CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]
TOPIC:
Some say the world will end in fire, some say in ice by James Lee Hoover
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author James Lee Hoover wrote on Jan. 31, 2017 @ 16:16 GMT
Essay AbstractSome say the world will end in fire, some say in ice (quoting Robert Frost). If entropy holds true for the universe, it will be ice, and it will be a natural goal, one shared by all living and inanimate things, according to a new theory by physicist, Jeremy England. Beyond this “mindless” law for humans are goals and endeavors that touch on life’s origins and life’s meaning.
Author BioJames Hoover is retired from the Boeing Company in Huntington Beach, California, working as a systems engineer. His career in aerospace stretches back over twenty years and involves cost analysis, cost modeling and logistics research. In that span of years he has taught college courses in education, economics, computer science and English. Before his aerospace career, he taught high school. He recently published a science fiction novel called Extraordinary Visitors and publishes essays on university websites regarding his scientific interests. His personal interests include studies in particle physics, cosmology and interplanetary technology. He has advanced degrees in Economics and English.
Download Essay PDF File
Harry Hamlin Ricker III wrote on Jan. 31, 2017 @ 18:31 GMT
Hi, While the topic of the essay contest was wandering towards a goal, this essay seems to have interpreted that literally as it seems to wander and not arrive at a clear objective.
report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Jan. 31, 2017 @ 19:11 GMT
Thank you, Harry, for taking time to look at my essay. I would seriously be interested in how you would wander toward a coherent solution to the puzzle. Perhaps I lack the ability to clearly state the tie of mathematical laws to humankind's drift toward coherent goals and meaning, or perhaps that drift itself lacks the coherence the aim of this essay seeks. Again, I appreciate your interest.
John C Hodge wrote on Jan. 31, 2017 @ 18:53 GMT
James Lee Hoover
You thinking is impressive. The section 3 Emergence of Life in my entry seems to be along the lines you are following. You seem to have thought about things in which I'm interested.
I have written papers on cosmology and suggested a TOE. Summaries an be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc0mfCssV32dDhDgwqLJjpw
particularly the video on CMB temperature because it talks about your topic and how life's increasing rate of entropy can be maintained - neither fire nor ice.
The videos are easier. The papers are referenced if you want the math heavy versions.
Perhaps you could comment on the STOE model.
Where do you publish? Links?
email: jchodge@frontier.com
John Hodge
report post as inappropriate
Jack Hamilton James wrote on Jan. 31, 2017 @ 22:03 GMT
Given the title, I didn't expect to enjoy this essay but I actually thought it was a neat account of higher level unfoldings rarely discussed. Teleology is the 'explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes', so in one sense talk of entropy as something we derive purpose from is controversial in as much as its controversial to derive purpose and actions from evolution. But here I think the causal elements of entropy that may explain our actions, outside of the purposes we conceive in our head, is interesting. Thanks for submitting.
report post as inappropriate
Jack Hamilton James replied on Feb. 2, 2017 @ 02:42 GMT
Thank you James for your kind comment on my essay getting to the pointy end of this contest question. I certainly found your entry particularly interesting at the level at which it addressed the question though, and found it quite unique, which reinforces the value of having contests like these.
report post as inappropriate
John C Hodge wrote on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 05:32 GMT
James Lee Hoover
Thanks for responding in my essay.
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
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 3, 2017 @ 01:32 GMT
Good Essay sir, you started with “Does mindless mathematical law rule the universe, entropy bringing the universe’s end in ice, as energy diminishes and is no longer dissipated – a heat death in trillions of years? “……………… ended with” Still, goals of open-minded, intelligent creatures must invest all ventures with facts and contingencies: for example, what affect does an1.8 billion light-years across supervoid have on a cosmologist’s views and are thermodynamic systems in question open, closed or isolated?”
So some questions for further analysis…..
What will happen to all the energy dissipated by all energy sources in the Universe...
Will that
energy go infinities of space in the Universe....?
What about enthalpy of the system?
Is it an open Universe you are proposing.... ?
Will the Universe required to have an end …
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 00:23 GMT
It is my thinking that what makes this possible is an open world. In my entry I outline a quantum form of open universe. It is similar to Prigogine who argued for open thermodynamics.
As for fire or ice, in the long run it is ice. The universe will exponentially expand to become ever colder and dark. Already we are in the dying out phase of stellar formation. Stellar formation is about 10% what it was 10 billion years ago. It will be 10% reduced in another 10 billion years. Already this galaxy is populated by about 60% (as I recall) red dwarfs, and in 10 billion years that will be over 90%. These stars will endure for 100s of billions to trillions of years. These will form the last embers and dying sparks.
In the short run we will die from fire. The sun will heat up and Earth will in a billion or two billion years become Venus #2. In 5-6 years the sun will swell up and potentially burn the Earth up.
Your essay was good. Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Paul N Butler wrote on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 22:51 GMT
Your comment on my paper’s page:
Paul,
We posit some of the same mysteries, issues and questions but I tend to leave nature in the realm of a process we are left with and God in the realm of faith to embody what we can't seem to fathom. Entropy is a natural process which seems to govern the animate and inanimate -- the tiny and the colossal.
An interesting read.
Jim...
view entire post
Your comment on my paper’s page:
Paul,
We posit some of the same mysteries, issues and questions but I tend to leave nature in the realm of a process we are left with and God in the realm of faith to embody what we can't seem to fathom. Entropy is a natural process which seems to govern the animate and inanimate -- the tiny and the colossal.
An interesting read.
Jim Hoover
Dear James,
Your concept of God is common among those who don’t actually believe in the actual existence of God. The general belief is that as science advances all of the things we currently can’t fathom will be explained and then there will be no need for a concept of God. The problem with that concept is that there are two possibilities. One is that God exists and created the universe and the other is that God does not exist and the universe came about in some other way. Putting blinders on oneself and only looking at and trying to work for justification of only one of the two possibilities will likely end in false results because they will be founded on the wrong assumptions. Only a balanced approach that honestly looks at and analyzes both possibilities and looks for all the information that can be found that would support both possibilities and also all the information that would be against both possibilities can after full analysis be expected to be able to likely give a truly valid answer to the question. As an example, suppose that God does exist and that he created the universe and everything in it, but suppose that he made it such that it works automatically, so that you find that it appears to you that no God is needed. If God made it for some purpose, such as to create a body for himself and left signs of that purpose hidden in the structure of the universe in such a way that you would not see them unless you were purposely looking for them and also gave explanations of his purpose to certain men who then wrote them down in a book for people to read and get an understanding of his purpose, which included that he made us to become parts of his body which will live eternally in a new universe after this one is destroyed by him when he has all of his body members made, but we must choose to become members in a certain way that he has provided for us to do so, you would likely not read that book because you would think that you have the answer that you desire to have. The result would be that you would spend a lot of time coming to a conclusion that would leave you out of the whole purpose of the universe and the life that can be had after this one. A true scientist looks at and analyzes all of the possibilities and then makes decisions based on all the information available. Even then he always keeps his mind open to new evidence that could possibly change that decision.
I spent over twenty two years looking for that answer in man’s science as that advanced over the years and in other sources all of which together ultimately led me to understandings that go well beyond man’s current understandings of how the world works. I then, by what I at that time thought was just by chance, happened to open and read a part of the Christian New Testament scriptures and found to my amazement that it contained information that was not currently known by man in this world. That a book written about two thousand years ago contained such advanced information caused me to decide to read it all and I have since found much more information, some of which I still don’t yet completely understand about many different areas of knowledge. I also found that the Old Testament contains similar information. I included a small amount of that information in my paper, but the paper was too short to include very much of that information in it.
When I first started my quest to determine whether God exists or not, I found it relatively easy to believe in a natural universe because the accepted theory at that time was the steady state theory, which held that the universe has always existed and that stars would eventually burn out and explode and that the dust from that explosion would eventually come back together to form new stars, etc. Evolution was also easy to believe because living creatures were said to be composed of cells that were filled with protoplasm and cytoplasm and some mysterious unknown life force. This sounded simple enough to possibly come about naturally and evolve. As the steady state theory was ultimately disproven and it became evident that the universe had a beginning and that living creatures were made of cells that were actually very small factories that produced very complex structures that are even today beyond man’s ability to make, etc., it became evident that the universe could not have created living creatures because it tends to break down such structures instead of making them and since the universe had a beginning, that also fit into the concept that it was created by God. I still did not fully accept the existence of God until I saw the information that was provided in the scriptures about him and the world that he created. Since then I have also come to understand other problems with concepts such as evolution. As an example, If you use a DNA copy error rate and a positive result rate that are great enough to possibly allow the production by evolution of all of the types of living creatures that have ever existed, those rates would cause an exponential increase in evolution due to the population increase of all of the creatures, so that today we should see many major evolutionary changes happening all around us, but we don’t.
You are right that entropy is a natural process and that it governs both animate (living creatures) and inanimate (nonliving structures) and applies to things of all sizes. The main difference between the living and nonliving things is that the nonliving things behave completely according to entropy while the living creatures apply some of the motion (energy) that they use to build very complex molecular machines and thus work contrary to entropy in that respect. The nonliving things don’t do this. Of course, living creatures use more motion than they place into the building of these complex structures, so they still can’t completely escape entropy. All of the fossil fuels that man is currently using and has used in the past are the remnants of that stored motion that living creatures have produced over a long time. The natural world does not generally build and store such motion. Instead it tends to break down and disperse any such stored motion over time.
I looked at your paper and found some of the usual attempts to justify the concept that the universe somehow created life. The idea that entropy could drive matter to acquire life-like physical properties ascribes an intelligence to inanimate matter that it does not possess. Inanimate matter can only act in accordance to its built in structural information which means that it behaves in accordance with entropy and tends to average the motion contents of all entities in the system toward the center or average of their motion amplitude range and tends to disperse evenly throughout available space. Larger entities that are more subject to gravity tend to be pulled together by it, etc. There is a long way from matter that is placed in an environment with a lot of motion forming clumps and the generation of complex protein machines and DNA molecules. If that is a natural tendency, why do we not see naturally produced protein molecules and DNA molecules everywhere? The planet Mercury receives a great amount of energy that needs to be dissipated. It should, therefore, by the theory that you support generate a very great amount of life on that planet to help to dissipate all that energy. The same could be said about Venus. If that theory really worked it would be very good because if I made a kettle of chili, every time I warmed it up it would reproduce and automatically make more for me in order to dissipate the applied heat, so I would never need to make more. I might, of course, have to add some dirt or something for it to convert into more chili every so often or something like that. One of the problems with the concept that life would form as a natural process to aid dissipation of energy is that building complex molecular structures is not energy dissipation. It is energy storage. Nonliving matter would tend to dissipate all applied energy, but living creatures would store much of the applied energy into the complex molecular structures that they make. This would actually hinder energy dissipation, not aid it.
Evolution does not intrinsically increase complexity in living creatures. It would only support successful adaptation to the environment. If the environment were to change so that no creature larger than an ant could survive, we would all die out, but ants would still survive and that would be evolution in action even though it would be supporting less complex living creatures over the more complex ones.
The earth’s environment could support the 7+ billion people on this planet if man would stop burning the fossil fuels and use solar energy to generate needed power. If this was done properly, man would take energy that hits the earth from the sun and needs to be dissipated anyway and use it to produce the motion that is needed and then allow it to dissipate back into space normally. This would also get rid of the pollution problems.
It took me quite a while to fully accept the evidence that the universe and life were created by God, so I can understand why those who desire a natural answer to the question of the source of the universe and of life would tend to rationalize some way to look at the world in a way that would support that result, but it is evident that entropy works against life which is why all living creatures have machinery to repair the damages that it causes to them. If the big bang actually happened to create the universe, its cause cannot be discerned because all of man’s theories break down before getting all the way back to the actual beginning of the expansion. With two possibilities (created by God or by some natural occurrence) and no way to determine which it is, any reasonable person would say that it is a fifty percent chance either way. The only thing that could change that understanding would be if the universe’s structure indicates that it was created by an intelligent being or by natural random processes. In that respect its complex multilevel hierarchical structure implies that much intelligence went into its construction, especially into the production of living creatures. To me an attempt to convince people that the thing (entropy) that works to break down and destroy living creatures and the things that they make actually is what works to create life is the ultimate misinformation campaign. Of course, each has the right to have his own delusion if he desires to do so. I just desire to know and understand how things really work too much to continue down that path when it is now so obvious that it is a dead end path.
I find it interesting that we are coming to the end of a complete cycle of understanding. If you go back into history in the United States, when the country was more Christian oriented, someone with the naturalist philosophy would have been considered either very naïve or foolish. At that time there was little scientific evidence either way. Later scientists bought into that philosophy which gave it much credence in the intellectual world and it got to the point that those who believed in God were considered very naïve or foolish. When I came on the scene, I did find that most Christians that tried to disprove evolution did not understand its concepts, so that led me to tend to agree with the scientists of the time. As time went on and the true complexities of the world and the life in it became more and more known, it became apparent that a natural explanation was not practical. Now I find that some scientists are purposely trying to reinterpret the facts of how things actually work in the world to continue to support the naturalist philosophy when the scientific evidence is actually showing it to be wrong. In addition to that I am now finding some Christians who have gone into scientific fields such as genetics and biology who recognize the problems and are beginning to publically address them. The main good thing that has come out of all of this is that science has greatly advanced in the process of trying to prove it in one direction or the other and in the end God still wins because his works prove him.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 06:11 GMT
James Lee Hoover,
An informative and easy to read essay. You note that "
the most pervasive natural force permeating all aspects of human experience is entropy. It perhaps has the largest impact on why the universe works and why it supports life." In this sense it is interesting that Lee Smolin* pointed out that
"
Gravity subverts ideas about thermodynamics ... gravitationally bound systems are anti-thermodynamic."
*See my 2013 FQXi essay:
Gravity and the Nature of InformationIn this sense I found England's idea that entropy drives matter to acquire life-like physical properties interesting, but
self-replication to support the
goal of dissipating ever more energy is a big step. I'll study his paper.
You say "our pursuit of goals depends on the contextual occasions of life", which is compatible with
neural-pathway-based dependence in my essay.
And your statement: "
our bodies contain the stuff of the universe, elements born and reborn – sometimes, animate; sometimes in animate." brings to mind the Santayana quote I mentioned elsewhere:
"
All of our sorrow is real, but the atoms of which we are made are indifferent."
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 17:42 GMT
Hi Jim:
Thanks for reading my essay and thoughtful comments.I would greatly appreciate it if you could please provide your valuable rating to my essay.
I very much enjoyed reading your paper as well. Your paper asks the important questions and addresses all the key goals, purposes of human life beyond the mere survival of species on this planet earth. The mainstream science has to go a long way to see beyond the inanimate matter and biological-only evolution to recognize deeper cosmic and universal realities. I am particularly impressed by your expressed thoughts in your paper -
"So we use these piecemeal guides of mathematical laws, hoping, like a piece of life’s puzzle, we can put them all together into a universal whole. We wonder about ourselves, a living, breathing scalar example of universal things that live and die, achieving this cycle on a much smaller and less cosmic scale than a galaxy, composed of stars, planets, black holes, and gases, or the entire universe."
The key theme of my paper is to provide a quantitative scientific model to address the above with empirical evidence and test-ability in future.
Best Regards
Avtar Singh
report post as inappropriate
Avtar Singh replied on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 18:26 GMT
Dear Jim:
Thank you so much for your kind consideration and valuable feed back on my essay. I appreciate it deeply.
Best Regards
Avtar Singh
report post as inappropriate
Avtar Singh replied on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 19:47 GMT
Jim:
Yes, I did rate your essay.
Thanks
Avtar
report post as inappropriate
John-Erik Persson wrote on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 22:29 GMT
James
Thanks for this interesting essay. It was very great to hear about Englands ideas of a relation between the second law of thermodynamics and self reproduction. A nice essay.
Regards __________________ John-Erik
report post as inappropriate
Natesh Ganesh wrote on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 03:44 GMT
Dear Hoover,
I really enjoyed your essay and thought it was very important that you discussed England's dissipation driven adaptation which I think is a very insightful step forward in the right direction. If you have time, check out my essay. You might find the section "An Argument from Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics" in my submission "Intention is Physical" interesting. I show how the emergence of intention and purpose, can be combined with England's idea for adaptation under one single set of idea. Thanks.
Natesh
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew wrote on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 03:44 GMT
Some say the world began in fire
Some say in ice
From what I've tasted of desire
There are many who would favor fire
But if the world would begin yet twice
I think that ice
Would also surely suffice...
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 1, 2017 @ 12:12 GMT
Hi James
Well written and pertinent essay again. I've always has issues with entropy as it falls apart with the 're-ionization' we've found and in any recycling model, which is what I've shown wide evidence supports more consistently than the so called 'Concordance' Model. That means it would be increasing 'ice' before going through the hottest 'fire' (a quasar) before the next iteration, so even 'end' may not be the right concept!
However I like England's approach, and yours to discussing it. In particular I agree and have written about matter being condensed by shear (first discussed by the present Royal Astronomer in quasar jets in the 1960's). Did you know that the galaxy mass function has grown significantly over the last 12bn years?! I assign that to the fresh NEW matter condensed and mixed in with each re-ionization ('recycling').
Very nice essay, interesting and high up the bunch I think.
Best of luck
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 04:47 GMT
Thanks for the ping Jim..
Too tired to comment intelligently now, but I read your essay.
Comments tomorrow, most likely.
Best,
JJD
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 05:38 GMT
I'll start anew here..
I liked your essay, but I didn't know about England's work until reading it. The premise as stated seems a bit too simplistic, but a generalization of that idea could explain a lot. It tends to be the non-linear aspects of entropy that drive life's adaptation, Jim, because life tries to actively exploit the niches which are boundary regions, places of higher fractal dimension (roughness) and so on. The irregular regions are a haven for living creatures, because they provide a significant gradient over a short interval.
What most people don't realize is that non-linear entropy, and non-linear electrodynamics for that matter, creates islands of order amid the chaos - or rather regimes of order that alternate with chaotic states. To a degree; one can equate converging and diverging regions with purely real vs complex or hyper-complex states with terms that anti-commute or anti-associate as part of the equation. Anyhow; life exploits that to survive, finding a region where a proper mix of order and chaos prevails.
Did you know that if you overlay a bifurcation diagram on the Mandelbrot Set, it has a branching point every place the Set folds back on itself. But the really cool part is that the islands of order in the chaotic regions of the bifurcation map correspond precisely with the mini-Mandelbrots in the tail region of M. There is a place where all the trajectories seem to be drawn to converge at one point, and this location is called a Misiurewicz point. That place is of special interest to me, and is currently a subject of research. Would you believe a BEC formation quantum critical point and a Black Hole event horizon?
Of course; that explains the supervoid too.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 06:30 GMT
Do you mean that the effects of the Mandelbrot set could explain a supervoid, exhibiting images of elaborate and infinitely complicated boundaries of progressively ever-finer recursive details at increasing magnifications -- thus the supervoid?
Jim
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 14:59 GMT
More so this..
The Mandelbrot Set is maximally asymmetric. It is the very embodiment of broken symmetry, where one end behaves as a source and the other as a sink. All the variations appearing at the cusp are extinguished at the tail, where vibration stops and absolute zero temperature is modeled at (-2, 0i). The cusp and the tail point in the same direction. The supervoid has a location in M near (-1.25, 0i), where a bulb opens up as a projection of the 'main' disc.
The spot I'm most interested in is at about (-1.543689, 0i), which is a Misiurewicz point. This is the spot described in my last post.
Warm Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 15:13 GMT
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 10:44 GMT
Dear Jim Hoover,
Thank you for reading my essay and for your comments. I am posting my reply here also.
The Novae and Super Novae (Exploding stars) produce many elements and even new flavours of neutrinos. These things are covered in another paper. Here page length limitation is there. I could not cover many points. To give a basic idea about Dynamic Universe...
view entire post
Dear Jim Hoover,
Thank you for reading my essay and for your comments. I am posting my reply here also.
The Novae and Super Novae (Exploding stars) produce many elements and even new flavours of neutrinos. These things are covered in another paper. Here page length limitation is there. I could not cover many points. To give a basic idea about Dynamic Universe Model…..
Dynamic Universe Model doesn’t use Relativity concepts. So the associated problems of SR and GR like singularities and Bigbang etc are not present. By considering the other 60 percent of Galaxies in the Universe including Blue shifted Galaxies and Quasars, the model doesn’t restrict itself to only expanding Universe model.
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
Ines Samengo wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 11:19 GMT
Hi, James, I enjoyed your nicely written essay. And the emphasis in England's theory, I truly think the clue to the question is around these ideas.
> Do the forces of energy given off by plasma, a fourth stage of matter, in fact, about 99% of normal matter in the universe, replicate and restructure in the form of dark matter?
Wow, interesting conjecture!
Thanks! ines.
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 22:01 GMT
Dear James Lee Hoover,
Hope you will spend some more time on Dynamic Universe Model...
Best Regards
=snp.gupta
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 10:33 GMT
Hi JLH,
Hope you will spend some more time on Dynamic Universe Model,
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...
view entire post
Hi JLH,
Hope you will spend some more time on Dynamic Universe Model,
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
Anonymous wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 16:07 GMT
Dear James Lee,
Thank you for the lessons I learned from your essay.
Indeed survival (and procreation) is for living agants the most important thing, but beside of that we are also worrying about the WHY, one of the reasons of this contest.
You had a very clear goal in your work : The goal of the Universe our reality.
In my perception it is "outside" our emergent reality that we have to search for the WHY.
I hope that you will find some time to read/comment and rate
my essay "The Purpose of Life. (I rated your essay a 7).
Best regards and awaiting your comment
Wilhelmus de Wilde
report post as inappropriate
Philip Gibbs wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 08:40 GMT
This dissipation driven adaptation idea is a fascinating topic. It is hard to see how life can be organising itself in order to dissipate heat more effectively. After all, a dark rock sitting in the sunshine dissipates heat very well. However Jeremy England's calculations seem to suggest that the idea is right.
This seems to leave open the question of what physical mechanism is making this happen. Thermodynamics says that entropy must increase but is there a law of thermodynamics that says a system will adapt to do it more efficiently? How can this be shown in general terms rather than just by examples?
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 19:37 GMT
Dear James,
Very interesting essay, high dialectic and deep ontology of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl). This is what is needed today to overcome the total crisis of understanding in science and society. Successes in the Сontest! Sincerely, Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 00:49 GMT
Dear Jim
I enjoyed your essay - its quiet tone and range, and its being refreshingly well-written and also on-topic (unlike mine) contributed to that. I tried to read England's paper following your endorsement, but it was too technical for my immediate understanding. I would like to see his simulations. I get the feeling it describes how local causal molecular interactions can evolve into self-replicating living cells via a faster route than thought possible.
As to dark matter In my
Beautiful Universe Model dark energy and matter may be simply due to the internal pressure of mutually repulsive Universal lattice nodes.
Cheers
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Don Limuti wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 06:01 GMT
Hi James,
A very creative essay. For your idea collection I consider dark energy and dark matter the source of gravity (and it mostly fits with GR). See http://prespacetime.com/index.php/pst/article/view/1188/1163
In this contest you go for the endgame of fire or ice! An intellectual adventure.
Thank you for your essay,
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 21:07 GMT
Dear Jim!
I invite you to familiarize yourself with New Cartesian Physic
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.
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 his essay I gave The way of The materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural . 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. Hope you rate my essay as high as I am yours. I am waiting your post.
Sincerely,
Dizhechko Boris
report post as inappropriate
Rick Searle wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 00:35 GMT
Hello James,
Yours are always one of the essays I look forward to most in these contests, and I certainly enjoyed your latest.
Although I took a more literary approach than you my essay discussed Jeremy England and the Second Law as well. Please check it out when you get the chance.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2817
Best of luck,
Rick Searle
report post as inappropriate
George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 05:00 GMT
Dear James,
Thank you for attention on my work. I appreciate your support!
Coming to your essay I will just emphasize some points that you says: "Such laws are not mindless ..." Then you says "they not dictate the aim ...". This almost is enough to me to understand your vision on the contest question. Then you goes a little on side and you linked the aim with the entropy. This I can welcome only (I think not me only!) because the connection of the entropy with system organisation it should be obvious to everybody. And, the purposefulness cannot be without organisation. So, this also is nice!
But let me just tell you friendly that I am a little bit sceptical to dark matter. If you will ask my advice here then I will say - It will better to wait until we understand the physical essence of gravity phenomena, the elementary particles etc. I mean, it maybe that time we just will see that the ''dark matter" becomes not so necessary!
And, in the common sense your essay are one of nice works in the contest. So, I can wish you success only!
Best regards
report post as inappropriate
George Kirakosyan replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 05:33 GMT
I see here are many partisans targeted to you, also...
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Keppeler wrote on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 20:50 GMT
Dear Jim, throwing in Jeremy England's ideas adds a nice twist. Maybe they will eventually make our seemingly exceptional situation appear as less unlikely than we thought it was. Cheers, Stefan
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda wrote on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 10:19 GMT
Hi Jim,
Nice Essay which approaches the topics of the Essay Contest in a very original way. I had fun in read it. Thus, you deserves a high score that I am going to give you. Good luck in the Contest.
Cheers, Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 22:22 GMT
Jim,
I teach and there are a few students, who might ask questions or just look interested, which make waking up and driving to class worth the effort; I feel that way when reading your essay. You have humanized the general topics of life, entropy and the state of the universe.
A few notes: the oceans are more of a heat sink with the sun being a heat source. “Organisms are intrinsically bound to increase in complexity through evolution.” There must have been a period early in the history of life where complexity increased, but after that, life mostly tended to the simplest state with a few exceptions (like us).
Best of luck,
Jeff
report post as inappropriate
Yehuda Atai wrote on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 20:15 GMT
Hi James,
Interesting article, and I agree with the observation that all self-organizations from a grain of sand to galaxies are striving to keep the dynamic equilibrium in optimization relative to their state in the environment.
In my philosophical essay "we are together, therefore I am", I explain how it is possible to ratify reality and how the self-organization' from sub particle to a human to galaxies maintain their self-organization.
Thanks again
Yehuda Atai
report post as inappropriate
Ted Christopher wrote on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 20:38 GMT
Hi James,
This is Ted Christopher and I am getting back about your essay and also comment.
You cover a lot of interesting ground in your essay. The work of England I had never heard of.
I just read an article that might be of interest to you. The January Scientific American has an article ""Tangled Up in Spacetime" about the growing interest in 'It from Qubit". This is drawing a lot of attention from physicists.
I think that the DNA connection to mental specifics will be a surprising setback for science. The differences between twins (even conjoined ones) and some unusual behavioral phenomena suggest that there is more to it.
I hope your work goes well.
Ted Christopher
report post as inappropriate
Member Noson S. Yanofsky wrote on Mar. 27, 2017 @ 01:47 GMT
Hi,
Several people have discussed Jeremy England's ideas. I think your explanation is the best. I wonder if his work can be proven theoretically or does it necessarily need experiments. If it is true, it is fascinating.
Thank you.
Noson
report post as inappropriate
Peter Bauch wrote on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 00:34 GMT
James,
Excellent essay deserving the high rating I gave it.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Alexey/Lev Burov wrote on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 02:28 GMT
Hi Jim,
I appreciate you mentioned "life's higher meaning". Don't you think that the biggest discoveries and inventions of humanity happened in following this meaning, not the goals of survival and comfort? If so, would it be correct to try to explain the core of human beings by means of entropy and survival? In our essay we are trying to show that this approach leads to the Epimenides paradox. One more question relates to the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics": how it can be accounted in the framework of your paper?
Cheers,
Alexey Burov.
report post as inappropriate
Jesse Liu wrote on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 07:35 GMT
Hello James,
This is a really lucidly written and interesting essay - thank you for an enjoyable read focussing on a wide variety of phenomena in the natural sciences. I definitely agree that the second law of thermodynamics is likely intimately connected with life. You refer to England's work, which is one we encountered but did not develop in detail in our essay with my coauthor. Instead we focussed on another interesting examination of maximising entropy production based on Kleidon's work and how a holistic thermodynamic view can help us understand how life emerged on Earth.
It is interesting that you allude to our marching towards a unifying theory of everything and understanding natural phenomena in an ordered way as a a goal-oriented behaviour. I find it very interesting how such awareness of physical laws even arose in humans out of evolutionary or entropy maximisation principles. As a particle physicist by day, it is striking how we as living systems emerging from likely thermodynamic principles, came to describe the microcosm at such exquisite levels of empirical precision. As you mention the arrow of time, it is intriguingly even somewhat present at colliders as muons always fly away from the collision point never towards it.
Thanks again for an interesting read!
Best,
Jesse
report post as inappropriate
Gavin William Rowland wrote on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 08:52 GMT
Hi James
I very much enjoyed your essay. Much food for thought here, and well expressed. I like your focus on the big picture issues.
To throw a couple of extra ideas into the mix that may be of interest, I tend to subscribe to the entropy as energy dispersal interpretation. There is a wikipedia site on this and you may also find useful information
here.
Regarding dark matter, my favourite theory is primordial black holes. Perhaps they would suck up a lot of plasma energy in a hot dense universe, if there were enough of them. You can read more about this
here.
Best wishes
Gavin
report post as inappropriate
Gavin William Rowland replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 08:54 GMT
Not sure why the first link isn't working - search "entropysite Lambert" and it comes up first
Gavin
report post as inappropriate
Robert Groess wrote on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 04:17 GMT
Dear Jim,
Thank you for taking the time to read through and comment on my essay, I appreciate the comments you have made. I have in the meantime read your essay and particularly enjoyed that you tied in some of Robert Frost's work. (I had the pleasure of visiting his house in Vermont in 2013, and also quote him in my PhD thesis.) You mention "at the heart of England’s idea is the second law of thermodynamics: hot things cool down, gas diffuses through the air". This was what I was taught in physics classes, but I have since come to appreciate the implications of these observations only more recently. The rigid hold of the Second Law on energy and entropy accounting makes it a big restriction than it at first appears. And restrictions are one of the signatures of intentions (choosing a narrow physical evolution in an otherwise larger pool of options). Thanks to your perspectives here, it is something I would like to think about more.
Thank you again and I have rated your essay too.
Regards,
Robert
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 06:12 GMT
Dear James,
Many thanks for the kind words about my
essay .
With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of the highest rating.
I like your thoughts
«It only seems fitting that with a curious zeal, we should seek the origin of the universe and the dynamics that orchestrated two of the greatest mathematical rules: the first and second law of thermodynamics, the first involving the store of energy and the second its dissipation, which the universe seems to be mindlessly moving toward» When there is time, I will certainly analyze the interesting work that you offer
«They are – in principle -- the conditions described by Philip Marcus of the University of California, Berkeley. In “Physical Review Letters” in 2013, he described “vortices in turbulent fluids ” that spontaneously replicated themselves by drawing energy from shear in the surrounding fluid.»
«Also in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Michael Breener, a professor of applied mathematics and physics at Harvard, with his collaborators, presented theoretical models and simulations of microstructures that self-replicate. By “optimizing interaction energies to destabilize kinetic traps” and in a finite heat trap, clusters of specially coated particles dissipate energy by roping nearby spheres into forming identical clusters.» Kind regards,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Koorosh Shahdaei wrote on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 09:03 GMT
James,
I can to some extent agree to your point of view in your interesting essay, and I wrote an article before that might be of interest to you.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2313
Good luck with your essay
Kind regards
Koorosh
report post as inappropriate
basudeba mishra wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 13:34 GMT
Dear Sir,
(On his essay) You are right that “our pursuit of goals depends on the contextual occasions of life”. How do we fix a goal? We feel the deficiency of something which creates a need in our mind. If we have the knowledge of the mechanism to fulfill the need, we fix that as goal and direct the necessary agencies in our body to execute the task. For this reason, there is a brief...
view entire post
Dear Sir,
(On his essay) You are right that “our pursuit of goals depends on the contextual occasions of life”. How do we fix a goal? We feel the deficiency of something which creates a need in our mind. If we have the knowledge of the mechanism to fulfill the need, we fix that as goal and direct the necessary agencies in our body to execute the task. For this reason, there is a brief time lag between the feeling of the need and its execution, which is called the Readiness Potential (RP). Thus, the goal is related to fulfilling the need – hence beyond survival. It extends to food, shelter, survival and procreation in all life forms, who only respond to the given situation based on past memory.
Though some animals and birds appear to plan for the future, it is related to these four areas based on memory of experience or observation and as a response to impending signals. Only human beings truly plan for the future. Dr. Jeremy England is correct in extending these instincts to inanimate objects, because if we precisely define life (separate from consciousness), it behaves mechanically. Once our first heart beat starts, it continues perpetually mechanically. When it stops, our body disintegrates. Our senses appear with the body and disappear with death. Thus, laws of increasing entropy drive matter to acquire life-like physical properties. But this is not consciousness, because it is mechanical.
You are right that “living organisms seek order, but as we age we lose order”. The reason is related to the nature of time evolution, as separate from Darwinian evolution. Time evolution is applicable to everything that exists in the same manner. It has six stages: 1) from being as cause to 2) becoming as effect. 3) Growth due to accumulation of similars, 4) Transformation due to harmonious accumulation, 5) Transmutation due to non-harmonious accumulation and finally, 6) Change of form or destruction by disintegration. You are talking about the fourth and the fifth stages. This is the “basic natural order, according to England, that is dissipation-driven, aided by self-replication and restructuring”.
When you are speaking of a “mindless process where matter, is a dissipation-driven organization, that naturally seeks self-replication to ramp up its ability to dissipate energy”, the statement is incomplete. What is mind? We consider rest as mutual cancellation of all forces acting on a body. If one of the forces is removed or applied, the center of mass of the body moves in the same or opposite directions with attendant consequences. The point from which the motion starts is the mind. Thus, even inanimate objects can have mind. In humans, we have seen that unless mind is conjoined, our senses will not function. And mind operates only one channel at one time, though at a very high speed.
Since we have the ability to plan for the future, we enjoy certain degrees of freedom. This is our freewill. This gives us the power of discrimination. When mind is used with discrimination, it is called intelligence. Because of our discrimination in decision making, we get attached to it. That is called egotism. When we reflect on our memory and review our decision, it is called sentiency. But all of these are mechanical processes – hence not consciousness.
The above mechanism have certain pit-falls. Our attachment and memory affect our discretion. Thus, mostly, a proper decision making becomes biased and thus distorted. The same affects the so-called mathematical physics. For this reason, we have pleaded in our essay for replacing with physical mathematics.
What is a dimension? If you define it precisely and apply to time, you will know the difference. Duration is nothing but a measure of time or time itself, because duration is the interval between events and that is the definition of time. How do you say that the “10th dimension of observable space, the tenth being infinite possibilities? Symbolic of infinity”? Before that you have to prove that there is a tenth dimension different from what we have defined.
Anyway, we thoroughly enjoyed your essay.
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 07:58 GMT
Dear Jim ! Let me first say that I like your essay, because you are asking a lot of questions and you try to make sense of the many scientific puzzle pieces that you studied in professional practice and academic theory. The hypothesis that the universe might have a beginning is an original formulation of the Hebrew Bible; the narration tells about the creation of living matter from matter, all this out of no-thing by 7 sound vibrations, with light and darkness as physical conditions of life on earth.Human beings operate as living clocks; we have invented the technical clock and the computer as extension of our brain. It is my conclusion that 'time' does only 'work' in living matter, e.g. biochronology; space and time are only moral dimensions to develop self-consciousness, the physical interplay only works by matter ('space') and energy ('time/light'), i.e. physical death converts our body from warmth into cold.
report post as inappropriate
Steven Andresen wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 09:11 GMT
Dear James
I have taken James Putnams advice to read your essay, and although I havent finished, the opening is certainly very interesting. I will read on and return here with comment.
My essay has only received 8 ratings, which is two short of the ten required for prospectively qualifying finals, with few days till close. Would you be willing to review my essay opening, with a view to read on if it should capture your interest please? James seems to think you might find it of interest. It is certainly a unique and novel perspective, I can promise you this much.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2890
Thank you for your consideration
Kind Regards
Steven Andresen
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 13:35 GMT
Jim,
My energy hasn't been up to a lot of reading and dialogue, but rest assured that I enjoyed your ambitious essay and gave it my highest rating.
I will comment on your parting observation: " ... the first and second law of thermodynamics, the first involving the store of energy and the second its dissipation, which the universe seems to be mindlessly moving toward."
It would be mindless, but for the role of time. Overcoming dissipation is the theme of my essay -- and supports my early conjecture that things don't change in time; rather, time changes things. Spacetime itself stores energy, explained by Einstein as time dilation and by quantum mechanics as information.
Good luck and best wishes,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Gene H Barbee wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 17:19 GMT
James,
Thanks for reading my essay. What I liked about yours was the cooperative spirit toward contributions from others. As you say, science is like pieces of a puzzle coming together and your review of several authors was refreshing since many of us become so absorbed in our own work that we stop learning. England’s work was interesting because it describes life as a natural outcome of thermodynamic entropy. I felt that we had to look at the quantum level to see information gain but his work suggests otherwise. He could be right. I worked at the old Douglas facility in Long Beach for a while then moved to Eastman Kodak. At Kodak, I used to play with structures that would form from gelatin under the right conditions. Gelatin is an organic de-natured molecule and the structures (crystals?) were several meters long and very complex. It was almost as if the materials were seeking the life form they originated from.
Good essay.
report post as inappropriate
Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 21:01 GMT
Dear James
Your essay is an easy readable account of present understanding of the universe by Physics, built on England’s idea that what propels the universe is an urge to dissipate energy as fast as possible.
Thermodynamics is just the simplest case of this property; in my opinion, with little relevance for the evolution of the universe. What really makes the universe to evolve is...
view entire post
Dear James
Your essay is an easy readable account of present understanding of the universe by Physics, built on England’s idea that what propels the universe is an urge to dissipate energy as fast as possible.
Thermodynamics is just the simplest case of this property; in my opinion, with little relevance for the evolution of the universe. What really makes the universe to evolve is the tendency of matter to form ever-larger associations. This is a much more efficient form of dissipating energy, in accordance with England’s idea. In my essay I do not mention it, due to the size limitation of the essay, but the “intelligence” of a system, as I defined it, is also a measure of the energy consumption – or dissipation – of the system. The “intelligence” of human societies depends on the availability of energy – the key for the evolution of ancient civilizations was the surplus of energy, or food, carefully sustained by strong politics of birth control, something usually not mentioned. When the control of the size of the population failed, the civilization lost “intelligence”. A recent case is the control of the population in China. While a society does not find a way to control the population, there is not enough energy per capita for the society to have enough “intelligence” to evolve.
Now, in relation to the picture you make of the universe, which in accordance with current ideas in Physics, I know that it is largely wrong. As I say in my essay, the cause of the apparent space expansion is the hypothesis no one considered – it is not the space that expands, it is the matter that is … decreasing in size, loosing energy… in accordance with England’s idea. Space expansion model is just a modern version of Ptolemy model, with dark energy in the role of the celestial spheres (driving stars away instead of around) and dark matter in the role of epicycles (explaining the motion of galaxies instead of planets). And truly the universe is much more interesting then you think – somewhat as the universe of Newton is much more interesting than the one of Ptolemy.
Going away of England, I would say that “energy” is the amount of the perturbation of the medium that we call “vacuum” and that this perturbation tends to the equilibrium (i.e., to disappear) as fast as possible. But what happens to this “energy”? It does not simply vanish, it is transformed. In what? In Intelligence!
Asimov wrote a story where he described the end of the universe, the final fade out; and at that last moment, something happens: Let there be light!
I read this story more then forty years ago, I no longer remember many details, but in this aspect Asimov was in accordance with what I think.
Concerning the voting, I don’t see the voting system as the selection system – that role belongs to the Jury, or to the community members that are not authors of essays. I am now voting the essays considering other things, namely the inspiration I get from the essay, the exchange of ideas the author promoted, its commitment with the spirit of the contest. My vote reflects all that.
All the best!
Alfredo.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James Arnold wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 09:32 GMT
James, an excellent essay.
I especially appreciate “artificially intelligent systems humans construct must perceive and respond to the world around them to be truly intelligent, but are only goal-oriented based on programmed goals patterned on human value systems”
I don't understand: “life exists because laws of increasing entropy drive matter to acquire life-like physical properties. Restructuring and making copies of oneself (self-replication) is a natural attempt to dissipate increasing amounts of energy.” I look forward to reading England's paper.
This was particularly elegant: “We wonder about ourselves, a living, breathing scalar example of universal things that live and die, achieving this cycle on a much smaller and less cosmic scale than a galaxy, composed of stars, planets, black holes, and gases, or the entire universe.”
I agree with what you wrote in your post on my essay, we are not so far apart.
Given your interest in cosmology, you might be interested in my hypothesis that
it is time, not space, that drives the expansion of the universe:
http://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/990
In any case, I rate your paper as a fine job.
report post as inappropriate
Steven Andresen wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 12:16 GMT
Dear James Hoover
I greatly enjoyed your essay. What I credit mostly too, is the underlying and persistent theme that the very particular orders and complexities observed of this world, requires an organisational principle for explanation. An explanation convention does not provide for. That this is your focus speaks well to me. And I also greatly appreciated how you broke away from...
view entire post
Dear James Hoover
I greatly enjoyed your essay. What I credit mostly too, is the underlying and persistent theme that the very particular orders and complexities observed of this world, requires an organisational principle for explanation. An explanation convention does not provide for. That this is your focus speaks well to me. And I also greatly appreciated how you broke away from conventional views with speculations towards explaining Dark Matter, then attempt to identify rationalized anchor points for them within known observation. I thrive on these types of considerations. Nicely done.
By the way, your criticism of my essay title is well founded. I do see your point.
I feel the concept of entropy is wonderful, within bounds of the process of dissipation of heat, and processes that are observed follow on causes. However I am not a fan of the many ways entropy has become the extension for everything tool, Swiss army knife of physics. I feel that the comparison between heat dissipation and disorder is an erroneous association, and a misdirection which has been taken far by some. I like that Jeremy England is in pursuit of an answer for organisation principles of nature that explain physical orders of this world, however I dont see the connections he is trying to bridge. Like entropy being the champion of replication. Unless England can tell me how entropy is the cause for the properties of matter that then give rise to the capacity for molecular bonding, then it can only be applied after the properties of matter and bonding were established. It doesn't go deep enough to satisfy the organisational principle needed to explain the structure and function of atoms. Such a principle would need to be applied at the foundation.
Its just that I have a bone to pick with what I view as the mistreatment of the entropy concept, which apparently I am unable to contain. It is made out to have implications in all universal physical circumstances, but what of entropic gravity? And why did matter condense out of the big bang inferno, defying the tendency of energy dissipation? The universe should have remained as a dissipating bath of radiation, given interpretation of entropy. These points contradict the popular view but are selectively ignored, it seems to me.
Anyway, I'm off subject. This is not a criticism of your work, for which I am about to rate you highly. Very enjoyable read.
Kind regards
Steve
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 20:02 GMT
Jim,
as promised I read your essay
(you commented already in
my essay forum)
At first, you are the second person which pinpoint to Jeremy Englands work. Certainly I hace to read it....
I enjoyed reading your essay. I'm not a fan of iced universe (it is cyclic therefore fire or the flat space become instable, so fire again).
Welldown (with a high mark from my side)
All the best and good luck in the contest
Torsten
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 16:44 GMT
Thanks so much for your insightful essay. I really had never read England's stuff and was curious how his entropy differed from anyone else's. There really is nothing very unique or surprising in stating that entropy determines the arrow of time.
Furthermore, life is a decrease in one system entropy at the expense of even more increase in bath entropy. England's argument is that the chaos of Shannon entropy and some simple rules necessarily result in life. This is very much like the cellular automata approach and argue that life is purely a result of classical entropy and some hidden rules.
Of course, there is also quantum entropy and these classical approaches do not include any quantum entropy or quantum gravity. Therefore England's approach is not really complete. Note that buried in his logic are a lot of special rules to make life go where it is supposed to go.
This is tantamount to rigging the answer in the complexification of the model. Finally, England's approach does not include the role of quantum gravity because of course, mainstream science does not have quantum gravity.
Buried in the logic is a set of rules for entropy propagation that he simply invents. It would be much better to have those rules emerge from the quantum phase noise of quantum gravity, but science is not yet there...
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 19:36 GMT
Dear James Lee Hoover,
I have not forgotten to rate your good essay. I will be submitting my votes in the last few minutes of the contest. Thank you for reading and rating my essay. Good luck to you.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.