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.

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

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: 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

Current Essay Contest

Media Partner: Scientific American

Previous Contests

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Akinbo Ojo**: *on* 4/22/15 at 19:18pm UTC, wrote Thanks for the exchanges during the contest. Did my bit now and hope it...

**James Hoover**: *on* 4/22/15 at 16:10pm UTC, wrote John, Time grows short, so I am revisiting essays I’ve read (2/27/2015)...

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 4/18/15 at 17:34pm UTC, wrote John, Good essay, undervalued I think. Also too many score on whether they...

**Joe Fisher**: *on* 3/30/15 at 15:31pm UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Hodge, I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally...

**Juoko "Harri" Tiainen**: *on* 3/17/15 at 10:02am UTC, wrote I forgot to mention that I replied to your post about my essay with a long...

**Juoko "Harri" Tiainen**: *on* 3/17/15 at 7:47am UTC, wrote I have read your essay and I really liked it. The conclusion is spot-on...

**Sylvain Poirier**: *on* 3/8/15 at 20:40pm UTC, wrote I am not working on any theory of quantum gravity as I know it is a very...

**John Hodge**: *on* 3/4/15 at 5:34am UTC, wrote Poirier Today’s physics models have many observable inconsistencies...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Joe Fisher**: "Not one visible person has ever had any invisible finite “free-will.”..."
*in* The Quantum Agent

**Eckard Blumschein**: "There are at least the following arguments against generalizing Fourier..."
*in* The Quantum Agent

**Malcolm Riddoch**: "@Steve Agnew: “physical reality is made up of changes in matter action”..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

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

**Jack James**: ""That is, instead of a world or physical laws, it is the local state of the..."
*in* Could Consciousness Forge...

**David Sloan**: "Quick note: I have removed a post from this topic which is in discussion of..."
*in* Undecidability,...

**Lorraine Ford**: "I’m waiting for you to say the words."
*in* Emergent Reality: Markus...

**John Cox**: "Words immediately spring to mind."
*in* Emergent Reality: Markus...

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.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

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

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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.

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

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.

FQXi FORUM

February 18, 2020

CATEGORY:
Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015)
[back]

TOPIC: Mathematics characteristics are universe characteristics by John C Hodge [refresh]

TOPIC: Mathematics characteristics are universe characteristics by John C Hodge [refresh]

The scientific community treats mathematics and physics as distinct disciplines. Human mathematics derives from human perceptions of the physics of the universe. The characteristics of mathematics are characteristics of the universe like gravity is a characteristic of the universe. Several conceptual mysteries in physics may be better modeled by using mathematics as an observation. Such mysteries include shape of the universe, the double slit experiment, theoretical temperature of the universe, the past expansion of the universe, length contraction, time dilation, and a Theory of Everything.

I was reared on a farm and blooded as a hunter at 13. After 4 years in the Army, I left as a captain. I have a BS and MS in physics. I sold my electronics company in 1991 (I was 49); retired; retired from retiring; and became an inventor and amateur astronomer. My interest in cosmology developed. I conceived a radical new cosmology model in 2002 and started publishing papers and instructing at Blue Ridge Community College. After writing “Theory of Everything; scalar potential model of the

John,

In general I am in agreement with your approach to math and physics: "mathematics is part of the physics of the universe", or at least derives from physical reality. In my essay I also note that 'counting, operators, equality, and comparing create algebra.' And characteristics of reality, discrete (counting) and continuous (geometry) cover the waterfront.

In an earlier FQXi essay I treated gravity as the 'wave medium' of QM, somewhat along the lines of your suggestion on page 4 (as I understand it).

Your smooth historical development in your 'introduction' and 'the basics' are pleasant reading and hard to disagree with. Once you hit applications things continue to be interesting. Your 'fine-tuning' as negative feedback loops is very interesting although I don't think I see the mechanism yet. I also like your questions about the nature of the "transformed side of the equation", and your ideas on the effects of gravity on time rates and decay rates. You have far too many ideas to remark on all of them, other than to say they were well expressed, are very interesting, and generally parallel much of my own thinking (at first reading.) I certainly agree that the goal should be to make the universe more conceptually understandable.

Thanks for presenting your ideas in such pleasant format. I invite you to read my essay and comment.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

In general I am in agreement with your approach to math and physics: "mathematics is part of the physics of the universe", or at least derives from physical reality. In my essay I also note that 'counting, operators, equality, and comparing create algebra.' And characteristics of reality, discrete (counting) and continuous (geometry) cover the waterfront.

In an earlier FQXi essay I treated gravity as the 'wave medium' of QM, somewhat along the lines of your suggestion on page 4 (as I understand it).

Your smooth historical development in your 'introduction' and 'the basics' are pleasant reading and hard to disagree with. Once you hit applications things continue to be interesting. Your 'fine-tuning' as negative feedback loops is very interesting although I don't think I see the mechanism yet. I also like your questions about the nature of the "transformed side of the equation", and your ideas on the effects of gravity on time rates and decay rates. You have far too many ideas to remark on all of them, other than to say they were well expressed, are very interesting, and generally parallel much of my own thinking (at first reading.) I certainly agree that the goal should be to make the universe more conceptually understandable.

Thanks for presenting your ideas in such pleasant format. I invite you to read my essay and comment.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your kind sentiments.

What is the web address of your FQXi paper on treating the ``wave medium’’ of QM and gravity?

The mechanism is the closed--loop control system (defined as a feedback loop). The Feedback acts to reduce the variability of the output. The example of the theoretical temperature of the universe being 2.718 K may at first sight to be an open loop. But it is closed because the time (the control action) to output is dependent on the output (mass ejected). I understand there is a tendency to view the universe as having open loop systems such as the idea of cause and effect being a one--direction flow. If we consider the universe as one all connected, then it must consist of closed loops. (I suppose this is a subject of another paper.) Yes, I understand the idea of the horizon - but note I think the speed of plenum waves determine connectedness not of light and the idea that one part of the universe connects to another which is connected to another that may be outside the horizon of the first. The problem for physics is to identify the loops and control action. I think the control action is usually distance or time. This is the special place of space and time in our physics. That is, for each cause--effect, there is postulated to be a physical closed loop rather than an open loop. Beyond this rather abstract discussion lies the identification of the loops - which is physics goal (well at least my goal).

I have read your essay. I have ordered your referenced book. Perhaps I should have commented earlier.

What is the web address of your FQXi paper on treating the ``wave medium’’ of QM and gravity?

The mechanism is the closed--loop control system (defined as a feedback loop). The Feedback acts to reduce the variability of the output. The example of the theoretical temperature of the universe being 2.718 K may at first sight to be an open loop. But it is closed because the time (the control action) to output is dependent on the output (mass ejected). I understand there is a tendency to view the universe as having open loop systems such as the idea of cause and effect being a one--direction flow. If we consider the universe as one all connected, then it must consist of closed loops. (I suppose this is a subject of another paper.) Yes, I understand the idea of the horizon - but note I think the speed of plenum waves determine connectedness not of light and the idea that one part of the universe connects to another which is connected to another that may be outside the horizon of the first. The problem for physics is to identify the loops and control action. I think the control action is usually distance or time. This is the special place of space and time in our physics. That is, for each cause--effect, there is postulated to be a physical closed loop rather than an open loop. Beyond this rather abstract discussion lies the identification of the loops - which is physics goal (well at least my goal).

I have read your essay. I have ordered your referenced book. Perhaps I should have commented earlier.

further reply to Edwin Klingman

Edwin Klingman

I have read most or your book ``The Automatic Theory of Physics’’ that you referenced in your FQXi paper. Your book is very much on topic of this contest. Therefore, I think it appropriate to discuss it. It also forms one of the approaches to this topic. Overall I’m a bit disappointed.

You like eigenvalue functions. But...

view entire post

Edwin Klingman

I have read most or your book ``The Automatic Theory of Physics’’ that you referenced in your FQXi paper. Your book is very much on topic of this contest. Therefore, I think it appropriate to discuss it. It also forms one of the approaches to this topic. Overall I’m a bit disappointed.

You like eigenvalue functions. But...

view entire post

John,

I am surprised and pleased that you've read the book so quickly.

You say I like eigenvalue functions. Not so much. I simply find them necessary to treat when addressing physicists. And you say that they require nature to be made of linear relationships, and ask how we know the universe is everywhere linear. My belief is that reality is essentially nonlinear and I've treated...

view entire post

I am surprised and pleased that you've read the book so quickly.

You say I like eigenvalue functions. Not so much. I simply find them necessary to treat when addressing physicists. And you say that they require nature to be made of linear relationships, and ask how we know the universe is everywhere linear. My belief is that reality is essentially nonlinear and I've treated...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Klingman

Thanks

Links to my effort my effort.

The book I am thinking of getting is ``The Gene Man Theory’’. I didn’t find it on Amazon and $100 seems a bit tough.

Do you have any papers on the web? I looked in academia.edu, found 3 on Bell and spin in viXra. None on arXiv.

A decade ago I had one in New Astronomy as I was getting my feet in...

view entire post

Thanks

Links to my effort my effort.

The book I am thinking of getting is ``The Gene Man Theory’’. I didn’t find it on Amazon and $100 seems a bit tough.

Do you have any papers on the web? I looked in academia.edu, found 3 on Bell and spin in viXra. None on arXiv.

A decade ago I had one in New Astronomy as I was getting my feet in...

view entire post

John.

I read and considered your essay. It seems to me that you are saying that our mathematics is the result of our sensory perception. I think I would argue it is more universal though. If there is only one truth, there may be many paths to that truth but there is still only a single truth. I think it more likely that our senses and our perceptions are aligned with truth and that allows our survival. Mathematics then is created out of necessity to describe what is observed. Thereby also enhancing survival. Occasionally new mathematics is created to explain a new observation and then that mathematics makes a new prediction. If that prediction proves to be true then the validity of the math is strengthened.

Fractals might not be as significant as you think. All exponential type functions are self-replicating. Consider the derivative d/dx of exp(x). It is exp(x). A fractal is simply more of a geometric function or a shape as opposed to a single valued function.

BTW, I don't think I would consider Trigonometry to be Geometric Algebra. It is an entire field developed by Hamilton and others. Fractals might simply be exponentials in Geometric Algebra.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

I read and considered your essay. It seems to me that you are saying that our mathematics is the result of our sensory perception. I think I would argue it is more universal though. If there is only one truth, there may be many paths to that truth but there is still only a single truth. I think it more likely that our senses and our perceptions are aligned with truth and that allows our survival. Mathematics then is created out of necessity to describe what is observed. Thereby also enhancing survival. Occasionally new mathematics is created to explain a new observation and then that mathematics makes a new prediction. If that prediction proves to be true then the validity of the math is strengthened.

Fractals might not be as significant as you think. All exponential type functions are self-replicating. Consider the derivative d/dx of exp(x). It is exp(x). A fractal is simply more of a geometric function or a shape as opposed to a single valued function.

BTW, I don't think I would consider Trigonometry to be Geometric Algebra. It is an entire field developed by Hamilton and others. Fractals might simply be exponentials in Geometric Algebra.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

No. I suggest math is a part of our universe like gravity is part of our universe. I also note instruments such as electric field (which our senses don’t detect) measuring equipment provides input to our discovered math.

I find people are having difficulty with my concept. Math or more precisely the relations implied by math are in our universe. We use sticks to build a fire. We conceive of gravity to describe some objects motion. We use scratches on a paper to describe more complex aspects of the universe. Because it is a part of the universe even without us, a discovered math relation implies a universe relation that we may not have seen before such as tree branching and data compression of fractals.

Our survival and evolution has selected those aspects of us that aligns or uses nature to most advantage. Our truth is not a snake’s truth.

``Describe’’ not exactly. Math is used by physics to predict observations/events. Religion has described for a long time - predict what we know and God does the rest.

The physics makes the new prediction. The discovered math was there all along like gravity. Math is discovered not created.

Fractals are not exactly self-replicating (reproducing) they are self-similar. An example Geometrically if a square divided into 4 equal squares each of which is divided into 4 equal square (16 smaller squares) each of which is divided into 4 smaller squares (64 small squares), etc. Interesting question - Is there a smallest or largest square? Physics thinks the plank length is the smallest - fractals suggests no. An algebraic example would be the Mandelbrot set.

`` Trigonometry to be Geometric Algebra’’ I didn’t say it was, did I? Trig is the transformation of geometry to algebra calculations - not a vector space necessarily.

`` Fractals might simply be exponentials in Geometric Algebra.’’ What?

Thanks for your comment.

I find people are having difficulty with my concept. Math or more precisely the relations implied by math are in our universe. We use sticks to build a fire. We conceive of gravity to describe some objects motion. We use scratches on a paper to describe more complex aspects of the universe. Because it is a part of the universe even without us, a discovered math relation implies a universe relation that we may not have seen before such as tree branching and data compression of fractals.

Our survival and evolution has selected those aspects of us that aligns or uses nature to most advantage. Our truth is not a snake’s truth.

``Describe’’ not exactly. Math is used by physics to predict observations/events. Religion has described for a long time - predict what we know and God does the rest.

The physics makes the new prediction. The discovered math was there all along like gravity. Math is discovered not created.

Fractals are not exactly self-replicating (reproducing) they are self-similar. An example Geometrically if a square divided into 4 equal squares each of which is divided into 4 equal square (16 smaller squares) each of which is divided into 4 smaller squares (64 small squares), etc. Interesting question - Is there a smallest or largest square? Physics thinks the plank length is the smallest - fractals suggests no. An algebraic example would be the Mandelbrot set.

`` Trigonometry to be Geometric Algebra’’ I didn’t say it was, did I? Trig is the transformation of geometry to algebra calculations - not a vector space necessarily.

`` Fractals might simply be exponentials in Geometric Algebra.’’ What?

Thanks for your comment.

Thanks for the clarification.

Line 11-12 on page 3 ... this was the source of my Trigonometry comment.

Lines 15-19 of Part 2 Basics are what made me think that you view math and operations as the result of perception.

Fractals as exponentials ... yes. If you can define the vectors that produce a fractal shape, you can multiply that base function by a quaternion to produce a similar fractal shape that is of a different size and/or rotated. The exponential of a quaternion allows that to be done as a matrix multiplication.

I think some of the misunderstanding is simply semantic. Did Lorentz create the transform or discover it? The Physics was there waiting to be discovered but the act of discovery on his part required creation of the mathematical structure or concept. Physics is natural. Mathematics is human.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Line 11-12 on page 3 ... this was the source of my Trigonometry comment.

Lines 15-19 of Part 2 Basics are what made me think that you view math and operations as the result of perception.

Fractals as exponentials ... yes. If you can define the vectors that produce a fractal shape, you can multiply that base function by a quaternion to produce a similar fractal shape that is of a different size and/or rotated. The exponential of a quaternion allows that to be done as a matrix multiplication.

I think some of the misunderstanding is simply semantic. Did Lorentz create the transform or discover it? The Physics was there waiting to be discovered but the act of discovery on his part required creation of the mathematical structure or concept. Physics is natural. Mathematics is human.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Dear John ! Your essay will help me to clarify many important aspects of my own work in applied social science. Physics and maths are natural and the human experience is also natural; human-free-choice is also about accepting the natural laws (principles) and not to invest into super-natural speculations. CONGRATS, you have written a great essay about our mathematical universe.Best: stephen

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Many thanks for introducing me to your approach of survivalist morality, John.At the IA ,I will further study your proposals, e.g. for the US, EU. In the the Goal of Life Essay, you write about the key paradox='as life advances it must become a more efficient user of resources'; this is the ethical imperative that human societies on this globe must learn about the natural construction principles of reality. With reference to this quote, you will receive a little book gift to your blueridge.edu. Best: stephen

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

L. B. Crowell’s paper in this contest has an interesting question: ``Does this mean that older forms of mathematics will disappear?’’ It suggests math has an evolution or selection--of--the--fittest history in human discovery.

Science has precipitated out of philosophy to be that part of human knowledge that predicts observations. Does science extend as far as metaphysics? Likewise...

view entire post

Science has precipitated out of philosophy to be that part of human knowledge that predicts observations. Does science extend as far as metaphysics? Likewise...

view entire post

Hello John,

I really appreciated your comment in the conclusion that 'the goal should be to make the universe more conceptually understandable'. This should apply to the physics of the very large and the very small.

I was not clear about your meaning when you said in your abstract that 'several conceptual mysteries may be better modeled by using mathematics as an observation.'

Regards

Richard Lewis

report post as inappropriate

I really appreciated your comment in the conclusion that 'the goal should be to make the universe more conceptually understandable'. This should apply to the physics of the very large and the very small.

I was not clear about your meaning when you said in your abstract that 'several conceptual mysteries may be better modeled by using mathematics as an observation.'

Regards

Richard Lewis

report post as inappropriate

Perhaps I should expand on one of the examples about a conceptual mystery such as the double slit experiment that math may show some insight to a better model. That the math of quantum mechanics (QM) works has been shown. However, the mystery is why? Thus, several concepts (interpretations) such as wave--particle--duality and the Bohm Interpretations have been conceived. But both (all) start from concepts and try to derive the Schrodinger equation (the math part of QM that works). But suppose we start with the observation that the math works and try to conceptually model why it works. Ask ``what is the math doing?’’ Schrodinger equation defines the total energy as the sum of the potential and kinetic energy. The kinetic energy is the inertial mass energy. The potential energy derives from the potential field (whatever a field is) that imparts (somehow - by contact or action at a distance?) energy onto the (inertial) mass. These energies seem to have some relation to wave dynamics. Our scale observes waves in mediums that have unbounded differentiability (continuous). So I suggest the wave and its medium is real (yes I know there is argument here.) But then general relativity also mathematically suggests gravitational ether. A gravitational ether (called ``space’’ today) is influenced by matter and influences matter through a gravitational field that exerts a force by contact through its divergence. Just what is need for the photon inducing potential energy Photon diffraction and interference .

The universe has 2 components - discrete matter and a continuous plenum (gravitational ether, space) and their interaction.

Well, why not?

The universe has 2 components - discrete matter and a continuous plenum (gravitational ether, space) and their interaction.

Well, why not?

Dear Sir,

According to Ayurveda – the ancient system of medicine, the capability to perceive through sense organs is the definition of life. Reality is whatever exists (has a confined structure that evolves in time and is perceptible), is intelligible (perceptible/knowable) and communicable (describable using a language as defined in our essay). Number is a perceivable property of all...

view entire post

According to Ayurveda – the ancient system of medicine, the capability to perceive through sense organs is the definition of life. Reality is whatever exists (has a confined structure that evolves in time and is perceptible), is intelligible (perceptible/knowable) and communicable (describable using a language as defined in our essay). Number is a perceivable property of all...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Basudeba

I had noted your essay. I’m unsure what to comment on it. So, I’ll start with your comment here.

Reality to me is whatever influences my survival even if I don’t know it is doing so. Humans now measure many things that were unknown a few centuries ago. There may be other things that influence our survival of which we are ignorant. So relationships such as spirits and souls are real to me. Because we cannot yet create a universe, I’m sure there are such other things.

I think concepts that can predict observations are clear. If some concepts are defined differently in separate places (sometimes in the same paper), the concept is vague. For example, what is your ``space’’? Is it a backdrop used to measure such as a coordinate system (you mention ``coordinate system’’ separately but suggest space measures distance)? How about the general relativity concept of a medium (gravitational ether) that provides a gravitational field that influences matter. How about the void between matter as some ancient Greeks would have it. Or is ``space’’ the left hand parameter in the GR field equation - and abstraction of calculating value, only. I’m unsure from your essay about what you consider a line (surface, volume) to be. Is a line a series of points or an extension? I think one of you other commenters was addressing this. Note I differentiate between the measurement and the abstraction such as saying a ``clock’’(right hand side) and time (left hand side). Saying a clock implies some form of standard of duration measurement that I view as a set of problems requiring advancement in physics understanding.

I had noted your essay. I’m unsure what to comment on it. So, I’ll start with your comment here.

Reality to me is whatever influences my survival even if I don’t know it is doing so. Humans now measure many things that were unknown a few centuries ago. There may be other things that influence our survival of which we are ignorant. So relationships such as spirits and souls are real to me. Because we cannot yet create a universe, I’m sure there are such other things.

I think concepts that can predict observations are clear. If some concepts are defined differently in separate places (sometimes in the same paper), the concept is vague. For example, what is your ``space’’? Is it a backdrop used to measure such as a coordinate system (you mention ``coordinate system’’ separately but suggest space measures distance)? How about the general relativity concept of a medium (gravitational ether) that provides a gravitational field that influences matter. How about the void between matter as some ancient Greeks would have it. Or is ``space’’ the left hand parameter in the GR field equation - and abstraction of calculating value, only. I’m unsure from your essay about what you consider a line (surface, volume) to be. Is a line a series of points or an extension? I think one of you other commenters was addressing this. Note I differentiate between the measurement and the abstraction such as saying a ``clock’’(right hand side) and time (left hand side). Saying a clock implies some form of standard of duration measurement that I view as a set of problems requiring advancement in physics understanding.

Dear Sir,

There is no fundamental difference between your comments here and our essay, though certain things might have been unsaid. Regarding reality, please refer to our condition “intelligible/knowable”. Everything is not intelligible to everyone at all times. Our actions for survival are influenced by our knowledge of our surroundings and how can we meet our needs. This knowledge;...

view entire post

There is no fundamental difference between your comments here and our essay, though certain things might have been unsaid. Regarding reality, please refer to our condition “intelligible/knowable”. Everything is not intelligible to everyone at all times. Our actions for survival are influenced by our knowledge of our surroundings and how can we meet our needs. This knowledge;...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Your view of the hypothesis statements are much related to the scenic abstractions of life and great numbering in perceivable theories.

Hands-On!

report post as inappropriate

Hands-On!

report post as inappropriate

I think Leibniz introduces the relational problem of my ``spirit’’ with consciousness (modern term). Would space and time exist, for Leibniz, if there were no minds to perceive the objects and events that around them? Suppose, if we may, that the best of all possible worlds had turned out to be one in which consciousness did not exist (note the Anthropic principle is a Principle not a derived model). God would have actualized that world instead of our world. (What is the Upanishads similar concept?)Would that world be a world in space and time? Therefore, the ``consciousness’’ is part of our world and physics and math should be able to study it. But there is no math to describe consciousness, yet. As I said a new form of math is required.

You had noted the relational concept that the whole is greater than its parts and used H, H, and O to form water as an example. But this is not what I mean by ``spirit’’ however tempting. The combination of H2O releases energy and therefore entropy. This rearrangement of energy is accounted in physics. The successive combinations increase entropy that requires a continual input of energy into Earth for life and into the universe - my ToE. Entropy was not accounted a few centuries ago in Liebniz’s time. We can forgive Liebniz for including entropy concepts into his ``fictitious forces’’ (careful, this is not Newton’s concept of fictitious forces).

Forces in physics rearrange energy (your concept). Spirit also rearranges energy but without the 4 modern forces or entropy. For example, a student calls home and says send money. Money arrives is due course. The money represents a vast transfer of energy (time, effort, and material) relative to the cause (the call plus postage). Spirit is the ``force’’ producing this rearrangement. This is related to ``consciousness’’.

You had noted the relational concept that the whole is greater than its parts and used H, H, and O to form water as an example. But this is not what I mean by ``spirit’’ however tempting. The combination of H2O releases energy and therefore entropy. This rearrangement of energy is accounted in physics. The successive combinations increase entropy that requires a continual input of energy into Earth for life and into the universe - my ToE. Entropy was not accounted a few centuries ago in Liebniz’s time. We can forgive Liebniz for including entropy concepts into his ``fictitious forces’’ (careful, this is not Newton’s concept of fictitious forces).

Forces in physics rearrange energy (your concept). Spirit also rearranges energy but without the 4 modern forces or entropy. For example, a student calls home and says send money. Money arrives is due course. The money represents a vast transfer of energy (time, effort, and material) relative to the cause (the call plus postage). Spirit is the ``force’’ producing this rearrangement. This is related to ``consciousness’’.

Thanks John. You certainly put a lot of intellectual energy into your essay. Well done. I agree that "Division presents a quandary in both discrete mathematics and continuous math", but I disagree that discrete and continuous are mutually exclusive. I have given this some thought and write about this in my essay.

What do you mean by 'discrete'? What is and acts as the 'separator' of the things you call discrete? Next, what separates the 'separator' from that thing so that the separator and that thing are not One thing?

I hope I make myself understood.

The Newtonian problem of r → 0 that you discuss is an interesting one. I believe it has not yet found a satisfactory solution.

Finally, there is a question I have asked a few others and will ask you being a retired but not tired physicist :)

In his book,*The Emperor's New Mind*, p.113, Roger Penrose has this to say, "The system of real numbers has the property for example, that **between any two of them, no matter how close, there lies a third.** It is not at all clear that physical distances or times can realistically be said to have this property. If we continue to **divide up** the physical distance between two points, we should eventually reach scales so small that the very concept of distance, in the ordinary sense, could cease to have meaning. It is anticipated that at the 'quantum gravity' scale (…10^{-35}m), this would indeed be the case".

I therefore ask you whether if the system of real numbers applies to distance, if there is always a third element between two elements and going by geometrical considerations these elements, (which would be points in the case of lines) are*uncuttable* into parts how can a distance be divided?

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

What do you mean by 'discrete'? What is and acts as the 'separator' of the things you call discrete? Next, what separates the 'separator' from that thing so that the separator and that thing are not One thing?

I hope I make myself understood.

The Newtonian problem of r → 0 that you discuss is an interesting one. I believe it has not yet found a satisfactory solution.

Finally, there is a question I have asked a few others and will ask you being a retired but not tired physicist :)

In his book,

I therefore ask you whether if the system of real numbers applies to distance, if there is always a third element between two elements and going by geometrical considerations these elements, (which would be points in the case of lines) are

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo

Thanks for your comment/questions. I’ll reply also in your entry and in the interest of dialectic discourse.

I think the interest of physics is the prediction of observations and the usefulness of such knowledge to the survival of us (our gene, our progeny, etc.). If a set of definitions fail to result in the advancement of physics, they have little use in physics. However,...

view entire post

Thanks for your comment/questions. I’ll reply also in your entry and in the interest of dialectic discourse.

I think the interest of physics is the prediction of observations and the usefulness of such knowledge to the survival of us (our gene, our progeny, etc.). If a set of definitions fail to result in the advancement of physics, they have little use in physics. However,...

view entire post

John,

Redefinition of things that are already defined is one way to resolve paradoxes and absurdities. But then such redefinitions must stand up to scrutiny and should be verifiable or falsified.

I like your definition of Multiplication and Division. It can resolve paradoxes of motion like Zeno's, if "Real numbers do not apply to distance" as you say.

My own contention is that the plenum is discrete and also continuous in some sense. Thus displaying a duality. Continuous because there is no distance between its lengths, but discrete because those lengths can perish or be created from Nothing. The fundamental unit of my plenum is the extended (not zero-dimensional) point.

You will have a task ahead to show that John or Akinbo are 2 dimensional objects and therefore no volume can be ascribed to them. You may have further explanation in your links, which for lack of time I have not viewed. But would do that some time.

In your cosmology, does the plenum perish or change in size? Or is it infinite in extent and duration?

Lastly, let me leave you with a food-for-thought that I have left for some, especially as you said, "Real numbers do not apply to distance".

Roger Penrose in his book,*The Emperor's New Mind*, p.113 says, "The system of real numbers has the property for example, that **between any two of them, no matter how close, there lies a third.** It is not at all clear that physical distances or times can realistically be said to have this property. If we continue to **divide up** the physical distance between two points, we should eventually reach scales so small that the very concept of distance, in the ordinary sense, could cease to have meaning. It is anticipated that at the 'quantum gravity' scale (…10^{-35}m), this would indeed be the case".

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Redefinition of things that are already defined is one way to resolve paradoxes and absurdities. But then such redefinitions must stand up to scrutiny and should be verifiable or falsified.

I like your definition of Multiplication and Division. It can resolve paradoxes of motion like Zeno's, if "Real numbers do not apply to distance" as you say.

My own contention is that the plenum is discrete and also continuous in some sense. Thus displaying a duality. Continuous because there is no distance between its lengths, but discrete because those lengths can perish or be created from Nothing. The fundamental unit of my plenum is the extended (not zero-dimensional) point.

You will have a task ahead to show that John or Akinbo are 2 dimensional objects and therefore no volume can be ascribed to them. You may have further explanation in your links, which for lack of time I have not viewed. But would do that some time.

In your cosmology, does the plenum perish or change in size? Or is it infinite in extent and duration?

Lastly, let me leave you with a food-for-thought that I have left for some, especially as you said, "Real numbers do not apply to distance".

Roger Penrose in his book,

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo:

``You will have a task ahead to show that John or Akimbo are 2 dimensional objects and therefore no volume can be ascribed to them. ‘’

The STOE (Scalar Theory of Everything) suggests there are 2 components of the universe - Hods (2 dimensional and forms kinetic energy) and plenum (forms potential energy). Matter has both types of energy and, therefore, both types of...

view entire post

``You will have a task ahead to show that John or Akimbo are 2 dimensional objects and therefore no volume can be ascribed to them. ‘’

The STOE (Scalar Theory of Everything) suggests there are 2 components of the universe - Hods (2 dimensional and forms kinetic energy) and plenum (forms potential energy). Matter has both types of energy and, therefore, both types of...

view entire post

John,

We have areas of convergence at some level and divergence on some specifics. Convergence in that your Plenum is a sort of 'substantivalist' model. My model also falls in this category, as opposed to Relational theorues.

I woke up this morning thinking about your definition of Division as subtraction and Multiplication as addition. In Zeno's Dichotomy Argument, if this redefinition is brought to bear on the paradox, Atalanta the runner races towards his goal by subtracting distance rather than dividing distance. In doing this he reaches his goal in a finite time, unlike the infinite time using division.

Now, if you look at this again, you will observe that as Atalanta is subtracting distance from his goal, distance is being added between him and the origin (which is your redefinition of Multiplication).

Now, something to ponder: When you subtract something from another, where are you keeping it? And when you add distance to another distance, where did what you are adding originate from? This would be one area our models diverge.

It will be difficult for me to swallow the way you ascribe source and sink to galaxies. Galaxies to me are mere collection of stars and I think I have even read somewhere that an elliptical galaxy can evolve to a spiral type or the reverse, I am not sure.

Lastly, at least you have surfaces in your model, if not lines. Are they composed of fundamentally indivisible things? If so, how do you cut a surface into two?

Battery running too low to make my last point clearer...

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

We have areas of convergence at some level and divergence on some specifics. Convergence in that your Plenum is a sort of 'substantivalist' model. My model also falls in this category, as opposed to Relational theorues.

I woke up this morning thinking about your definition of Division as subtraction and Multiplication as addition. In Zeno's Dichotomy Argument, if this redefinition is brought to bear on the paradox, Atalanta the runner races towards his goal by subtracting distance rather than dividing distance. In doing this he reaches his goal in a finite time, unlike the infinite time using division.

Now, if you look at this again, you will observe that as Atalanta is subtracting distance from his goal, distance is being added between him and the origin (which is your redefinition of Multiplication).

Now, something to ponder: When you subtract something from another, where are you keeping it? And when you add distance to another distance, where did what you are adding originate from? This would be one area our models diverge.

It will be difficult for me to swallow the way you ascribe source and sink to galaxies. Galaxies to me are mere collection of stars and I think I have even read somewhere that an elliptical galaxy can evolve to a spiral type or the reverse, I am not sure.

Lastly, at least you have surfaces in your model, if not lines. Are they composed of fundamentally indivisible things? If so, how do you cut a surface into two?

Battery running too low to make my last point clearer...

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

As an addendum: Something "distance" that can be subtracted from can in some real sense be labelled a substance since it can be acted upon. And whatever can be acted upon MUST also be capable of reacting (or acting).

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear John,

I read with great interest your essay. I fully agree with your very important conclusion:

"The goal should be to make the universe more conceptually understandable. This aids understanding and predictability that aids human survival. Considering mathematics methods as a physical observation would open new avenues of physics understanding and, perhaps, physics insight." My high score. I invite you to read my essay .

Kind regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

I read with great interest your essay. I fully agree with your very important conclusion:

"The goal should be to make the universe more conceptually understandable. This aids understanding and predictability that aids human survival. Considering mathematics methods as a physical observation would open new avenues of physics understanding and, perhaps, physics insight." My high score. I invite you to read my essay .

Kind regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo

Thanks for the continued dialog.

``In doing this he reaches his goal in a finite time, unlike the infinite time using division.’’ Yes. Thus the idea is physically practical whereas the division is not physical.

When you subtract something from another, where are you keeping it?

The subtraction is merely a calculation to determine a physical relation. What...

view entire post

Thanks for the continued dialog.

``In doing this he reaches his goal in a finite time, unlike the infinite time using division.’’ Yes. Thus the idea is physically practical whereas the division is not physical.

When you subtract something from another, where are you keeping it?

The subtraction is merely a calculation to determine a physical relation. What...

view entire post

One of your applications, "If the three rooms are at differing temperatures, the bars will be of different lengths. The coefficient of expansion is a reorganized physics phenomenon. But when we make a bar a standard, the unit of length becomes a function of temperature," indicates how human mathematics is derived from human perception in this case, but the applications I noted relate to the classical world. What about the quantum world? Are you saying that the models we use for quantum modeling also derived from human perception? How do you make math an observation?

My "connections" essay doesn't question derivative qualities of math, and only mentions the peer reviewing process of concepts like BICEP2. How are mathematical models missing the boat, if the community treats math as a non-derivative of human perception.

Your essay is thought-provoking and certainly requires close reading.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

My "connections" essay doesn't question derivative qualities of math, and only mentions the peer reviewing process of concepts like BICEP2. How are mathematical models missing the boat, if the community treats math as a non-derivative of human perception.

Your essay is thought-provoking and certainly requires close reading.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Jim

`… but the applications I noted relate to the classical world.’ Yes, Note the idea of fractal (self--similarity) is that the perceptions and math of our scale world should relate to all scales including the quantum world.

Math is made an observation by considering valid math concepts as data for the physical world. `Valid’: note the 1/3 example in the essay and the conversation in the comments above. Division is not a valid operation. You may also note the comment was raised in a previous comment where I referenced the Schroedinger indicated waves. When combined with a Newtonian view, the double--slit experiment may be explained

`… but the applications I noted relate to the classical world.’ Yes, Note the idea of fractal (self--similarity) is that the perceptions and math of our scale world should relate to all scales including the quantum world.

Math is made an observation by considering valid math concepts as data for the physical world. `Valid’: note the 1/3 example in the essay and the conversation in the comments above. Division is not a valid operation. You may also note the comment was raised in a previous comment where I referenced the Schroedinger indicated waves. When combined with a Newtonian view, the double--slit experiment may be explained

The larger issue is math in society. Economics, the social studies, and people in general reject math. Consequently, math is `unreasonable’ in physics because physics/science accepts math as part of the prediction process. But humanity is reticent to accept math as a description of nature. But why? I suggest, because the goals of those other branches of knowledge are to support a political model...

view entire post

view entire post

Hi John,

I enjoyed reading your essay. The idea "Mathematics shows only two mutually exclusive characteristics in reality - discrete (counting) and continuous (geometry).", caused a pause and some thought on my part, but I think I agree with its importance. The two different approaches leads to some interesting ways to understand things as you point out.

Thought your closing was appropriate "Making physics more complex and less conceptual reduces the ability to predict and is, therefore, not the goal. The goal should be to make the universe more conceptually understandable."

Very nice, Thanks

report post as inappropriate

I enjoyed reading your essay. The idea "Mathematics shows only two mutually exclusive characteristics in reality - discrete (counting) and continuous (geometry).", caused a pause and some thought on my part, but I think I agree with its importance. The two different approaches leads to some interesting ways to understand things as you point out.

Thought your closing was appropriate "Making physics more complex and less conceptual reduces the ability to predict and is, therefore, not the goal. The goal should be to make the universe more conceptually understandable."

Very nice, Thanks

report post as inappropriate

I follow these contests because there usually are 3-4 papers with something interesting to me. I’m finishing a study about the double--slit experiment and am beginning to search for the next project.

Dear Richard Lewis:

You asked about taking a math solution and applying it to physics.

What do you think about the following?

Would you classify the group models of particle classification the same as you classify statistical analysis. The periodic table was developed first by noting common characteristics of elements. A few holes were filled (predicted) by where the hole was in the classification scheme. Later, the causal underlying structure of atoms explained the periodic table. Indeed, the position of an element indicated something about the atomic structure. The same type of classification is true for the group models. Holes in the group model have been used to predict particles that were found. Can this be used to imply an underlying structure of particles? How would such a study proceed? Is anyone working on the structure of particles (papers I see seem to stop with the group description with no indication of an underlying structure)?

Dear Richard Lewis:

You asked about taking a math solution and applying it to physics.

What do you think about the following?

Would you classify the group models of particle classification the same as you classify statistical analysis. The periodic table was developed first by noting common characteristics of elements. A few holes were filled (predicted) by where the hole was in the classification scheme. Later, the causal underlying structure of atoms explained the periodic table. Indeed, the position of an element indicated something about the atomic structure. The same type of classification is true for the group models. Holes in the group model have been used to predict particles that were found. Can this be used to imply an underlying structure of particles? How would such a study proceed? Is anyone working on the structure of particles (papers I see seem to stop with the group description with no indication of an underlying structure)?

John,

You wrote: "How nature chooses the laws of physics may be unknowable". In my article I provided metaphysical arguments for the necessity of many paradoxical features of quantum physics. So I think there are knowable reasons for the choice, as I found such reasons (not for all details of course but for some main features), as opposed to other classes of universes such as deterministic...

view entire post

You wrote: "How nature chooses the laws of physics may be unknowable". In my article I provided metaphysical arguments for the necessity of many paradoxical features of quantum physics. So I think there are knowable reasons for the choice, as I found such reasons (not for all details of course but for some main features), as opposed to other classes of universes such as deterministic...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Poirier

Today’s physics models have many observable inconsistencies (data). The problem is to first explain the mysteries, predict results not yet observed, and, if possible, correspond with current models with restricted parameter definitions. Your approach seems to be to `explain’ the current models as if they are God’s truth. The truth is these models are in need of improvement. That is, they are wrong as one or two other papers explain. I suggest there exists a Theory of Everything that unites (uses the same postulates) the big and the small and, hopefully, explain a few of the mysteries in the same set of postulates.

(note: I include in `mystery’ the suggestions of ad hoc bandaids to models such as dark matter, dark energy, inflation and the double-slit experiment. Each of these represents a set of data poorly or unexplained in current models. These data only show how limited the current models are. )

At the outskirts of physics is metaphysics - you know, the postulates that have no reduction to hypothesis, and therefore have very limited, if any, use. Engaging in metaphysics has its conceptual uses. It may suggest a speculation that may lead to a hypothesis that may lead to a model. But if we are progress we should go with a hypothesis with explaining value of some mystery over metaphysics.

I am taking some of the ideas in the very large set of ideas being published today and forming a model that has corresponded to both cosmology and the small

(through the double-slit experiment) and explained several mysteries of current models. It has also made a prediction in 2006 which was found a few years later.

So, what is your ToE? All you seem to have is metaphysics, a poor understanding, and a set of one of among many interpretations of current models.

Today’s physics models have many observable inconsistencies (data). The problem is to first explain the mysteries, predict results not yet observed, and, if possible, correspond with current models with restricted parameter definitions. Your approach seems to be to `explain’ the current models as if they are God’s truth. The truth is these models are in need of improvement. That is, they are wrong as one or two other papers explain. I suggest there exists a Theory of Everything that unites (uses the same postulates) the big and the small and, hopefully, explain a few of the mysteries in the same set of postulates.

(note: I include in `mystery’ the suggestions of ad hoc bandaids to models such as dark matter, dark energy, inflation and the double-slit experiment. Each of these represents a set of data poorly or unexplained in current models. These data only show how limited the current models are. )

At the outskirts of physics is metaphysics - you know, the postulates that have no reduction to hypothesis, and therefore have very limited, if any, use. Engaging in metaphysics has its conceptual uses. It may suggest a speculation that may lead to a hypothesis that may lead to a model. But if we are progress we should go with a hypothesis with explaining value of some mystery over metaphysics.

I am taking some of the ideas in the very large set of ideas being published today and forming a model that has corresponded to both cosmology and the small

(through the double-slit experiment) and explained several mysteries of current models. It has also made a prediction in 2006 which was found a few years later.

So, what is your ToE? All you seem to have is metaphysics, a poor understanding, and a set of one of among many interpretations of current models.

I am not working on any theory of quantum gravity as I know it is a very hard problem, that many clever physicists are already working on, while I found other, more useful fields of mathematical research for the progress of the world (namely, cleaning up the basics of maths and physics and redesigning the economic system), and that I do not see any great thinker working on. In particular, what I...

view entire post

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

I have read your essay and I really liked it. The conclusion is spot-on *There may be no standard capable of fulfilling the physics definition of a standard that reflects the mathematics characteristic of different mutually exclusive discrete and continuous.* Yes discrete vs continuous and what standard you use to breach the two are vital for the current impasse in physics. Very thought provoking essay. I gave your essay a good mark!

I note that some of the other posts on this thread are very harsh so just ignore them. I appreciate the nice comment you left on my essay. Yes I did read Ojo essay very interesting and pertinent for my work on Sorites Paradox. Yours Harri

report post as inappropriate

I note that some of the other posts on this thread are very harsh so just ignore them. I appreciate the nice comment you left on my essay. Yes I did read Ojo essay very interesting and pertinent for my work on Sorites Paradox. Yours Harri

report post as inappropriate

I forgot to mention that I replied to your post about my essay with a long attachment.

Could space be a continuous empty plenum and time be discrete? Can we always find a middle point between two endpoints for a length (if space is a Real number manifold) I wonder? Just couple of question I thought of. Yours Harri

report post as inappropriate

Could space be a continuous empty plenum and time be discrete? Can we always find a middle point between two endpoints for a length (if space is a Real number manifold) I wonder? Just couple of question I thought of. Yours Harri

report post as inappropriate

Dear Mr. Hodge,

I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally well written and I do hope that it fares well in the competition.

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally well written and I do hope that it fares well in the competition.

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

John,

Good essay, undervalued I think. Also too many score on whether they 'agree' or not, (which isn't the point here) so your scalar approach to a TOE may not help your score. I happen to agree with that approach, (as we've found before) so to compensate I'll let that influence me!

Times' now short so comments are too;. Fractals and multiple dimensions great! well done. Also 'new physics' needed for the key core problems (but suspect you did well not proposing it here).

I hope you may manage to read/score mine. (It keeps being knocked back with no comments posted, a little rude I feel!) I agree nature CAN be modeled naturally by maths but identify that the maths is not always model the mechanism, so can confuse (as in the core matters above).

Well done anyway. When we get the chance we must see if our hypotheses/models are still close and convergent. best of luck.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Good essay, undervalued I think. Also too many score on whether they 'agree' or not, (which isn't the point here) so your scalar approach to a TOE may not help your score. I happen to agree with that approach, (as we've found before) so to compensate I'll let that influence me!

Times' now short so comments are too;. Fractals and multiple dimensions great! well done. Also 'new physics' needed for the key core problems (but suspect you did well not proposing it here).

I hope you may manage to read/score mine. (It keeps being knocked back with no comments posted, a little rude I feel!) I agree nature CAN be modeled naturally by maths but identify that the maths is not always model the mechanism, so can confuse (as in the core matters above).

Well done anyway. When we get the chance we must see if our hypotheses/models are still close and convergent. best of luck.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

John,

Time grows short, so I am revisiting essays I’ve read (2/27/2015) to assure I’ve rated them. I find that I did not rate yours, though I usually do for those I can immediately relate to. I am rectifying that. I hope you get a chance to look at mine: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2345.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Time grows short, so I am revisiting essays I’ve read (2/27/2015) to assure I’ve rated them. I find that I did not rate yours, though I usually do for those I can immediately relate to. I am rectifying that. I hope you get a chance to look at mine: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2345.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for the exchanges during the contest. Did my bit now and hope it will be enough to get you into the final list especially if you get another push. Hope you can engage more on the non-contest forum/ blog.

All the best,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

All the best,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.