CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]
TOPIC:
Mathematics and life goals have the same source -- nature by John C Hodge
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author John C Hodge wrote on Jan. 10, 2017 @ 21:51 GMT
Essay AbstractHumanity has created mathematical and physical descriptions of the universe that aid survival. Emergent philosophy can be used to develop better models of universe fundamentals. Mathematics and physics observations confirm models through experiment and measurement. Still outside the deterministic knowledge are consciousness, aims, and intention. These concepts are part of humanity and part of the universe. Currently, these concepts require useable definitions. By applying more useable definitions guided by emergent philosophy, such concepts may yet be described by mathematics. Because a single universe exists, a single Theory of Everything exists involving causal relations from the very small to the very large and involving the cause of society's success and life's consciousness.
Author BioI 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 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. (http://myplace.frontier.com/~jchodge/ ) see also summary videos https://www.youtu.be.com/channel/UCc0mfCssV32dDhDgwqLJjpw
Download Essay PDF File
John Edward LaMuth wrote on Jan. 11, 2017 @ 03:45 GMT
I agree with your initial series of conclusions
John L
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge replied on Jan. 17, 2017 @ 03:48 GMT
Thanks.
I suggested studying neural nets and bundels as a possible way to understand consciousness in a deterministic model. You suggested the layering of the brain must be part of understanding deterministic consciousness is very interesting.
The 2 concepts together suggests to me the functioning of PLAs (Programable logic arrays) as a means to explain how bit inputs from light, sound can be turned into action - one big logic array processing bundles (parallel signels) to muscle stimulus in long string of PLAs.
Years ago I studied the idea of using oxides on metal surfaces as bits. An oxide bound to a metal surface is a diode. Place 2metal surfaces togeher with an oxide between. The oxcide can be swithced to one or the othr surfave bu the polarity of a pulse (nerves act by pulses). layers of crossing metal paths (0.1 mil wide, 0.1 mil between). The difficulty was the bond was temporary and required refreshing and constant pulsing. This is starting to sound like a neuron to neuron mechanism.
Thanks for article.
Hodge
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 11, 2017 @ 14:54 GMT
Dear author,
You concluded: "because a single universe exists, a single Theory
of Everything exists involving causal relations from the very small to the very large and involving the cause of society’s success and life’ consciousness".
May I suggest inserting words like "the dream of" or "the goal to approach" between "exists," and "a single TOE"?
++++
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge replied on Jan. 13, 2017 @ 21:13 GMT
Thanks for your view. My intent was to state that the TOE exists in nature whether humans want to find it or not. Whether humans want to dream or attempt to find it is up to the humans. This is getting close to another FQXi : I take math, emergence as in nature. Humans can discover what is in nature. Any human caused creation may not be in nature and, therefore, is probably not real. I didn't stress it but probability arguements suggest the nature's emergent path is modeled incorrectly. Quantum mechanics is such a model. It needs considerable restatement. which I have done in http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1719 STOE assumptions that model particle diffraction and that replaces QM.
Hodge
Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 15, 2017 @ 15:31 GMT
Dear Instructor Hodge,
Every real thing has a real surface.
One real Universe must have only one reality. As I have thoughtfully pointed out in my brilliant essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY, the real Universe consists only of one unified visible infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Reality am not as complicated as theories of reality are.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
H Chris Ransford replied on Jan. 18, 2017 @ 17:41 GMT
Dear author,
Just a brief note if I may - there is no smoking gun evidence that 'a single universe' exists. Nor is there evidence that a TOE actually exists (Marcelo Gleiser , for one, makes a book length argument that the assumption of a TOE stems from subconscious cognitive bias), nor is there really that if there in fact is a single universe, then a TOE would be a consequence of it. Purely causal relationships can also be moot, as Delayed Choice Experiments and such may sometimes suggest.
I am not saying that the single universe assumption or the existence of a TOE are necessarily wrong, but that these should not be posited without very extensive argumentation.
Just my 2 cents'
Kind regards,
H Chris
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge wrote on Jan. 11, 2017 @ 19:48 GMT
NOTE: YouTube address
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc0mfCssV32dDhDgwqLJ
jpw
Upper case C at "/Ucc0" to "/UCc"
hodge
Author John C Hodge wrote on Jan. 19, 2017 @ 05:45 GMT
Ransford
Thanks for commenting.
Look around. You are in a single universe. If you mean 1 and only 1 universe , then you have misinterpreted the phrase. If you mean to postulate miltivers, then you have it backward -there is no unique evidence that more than our universe exists. That would require evidence. (The multiverse is an interpretation of QM. Many interpretations of QM...
view entire post
Ransford
Thanks for commenting.
Look around. You are in a single universe. If you mean 1 and only 1 universe , then you have misinterpreted the phrase. If you mean to postulate miltivers, then you have it backward -there is no unique evidence that more than our universe exists. That would require evidence. (The multiverse is an interpretation of QM. Many interpretations of QM exist. To accept a multiverse requires observation evidence that rejects all the other interpretations and does not reject multiverse) .
I like a modified Bohm Interpretation (BI) with a partice light (photon) being directed by a pilot wave. The weakness of BI is it omits how and where the pilot wavw originates. Consider General Relativity. Matter warps space ( medium like an aether) ant the warp directs matter. So, the pilot wave in the BI is caused by matter. (Unity of GR and the small?)
The advantage of BI is that there is an experiment that rejects all QM interpretation except the modified BI.
The following papers present an experiment that is easily done that rejects a wave like nature of the light (photon) and by extention the electron.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc0mfCssV32dDhDgwq
LJjpw
Then play the video titled Photon Diffraction
http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1603
"Diffraction experiment and its Stoe photon simulation program rejects wave models of light" click on mse42MY.pdf .
As you said more documentation than 10 pages allow except as a reference.
Science logic has to have some postulates. The paper postulated the emergence philosophy was a Emergence Principle of the universe. From that it follows the single TOE exists.
Another thing to note, the QM model as a probabilistic model is an indiator of a set of agents unknown but existing. I think they are my plenum (continous that supports wave action and hods matter). This was mentioned.
If you chose another assumption, find the data.
BTW. In the STOE model there has to be a Source (at the center of spiral galaxies) and a Sink (elliptical galaxies). These have to come and go from somewhere, perhaps another type of universe. But not a 3D+time.
There is considerably more evidence to support the Emercence Principle than the multiverse from QM.
I regard words/concepts such as intent, free will, conscious, mind as being without merit in science because they lack sufficient definition. Look at these papers, they use the same words and mean different things. For example, look at the phrasing of "Delayed Choice experiment". Especially "choice" as if that is what is being measued - Its not. Like the ancient Greeks the matter has no "Choice" or other human abstract quality. My papers above show there is a deterministic model to explain Young's and Hodge's experiments.
Hodge
view post as summary
Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 17:21 GMT
Congrats Mr. Hodge ! Again a great essay from your pen and you have, fortunately, not retired from thinking. TOE and the single universe are indeed fascinating research topics, but you mention very clearly that survival comes first. This seems to be our inter-section, concerning maths, physics and humanity. Best: stephen i. ternyik
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge replied on Jan. 22, 2017 @ 02:08 GMT
Joseph J. Jean-Claude wrote on Jan. 24, 2017 @ 01:33 GMT
Dear John,
You offer an interesting chronicle of the development of matter from low-scale agents all the way up to large-scale agents, all thru the construct of "emergence". As I gathered, you attempt to visualize how cognition and intelligence had emerged thru the evolutive journey in a rather descriptive language, instead of an interpretative or demonstrative method as would be expected.
Of course the problem with the "emergence" construct in this context is the question of the death of intelligence past the human agent shell, since one would expect human intelligence to evolve into a grander regime past the human shell. Most would agree that is actually not the case. Your statement "Humanity is the more complex structure" confirms that you assert that view as well.
Left to wonder what is there in the agency of "emergence" that succeeds in constructing higher complexity for certain things and fails to do so for others.
Of course these are all quite difficult questions and there is great merits even in just attempting to tackle them, short of resolving them. Very laudable effort on that count.
Good luck in the contest, John.
Joseph
_________________________
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge replied on Jan. 24, 2017 @ 19:01 GMT
Joseph
Math is a very descriptive language. I thought the challenge was to link the poorly defined concepts such as "intelligence", "intent", "mind", "intent", etc. to math. I think humanity has not clearly defined these concepts.
The Greeks in the example assigned these human characteristics to rocks. We and they are part of the universe, so if we have these characteristics, rocks should have them also (or so they reasoned I think). Now math models the rock universe quite well, so we reason these undefined characteristics should have the math character. Well, I suggest we need different concepts about how this can come about.
Your second paragraph is using undefined concepts of death (an ending), Intelligence, construct, intent, plan), etc. An "agent" is the base from which the entity is formed. If a person is an agent, then the entity is family, society, state, nation. These last die (end) though competition which is a subset of "convergence".
Start by redefining the problem.
Start with stimuli input to eyes, ears, and go through some process which is to be mathematically defined (I suggest Boolean is the logic) process through some organization of neurons. End with some stimuli to muscles.
Hodge
Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jan. 27, 2017 @ 20:25 GMT
Dear Mr. Hodge,
I could not agree with some of your attitudes, for example:
"Geometry talks of extended objects"
I remind you that the Ruder Boškovic had predicted much of what is now considered an achievement in physics, just using geometry. I quote him about non-extending:
"The primary elements of matter are in my opinion perfectly indivisible & non-extended points”, ...
You say:
"Mathematics we use that developed out of the physics of the universe. Therefore, mathematics is part of the physics of the universe "
I think it is completely wrong. Mathematics has developed far beyond the framework of contemporary physics as we know it today. Physics need in the future to understand the practical value of some already well-known mathematical principles.
Best Regards,
Branko Zivlak
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge replied on Jan. 29, 2017 @ 00:03 GMT
Branko Zivlak
The discussion about extended or points of objects is at least as old as ancient Greeks. I chose the extended view. Boškovic and Liebniz differed from Newton on these issues. Newton was found to be more useful. Quoting Boškovic or Liebniz is a poor source when the quote differs from Newton. Physics today accepts that objects are divisible (bad word) into subatomic objects...
view entire post
Branko Zivlak
The discussion about extended or points of objects is at least as old as ancient Greeks. I chose the extended view. Boškovic and Liebniz differed from Newton on these issues. Newton was found to be more useful. Quoting Boškovic or Liebniz is a poor source when the quote differs from Newton. Physics today accepts that objects are divisible (bad word) into subatomic objects with continuous forces between them. A point description renders this idea unworkable. (How many points in 1 meter? Are there more point in 2 meters? How can here be more than an infinite number of points in the 1 meter? Physics gibberish. Useless!)
The paper explains the quick summation: (1) Find the point that is 1/3 of an object! It is not a practical question. (2) Much of physics is done with the idea of "transformation" from the measurement to the theoretical. If a transformation is used, part of the calculation must include an inverse transformation to get the predicted measurement. Point physics produces singularities - many singularities. The means the transformation is questionable. Well, if the experiment works, it's OK except for the purist. (3) There is a need in physics for some part of our universe to be continuous such as when discussing fields. The STOE model posits one of the two constituents of our universe is a continuous (infinitely divisible - I don't like this term as it involves division and infinity -2 questionable concepts) medium. Waves have to be transmitted. Even if it is a wave of points (your view) there is a continuous force between them. Otherwise, not a useful description of the physics.
You'll note the paper mentioned my dislike as non-physical the idea of infinity and singularity which point physics must have.
"Mathematics has developed far beyond the framework of contemporary physics as we know it today." No. We just haven't discovered why any relation works. Fractal math mentioned in the paper was in the universe long before it was discovered in math. (that is why I mentioned it.) algebra math is simply counting things or standards. The relation among numbers is still simply counting. Trigonometry includes geometry in this simply counting exercise. The books on math functions includes many functions that seemingly represent number relations that exist in nature. Well, there are book length statements on this, too.
The overall position in the paper is that the stated view is needed for the advance in physics.
Physics concepts and models must make predictions about measurements and observations in the end. A model that fails to make predictions or, at least, correspond to prior models (General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) fails. The question for all the models in this contest is "what is the prediction?" or at least "What is the possibility to make prediction?"
view post as summary
James Lee Hoover wrote on Jan. 31, 2017 @ 23:43 GMT
John,
As you mentioned in your review of my essay, there are many similarities in our thinking. In a different context, I like your 3 scales of cosmological, classical and quantum. I can see the combination of the three regarding TOE but I feel the glue that ties them together is peculiar motion and EM force. According to a "How the Universe Works" video on "forces of Mass Construction" the blueprint is draw with magnetic lines -- emanating from the microscopic and the macro. Dark Matter became an example of a galactic creation. Your you tube presentations seem to relate to this picture as well, maybe not so much in creating dark matter, but mentioning EM forces in a galactic context..
Jim Hoover
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge replied on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 05:31 GMT
James Lee Hoover
Thanks for responding.
The "How the Universe works" videos are the currently accepted model. The trouble is these models (GR and QM) are inconsistent and each has many observational anomalies. Some of the anomalies are described in only ad hoc additions. The STOE corresponds to both cosmology and the small of light. It has made 3 predictions about the pioneer anomaly and the theory predicted the result of an experiment in photon diffraction. It has also explained many observation anomalies. Physics philosophy suggest the STOE to be a candidate for a replacement model.
Hodge
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 21:33 GMT
Good essay Hodge sir, Good discussion....
Slight modification is required....
In Page 3 line 8 you said both attraction and repulsion are required at large scales to explain expansion of Universe. You considered only about 40 percent of Galaxies which are red shifted, You have to consider the remaining 60 percent also for getting a true picture…..
What do you say……?
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge replied on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 03:29 GMT
SNP Gupta:
I note your Dynamic Universe Model is oriented toward galaxy and cosmology. The Scalar Theory OF Everything (STOE) seeks to relate the big, small (light), and life. The emergence Principle derived from this quest. So, let me answer your query by example. You can watch various aspects of the STOE on short videos rather than the long detailed calculations of the papers.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc0mfCssV32dDhDgwqLJjpw
The CMB temperature calculation shows the spiral galaxy as adding the constituents (agents) of our universe and the elliptical galaxies as subtracting those constituents (agents). Along the way is discussed the entropy that causes life to emerge (the present paper). The rotation curve and the asymmetric rotation curve videos discuss how the agent plenum repels the matter of the universe and the matter agent attracts (gravity) the stars. Note the almost sideline issue is that NO model explains all rotation curves (rising, falling and flat). Generally the rising rotation curves falsify current models. Also, notice the redshift and discrete redshift videos dispute the idea the universe was born in a Big Bang and is expanding. This allows the galaxies at the edge of our observation to be as old or older (mature) than the Milky Way as you point out in you essay.
Hodge
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 07:29 GMT
Dear John Hodge,
Thank you very much for your interest in Dynamic Universe Model.
This Dynamic Universe Model is not just oriented toward galaxy and cosmology, but has many applications from Micro particles, Solar system level, Milkyway parts level, Astronomical jets, Galaxies level, Universe Level etc.
Many papers and books were published on Dynamic universe Model by the...
view entire post
Dear John Hodge,
Thank you very much for your interest in Dynamic Universe Model.
This Dynamic Universe Model is not just oriented toward galaxy and cosmology, but has many applications from Micro particles, Solar system level, Milkyway parts level, Astronomical jets, Galaxies level, Universe Level etc.
Many papers and books were published on Dynamic universe Model by the author on unsolved problems (of Bigbang) of present day Physics, for example ‘Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary’ (1994) , ‘Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe’, About “SITA” simulations, ‘Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required’, “New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations”, “Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background”, “Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.”, in 2015 ‘Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, ‘Explaining Pioneer anomaly’, ‘Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets’, ‘Observation of super luminal neutrinos’, ‘Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up’, “Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto” etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe
I will go to the link and see “The Scalar Theory OF Everything (STOE)” . Thank you for giving me the link.
Regarding CMB….
There are some basic problems in WMAP satellites’ instrumentation and software. WMAP cannot eliminate Microwave radiation from Stars, Galaxies and clusters. If you calculate CMB using Stephen-Boltzmann law there will be nothing left from BB generated CMB radiation…
Please have a look at my essay on CMB in FQXi few years back
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1607
Regarding “The rotation curve and the asymmetric rotation curve” … Are explained by Dynamic Universe Model very well. See the papers on “NO Dark Matter prediction”, and “Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required” and all the other papers and books , which are available free downloads
You can post the comments here or send me mail…
Best Regards
=snp.gupta
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 23:40 GMT
Hi John,
I think you and I tend to think alike, but I would argue a few points. A theory is a model, and it's probably more correct to say that since a single universe exists, a single theory of everything
should exist.
You suggest the universe is deterministic. This often interpreted to mean that free will is an illusion. Yet, as Stefan Weckbach points out, if an organism...
view entire post
Hi John,
I think you and I tend to think alike, but I would argue a few points. A theory is a model, and it's probably more correct to say that since a single universe exists, a single theory of everything
should exist.
You suggest the universe is deterministic. This often interpreted to mean that free will is an illusion. Yet, as Stefan Weckbach points out, if an organism cannot act (of free will) then
awareness of anything is irrelevant. It would have no Darwinian value and not be selected for. Thus if one thinks awareness arises in Darwinian fashion, one is almost forced to conclude that free will arises concurrently. But this complicates things considerably.
You seem to favor "a deterministic perspective to replace probability arguments". Again, I tend to agree, as far as a solution of systems behavior is concerned, but Planck's constant brings indeterminacy into interactions, hence probability. Also "if reductionism fails, it fails because the agents are modeled incorrectly." In this sense, a universal field that interacts with local 'motion' (momentum density) consciously, is an agent that is not yet modeled correctly.
I particularly like your section 4, focused on 'perception' and 'counting'. I hope you read my essay for my thoughts on this. But I disagree with your conclusion that, since mathematics is deterministic, this implies that the universe is deterministic. It does not. I try to show how mathematical structure is projected onto reality, potentially leading to misinterpretations.
In section 5 you note that Newton suggested "
gravity rather than a rock's intentions" direct the rock's motion. "Or we might say that the rock sensed the gravity field and moved accordingly." Or you
might say that the gravity field sensed the rock's motion and affected it. If the rock had dynamic inner structure, the field might sense this too, but rocks don't have inner structure like neural nets that process stimuli from outside the rock.
We know from general relativity (etc.) that the gravity field is effectively "aware of itself". Few think that the rock is aware of itself. I suggest that consideration of an appropriate universal field, applied to your general scheme would enlarge your model.
Thanks for your well-written, enjoyable essay.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge replied on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 16:39 GMT
Edwin:
I bought your book "The automatic theory of physics" a few years ago.
I think "free will" as you are using the term is ill defined as is awareness, consciousness, intent, etc. That is the problem.The terms are too vague to be of use. So, using these vague terms results in talking in circles.
Do you have the free will to not breath? To not eat? Humans and animal can kill themselves. Can you be a mother (be pregnant). That was determined at conception. Emergence is a Principle of the universe in the essay. Emergence includes convergence which includes some selection in complex situations. Sensing the light through your eyes and then mixing all these nerve signals in the brain produced another set of stimuli to the muscles. Is this awareness? Computers can then be aware. Is there more to awareness?
Your 3rd paragraph: You have inserted several concepts beyond current understanding. Let me suggest another view of Planck's constant. Consider "space" as able to support waves. The gradient on the wave pushes matter to the bottom of the wave. This will organize the matter in discrete positions each 1 wavelength apart. This is not probability and is determinate. Yet it looks like probability you invoke. How does a field interact consciously? define conscious? What observation? How do you know its conscious?
Section 5 suggests the assignment of human poorly defined concepts such as intention were unproductive toward a greater understanding of the universe. Therefore, useless.
I don't know general relativity's gravity field is "aware". Descartes suggested thinking was required to be aware - whatever "thinking" is. I have a universal field I call the plenum ("space", ether) as part of my Scalar theory of everything.
Hodge
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 07:21 GMT
Hodge,
I agree with you about the use of terminology in any attempt to resolve fundamental questions. It's insufficient. That is why my essay claims that all attempts to stretch theory from particles to persons are 1.) too complex, and 2.) too full of errors that mostly snuck in through repetition. Hence these "theories" become "credos" or
belief systems, not
proof systems. That is why I place ultimate trust in the
experience of consciousness rather than the
description of consciousness.
My reference to general relativity is to its nonlinearity due to the fact that the gravity field interacts with itself. Can it interact with itself without being 'aware' of itself? Back to the problem with words.
From previous contests I do have the impression that we're not that far apart, and I'm glad that you have a universal field in your ToE. Einstein said there is no space empty of field, and I think he was right.
Thanks for your response,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 13:10 GMT
John,
A very nicely written and organised essay, on topic and with some interesting and novel ideas. Many seem to judge on whether or not their opinions co-inside but that isn't a valid criterion so varying views shouldn't mean a lower mark. Mine is then high.
I agree 'deterministic' and other concepts are very poorly defined, engendering misunderstanding. For instance mine uses determinism yet also the precise 'likelihood' distribution of QM, defined classically. Your invoking fractals effectively agrees that model of ultimately recursive certainty.
You asked about the 'Recycling' Model paper I referred to, which provides an evolutionary sequence of galaxies with evidence suggesting fractal validity (stellar and universe scales). It's alse genuinely the ONLY model from which the ubiquitous central 'bars' emerge. It's both published and archived on Academia.edu.
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4540.5603
A Cyclic model of Galaxy Evolution, with Bars. HJ. Vol.36 No 6. 2013 pp.633-676 Do please critically comment or raise questions.
Best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 17:44 GMT
Peter:
I remember see you paper years ago. I'll reread it.
There is no diffraction pattern after the 1st slit in the Young's Experiment. But the light does become coherent so there is a diffraction pattern after the second slit. This is long recognized. Do the experiment.
The rest of you comments have very little to do with the Hodge Experiment. The wave in the plenum is caused by the photon. The wave thus formed DOES NOT come through the slit , it is reflected off the mask.
You commented that the Huygens model could explain the Hodge Experiment. I don't understand how. Please explain - I'd like to understand.
photon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAjKk6k6-k
As I understand, The Huygens model suggest each point in the slit radiates a wave. Therefore, a point on the higher intensity side of the slit should illuminate the entire width ( above and below the center) of the screen. The integration then forms the pattern. This implies both sides of the screen should have an (nearly) constant diffraction pattern.
RE: your cosmic redshift video, I saw lots of hand waving, where is the data calculation. There is lots of redshift, should be able to do the calculations.
Hodge
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 22:11 GMT
John
I'm trying to finish some graphics on a solution quantum erasers / delayed choice and it occurred to me there's no logical explanation without wave particle duality. Indeed the most advanced experiments divide and modulate the wave states of a photon (Indeed even the original rotated one of two parts to an orthogonal axis.
Can the photons you employ be 'split' into two in this way? Have you derived an explanation for the methods and findings consistent with your theory? If so is is accessible?
Also are you aware of the experiment which reverses the wavefunction (helical path axis) Chirality on passing through a screen? This was a fundamental proof of my model (though not explained in quantum terms) and I wonder if it can also be consistent with a ballistic solution? (I have a great Figure titled 'Polarisation flip pt.5.7087 figure1' but would have to search for the paper.)
Many thanks
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge replied on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 03:12 GMT
I've looked at the "quantum eraser/ delayed choice" type of experiment. If you've seen the video, remember the photon between mask and screen sends waves of plenum (space, gravity) out in all directions including behind it where the mask is. The reflected waves come back with informationabout the mask (slit arrangement). Because the waves travel as van Fandern suggests, Thus, this looks like "delayed choice". A logical model verified by computer simulation. The video references the papers (yes, s many pages and time to develope). Yhis is not wave particle duality, it is more like Bohm.
The simulation as the photon going through only one slit. However, the waves continue to sense the mask by the reverse waves. Note, however, this is NOT the same as the photon sends waves through both slits which then direct the photon in the single photon experiment. Immediately upon passing the mask, the waves are comming from the photon after the mask. The photons are not "split".
A simulation was run for the new experiment (Hodge Experiment) in which the slit is partially illuminated. This result is inconsistent with ALL the experiments I've examined.
The explanation is in the paper including the assumptions . The simulation was derived using the assumptions.
If you want, I could send (email) a copy if the simulation program (in Visual Basic 5, XP platform, with poor annotation).
I have examined some helical axis models. Unless the photon can satisfy the wave generation need for the experiment, the may not work. But it may be possible.
Hodge
Author John C Hodge replied on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 04:27 GMT
Peter
One more point (I like talking of MY model- Thanks).
a photon between the mask and screen send a wave back to the mask. The mask reflects waves ( a \pi phase change). The slit do not reflect.
In the papers somewhere is a discussion on the math of this corresponds (produces the same equation without the HF weird assumptions).
Essentially, the reflected wave of a...
view entire post
Peter
One more point (I like talking of MY model- Thanks).
a photon between the mask and screen send a wave back to the mask. The mask reflects waves ( a \pi phase change). The slit do not reflect.
In the papers somewhere is a discussion on the math of this corresponds (produces the same equation without the HF weird assumptions).
Essentially, the reflected wave of a solid plane sheet is as if the emitter (photon) were on the other side of the mask. From this subtract the wave from the the slit. do the algebra, solve for the wave from the slit (the \pi is a negative as if it is an emission ) the result is the sinc() function.
That is this model corresponds with the HF model and does a lot more. That is how I know the wave models are rejected.
Hodge
view post as summary
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 15:10 GMT
Hi John,
Yes, most all prefer discussing their OWN theory, exactly as my essays hypothesis. I try not to, but we are each the only expert on them!
It seems as I suggested your theory would exclude one CLASS of wave theory, but not many others (indeed you wrote 'wave' more than 'photon' above!) If your photon emits waves to solve the issues then it has it's own valid 'duality'....
view entire post
Hi John,
Yes, most all prefer discussing their OWN theory, exactly as my essays hypothesis. I try not to, but we are each the only expert on them!
It seems as I suggested your theory would exclude one CLASS of wave theory, but not many others (indeed you wrote 'wave' more than 'photon' above!) If your photon emits waves to solve the issues then it has it's own valid 'duality'.
The problem is then that the quantum eraser DOES rely on split 'photons', but then still also requires backward causation. It becomes more a matter of what a photon is 'constructed of' and its dynamic morphology. Do you address this anywhere?
I propose the whole nonsense,
ALL the weird nonsense! simply reveals that the wrong starting assumptions were chosen. That was Bells view, but he too never found assumptions or a particle morphology that worked.
That's what I've now done; With 'duality' allowing orthogonal spin momenta (which we know anyway from Maxwell!) and the energy 'split' asymmetrically between pairs of slits (coherence length is microns, and again we know 'division' is done in spontaneous parametric down conversion SPDC) then the
WHOLE THING falls into place!1. In ALL case where only one part is 'measured' ('interacted with/observed/detected etc.) it's distribution follows a sine curve (50:50) and there's NEVER a fringe shift.
2. In ALL cases where the two paths are recombined and there's any path length difference or inversion asymmetry, there WILL be a fringe shift or destructive interference.
I'm not sure which of the scores of videos you refer to, I refer to Kim et al's original experiment. You'll note when recombined one of the paths had an extra reflection. That inverts polarity, which is 'PHASE REVERSAL'! (another fact known in photonics but largely unused by theorists).
Now I know that has the "someone else's model" problem but is the beautiful simplicity & logic really not visible? If not I'm struggling to work out why. Can you offer any thoughts?
Very best
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge replied on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 18:23 GMT
Peter
My video on photon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAjKk6k6-k
paper http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1603
videos: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc0mfCssV32dDhDgwqLJjpw
I noticed you had videos on youtube plese send links ("Jackson yields film makers, singers...
Your acedemia.edu site had no photon models?
Do you have a reference for the Kim experiment?
As I remember your video of the photon, there was no experiment, simulation, or equation derived for the diffraction. Is there a reference?
Wave - particle duality suggests the light is either a wave or a particle depending on the experiment. The stoe suggests light is the photon period. the wave is a gravitational wave. wold you say the LIGO experiment is seeking wave-particle duality of heavy masses.
What class of wave theory that produced the diffraction pattern and not use any HF assumptions?
Hodge
hide replies
basudeba mishra wrote on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 02:57 GMT
Dear Sir,
We thoroughly enjoyed your essay.
When you say: “The emergence principle is a general property of the universe”, it needs some clarification. What is emerging? Is it the laws of Nature or their revelation to us? In the present context, the obvious answer is the second. But the first cannot be ignored. We find a set of rules that remain invariant through space and time....
view entire post
Dear Sir,
We thoroughly enjoyed your essay.
When you say: “The emergence principle is a general property of the universe”, it needs some clarification. What is emerging? Is it the laws of Nature or their revelation to us? In the present context, the obvious answer is the second. But the first cannot be ignored. We find a set of rules that remain invariant through space and time. The same with objects (matter) and forces (energy). But then, we are also finding hints about their unification. They must have emerged from some common source. Our goal is to find that common source by moving from diversity to unity – not emergence, but convergence, which you have also agreed.
You have rightly pointed the way out: applying a deterministic perspective to replace the probability arguments. Even probability is always within a band. It is never unlimited. Within the band, everything is deterministic. Thus, probability implies our inability to understand local dynamics beyond a scale. The reason is uncertainty inherent in Nature, which arise not chaotically, but from step by step changes due to other influencing factors in the environment. Like the butterfly effect, we are not capable enough to know these steps or measure it – bringing in uncertainty in our knowledge. But when mathematics enters the field, problems multiply by division. Position is not absolute, but is a fixed coordinate with reference to some origin. Similarly, momentum not absolute, but is a mobile coordinate with reference to some origin. If both these are assigned to the same object, if it has a fixed position, its momentum is zero. If it has momentum, it does have a fixed position – position is zero. If we multiply both, the result will not be h, but zero for all values of position and momentum. Yet, we are running after this wrong notion.
You have rightly pointed out that: “Generic atomism model’s failure is attributed to lack of knowledge or the predictions required are too complex”. The basic difference between micro and macro physics is the difference between the individual and the composite (apart from scale factor). When we deal with QM or QED or QFT, we deal with the energetic particles, such as quarks, leptons, etc. individually. The macro world is a collective of the same particles in large numbers, where the energy gets confined due to the regulated combination of opposites. This brings in new characteristics. The properties of water is not the same as that of hydrogen or oxygen or a combination of both. This non-linear behavior creates the disparities. Hence they are not different, but different manifestation of the same thing. We have to understand the non-linear dynamics – not treat both separately. Thus, you have rightly described it as a fractal system. Only we have to identify the similarities.
We have presented a paper here to physically explain 10 dimensions, where we have briefly discussed about mathematics. It is essentially the same as your view except your treatment of geometry as extended object. Geometry essentially deals with fields with volumes as an extension. While objects associated with numbers are discrete – quantized or digitized, fields are analog. While digital can form a part of analog (like our use of space, time, coordinates or a bucket of water from the ocean), the reverse is not always true. While our measure of space, time, etc. can be extended to the absolute and analog space and time, the bucket of water cannot be extended to imply ocean. Treating both as one has misled mathematicians and physicists alike. We can chart a length on a graph in two dimensions. But length of what? The object itself has three dimensions. Thus, the graph shows one dimension less than the object. Hence it is not a true representation. When we plot several points on a graph and assign numbers to them, we are extending those objects like we blow up a balloon. We are marking different lengths – equal or different in magnitude and direction. At the universal level, if the line is the locus of a point, then it has only two parts: closed or open ended. Closed represents all digitized structures. Open represents the analog nature of motion. Both are not the same like space/time and a bucket of water. You also seem to agree with this concept in later pages. Regarding mathematical transformation, we have discussed at length in our paper.
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge replied on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 18:21 GMT
basudeba:
As I started a line by line reply, I found the concepts you are mentioning are subtle in my thought process.
Let me take a little time to think abut both your proposal and a response consistent with the Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE -my thoughts).
Some of your proposal is in areas I've been thinking about.
Hodge
basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 00:35 GMT
Dear Sir,
Thank you very much. We have also submitted an essay where we have physically defined ten dimensions.
Regards,
basudeba
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge replied on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 17:23 GMT
Basudeba:
"What is emerging?"
The process of emergence is a discovered property (Character of the universe). Therefore, its value is to ask better question to reveal to action of the universe. I'll offer an example after defining some terms for communication.
"Unification" in this context is undefined (at least for me).
"Emerged from a common source" is a concept of...
view entire post
Basudeba:
"What is emerging?"
The process of emergence is a discovered property (Character of the universe). Therefore, its value is to ask better question to reveal to action of the universe. I'll offer an example after defining some terms for communication.
"Unification" in this context is undefined (at least for me).
"Emerged from a common source" is a concept of reductionism.
I think we have a differing definition of "convergence". You seem to link it with the changing concepts of entities (results of emergence) from complexity to simplicity - from many entities to few entities (in my view to just 2 agents or 3 if the interaction is counted - each entity are agents of the next more complex level. (I'm using the idea of complexity not "higher". "Higher" has some unintended implications.)
Causation is from the simple agents to the more complex entities.
I mean "convergence" to be a selection of some entities that may be created from the agents from the less complex levels.
For example (finally): Consider the creation of atom entities as a combination of neutron and proton agents. The reductionist seeks the components of atoms (neutrons and protons). After a great deal of experimenting and false trails, the neutron and proton resulted and everybody (the reductionist that is)was happy. The emergenceist would start with the idea there exists agents that form atoms. They would be characterized as neutron and proton. Then would ask the question of what are nature's conditions that allow the atom entities that we know to be selected (the converge process) while other possible entities that we don't know how to dismiss as unlikely. So the agents may form an atom with 10 neutrons and 1 proton (10:1 ratio). Why is this possible atom not experienced? Is it another agent? Is it some result of the neutron interaction? Why does convergence select the 1:1 ratio? The answer would certainly change our perception of such things as atomic decay. Atomic decay is at the heart of our concept of "clock" (time). The change in atomic decay rate with the Sun's position has been noted. Perhaps acceleration such as gravity could change the rate of decay. The acceleration of an airplane would stop time as measured by a pendulum clock.
Note the differing perception between reductionist and emergenceist.
Your post mentioned a transformation example about position. The 9th paragraph in the Math section has a sentence "The number models are often abstractions that yield non-physical results such as infinity, singularities, and negative numbers." Singularity means zero. I suggest any transformation that yield or transforms a physical entity to have zero value. Negative value, or infinite value is improper (open to conceptual error). So the coordinate system of the position example is suspect. Good example.
What is the convergence selection process? Physics seems to prefer the energy minimization that is a reductioists view. I like the entropy maximation equations as mentioned in the section on "emergence of life".
The recent FQXi contest asked "How to steer humanity". The steering is an emergent of several societies to form a new entity (perhaps a new world order). Emergence has been the history of humanity's development of societies from family units to tribes to chiefdoms to states. The reductionists won the recent FQXi contest (How to steer humanity). The emergent model would suggest current organizations are the agents and the required entity is composed of all the types of society with some new organization.
Thanks
Hodge
view post as summary
basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 02:51 GMT
Dear Sir,
It appears we are talking about the same thing in different languages. We agree with your notion of emergence. Unification and convergence means the same in our interpretation – one cause for many effects or as you say, “a selection of some entities that may be created from the agents from the less complex levels”. Causation can be from the simple agents to the more complex...
view entire post
Dear Sir,
It appears we are talking about the same thing in different languages. We agree with your notion of emergence. Unification and convergence means the same in our interpretation – one cause for many effects or as you say, “a selection of some entities that may be created from the agents from the less complex levels”. Causation can be from the simple agents to the more complex entities or the opposite also. Emerged from a common source" is not a concept of reductionism, but its exact opposite. We consider moving from one to many as emergence and from many to one as convergence. But treating each element of the many separately is reductionism, which misleads. To give one example, there is a proverb of six blind men who went to “see” an elephant. Each touched only one body part of the elephant and described the whole of the elephant from his experience. Thus, while some who touched the leg said it is like a pole, others who touched the tail said it is like a rope. One who touched the ear said it is like a big fan of the ancient type, while the one who touched the teeth said it is solid and smooth. None of them are wrong in their description, but it does not describe the elephant. But if we take all their statements together, then also it does not describe the elephant. This is the problem of reductionism. But if we start from convergence: knowing the elephant, then we can understand each of the statements. Alternatively, if we combine all observations of all parts, we will be able to picture the elephant. The problem is, we examine only a part and generalize that to describe the whole.
Atomic decay is not at the heart of our concept of "clock" (time). The concepts of space and time arise from our concepts of sequence and interval. The interval between ordered sequences of objects is space and that between events is time. Atomic decay is an event. It is time per se. We measure the interval between two or more successive events and compare it with a standard interval to call it time measurement.
Concepts such as infinity, singularities, and negative numbers have been thoroughly misunderstood. Number is a quality of all confined objects by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, it is one. If there are similars, it is many, which can be 2,3,4,…n, depending upon sequential perception of ‘one’s. Infinity is like one – without similars, but whereas the dimensions of one are clearly perceived, the dimensions of infinity are not perceived. There are only four infinities in the universe: space, time, coordinates and consciousness. Singularity does not mean zero. Zero is the non-existence of something at “here-now”, though it exists elsewhere. Singularity is total convergence of everything erasing the distinction between the observer, the observed and the mechanism of observation. Negative numbers show ownership exchange. If I have five oranges that I gave you without any consideration, I have a right to get it back. To that extent I owe five oranges. But since I cannot use it whenever I want, my ownership is conditional. This is shown by the negative sign. Unfortunately, this concept has been twisted out of context to suggest complex numbers. If the square of i is -1, then it is not mathematics. Because while squaring, not only the digit, but also its sign are multiplied. The square of all numbers is always positive and it can never be -1. This wrong concept has been developed into quaternion and all. But no one is questioning.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 09:07 GMT
Dear Jonathan,
Very interesting, in-depth essay and important findings to research ways to overcome the total crisis of understanding in the fundamental science:
"Roman numerals carved in stone represent unchanging quantities well, but viewing Mathematics in that way is a mistake, because Math is about how unchanging attributes and quantities come to be that way through a process. Seeing Math as dry – as though it was mindless and lifeless – is the real problem, and the mystery of where evolution comes from will disappear when we realize what Math is at its root, a systematic exploration of features characterizing the laws by which form evolves.
The unchanging quantities of Math itself include figures like the Mandelbrot Set, E8 and the other exceptional groups, as well as other mathematical invariants. While one could argue that humans constructed these things; it can also be said they were only discovered or always existed – even before the universe had its birth. So it is with even higher orders and levels of Mathematics we have not discovered yet, which the universe is already putting to use. But we are fortunate, at this juncture, to be equipped to learn how Math gives rise to life, in order to foster the evolution of consciousness."
I believe that the solution to the "hard problem of consciousness" is possible after solving the super hard problem of the foundations of mathematics (knowledge). Mathematicians, physicists and poets should have a single, full of life's meaning, picture of the world. I invite you to read and evaluate my ideas.
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 10:16 GMT
Dear John,
Very original and compelling ideas and conception. My high score.
Previous comment I posted in error. I invite you to read and evaluate my ideas.
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge wrote on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 03:20 GMT
I'm surprised no one took aim at the Emergence Principle's idea of the "arrow of time". This was one of the aims of this contest.
Most essays had no comment about the "arrow of time".
Those few who did took it as a postulate or observation rather than a result of the universal postulate.
A universal model that follows from postulates that fail to derive the Equivalence Principle (not a principle) or the "arrow of time" are incomplete.
I was hoping for some insight.
Hodge
William B Goodwin wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 14:39 GMT
John,
You seem to be saying that nature gave rise to deterministic mathematics and separately nature gave rise to life goals, such as aims and intentions. So, the two are not necessarily related. Then you allow that in the future, life goals may be explained by mathematics. Your future conclusion would then be that life is deterministic?
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 02:42 GMT
William
This hinges on the definition of deterministic. Does it mean that I will wake up (good news at my age) at exactly 6:02 AM. I find this hard to accept. However, if it means that humanity will change in a major way - yes. Note the emphasis on large numbers in the emergence principle and the method of convergence. Large numbers of entities bring quality in the class of entities.
Hodge
Author John C Hodge wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 14:59 GMT
topic started me thinking. The new math may be like Boolean for computers. Neurons work by their frequency of pulsing not by the on-off of Boolean in computers. For example, a pain blocker is a slight current to keep the nerve cell "ON" (no frequency = no information transmittal. This implies there may be multiple levels of frequency which could sum if 2 or more cells send their signals to another cell. This is how the bundles and levels of laMuth work. So, f1 +f2 =f3 culd mean if f1 active, f3 active. if f1 1/2 active f3 is off, f1 and f2 half acive f3 on. if f1 nd f2 acive f3 could be off like the pain blocker.
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 17:15 GMT
An interesting essay John..
I must take issue with the statement that Math treats Geometry and Algebra as mutually exclusive. It is certainly not universally true, and from what I've seen it is more common that they be treated as interchangeable. I like the idea of a fractal universe and I published a paper in Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals on that topic. Much of what you talk about resonates with me personally.
Overall; I like what you are saying a lot, and I think the exposition of your subject is good. It feels like it's almost there, but not quite up to the level of some of the professional scientists in this contest, where both the idea and its exposition are nearly impeccable. If it was a journal submission, I would almost certainly approve it, because it hits the mark - but I might have some suggestions for improvement.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 17:21 GMT
A further comment..
Some of the statements about the value of trig would have been aided by a discussion of measurement protocols and triangulation. Distance and size estimation are a big deal, essential for navigation, and trigonometry is the subject that opens the door to that possibility. So there is more you could have said. Yes it bridges the way Algebra and Geometry are different, but it actually goes farther than that.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 19:23 GMT
If you like fractal cosmology (world of the very large), perhps you could like fractal world of the very small. the "walking drop" experiment look like quantum phenomana. They are on YouTube. I particularily like Fig. 5.(c) in Bush, "The new wave of pilot-wave theory", Physics Today, 68, 8 (2015) as a demonstration of the \Psi* in the classical world.
Remember the size limit of an essay.
Hodge
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 00:05 GMT
As it turns out..
I've had some correspondence with professor Bush. And during FFP11, I think I walked right by the lab of Couder and Fort. I remember reading a sign in the hallway of the Physics batiment (where my lecture took place) at Paris Diderot, and thinking it looked rather low-tech when I peered into the room. But I had no idea at the time, what the experiments were about.
As it turns out; there is an exact analogy of the shape in figure 5(c) in the Mandelbrot Set, and that is a point of interest for me. What I see is that the X shape in the tail is a phase inversion that chases the droplet along. The fish's tail drives the fish along, and the droplet is suspended over the fish's body. If you zoom way in on the droplet, you will see a bow-tie shape.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 19:01 GMT
Hi Mr Hodge,
Happy to see your essay on this contest.I liked it.
Congratulations.
ps this info about the works of Tom Van F. intrigues me.I beleive the same with this waves of gravitation that many confound with the gravitational waves which are them Under our special relativity.These waves tend to infinity like this quantum gravitation in fact.It is probably this zero absolute the secret balancing this standard model and thermo.This matter not baryonic the dark matter and the BHs have still many secrets to show us in fact.It is facinating because we are at doors of a real revolution in technology due to the checking of this gravitation at quantum scales.We could utilise a new kind of energy.This cold ...
Regards
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 19:28 GMT
Agree we t the door of a revolution - the data exists. Now we need the think of the new model.
Suggest the gravitational aether produces the rotation curves of the Dark matter" models.
Thanks for the note.
Hodge
Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 18:59 GMT
This is an interesting idea, that the Universe is deterministic and that there exist a “theory of everything” which our science, math and philosophy are just imperfect reflections of this entity. The author shows the utility of the “theory of everything”; all can be explained by starting with the theory of everything and working down to anything: Life, Quantum Mechanics, dark matter and human society. The author even has methods to help reveal more information from the theory of everything. Regrettably, this reviewer does not share the premise. Science cannot assume a perfect theorem exists and base all inquiries using that requirement. All ideas must be part of the debate that is the scientific method.
Sincerely,
Jeff
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 19:55 GMT
"Science cannot assume a...", Why not. you also say "All ideas must be part of the debate..."- contradictory.
Assuming there is a TOE suggests a line of inquiry into what are the common elements of General Relativity and quantum mechanics. Perhaps add life and societies.The Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) suggests the "space" is a "gravitational aether" of Bohm Interpretation and the \Psi* suggest faster than light waves. The result produces new models that explain quantum entanglement, rejects wave-particle duality with another explanation of photon light. The diffraction experiment rejecting wave nature of light also suggest the cause of entanglement, quantum eraser experiment results.
The STOE is a little rough on life and society, but I have written the papers on life and society from the STOE perspective.
Hodge
Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 03:08 GMT
Hodge,
Science cannot assume a perfect theorem exists and base all inquiries using that requirement.
If you include the whole quote it is no longer it is no longer contradictory. A perfect theorem might exist, but the existence of the theorem must also be shown using the scientific method.
Sincerely,
Jeff
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 08:39 GMT
Dear John,
With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of high praise.
You are one of the few who directly answers the question put by the contest.
You are absolutely right that
«Because a single universe exists, a single Theory of Everything exists involving causal relations from the very small to the very large». You correctly put questions and find answers
«This implies applying a deterministic perspective to replace the probability arguments.» «The simple rules need to be identified. Additional concepts such as fractal structures and negative feedback loops from the emergent principal that describe the universe are also helpful.» In my
essay , is shown that if you do not use the mystical properties of matter and fields, then there is every reason to believe that the universe is much simpler than it is thought to be.
There is only one essence and the only universal quantum parametric mechanism in the universe that operates on the principle of the classical heat pump in solitons, and that functions both at the micro- and macro-level of fractal matter. This mechanism allows using a small fraction of the external energy to control in many times big fraction the energy of the system.
This mechanism is also the answer to the questions of this competition.
However, everyone loves their fiction and "magic", built by their "gods", so very few are able to see the rational grain in other people's ideas because of their illusions.
Your essay allowed to consider us like-minded people.
You might also like reading my
essay .
Kind regards,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 18:01 GMT
Dear John C Hodge
I inform all the participants that use the electronic translator, therefore, my essay is written badly. I participate in the contest to familiarize English-speaking scientists with New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the principle of identity of space and matter. Combining space and matter into a single essence, the New Cartesian Physic is able to integrate modern physics into a single theory. Let FQXi will be the starting point of this Association.
Don't let the New Cartesian Physic disappear! Do not ask for himself, but for Descartes.
New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show potential in this essay I risked give "The way of The materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural" - Is the name of my essay.
Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. After you give a post in my topic, I shall do the same.
Sincerely,
Dizhechko Boris
report post as inappropriate
George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 08:16 GMT
Dear John,
I am seriously believe that we are two like-minded people despite we are talking on somewhat different things. You says "Mathematics is a distinctly human endeavor." And I have written "math is our creation that is a special tool - language to make our job easier"! I think these are almost the same. That is why I am thinking as I am saying above. Now I reading your work with good intention to supporting you. Please just open my essay - I think you can find there some interesting points also! It will nice to hearing your some words in my page.
Best wishes,
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 19:48 GMT
I'll read your paper.
I hold Math as something to be discovered in nature, therefore a part of nature. This is much more than a tool.
George Kirakosyan replied on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 04:35 GMT
Yes Dear Hodge!
I agree with you - math is much more than only a simple tool!
I says in my work - // b) The mathematical apparatus was formed and developed as a separate, abstractly descriptive - analytical tool, by the way of abstraction and generalization of quantitative properties of material objects, reflecting conservation laws in the nature.// Thus, the conservation laws is acting there, which are the constructive base of natural science!
Now I can finalise the evaluation of your nice essay thanks to your valuable remarks in my page.
My best wishes
George
report post as inappropriate
Willy K wrote on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 05:10 GMT
Dear Hodge
Interesting to see you mention ‘cause of society’s success’ and ‘life’s consciousness’ with the same thrust and emphasis. I think the two will almost certainly require different models to explain their functioning, but my current attempt to model the social system intelligence does suggest that the two are connected in a limited sense;in that, they both likely have the capacity to ‘nurture’ their root element. Both of them might be working/stable because their ‘intention’ is to stabilize their root element, which would be life in the case of society and neurons in the case of consciousness.
Also, agree with you that the universe is likely deterministic, but I also think it likely that we may never be able to figure out the future despite gaining access to the theory of everything because of inherent limits in computation ability. I think your essay is great and have rated it accordingly.
Warm Regards, Willy
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 15:47 GMT
Willy
I put a post in your essay.
I think that The principles of the universe must also apply to life and societies.Therefore, we can look at life and societies action to help determine the physics of the universe. Likewise we can look to physics to help determine the process of life and societies.
Societies start (birth) , grow, and die (end) often with much life death. The principles once discovered could help create a much longer lived society.
I think we are in the declining stage of the US society. Knowledge of the principles of the universe (nature) might avert the catastrophe and ensuing dark age that followed the bronze age collapse and the Roman collapse.
That is why I found you essay interesting.
Hodge
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 14:45 GMT
Hi John,
You touched quite a number of topical areas in your essay and I will say I found it interesting.
One such topical area you touched is geometry and the question of extended objects but you shied away from categorically saying whether a point was an extended object or not.
On cosmology, your views are interesting even if we have areas where we disagree. In this regard, see this link for similarities/contrasts with your views. I corresponded with the author and told him I would be pointing a friend in the website's direction (http://home.earthlink.net/~rarydin/critique.html).
All the best in the competition,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 14:47 GMT
Oopps... wonder how it works. Rated 7 but still remained 4.8.
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 18:29 GMT
Ojo:
Thanks for the reference. I've scanned the site and will send an email to him after I read about his model.
Are you in contact with him? Do you discuss his model? Do you have a site for your model?
Hodge
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 00:07 GMT
I responded to your reply above..
I do appreciate the reference to Bush et al.
More later, JJD
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge replied on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 00:56 GMT
Wow! I'd have liked to have seen that and to have talked with Bush.
I have been thinking of building the aparatus to do a "quantum erase" experiment with drops. But I don't know how to get the entangled pair of drops after a single drop goes through the slit.
That would be something. It would complete the quantum-to-bouncing-drop analogy
Do you have a reference or something to show the Mandelbrot Set image you mentioned?
Hodge
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.