter is not so clear.

While I think that the innate meaning of unity includes recognizing that there is a single cause for all effects, I can't induce others to share that feeling. Multiple causes seem to be a good idea to many people. All of the results that I have presented in the past about physics problems are achieved from just one cause. The results and the idea of a single cause for physics, right from the start of its fundamentals, languish. Yet, the need to seek unity is prevalent.

The idea of unity is innate. But, I see efforts directed at adding unity onto physics as an afterthought. Sort of a theoretical ending for physics theory. I see that effort as faulty, but my point really has to do with the shared need to seek unity.

(...and therefore it would be irrational to wish for more.)

Makes no sense to me. The awareness of some knowledge is hardly emotionally satisfying.

(So the foundation of that unified knowledge would be caring and unity at the beginning and the end, would it not?)

There is no basis for a beginning and ending for knowledge. Knowledge exists in its entirety. Our learning process is one of discovering its existence. Different paths can be followed during that process. However, knowledge precedes the learning process. If that weren't the case, the process couldn't occur. All the signing among all of humanity is only directing us toward the discovery of and use of innate knowledge.

James Putnam

Author James A Putnam wrote on Apr. 20, 2014 @ 02:14 GMT

I wrote that theoretical physics lacks unity. The efforts to add on unity as if it were an afterthought require first adding invented properties who's role is to appear to progress toward unity. Those invented properties are empirically unverifiable. They exist only for the reason of making up for earlier errors. It is those earlier errors that introduce disunity into a science that should display the constant presence of unity through the development of its equations.

For those who have never read my writings, the first error of theoretical physics was the decision to make mass an indefinable property. Mass is represented in physics equation by the units of kilograms. Kilograms is an indefinable unit of measurement. An indefinable property is one that is not defined in terms of pre-existing properties. Indefinable units are units that are not defined in terms of pre-existing units.

The arbitrary choice to make mass an indefinable property cost theoretical physics fundamental unity beginning right at its treatment of f=ma. Mass should have been and could have been a defined property. That simple act would have demonstrated the existence of and retained fundamental unity right from the beginning of physics equations. If physicists had begun their work with unity as a primary goal, they could have learned that mass should be a defined property.

The indefinable status of mass infects all physics theory that follows with disunity. The two remaining obstacles to re-establishing fundamental unity are the need to make temperature a defined property and the need to remove the circular definition of electric charge. Making those corrections are what I write about and do. While my ideas are not the actual subject of this essay, they do represent my efforts to apply the learning process described in the essay to myself.

James Putnam

Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Apr. 20, 2014 @ 10:32 GMT

Dear James,

I read your essay with great interest . You write in the spirit of Descartes, his «methodical doubt», «clearly and distinctly». On the basis of your three conclusions can be constructed, justify and draw a new model of the Holistic Universe, full of meaning and laws - "the Self-Aware Universe ", where the central category - cosmic or ontological memory and our...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 02:22 GMT

Vladimir Rogozhin,

Thank you for this rare show of interest that demonstrates you have understood my essay. It is an honor to be mentioned together with Descartes by someone of your credentials.

"You write in the spirit of Descartes, his «methodical doubt», «clearly and distinctly». On the basis of your three conclusions can be constructed, justify and draw a new model of the Holistic Universe, full of meaning and laws - "the Self-Aware Universe ", where the central category - cosmic or ontological memory and our consciousness as the sense attractor: ..."

I will follow through on the leads you provided for reading. I look forward to reading your essay. I have begun to add messages explaining more of what I think. I do not presume that you will agree with all that I write. I am adding the writings because I see the usual disapproving responses recurring. It is not the spirit of disapproval that I see as a problem. It is the recurring messages that fail to give recognition to any results that I present in the essays. Rather the disapproving messages address issues of little relevance to what I wrote or results I presented. This being my sixth essay contest, I have decided to challenge the usual disapproving messages and usual low votes by Piling-on conclusions and ideas.

I wish you success in the contest.

James Putnam

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 14:01 GMT

Dear James,

Each contest FQXi - a contest for new ideas. In your essay, I saw these new ideas to address global problems, a more successful future for Humanity. Your ideas are close to me. I highly appreciate them.

I also wish you success in the contest.

Sincerely,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam wrote on Apr. 20, 2014 @ 20:00 GMT

Quoting a translation of a writing of Blaise Pascal,

"Scientific learning is composed of two opposites which nonetheless meet each other. The first is the natural ignorance that is man's lot at birth. The second is represented by those great minds that have investigated all knowledge accumulated by man only to discover at the end that in fact they know nothing. Thus they return to the same fundamental ignorance they had thought to leave. Yet this ignorance they have now discovered is an intellectual achievement. It is those who have departed from their original condition of ignorance but have been incapable of completing the full cycle of learning who offer us a smattering of scientific knowledge and pass sweeping judgments. These are the mischief makers, the false prophets."

I have not completed the full cycle of learning. I have accomplished a fraction of it. Yet Pascal's meaning rings true. I think though that we can know about natural ignorance without completing the full cycle of learning. One example is that we observe only effects. We never observe cause. We know only some things that cause does. The point is that we can know from the start of scientific learning that we do not know what cause is. That is a natural ignorance that is made clear by empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is always about effects and only about effects.

In the case of theoretical physics, its empirical evidence consists always and only about patterns in changes of velocities of objects. Any claim to knowing a cause is false. Such claims occur readily in theoretical physics, but there is no basis to support such claims. Empirical evidence tells us about that which we can know. It tells us only what cause does and not what cause is. The natural limit of physics knowledge is defined by the limits of its empirical evidence.

Its empirical evidence is limited to measures of changes of distance during changes of time. The limit is clearly represented by the units of empirical evidence. Empirical evidence for physics has units consisting of combinations of meters and seconds only. All physics equations that include invented units that are not definable in terms of meters and seconds are unnatural interpretations. They present mathematical statements that contain a smattering of scientific knowledge and make sweeping judgments. Those equations mislead and obstruct scientific learning.

James Putnam

view post as summary

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 18:53 GMT

Here I agree with you completely. Empiricism came to its limits. But we must look at the first structure of the world (hyperstructure), which generates the diversity of the world and includes all of the ultimate meaning of the Universe, all limit the meaning of "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl). Understand means «seize the structure» ( G.Gutner Ontology mathematical discourse)

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 15:57 GMT

Dear Mr. Putnam,

I thought that your abstraction filled essay was extremely well organized and written quite expertly. I do hope that it does well in the competition.

In the comment published beneath the essay, you wrote: “Theoretical physics lacks unity.” Please allow me to step into the breach and supply a bit of real unity.

INERT LIGHT THEORY

Based only on my observation, I have concluded that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real things have one and only one thing in common. Each real thing has a material surface and an attached material sub-surface. A surface can be interior or exterior. All material surfaces must travel at the constant “speed” of light. All material sub-surfaces must travel at an inconsistent “speed” that is less than the “speed” of light. While a surface can travel in any direction, a sub-surface can only travel either inwardly or outwardly. A sub-surface can expand or contract.. As a surface can only travel at the constant “speed” of light, and that speed cannot be exceeded, a surface cannot peel away from a sub-surface. As a sub-surface is attached to a surface by a random fluctuating energy field, a sub-surface cannot reduce its inconsistent speed to the point where it becomes inertial. It would be physically impossible for light to move as it does not have a surface or a sub-surface. Abstract theory cannot ever have unification. Only reality is unified because there is only one reality.

I use the term “speed” of light merely to make it easier for the reader to understand my theory. Actually light cannot move because it does not have a surface. Light is the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The proof of this is easy to establish. When one looks at an active electrical light, one must notice that all of the light remains inside of the bulb. What does move from the bulb is some form of radiant. The radiant must move at a rate of speed that is less than the “speed” of light, however, when the radiant strikes a surface it achieves the “speed” of light because all surfaces can only travel at the “speed” of light. When it strikes a surface, the radiant resumes being a light, albeit of a lesser magnitude. While it is true that searchlights, spotlights and car headlights seem to cast a beam of light, this might be because the beams strike naturally formed sub-atomic particles prevalent in the atmosphere that collectively, actually form a surface.

In the Thomas Young Double Slit Experiment, it was not direct sunlight that passed through the slits. Light from the sun is stationary and it cannot move because light does not have a surface. Radiants emitted from the sun went through the slits and behaved like wave radiants.

Einstein was completely wrong. His abstract theory about how abstract observers “see” abstract events differently is wrong. This is what every real observer sees when they look at a real light. They see that all of the light remains near the source. The reason for that is because light does not have a surface, therefore it cannot move. This happens to real observers whether they are looking at real fabricated lights such as neon, incandescent or LED. This also happens when real observers observe real natural light such as from the real sun or reflected from the real moon, or from a real lightning bolt, or from a real fire, a real candle, or light from out of a real lightning bug’s bottom.

No need to thank me, I was happy to be of service,

Joe Fisher

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 01:48 GMT

Hi Joe,

Thank you for evaluating my essay. I appreciate your good intentions in presenting your theory. However, our ideas of what constitutes fundamental unity are very different. Mine isn't accepted so keep working on yours. Best of luck to you in the contest.

James Putnam

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 13:16 GMT

Thank you James, my theory ain't ever going to be accepted either by the looks of it. I wonder if there is an unacceptable theorist support group out there somewhere where I can receive help for my affliction.

Joe

report post as inappropriate

Turil Sweden Cronburg wrote on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 17:35 GMT

What do you think causes people to not make the effort to “vigorously pursue” changes in their beliefs?

It sounds like you’re defining “free will” as the ability (or maybe successful accomplishment) of changing one’s beliefs (i.e. learning something new/different). Is that correct? And if so, how do you think that matches up to other individual’s definitions of the idea of free will?

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 19:29 GMT

Turil Sweden Cronburg,

"What do you think causes people to not make the effort to “vigorously pursue” changes in their beliefs?"

They are emotionally satisfied with their conclusions.

"It sounds like you’re defining “free will” as the ability (or maybe successful accomplishment) of changing one’s beliefs (i.e. learning something new/different). Is that correct? And if so, how do you think that matches up to other individual’s definitions of the idea of free will?"

The intent of the essay was to address what we can know about learning from examining the empirical evidence for learning. I define free will as the ability to decide meanings for the photon data. I don't describe a circumstance where one does not exercise free will. One is free to accept their conclusions or to decide to induce the subconscious to try again and maybe reach a more satisfying conclusion. My point regarding giving the impression that we either do not exercise free will or that we do exercise free will is that it is only an impression. I was addressing the reason for why some persons might argue that we do not have free will. The reason is based upon an impression and not the absence of free will. We always exercise free will. Some just do far more with it than do others.

James Putnam

Author James A Putnam wrote on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 00:19 GMT

The unknown thermodynamic entropy:

Temperature is an unexplained property because theorists chose to declare it to be a fundamental indefinable property. Another property that depends directly on temperature for its own definition is thermodynamic entropy. Thermodynamic entropy, as originally defined by Clausius, is to this day an unexplained property. It cannot be explained because temperature is unexplained.

In order for a property to be explained it must be defined. In two cases, theorists did not know how to proceed with their theory. One case involves the all important fundamental property of mass. Mass is undefined and unexplained. The second unexplained property, by theorists' choice, is temperature. There are efforts to put forward explanations of thermodynamic entropy. Those efforts are pretend explanations. None of them fit the definition of thermodynamic entropy. Every one falls short of explaining thermodynamic entropy because they are not the same thing.

Introductions purporting to explain Clausius' definition skip passed it in favor of moving directly to the substitute explanations. Theoretical physicists can explain the substitutes because they are not definitions of thermodynamic entropy. Theoretical physicists made this problem. I have found none that will admit it. There is though a way out. Define mass and that leads to defining temperature. Define temperature and it becomes immediately understood what Clausius' thermodynamic entropy is. That is what I have written about and accomplished.

James Putnam

Author James A Putnam wrote on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 01:21 GMT

So what do these extra comments critical of theoretical physics have to do with my essay and this contest?? The point is that theoretical physics, due to its invented and undefined properties, is not a source of innate knowledge.

It has its source of knowledge in its empirical evidence. It doesn't follow that which its empirical evidence makes known to it. It has instead chosen to invent much of what it presents to us.

James Putnam

Wesley Wayne Hansen wrote on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 16:50 GMT

A wonderful little essay, James; it's reminiscent of the Semiotics of Charles Peirce. The little section describing JOY is quite exquisite. I'm reminded of James Joyce with his two types of art: static and kinetic. Kinetic art is that which moves one's gross emotions: lust; desire; revulsion; anger; etc. Static art, on the other hand, holds one in arrest; it awakens that innate JOY which typically slumbers deep within.

In Peirce's Semiotics, the Universe becomes an infinite semiosis involving the meaningful interplay between sign, the signified, and the interpretant; meaning and the communication of meaning takes a fundamental nature. The Nobel laureate, Brian Josephson, amongst others, is attempting to construct/explore a more holistic and semiotic approach to physical science as evidenced by his paper, "Biological Observer-Participation and Wheeler's 'Law without Law'". I, for one, certainly believe this approach has the potential to be more emotionally satisfying . . .

With regards,

Wes Hansen

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Apr. 27, 2014 @ 19:23 GMT

Wesley Wayne Hansen,

Thank you for liking my essay. Your messages is warmly received. I read your essay and have been thinking about it. I was struck by the difference between our pursuits of learning. I am not on a spiritual awakening journey. I don't have a religious purpose to my work. My purpose for my work is much 'drier' than is yours. The point of my work, including the physics conclusions I have put forward in each of my other five essays, result from relying on empirical evidence to learn what empirical evidence is communicating to us. Theory is in the way. So, it is removed.

The subject of this essay, the subject is decades old in my writings, prompted my approach. The idea is that if I wish to have a chance of learning physics innate knowledge, then my subconscious needs to know the signs arriving as empirical evidence. The signs representing theory are an obstruction. Theory is the added on inventions resulting from the imaginations of theorists in their efforts to fill in for that which is empirically unknown.

An example is cause. Theorists guess about the nature of cause and fill physics equations with their imagined properties. That is the way I see it. So, my work has to do with reaching conclusions that are fully dependent upon my subconscious evaluation of the signs from empirical evidence only. It seems that others judge that I have not been successful in accomplishing this. I don't agree with them. As for this essay in particular, I am positive the detractors are in error.

There is no belief ideology either guiding or disrupting this process. If the empirical evidence communicates that we arrive in this world with meanings stored inside us, then so be it. In one of my own comments added here I quoted Pascal. Afterwards, I added my own thought that was directed at theoretical physics. This is the sort of opinion that makes for strong opposition:

"The natural limit of physics knowledge is defined by the limits of its empirical evidence. Its empirical evidence is limited to measures of changes of distance during changes of time. The limit is clearly represented by the units of empirical evidence. Empirical evidence for physics has units consisting of combinations of meters and seconds only. All physics equations that include invented units that are not definable in terms of meters and seconds are unnatural interpretations. They present mathematical statements that contain a smattering of scientific knowledge and make sweeping judgments. Those equations mislead and obstruct scientific learning."

I do not presume that you agree with this. Thank you again for your kind message.

James Putnam

view post as summary

Wesley Wayne Hansen replied on May. 2, 2014 @ 15:26 GMT

James,

Yes, I believe I have a decent understanding of your position. In a sense it reminds me a great deal of what in Buddhism is called "The Theory of Two Truths." According to the school of thought which I follow (originally formulated by the Indian master, Nagarjuna) the two truths are really equivalent, they are really just different perspectives or different ways of perceiving.

Conventional truth depends on conceptualization - what you call theorizing. One constructs a "reality belief system" which is, to various degrees, consistent with sensory perception. Ultimate truth, on the other hand, emerges with the cessation of conceptualization, when one DIRECTLY perceives - what you call subconscious innate knowledge. I refer to these, somewhat tongue in cheek, as faulty perception and immaculate perception.

Humans naturally embrace conventional truth at a young age; they generally develop a fleshed out concept of "self" by age 2 - 2 1/2. According to the historical Buddha, it is this mistaken conceptualization of self which leads one to suffering simply because it leads to grasping (at things considered desirable) and revulsion (towards things considered detrimental). So Buddhism, naturally, is based on the "No-self Doctrine," the idea that the self has no Ultimate existence, rather, it only has Conventional existence - it's a mental construct, a theory. And Buddhists then extend this to all of conventional existence leading to the foundation of Buddhist philosophy which is sunyata or emptiness. When one cultivates a proper understanding of emptiness, the idea that all of conventional reality is simply a mental construct without ultimate or intrinsic existence, then they are able to directly perceive Ultimate truth - your innate knowledge; they are able to halt the conceptualization or theorizing process.

Does that sound reasonable to you? And of course this resonates with the philosophy of Charles Peirce; Peirce often referred to his philosophy as "objective idealism." The main idea was that there is an objective reality but that reality is the result of Universal Mind. According to Peirce's view, there are no immutable physical laws, rather, laws, like any other patterns which exhibit duration, are not but "mind hidebound by habit" - theories!

With regards,

Wes Hansen

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 06:55 GMT

Dear James,

This is by far your best essay. It probably helps that you have argued these points (mostly with Tom) for years. As you know I tend to agree with your perspective and I definitely agree that "knowledge of meanings is innate." You correctly note that "the ability to interpret photon data could not have been acquired by repetition. There has never been repetition."

I would probably not say "we are born with the ability to analyze photon data", but, depending on how "analyze" is meant, I agree with you. Our neural structures certainly are designed to handle such data, and grow ever more so during infancy. The details are complex, but your summary overview is correct.

Your discussion of emotions is insightful and beautifully stated. As for innate meanings, you know that my understanding of consciousness as a field is not something that "evolved" from putting together Lego blocks in proper order. Meaning could never arise in this way (or awareness of anything, much less meaning.)

You note that mathematics readily accepts imagined properties. "It does not have the means to know reality." Yet as Eckhard points out, "fans of Plato" imagine that mathematics can construct reality! He also reminds us that abstraction is not a lossless process. And as you point out, the data may be unclear. "Exactness is an innate idea." As is continuity, and the idea of 'no-change'.

It is innately clear to me that, if continuity was not the nature of physical reality (i.e., the field) then we would never have any understanding of continuity. Also free will. These ideas don't arise from words or equations. We develop words and equations to describe the ideas. (Others may learn from our words or equations, because of their innate awareness.) Although, as you note, the photon data is discrete, yet electromagnetic and gravitomagnetic fields are continuous, and they do communicate orderliness.

Your idea "free will exists because of undiscovered knowledge" is very interesting, and is worth some thought.

And finally, I think you have captured the essence of leadership. Congratulations!

A very pleasurable experience to read your thoughts.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Apr. 27, 2014 @ 19:35 GMT

Dear Edwin,

I am very happy to see your essay entry and to receive your message. You were inactive so far as I could tell for too long. I repeatedly searched on the Internet for any current activity. I was getting worried. Anyway, you are fine, still kicking, and writing. I have read your essay with enjoyment and appreciation. I didn't rate it yet.

Thank you for your assessment of my current essay. I consider its subject to be foundationally important for scientific learning. With regard to my previous essays, I rate their importance higher than it seems anyone else does. :-) Thank you for re-appearing on the Internet stage.

James

Margarita Iudin wrote on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 01:24 GMT

Hello James,

I read your submission and I would like you to read mine. I actually read some of your articles several years ago and I agree with you on some things. This essay, frankly to say, is as good as any other publication. Correct me if I missed you writing down any original idea.

In my essay I write about the imagining, analogous imagining and how people think. You may find it interesting. The essay is a part of the collection of futuristic essays.

You may look at my entry about imagining the future. I hope my essay will encourage you to learn more about ways of knowing and to apply analogous imagining in your field of interests.

Please disregard any typo mistakes you may encounter.

Wish you well,

Margarita Iudin

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 01:34 GMT

Dear Margarita,

Thank you for your forthright opinion. I will read your essay now.

James Putnam

Author James A Putnam replied on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 03:28 GMT

Dear Margarita,

I have read your messages to others. and, I don't think you need to be told this, but others may need to know it. I gave your essay a TEN without qualifications. You are welcome to not rate my essay or to rate it secretly at whatever level you judge to be proper. It is your essay that matters. I hope that you will do well with it in the contest.

James

Author James A Putnam wrote on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 01:25 GMT

Dear Edwin,

I rated your essay.

James

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 8, 2014 @ 07:28 GMT

And I yours.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam wrote on May. 1, 2014 @ 04:40 GMT

I endorse the essay Imagining the future humanity by Margarita Iudin.

James Putnam

Peter Jackson wrote on May. 2, 2014 @ 15:46 GMT

James,

An excellently written analysis, well focussed and presented. I think the proposition is also more valid and important than most realise. I not only agree but was also pleased as it all sat very well and consistently with my own recent hypothesese for advancement of fundamental understanding ('harmonic resonance'?)

A couple of minor points. You seem refer to the 'photon storm' as analogous rather than a scientific concept, which I think is correct, but should not exclude oscillations detectable by all the other senses, as the blind admirably show us, so should also include any 'wave' rather than light particle viewpoint. (Indeed at sea a 'storm' is typifies by waves anyway). However that's a largely semantic point.

In my imminent cyclic galaxy evolution paper it's implicit that all our 'matter' (yes ..I agree) is regularly 'recycled' and re-ionized in active galactic nuclii ('SMBH's') and the process may imply cyclic universes. Preprint; Cyclic Evolution. The proton oscillators making up our brain cells may then have been part of endlessly many before, retaining innate patterns making more complex patterns when part of neural networks. Each network has the same characteristics but is at once unique. If your thesis is at all consistent with that, then there really is no issue with 'mechanism'.

Two other aspects I wholeheartedly agree with are; "that theoretical physics lacks unity. ...right from the start." I've tried to demonstrate one area of unification in my essay, with implications again consistent with your own, more fundamental in a way, point about 'matter'. The second is about learning. Again a different aspect but again compatible, so I agree your view. I try to encourage thinking outside the 'Earth centred frame' as a big first step. Do you think we might have some resonant innate knowledge?

Very well done this year. A joy to read. I hope you'll also understand mine, a bit more dynamically geometrical but with a very important conclusions and implications I hope emerge; a largely real and causal universe!

Your score's way too low. The troll seem to have got us both. I shall assist. Very best of luck in the results.

Peter

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on May. 2, 2014 @ 20:49 GMT

Hi Peter,

There are reasons for the wording I chose. Its not important. I think the essay makes its point no matter who's model is used. Putting that aside, I haven't said anything at your forum because I can't help. I have followed all conversations regarding your work, I expected objections to be raised, but the ones on my mind seem to get through without a fuss. I saw the very strong endorsement Edwin gave you. He has found favor with your work for years now. So you are doing well even if it doesn't feel that way. I admit that I was wrong about the hollow horse. It continues to function well. I am assuming that you will recognize what I mean. Thanks for coming down to visit. I appreciate having my essay rated. I will wait till closer to the end to make some of my ratings. You know on ebay it can pay off to hold your last bid till the last five seconds. :-) Anyway, thanks and do remember to return to Margarita's essay.

James Putnam

Peter Jackson replied on May. 3, 2014 @ 20:23 GMT

thanks James,

I was hoping you might say mine helped clear the mire of illogicality from QM as many have, but some basic understanding of it's pretexts is probably needed before they can be rationalised.

If you have any queries on your mind do please raise them, if they're misunderstands I may be able to clarify, or anything valid is always a help too.

Yes, the Trojan horse may yet take a few years to build, but probabilities and chance are funny things, in fact theory is certainly now creeping inexorably closer!

I may desperately need a few late points so don't forget me. I won't forget Marge, she sits next to me in class. I see John M also has problems with his "go" button!

best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on May. 4, 2014 @ 02:11 GMT

Peter,

My differences include the position that the effects known as time dilation and length contraction are real for objects with mass. Time dilation is not meant here to suggest that time dilates, it is merely following convention and calling the slowing of atomic processes as 'time dilation'. It is not my opinion that is important. I am not a physicist. I think you have been upfront about your position on relativity theory. What matters is how physicists react. I thought they would be strongly defending length contract and time dilation as physical effects on object with mass. I thought they would also find fault with your explanation of the speed of light.

I don't have a problem with it. My approach is different, but I hold that the speed of light varies while it always measures as C locally. Again, rather than my opinion, it is the opinions of physicists that matter. Edwin has endorsed your essay. You restated your position with regard to the nature of special relativity effects. Today, you wrote a message to David Gill that definitely stated your position in clear terms.

For now, I have elected to not mention any differences of pinions between you and myself in your forum. I do not want to distract attention away from your forthright presentation of your views. I have watched and think that you are progressing if not yet succeeding in winning recognition for your interpretation of relativity theory. I am interested in what happens without my getting in the way.

I have read your essay twice and will return and rate it. Good luck to you. Although, if you are correct then I am incorrect. As always, it is the truth that is the goal. Last year you finished second and I though you would be recognized enough to receive some professional evaluation. Maybe this year your essay will be dealt with for real. I remain very interested in your progress. You 'kind-of' represent many of us in an aspirational manner. Sincerely, good luck in receiving meaningful professional responses for this contest.

James Putnam

view post as summary

Author James A Putnam wrote on May. 2, 2014 @ 23:04 GMT

All the essays are listed. Any visitor here who would like me to read and rate their essay please direct me to them. I have decided, after viewing many essays, to not give out ones and twos. I feel that there would be a sufficient number to make it look like I was just pulling others down. I will give good ratings to essays that I think deserve them. So, maybe some help but definitely no hurt. The subject matter opened the door for several contributors to vent their distortions, my opinion, of our system or closely related matters. I may discuss those essays but will not rate those essays. There are many others who like them. I am interested in seeing how well they do without my interference.

James Putnam

KoGuan Leo wrote on May. 3, 2014 @ 09:29 GMT

Hi James, what a great pleasure to have a companion in my journey in this world. I agree with everything you wrote. If I may add my own theory that I believe consistent with yours that A=E-S ⊆ T where A is Anti-entropic time-future photon bits-wave function moves at c toward S, entropic time-past graviton bits-waves function that is pinning in place at c. And E is the composite of A+S. A is the giver (teacher) of information to S and E. To be brief, I would rate your original, succinctly and beautifully written essay 10. Double ten! Yes, I agree with your conclusion on your idea above: "That is what I have written about and accomplished." Well accomplished.

Good Luch!

Best wishes,

Leo KoGuan

report post as inappropriate

Margarita Iudin wrote on May. 6, 2014 @ 20:41 GMT

Hello Mr.Putnam

This is Margarita Iudin. I want to thank you for your nice comments. By the way, to rank the essays I used the same strategy as you suggest to use in your post.

Cheers,

M Iudin

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on May. 14, 2014 @ 04:17 GMT

Dear James A Putnam

Glad to meet you. I am very impressed with your views in this essay and 10 points be to cheer for that .

Hải.CaoHoàng

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam wrote on May. 17, 2014 @ 13:48 GMT

I endorse Peter Gluck's essay A pragmatic strategy for catalyzing self-sustained progress

James Putnam

Christian Corda wrote on May. 20, 2014 @ 21:13 GMT

Dear James,

As I promised in my Essay page, I have read your particular and nice Essay. Here are my comments:

1) The title of your Essay recalls Einstein's famous statement that "Imagination is more important than knowledge".

2) There is a very simple proof of your sentence that "our eyes are "observing" events, our subconscious mind is working wonderfully well at telling our conscious mind what we are seeing". We must merely look a face in a photo. We will see that the eyes in the face are looking us! This is due to the issue that our sight has only a two-dimensional power. The third dimension is added by our brain.

3) I think that the concept of innate knowledge is not uncomfortable for who believes in a mechanical interpretation of the universe. In my point of view, innate knowledge and emotions are different for different people, and, in turn, the mechanical interpretation of the universe is subjective.

4) Your statement that "the universe communicated with us and we understood its meaning" looks compatible with the anthropic principle.

5) Concerning your statements that "we can fail to correctly interpret the information. The problem is that the data may be unclear" I think that based on your previous statements, emotions have an important role in this issue.

6) I find very intriguing your statement that "Free will exists because of undiscovered knowledge".

In any case, you wrote a nice Essay, for which I had fun. Thus, I am going to give you an high score.

I wish you best luck in the contest.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on May. 23, 2014 @ 16:53 GMT

Dear Christian,

Thank you for your comments and the rating. The comments will be food for thought. It is always a help to receive the opinion of a PHD. A high rating from you is highly valued.

James

Author James A Putnam replied on May. 29, 2014 @ 18:22 GMT

Dear Christian,

"1) The title of your Essay recalls Einstein's famous statement that "Imagination is more important than knowledge"."

This statement by Einstein has always given me pause. One reason is I think imagination that produces correct knowledge is more important than knowledge that does not advance because it lacks imagination. How that fits in with my essay is that knowledge consists of the correct answers provided to us subconsciously through our DNA or whatever the source of knowledge is. The 'correct' answers provided to us are retrieved piece meal. This occurs because our analysis of patterns in photon data occurs piece meal. We do not recognize the complete solution in a single effort. We build it up from a complex combination of pattern conclusions that are fitted together as a single complete 'picture'. We can imagine incorrect complete 'pictures'. The point is that I think imagination is risky. We may be thinking right or we may be thinking wrong. The problem is that even a wrong imagined completed 'picture' arises from the photon data and can appear to be justified by the photon evidence.

Here is an example of I offer as portraying an erroneous imagined conclusion that actually results from photon data. It is the conclusion that with regard to f=ma either force or mass must be chosen to be a third indefinable property. The data upon which this decision is based is photon data about changes in patterns of velocities of objects. There are two reasons for me to challenge this decision as being imagined and not reflecting accurate knowledge. One is that both force and mass are definable in terms of the empirical evidence from which their existences are inferred. That is to say that both force and mass are definable in terms of acceleration.

In physics equations properties are represented by their units. What I am saying is that both force and mass can have units that are defined in terms of the units of acceleration. The units of acceleration consist of a combination of meters and seconds. Both force and mass can also have their units defined in terms of combinations of meters and seconds. This brings me to the second reason. The decision to make mass an indefinable property was actually a decision to inject fundamental disunity into f=ma. Each indefinable property is treated as being fundamentally unique. The data does not and cannot tells us that this is correct knowledge. I argue that there must exist fundamental unity and therefore each step taken that inject fundamental disunity into physics equations is in error.

I argue that there must be fundamental unity because, otherwise. we would be allowing for more than one miracle. My meaning of one miracle is a single cause for all effects that have ever occurred and will ever occur in the universe. If it is imagined that there are more than one single original cause, then there must have been more than one miracle. I think that physics should avoid allowing additional miracles to be added to the fundamentals of the universe.

James Putnam

view post as summary

Author James A Putnam replied on May. 29, 2014 @ 18:37 GMT

Dear Christian,

"3) I think that the concept of innate knowledge is not uncomfortable for who believes in a mechanical interpretation of the universe. In my point of view, innate knowledge and emotions are different for different people, and, in turn, the mechanical interpretation of the universe is subjective."

The reason I used the word uncomfortable is because I see no way to trace innate knowledge back to the mechanical interpretation. I am aware that complexity of events and eons of time are credited with allowing for intelligent results to arise from mechanical properties. I think though that this belief is an example of an incorrect imagined possibility. I see no way for the dumbness of mechanics to give rise to intelligent life. I describe mechanics with the word 'dumbness' because there are, so far as I know, no physics equations that predict or explain the existence of intelligent life. I do see an effort to attribute the existence of intelligent life to mechanics merely by association. What I mean is that it is concluded that the foundational properties of the universe are mechanical. and, it is observed that the universe gave birth to intelligent life. Therefore, it is concluded, by association, that mechanics gave rise to intelligent life. This is not a case of learning innate knowledge. This is a case of relying solely upon risky imagination. That is what I think.

James Putnam

show all replies (3 not shown)

Author James A Putnam replied on May. 29, 2014 @ 19:00 GMT

Dear Christian,

"6) I find very intriguing your statement that "Free will exists because of undiscovered knowledge"."

I also stated that "It is the rationing of knowledge that gives rise to free will."

I was attempting to make clear that while choices between two existing ideas might be argued to not represent free will, the choices that offer up new knowledge cannot be argued to not represent free will. My definition of new knowledge is knowledge that was unknown prior to the choice being made known. I argue that that new knowledge was discovered within the subconscious. It did not get there by being learned from the outside world. It exists subconsciously independent of outside observations that occur prior to the choice being revealed consciously. It was freely chosen to be part of a good new conclusion. It was understood though never previously learned. It was understood to be a new good choice.

James Putnam

Christian Corda replied on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 07:49 GMT

Hi James,

Thanks for your kind replies with clarifications.

Again, I wish you the best in the Contest.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 21:06 GMT

Dear Christian,

I am appreciative of your taking the time to return and read my replies. I tend to state my opinion in a matter of fact manner. To be clear, I was sharing my conclusions and my opinions, but, I hope I did not appear to think that I was teaching you correct answers. It has been rewarding to me to have the opportunity to converse with you.

James

hide replies

murat Asgatovich gaisin wrote on May. 23, 2014 @ 04:43 GMT

Dear James A Putnam

I put high marks for originality of the concept of "innate knowledge." Nevertheless, I believe that knowledge is external to man - the theory of Vernadsky's noosphere.

Regards,

Murat Asgatovich Gaisin

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on May. 23, 2014 @ 05:00 GMT

Murat Asgatovich Gaisin,

Thank you for sharing your opinion. I don't think that there is difference in our opinions except perhaps in how we express it. I don't think that knowledge originated from within man. My presentation was intended to deal with the symptoms and not the source. We are given knowledge from the source of knowledge. I don't define that source in my essay. I was writing about what the empirical evidence of physics tells me is the case. Unfortunately the empirical evidence for physics is about mechanical effects. I used the existence of those mechanical effects to demonstrate that knowledge is innate. Innate means we were born with it. Being born with it means the source made it or makes it available to us. I don't know that source. The superficial appearance is that it comes from within us. I must admit that I am nor familiar with the theory of Vernadsky's noosphere. I will look into that.

Here is what I wrote in Lorraine Ford's forum:

James A Putnam wrote on May. 8, 2014 @ 01:26 GMT

"Dear Lorraine Ford,

I enjoyed your essay and thought to share my opinion. Theoretical physics is a simplified mechanical interpretation of the universe. It tells us nothing about free-will because its purview does not include intelligent life. What I mean is that it cannot predict nor explain the existence of intelligent life. The properties that it tells us are foundational to the universe are dumb properties having only the capacity to cause changes of velocities of objects. I say this because its empirical evidence consists of changes in patterns of velocities of objects. Theoretical physics is the science of solving mechanical problems. It is a push and pull explanation for a universe that gave birth to intelligent life. There is no physics equation, derived from its postulated fundamental properties, that can posit a non-zero probability for the existence of intelligent life. The universe of theoretical physics is a severely limited imitation of our universe. Our full propertied universe includes us. Its greatest achievement, having nothing whatsoever to do with the unintelligent potentialities offered by theoretical physics, is human free-will."

Murat, I do appreciate you evaluating my essay and sharing your thoughts.

James Putnam

view post as summary

Author James A Putnam wrote on May. 25, 2014 @ 16:51 GMT

I encourage others to read and rate Our Reach Should Exceed Our Grasp by G. Steven Colyer-Sivco

James

Peter Gluck replied on May. 26, 2014 @ 08:32 GMT

Dear James,

Your essay is simply wonderful, citable as a poem in prose about innate knowledge.

It is a beautiful Pareto Truth having as immediate complement Conquered Truth. It is about effort and sacrifices.

I have a collection of about 200000 quotations- I will extract some bright ones from your essay.

With admiration,

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on May. 26, 2014 @ 13:24 GMT

Peter Gluck,

It is an honor to receive a message such as you have written. Thank you for your kind words.

James

Laurence Hitterdale wrote on May. 26, 2014 @ 18:51 GMT

Hello James,

Your essay is clearly written. Because I am writing these remarks rather late in the comment period and because you have already discussed my concerns at some length in your replies to other commentators, I will not add anything more at this time. I have also looked at some of your other work posted on the Web, and I am impressed with the unity and comprehensiveness of your approach.

I very much appreciate the thoughtful comments that you made on my essay about two weeks ago.

Laurence Hitterdale

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on May. 26, 2014 @ 20:55 GMT

Laurence,

Thank you for taking the time to make your comments. I appreciate that you have seriously considered my views. Your essay is doing well because it deserves to do well.

James

Author James A Putnam wrote on May. 27, 2014 @ 22:38 GMT

I can't be certain due to rounding errors, but, it appears that I may have received seven '1's, two '2's, three '8's, and, seven '10's.

James

Author James A Putnam replied on May. 27, 2014 @ 23:12 GMT

Roger,

I posted the votes I have reason to believe I have received. Not a single low vote has left any comment. There are, I think, nine of them. Seven '1's and two '2's. This is not a complaint. The system is what it is and I accepted it by entering the contest. I am hanging on at, what I think is, the lowest end of essays eligible for the finals. I gave no low votes period, but, I might just overcome the Oners this time.

James

Author James A Putnam replied on May. 28, 2014 @ 12:50 GMT

Make that eight '1's

James

Author James A Putnam wrote on May. 29, 2014 @ 00:48 GMT

A comment I made in another essayist's forum:

"A great essay!!! Ten points easily!!! It is a highly competent damage report! The needle went off the scale! However you intended it to be, I read it as the prelude to greater essay explaining how to return sensibility to science, to theoretical physics in particular. For me to go further, would be me just repeating what I have written in six essay contests and elsewhere. However, your essay is what exists here and now and I loved it for my own reasons."

I post it here because I stand by it.

James Putnam

James Lee Hoover wrote on Jun. 1, 2014 @ 17:09 GMT

James,

Your thoughts seem somewhat profound, like they are beneath the noise of traffic. I like them because they are fertile fields that we must harvest ourselves. We obviously can't tell others how to think -- experience should soon tell us that. "Words of caring and unity for both social and scientific goals" seems a little like my entreaty to work for the "common good," but agendas do tend to guide how the short-sighted "fit meanings" to the "photons." Maybe that's what we mean by self-deception.

Then again I am fitting meanings to the message and maybe not connecting with my "subconscious conclusions."

High marks.

Would like to hear your thoughts on my essay: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2008

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam wrote on Jun. 1, 2014 @ 18:12 GMT

For a very good essay that is also a literary accomplishment read: The future is the past by Roger Schlafly.

James Putnam

Author James A Putnam wrote on Jun. 1, 2014 @ 21:10 GMT

James Lee Hoover,

Thank you for rating my essay for what it says. I am reading your essay at this time. I only have read to page 3 thus far, but I do wish to compliment you for your restraint and accuracy about wealth discrepancy. You aimed at the Eighty Five rather than the one percent. One percent is like 32,000,000 people including myself who has paid off my modest 78 home, own a modest 401k, and saved an IRA with all debts paid. Because this adds up on paper above the one million dollar mark, I have to read several other essays that tell me that I am helping to enslave half of the rest of the world. I will openly compare my life with the carelessly judgmental academic elitists who include me in their misleading statistics. Putting aside my impatience with those others, I am anxious to complete your essay which gives promise to be quality. I can now relax and carefully read your essay. Thank you.

James Putnam

James Lee Hoover replied on Jun. 3, 2014 @ 16:26 GMT

James,

Thanks for reading my essay and for your kind words. I like subtlety and literary accomplishment -- both of which yours showed. I don't think I have read Roger's yet, so I will try it.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford wrote on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 09:08 GMT

Hi James,

I agree with most of what you say, but I see it from a slightly different perspective:

I agree that people (subjects) are themselves "the teacher" (I'm not sure that this is exactly what you meant). You can't inject knowledge into an insensitive unresponsive entity: subjects themselves experience and create new knowledge connections (information relationships) to the rest of reality as a result of interacting with reality e.g. from listening to schoolteachers trying to impart knowledge.

I would also agree that knowledge is innate in the sense that all knowledge is subjective experience of ourselves and the rest of the universe. I think that joy is like a sort of conclusion, an overview experience of our connection to the rest of living and non-living reality, like the sunshine when unclouded by too many worrying aspects; joy can be observed in other animals too - not just human beings. But rather than saying "The universe communicates with us and we communicate with it", I would put it this way: that the subjects that comprise the universe (from particles to plant cells to pigs to people) are interconnected via a network of law-of-nature information relationships to the rest of the universe.

I also agree with you that "The search for best meanings can be left to stew subconsciously".

Naturally I agree with you that humans, indeed all subjects, have free will (within constraints). E.g. a person is not free to turn into a butterfly, but is free to say or do something new. To do this, seemingly our "executive-level" choice is implemented via "foundation-level" choice/creation of spatial configuration, position and timing of the physical body.

One further point I would like to mention: I think that photons are not themselves signs, signals or data "for which we must internally determine meanings". I think it is the law-of-nature information relationships experienced by particles, and the parameters of the particular situation experienced by particles, that communicates basic-level information. I contend that experienced relationship is what communicates basic-level information, and that we represent information relationship at the particle level with symbols like "+ - x ÷" and "=" in law-of-nature equations.

Cheers,

Lorraine

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Jun. 3, 2014 @ 06:17 GMT

Hi James,

Re joy:

Have a look at this video of Mobula rays. I would think that for whatever dry dusty scientific "reason" might be given for why they are doing what they are doing, these rays are enjoying themselves!

http://news.distractify.com/fun/over-10000-of-the
se-ocean-creatures-mysteriously-gathered-and-then-they-took-
flight/?v=1

Cheers,

Lorraine

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jun. 3, 2014 @ 13:04 GMT

Hi Lorraine,

I know from your writings that you have thought deeply about many things. My essay was narrowly focused on this point: The reception of photons as our means of communication demonstrates that knowledge is innate. I believe that many physicists would argue that, other than instinct, knowledge is not innate. I used their physics to show them that they are mistaken. At least that is what I have attempted to do. I think that strong resistance to this idea will continue. I think this is because the existence of innate intelligence is incompatible with the foundational properties of a mechanical interpretation of the universe. In other words, if intelligence is innate, then theoretical physics is not the true foundational science. In other words, mechanics is not the nature of the universe.

Right above this conversation, there is a message from Margarita Iudin. I would be interested in your opinion about her essay Imagining the future humanity.

I will try to write again soon in more detail about your points in your message. Thank you for reading my essay and commenting. I just read your essay but haven't commented or rated it yet. I will try to do those today.

James

Margarita Iudin wrote on Jun. 3, 2014 @ 00:53 GMT

Hello Mr. Putnam,

This is Margarita Iudin. You liked my essay called Imagining the future humanity http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2096

1. Now I have a serious problem to find among the contest entrants those who will be able to understand the topic.

In my study I constantly use the analogous imagining at the very large extent. The analogous imagining is more than a method of exploration. We all use the analogous imagining (imitating).

I am looking for the open-minded and knowledgeable audience. Would you like to advise me what to do?

2.I re-read your essay - you do not say anything about temperature, but in one of your posts, that i cannot find right now, you started to talk about temperature.

While classical physical sciences often concern with a link between temperature and kinetic energy of the real particles, there are other at the deeper level of the understanding temperature has to do everything with materialization of matter and POLARIZATION OF VACUUM. I am sure you know this without me. Magnetization is indeed the fun thing to tackle.

Cheers,

MI

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jun. 3, 2014 @ 14:17 GMT

Margarita,

"1. Now I have a serious problem to find among the contest entrants those who will be able to understand the topic.

In my study I constantly use the analogous imagining at the very large extent. The analogous imagining is more than a method of exploration. We all use the analogous imagining (imitating).

I am looking for the open-minded and knowledgeable audience. Would you like to advise me what to do?"

Visit these essay forums comment on their essays and ask for each author to read and rate your essay:

Edwin Eugene Klingman, Laurence Hitterdale, James Lee Hoover, Tejinder Pal Singh, Vladimir I. Rogozhin, Lorraine Ford, Roger Schlafly, Peter Gluck

Leave a link back to your essay at each forum. In case you are not familiar with how to create links here, the link should be written like the following but without the two ? signs [?link:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2096]Imagining the future humanity by Margarita Iudin[?/link]. Remove the two ? and your link will work correctly. I have included those two ? only so that what I have written doesn't become a link: Here is what it will look like with the two ? removed Imagining the future humanity by Margarita Iudin

James

Author James A Putnam replied on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 02:59 GMT

To everyone whom I linked to above,

Margarita asked for some help locating fair-minded people to read her essay. I didn't realize that your own work would be judged to be inferior because it differed from her opinion. If she disagrees with what is written, she describes the work as inferior. Margarita's ideas are not automatically a standard for correctness. Each of you have contributed excellent essays expressing your ideas. Your ideas are valued by me. Even when I have different opinions, your ideas are valued by me. Thank you each for contributing your essays and sharing your expertise and ideas. I learn from you.

James Putnam

Margarita Iudin replied on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 05:43 GMT

Hello James,

Do not worry.

It is not about the rating or peer-to-peer evaluation. We seek for a better understanding, don't we?

I actually stopped rating a long ago.

Cheers,

MI

report post as inappropriate

Margarita Iudin wrote on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 05:35 GMT

Hello Mr Putnam,

Thank you for your advice.

Except, Schlafly's. Yak. The exploitation of the great names.

You should not recommend me to read this essay.

Sincerely,

MI

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 12:30 GMT

Margarita,

I recommend The future is the past by Roger Schlafly for everyone to read. I liked it. The reader sees what they want to see in it. That effect results from the reader's belief system. Belief systems matter where they should not. It is the state of the science that is responsible for that effect. The essay does not exploit anything. It is both a scientific document and a literary accomplishment.

James

Arthur R. Woods wrote on Jun. 5, 2014 @ 04:55 GMT

Dear James

Thank you for reading my essay and for your comments.

I really enjoyed your essay and I rated it several weeks ago but only now have found the time to comment. I join the large group of commenters who really liked your lyrical style of writing.

You have provided a number of profound concepts within your text which led to moments of reflection, as in your statement:

"Access innate meanings and one's message will resonate emotionally with others."

Also, thank you for the recommendations that you have posted concerning other essays. They were helpful.

Good luck in the final stretch.

Best regards,

Arthur

report post as inappropriate

Janko Kokosar wrote on Jun. 5, 2014 @ 14:24 GMT

Dear James Putnam

I see that you advocate free will, as I too. I write about this in my essay from 2013. In that contest I also exchanged some mails with Paul Reed who do not believe in free will. In that essay I also gave some link about free will, also a pure quantum mathematical proof for free will of Conway and Kochen. But, I do not follow completely to your idea. Why subconscious is proof for free will. It can also be a illusion of free will, for which we think that it is free will?

My essay

Best regards

Janko Kokosar

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jun. 5, 2014 @ 16:49 GMT

Hi Janko,

The activity of our subconscious mind has to be demonstrating free-will if we have free-will. The point of my essay was to argue that our ability to interpret photon data and make choices about its meanings demonstrates that free-will does exist. I do not argue that free-will originates in our subconscious mind. I am thinking that when you say "Why subconscious is proof for free will. It can also be a illusion of free will, for which we think that it is free will?" that you are meaning that free-will originates elsewhere long before the subconscious mind was formed. I think that we agree that the origin of free-will exists at the fundamental levels of the operation of the universe. Perhaps we would also agree that this means that the existence of free-will was provided for from the beginning of the universe. In other words, all effects that have occurred or will ever occur in the universe had to have been provided for at the beginning of the universe. I think that this is a requirement in order to not allow more than one 'miracle'. It is also a condition that prevents theorists from adding invented or imagined properties onto theoretical physics. Let me know what you think please. Thank you for your message.

James

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jun. 7, 2014 @ 02:59 GMT

Interesting and excellent James..

A poignant reminder that sometimes our instinctual side knows more than our consciously thinking self. That's always good to remember. I think that's in part a function of the right-brain, in its integration of objects and events into something we might call trends, but comes out as intuition in our perceptions. Well written piece.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate