CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]
TOPIC:
Where the Question Leads by H Chris Ransford
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author H Chris Ransford wrote on Jan. 18, 2017 @ 22:04 GMT
Essay AbstractThis paper examines whether and how sentience and intentions can emerge from pure mathematical laws. It reaches the conclusion that the answer quite surprisingly depends on a particular metric of the universe or multiverse.
Author BioH Chris Ransford is the author of 'The Far Horizons of time' (de Gruyter), and most recently of 'God and the Mathematics of Infinity' (Ibidem Verlag)
Download Essay PDF File
John C Hodge wrote on Jan. 19, 2017 @ 05:44 GMT
Ransford
Thanks for commenting on my paper.
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 multiverse, 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...
view entire post
Ransford
Thanks for commenting on my paper.
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 multiverse, 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
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 19, 2017 @ 11:39 GMT
Hello Mr Hodge and Mr Ransford,
Thanks for sharing your works to both of you.It is relevant because indeed we search the laws of this universe.The philosophical point of vue is important.About multiverses and the causes of laws.It becomes complex when we insert indeed the maths.This to explain that the domains chosen so become philosophical.We arrive so at how must we interpret the...
view entire post
Hello Mr Hodge and Mr Ransford,
Thanks for sharing your works to both of you.It is relevant because indeed we search the laws of this universe.The philosophical point of vue is important.About multiverses and the causes of laws.It becomes complex when we insert indeed the maths.This to explain that the domains chosen so become philosophical.We arrive so at how must we interpret the uniqueness and the entire entropy above this physicality in complexification.Multiverses for me of Mr Tegmark are more subtil than we can imagine because that extrapolates towards personal singularities ,like if we had our own universe.I have even said him that he could create the multispheres where personal psychology and gravitational soul are extrapolated.But of course we arrive at a complex play of maths and subjective analyse but what I find relevant is that subjectivity and objectivity can converge.But if I can it is important to consider the principle entropiqua the principle of uniqueness,the singularities, personal and gravitation are linked.We die electromagnetically ,not gravitationally.When we consider these singularities, quant ,personal and gravitational,we can also consider that all turns around this cosmological singularity implying this uniqueness;That is why the aether is gravitational and that we must consider multispheres like subjective and mathjematical about the singular soul of each uniquenss serie.We retrun always to this uniquenss at all scales.The multispheres return always at this uniquenss due to main causes from this entropy considering a central BH for this universal sphere.Eisntein said that god does not play at dices, newton and tesla were fervent thinkers in this infinite entropy above our understanding creating a physicality with codes and informations of evolution.The uniquenss seems foundamental on this irrversible entropical Arrow of time....I like a lot your line of reasonings to both of you.We search answers after all, we know so few still about this universal sphere and its quantum sphères for me.They turn so they are.
Regards
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John C Hodge wrote on Jan. 19, 2017 @ 06:10 GMT
Ransford
Another possibilty to your 2 is that "mind" is isufficienctly defined. Therefore, the phrasing of the question is meaningless.
Infinities and singularities are unreal. If a math answer is infinitiey or singularity then the physics incorrectly models the universe.
You postulate the other universes are dlike ours. So light from another universe should behave in ours. The spaces should meld. As you maynote above, the other universes could be very different (ie 2 D).
Hodge
report post as inappropriate
Francis Duane Moore wrote on Jan. 19, 2017 @ 19:05 GMT
The author analyzed the question about mindless math and aims and intentions, which was nice but I thought the questions intention was to stimulate creativity concerning representation theory of some aim or intention of the science of Physics
report post as inappropriate
Author H Chris Ransford replied on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 13:12 GMT
Please do read to the end? Thanks
Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jan. 19, 2017 @ 20:26 GMT
Mr Ransford
You say:
„There is, as of yet, no consensus on whether our universe or multiverse is finite or infinite.“
About infinity?“ (word universe is enough).
We should be precise on what is meant.
I cited Ruđer Bošković “Now, although I do not hold with infinite divisibility, yet I do admit infinite componibility“.
Therefore I say: mass and space of the universe and any other phenomenon is finite but the number of their combination is infinite and Universe is eternal.
Generally speaking your statement about role of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences is quite acceptable.
Zivlak
report post as inappropriate
Author H Chris Ransford replied on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 09:54 GMT
Just a mention maybe, you state that Quote mass and space of the universe and any other phenomenon is finite but the number of their combination is infinite Unquote
I take it you use the word 'infinite' here as meaning 'extremely large' rather than mathematically infinite (elementary combinatory analytics says that you cannot reach infinity from a combination of any finite number of elements, however large)I tend to prefer to stick to the mathematical definitions rather than using words in their more 'popular' definitions.
There are many different views and possible scenarios as to the ultimate fate of the universe, maybe the statement 'the uiverse is eternal' needs to be further examined.
Regards
Chris
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jan. 20, 2017 @ 10:46 GMT
Dear Chris Ransford,
you made some good points in your essay by asking what ingedients of nature could be more fundamental than others, some Ur-mind ‘stuff’ or explicitly material stuff. I like that you try to argue with already established scientific/mathematical results to find out what these results can say about the limits of their own field of investigation.
I think it is...
view entire post
Dear Chris Ransford,
you made some good points in your essay by asking what ingedients of nature could be more fundamental than others, some Ur-mind ‘stuff’ or explicitly material stuff. I like that you try to argue with already established scientific/mathematical results to find out what these results can say about the limits of their own field of investigation.
I think it is important to think about scientific arguments which involve infinities and investigate if the consequences of these infinities are all consistent with each other. As you, i think that defining the ‘universe’ as an infinite hierarchy of infinities, is highly problematic. As you describe, it would lead us to think of reality as some kind of infinitely dimensional Hilbert-Hotel where former impossibilities necessarily must transform into necessities.
But one conclusion of yours I couldn't trace to be logically valid. You wrote “Thus, we have come to a fork in the road: if our universe or multiverse is finite, then mathematics must be the ultimate truth.”
I highlight the word ‘must’ here. I cannot see that there is the logical necessity for a finite universe to be fundamentally grounded only on mathematics. If this could be logically derived (as you seem to have done), then one should be able to formalize this logical necessity via a mathematical proof. But such a proof could only prove what it assumes in the first place as an axiom. So we are stuck with the axiom that a finite universe must have its fundamental basis in mathematics, but this ought-to-be fundamental basis isn’t able to deliver what it should deliver out of itself: a mathematical basis (means proof) that it is the fundamental basis of a finite universe.
Therefore i consider the assumption that mathematics should have the ultimate priority when defining the most fundamental ingredient of our universe as highly questionable. I see the fact that mathematics cannot prove itself to be the ultimate truth as an indication that it has its fundamental limits. If so, the corresponding material reality should reflect this. Indeed, as you may know quantum mechanics reflects these limits. For example Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle has found to gain its fundamental validity not only due to the limits of accurate measurements, but as a matter of a natural principle (see for example https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120116095529.h
tm).
It is hard for me to reconcile the above results with mathematics as being the one and only ruler of the universe. Surely one can hopefully extrapolate the hitherto empirical successes of mathematics in science into the future. Surely one can assume, similar to Turing’s halting problem, that every instance of it will necessarily halt in the future. But isn’t this just a counterfactual assumption in the light of the Heisenberg’s uncertainties, because due to the latter it cannot ever be proven to be empirically correct? What do we make out of an assumtion which is neither empirically nor mathematically provable – in principle – due to fundamental limits in both fields of investigation? My anser is that the question of what we until now assume to be the fundamental layer of reality (maths and determinism) may alter and enrich its meaning by refering it to its own fundamental limits.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author H Chris Ransford replied on Jan. 20, 2017 @ 11:09 GMT
Great post Stefan,
Thank you ...
This post format is probably not the best vehicle to respond with any degree of cogency (or for that matter exhaustiveness) but suffice to say I agree with most of what you say here.
Kind regards
Chris
Author H Chris Ransford replied on Jan. 20, 2017 @ 11:27 GMT
To complete my foregoing answer
1- There is an element of 'semantics' involved, terms must be defined with a high degree of accuracy, and 'mathematics' does not mean the same thing to all people (cf. Tegmark et al.)
2- A lot of your answer seems to assume that perhaps the universe is indeed finite? I tend to think that the balance of likelihoods points the other way (but of course, as I stress in the essay, there is no proof either way.)
Now you know :-) why this post format is not necessarily the best - dealing exhaustively with point 2 above would be book-length ....
Kind regards
Chris
Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 20, 2017 @ 16:50 GMT
Dear Author Ransford,
Thank you for warning me that you have no idea what reality am.
One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings such as the ones you effortlessly indulge in. 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
Don C Foster wrote on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 03:41 GMT
Rodney,
I read your essay with interest, but must disagree with your statement that “our universe is purely mathematical,” suggesting that mathematics is somehow more real than the universe it describes. I may be admitting to feet of clay here, but from my perspective, the weakness in this argument is that, unless mathematics is to be entirely self-referential, there must be something on the other side of the equal sign. Those two little parallel lines mean a great deal. Mathematics is always in an adaptive-loop relationship, edging toward the equilibrium moment that signals conformity with some actual dynamic. The universe is its own best equation. Mathematics is at best a refined “stone rubbing” of that underlying reality.
Regards,
Don
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 15:26 GMT
Dear Mr. Foster,
The real visible Universe am not mathematical. 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 finite mathematical constructs are.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Lee Bloomquist wrote on Jan. 23, 2017 @ 08:38 GMT
The author writes:
"…the question ' How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?' contains two markers of possible illegitimacy. The word 'mindless' is stated but not proven, and the phrase 'give rise' posits a stated but as yet unproven time sequence. There would be, for example, no a priori grounds to dismiss the remote possibility that, like humans and apes, both...
view entire post
The author writes:
"…the question ' How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?' contains two markers of possible illegitimacy. The word 'mindless' is stated but not proven, and the phrase 'give rise' posits a stated but as yet unproven time sequence. There would be, for example, no a priori grounds to dismiss the remote possibility that, like humans and apes, both mathematical laws and mindful aims and intentions spring from an ultimately common source, rather than one from the other."
I took this question a different way. The principle of least action, for example, has no variables for representing intention, decision, information, possibilities, information channel, etc. Yet Richard Feynman has described a particle as "smelling" the possibilities in such a calculation, when the mathematics is "mindless" on this account. There is no "smelling" in the mathematical statements. But the idea is strongly intuitive for Feynman and he uses it.
Are there any categories of mathematics in which we could find such things as "goals," intentions," etc.?
Yes. Game Theory for example.
And— there is another category where "information channel" is the central mathematical object. This is covered in Jon Barwise and Jerry Seligman's book "Information Flow: The Logic of Distributed Systems."
Relativity is a good example.
Water and air afford information channels for messages carried by sound. Applying this to space, the idea before Einstein was that the "aether" afforded a similar information channel, in the same way that water and air afford information channels.
But this does not work.
So the choice is either (a) give up on the idea that an information channel carries the message and signal from Einstein's clocks.
Or, (b) hold onto the principle of the information channel; but in relativity (and perhaps regarding intentions), look for an information channel to exist as something different from space.
That complex numbers can be used to model "possibility" allows me to take a next step (cf.
An Overall Approach.)
An information channel comprises a system of parts, one part carrying information about another part. But in relativity, we cannot say that space is such a system. We have to expand the search.
Well, the wave function is a complex number. So say, for the moment, that there is a wave function for the Universe and that it is the system of possibilities we are looking for.
Then insofar as the wave function of a particle is part of the wave function of the Universe, the possibilities for, say, particle A can convey information about, say, the possibilities for particle B, by virtue of the system of possibilities (the wave function of the Universe) which now constitutes an information channel carrying information about possibilities from one particle to another.
Or, if you prefer something other than "wave function of the Universe," Bohm and Hiley's Holomovement also works as an information channel for broadcasting possibilities. (ibid. The Holomovement is a stream.)
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 25, 2017 @ 09:11 GMT
Lee,
the light carries the information, as frequency and intensity.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 25, 2017 @ 09:16 GMT
Chris, I liked the way you clearly set out your arguments throughout. Your questioning of the question at the start was a nice introduction.
report post as inappropriate
Harry Hamlin Ricker III wrote on Jan. 31, 2017 @ 15:19 GMT
Hi, This essay is commended for trying to address the essay contest topic. However, I was not convinced by the arguments presented. In addition I thought that the essay presented a fallacy in the idea that mathematics exists independent of human beings who invented it. That is a Platonic concept and it has some severe problems in convincing people it is true. I wasn't convinced.
report post as inappropriate
Author H Chris Ransford replied on Jan. 31, 2017 @ 16:07 GMT
Greetings Harry,
Thanks for the thoughtful post. The dichotomy between the Platonic and the Aristotelian views of reality is still hotly debated, with little consensus in sight. My years in physics and physical chemistry make me rather strongly lean towards the Platonic view, but I recognize that it's not everyone's view.
A full argument would of course be book-length, and still I fully respect that some might still not be convinced: that's how science works, with consensus only established after considerable work on the part of all.
Some of the opposition to the Platonic view has sometimes come from its purported "insane consequences" - witness for instance Dieter Zeh's comments, etc. One of the most utterly strange books I have ever read has to be Colin Bruce's, who espouses the view of multiple copies/near copies etc. across the metaverse . I believe that whatever we do, and whatever our take is on the nature of reality, we must remain very, very careful with our mathematics.
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 02:28 GMT
Hi Chris Ransford,
An excellent analysis on the FQXi question for the contest itself...
Can you please through some light on your words...."the evidence that the universe is indeed purely mathematical is overwhelming."
Have a look at my essay also...
Best
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 10:04 GMT
Hi CR
I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ……………reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc…just have a look at the essay… “Distances,...
view entire post
Hi CR
I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ……………reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc…just have a look at the essay… “Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe” where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement…..
I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems
For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.
Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems 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.
With axioms like… No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.
Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain
Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading…
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/
Be
st wishes to your essay.
For your blessings please…………….
=snp. gupta
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Branko L Zivlak wrote on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 17:39 GMT
Dear Mr. Ransford
Yes you are right. Bošković use the word 'infinite' here as meaning 'extremely large'.
Also, maybe the statement 'the uiverse is eternal' needs to be further examined.
So I confirm. We should be precise on what is meant.
I think the solution lies in the irrationality of mathematical and physical constants.
Regards,
Branko
report post as inappropriate
Clair Wilson wrote on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 12:36 GMT
an interesting read..some of your ideas are pretty novel..and yeah probably not all will agree with your statements still your ideas should exist and you should work on developing them..looking forward to reading more from you..and will tell
this jet writers about you so that they pay attention to your work and promote them a little..best
report post as inappropriate
Author H Chris Ransford replied on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 09:29 GMT
Dear Clair,
Thank you for your kind comments
All the best
H Chris
George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 05:58 GMT
Dear Chris,
I have read your essay and I have seen there things very close to me, as examples:
//When attempting to answer any question, we must remember that not all questions are legitimate // - in my view, this can be accepted as a main criterion to distinguish intelligent man from not so smart!
// … the question ' How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?' contains two markers of possible illegitimacy // - you just have touched on the target on a 100%!
I am highly welcome your essay, with clear soul!
Good wishes
report post as inappropriate
Author H Chris Ransford replied on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 09:28 GMT
Thanks for the kind words George,
Some people have commended this essay and given it high marks (see some of the comments on RG for instance), and some have attacked it with a measure of furor, including one person who insulted me and the FQXi for good measure.
It reminds one of the ratings on, say, Amazon, where a same piece of creative work is routinely given a high 5 stars by some and 1 star by others.
It seems to me that some works resonate with some people, and simply don't with others. Part of this likely has to do with everyone's individual backgrounds. Beyond that, an observation is that with non-fiction rather than with art, some low graders just do not or did not get it - perhaps because, in some cases, their background has not prepared them for the concepts discussed.
That happens, of course, with all of us, but most of us will just refrain from commenting on items we are not equipped to appreciate or judge. As a case in point, I submitted my latest book(God and the Mathematics of Infinity) to a few theologians, and some absolutely loved it and some others loathed it with a passion. Perhaps a handful of those who loathe non-fiction works are those whose worldviews are challenged by the work? I understand fully how painful it can be to see long-held views, views around which one has built a life structure, come under questioning - no matter how logically so. But then again, life is about growing, isn't it? Aren't our cherished life structures at their most useful when they provide the buttress and backstop to prepare us for the next step up? If we do not accept that, it means that we assume that we can reach wisdom here on Earth - whereas, just perhaps, all we can ever achieve is growth...
Thank you again,
H Chris
George Kirakosyan replied on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 10:14 GMT
Thank you that you have shared with me by your right remarks and judgments, and what we can do with this, my dear? It is the life (,,Se la vi!,,) say Frenches. We must always be ready to meet this!
Be well!
report post as inappropriate
Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 22:19 GMT
Dear Chris Ransford
I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I’m not a physicist.
How people interested in “Time” could feel about related things to the subject.
1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.
2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.
3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.
4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as “Time” definition and experimental meaning confronts them?
5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,… a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander…..
6) ….worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn’t a viable theory, but a proved fact.
7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.
8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.
9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.
11)Time “existence” is exclusive as a “measuring system”, its physical existence can’t be proved by science, as the “time system” is. Experimentally “time” is “movement”, we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure “constant and uniform” movement and not “the so called Time”.
12)The original “time manuscript” has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.
I share this brief with people interested in “time” and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.
Héctor
report post as inappropriate
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 15:36 GMT
Dear H Chris Ransford!
I appreciate your essay. You spent a lot of effort to write it.
If you believed in the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, then your essay would be even better. There is not movable a geometric space, and is movable physical space. These are different concepts.
I invite you to familiarize yourself with New Cartesian Physic
I wish to see your criticism on the New Cartesian Physic, the founder of which I call myself.
The concept of moving space-matter helped me: The uncertainty principle Heisenberg to make the principle of definiteness of points of space-matter; Open the law of the constancy of the flow of forces through a closed surface is the sphere of space-matter; Open the law of universal attraction of Lorentz; Give the formula for the pressure of the Universe; To give a definition of gravitational mass as the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration across the surface of the corpuscles, etc.
New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show this potential in 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. Note my statement that our brain creates an image of the outside world no inside, and in external space.
Do not let New Cartesian Physic get away into obscurity! I am waiting your post.
Sincerely,
Dizhechko Boris
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 05:04 GMT
H Chris,
I’m sorry for insulting you. I absolutely abhor the views about of the nature of reality expressed in your essay, and I feel that these views are wrong.
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.