If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Contests Home
Previous Contests
What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners
Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discuss • winners
Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discuss • winners
The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners
Previous Contests
What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners
Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discuss • winners
Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discuss • winners
The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC
Christian Corda: on 3/24/17 at 10:26am UTC, wrote Dear Avtar, Although your Essay is a bit speculative and provocative, I...
Satyavarapu Gupta: on 3/19/17 at 7:46am UTC, wrote Oh! I am sorry, I replied your nice comments on my essay.... I forgot... ...
Satyavarapu Gupta: on 3/19/17 at 7:43am UTC, wrote Dear AvtarSingh sab, Good, thank you. for nice explanation. So according...
James Arnold: on 3/15/17 at 0:04am UTC, wrote Hello Avtar I just read your kind response to my essay. I agree: our views...
Avtar Singh: on 3/14/17 at 22:52pm UTC, wrote Dear James: Thanks for your thoughtful and kind comments on my paper. I...
James Arnold: on 3/14/17 at 6:12am UTC, wrote Avtar, I’m happy to see that someone else shares my appreciation for the...
Héctor Gianni: on 3/12/17 at 22:17pm UTC, wrote Dear Avtar Singh I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME...
Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 3/12/17 at 1:33am UTC, wrote Dear Avtar Singh, I appreciate your essay. You spent a lot of effort to...
RECENT FORUM POSTS
Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...
Joe Fisher: "Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly..." in Can Time Be Saved From...
James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...
Steve Agnew: "Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a..." in Can Time Be Saved From...
Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...
Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time
Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.
Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.
Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.
Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.
Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.
Christian Corda: on 3/24/17 at 10:26am UTC, wrote Dear Avtar, Although your Essay is a bit speculative and provocative, I...
Satyavarapu Gupta: on 3/19/17 at 7:46am UTC, wrote Oh! I am sorry, I replied your nice comments on my essay.... I forgot... ...
Satyavarapu Gupta: on 3/19/17 at 7:43am UTC, wrote Dear AvtarSingh sab, Good, thank you. for nice explanation. So according...
James Arnold: on 3/15/17 at 0:04am UTC, wrote Hello Avtar I just read your kind response to my essay. I agree: our views...
Avtar Singh: on 3/14/17 at 22:52pm UTC, wrote Dear James: Thanks for your thoughtful and kind comments on my paper. I...
James Arnold: on 3/14/17 at 6:12am UTC, wrote Avtar, I’m happy to see that someone else shares my appreciation for the...
Héctor Gianni: on 3/12/17 at 22:17pm UTC, wrote Dear Avtar Singh I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME...
Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 3/12/17 at 1:33am UTC, wrote Dear Avtar Singh, I appreciate your essay. You spent a lot of effort to...
RECENT FORUM POSTS
Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...
Joe Fisher: "Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly..." in Can Time Be Saved From...
James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...
Steve Agnew: "Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a..." in Can Time Be Saved From...
Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...
Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time
Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.
Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.
Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.
Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.
Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.
FQXi FORUM
May 21, 2019
CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]
TOPIC: FROM LAWS TO AIMS & INTENTIONS - A UNIVERSAL MODEL INTEGRATING MATTER, MIND, CONSCIOUSNESS, AND PURPOSE by Avtar Singh [refresh]
TOPIC: FROM LAWS TO AIMS & INTENTIONS - A UNIVERSAL MODEL INTEGRATING MATTER, MIND, CONSCIOUSNESS, AND PURPOSE by Avtar Singh [refresh]
Essay Abstract
This paper presents a scientific approach to address the following questions: Are mathematical laws mindless? How do goal-oriented systems arise, and how do they exist and function in a world that we can describe in terms of (apparently) goal-free mathematical evolution? It demonstrates the power of a wholesome consciousness-integrated science to reveal the physical basis for purpose, aims, and intentions in the universe and life in it. The approach of the scientific research is three-fold. First is to complete the picture of reality via integrating consciousness into a physical model and explain the observed universe behavior resolving the current paradoxes, singularities, and inconsistencies of the mainstream scientific theories. Second is to develop a framework for an integrated model of matter, mind, and consciousness founded on the wholesome reality. And lastly, demonstrate how the so-called mindless physical laws lead to the ultimate purpose, aims, and intentions. A successful agreement between the predictions and empirical observations of the universe demonstrates the validity and credibility of the proposed approach. The predictions are further testable and falsifiable via future observations. The goal-oriented behavior is shown to be an orderly physical/cosmic trend governed by the laws and not an accident or an imperative.
Author Bio
Dr. Avtar Singh is the author of the book - “The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology and Universal Reality”. He obtained his Doctor of Science and Master of Science degrees from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA. He has been involved in cutting edge research and development in science, engineering, and cosmology over the past 30 years. He has published more than fifty technical papers and two monographs. He received the ‘Best Paper Award’ of the American Nuclear Society, MIT research fellowship, and several technical excellence awards in nuclear, defense, and space industries.
Download Essay PDF File
This paper presents a scientific approach to address the following questions: Are mathematical laws mindless? How do goal-oriented systems arise, and how do they exist and function in a world that we can describe in terms of (apparently) goal-free mathematical evolution? It demonstrates the power of a wholesome consciousness-integrated science to reveal the physical basis for purpose, aims, and intentions in the universe and life in it. The approach of the scientific research is three-fold. First is to complete the picture of reality via integrating consciousness into a physical model and explain the observed universe behavior resolving the current paradoxes, singularities, and inconsistencies of the mainstream scientific theories. Second is to develop a framework for an integrated model of matter, mind, and consciousness founded on the wholesome reality. And lastly, demonstrate how the so-called mindless physical laws lead to the ultimate purpose, aims, and intentions. A successful agreement between the predictions and empirical observations of the universe demonstrates the validity and credibility of the proposed approach. The predictions are further testable and falsifiable via future observations. The goal-oriented behavior is shown to be an orderly physical/cosmic trend governed by the laws and not an accident or an imperative.
Author Bio
Dr. Avtar Singh is the author of the book - “The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology and Universal Reality”. He obtained his Doctor of Science and Master of Science degrees from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA. He has been involved in cutting edge research and development in science, engineering, and cosmology over the past 30 years. He has published more than fifty technical papers and two monographs. He received the ‘Best Paper Award’ of the American Nuclear Society, MIT research fellowship, and several technical excellence awards in nuclear, defense, and space industries.
Download Essay PDF File
You seem to trying to prove the existence of consciousness through your own Universal Relativity Model (URM) as against Einstein's theory of relativity. But, your Universal Relativity Model (URM) is not experimentally established yet. Hence, I think, while attempting to scientifically investigate topics like life, intelligence, growth, goal oriented behavior etc, you should use the already established and experimentally verified physical laws so that world can take your views seriously.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Prof. Dixit:
You are correct but I have only used only well-established relativity theory to formulate URE, which is only an application to the spontaneous particle decay. It is not a new theory and as shown in the paper it predicts a variety of the empirical universe observations including future predictions that are falsifiable.
The whole point of the paper is that the well-established theories need to integrate the missing physics of spontaneous decay to eliminate their current deficiencies and inconsistencies missing 96% of the universe including dark energy and dark matter.
I attach herewith a paper that includes a complete derivation of URE based on relativity theory.
Best Regards
Avtar Singh
attachments: FOP_Manuscript-Universal_Relativity_based_on_Mass-Energy_Equivalence.pdf
You are correct but I have only used only well-established relativity theory to formulate URE, which is only an application to the spontaneous particle decay. It is not a new theory and as shown in the paper it predicts a variety of the empirical universe observations including future predictions that are falsifiable.
The whole point of the paper is that the well-established theories need to integrate the missing physics of spontaneous decay to eliminate their current deficiencies and inconsistencies missing 96% of the universe including dark energy and dark matter.
I attach herewith a paper that includes a complete derivation of URE based on relativity theory.
Best Regards
Avtar Singh
attachments: FOP_Manuscript-Universal_Relativity_based_on_Mass-Energy_Equivalence.pdf
Dear Dr. Avtar Singh,
Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay.
Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.
One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about imaginary invisible “wholesome consciousness-integrated science to reveal the physical basis for purpose, aims, and intentions in the universe and life in it.”
The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and comment on its merit.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay.
Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.
One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about imaginary invisible “wholesome consciousness-integrated science to reveal the physical basis for purpose, aims, and intentions in the universe and life in it.”
The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and comment on its merit.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dear Joe:
Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.
Agree with your comment -"One real visible Universe must have only one reality. "
However, this ONE reality is seen as many relative realities by less than fully conscious (V
Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.
Agree with your comment -"One real visible Universe must have only one reality. "
However, this ONE reality is seen as many relative realities by less than fully conscious (V
You gave a very nice approach sir… in your own words…. “integrating consciousness into a physical model..... and ....
You have very nicely pointed out problems of expanding universe models based on GR like … “the observed universe behaviour resolving the current paradoxes, singularities, and inconsistencies of the mainstream scientific theories” in the abstract.
For your information…..
1. Dark matter was not detected experimentally.
2. Regarding Dark energy(You mentioned in Page 2 second paragraph end), if you see the Galaxies in the universe as rotating about Dynamically, then all the Blue shifted, Red shifted, Acceleratingly moving Galaxies both Blue and red side are explained…..
3. You mentioned in Page 5 second paragraph beginning….. about Homogeneity and Isotropy in the universe. That is wrong observationally, Large voids to the tune of 1/3 of observable universe, large scale Galactic structures were observed.
4. You are considering only 40 percent Galaxies (which are red shifted) in the Universe. You should consider the other 60 percent also before finalizing.
And you proposed URM based on General relativity as you mentioned in Prof Dixit’s reply above. Penrose-Hawkins theorem says that there will be a singularity in any expanding universe model based on General Relativity. So your URM is not free of singularities.
Hope you will consider these points and explain
report post as inappropriate
You have very nicely pointed out problems of expanding universe models based on GR like … “the observed universe behaviour resolving the current paradoxes, singularities, and inconsistencies of the mainstream scientific theories” in the abstract.
For your information…..
1. Dark matter was not detected experimentally.
2. Regarding Dark energy(You mentioned in Page 2 second paragraph end), if you see the Galaxies in the universe as rotating about Dynamically, then all the Blue shifted, Red shifted, Acceleratingly moving Galaxies both Blue and red side are explained…..
3. You mentioned in Page 5 second paragraph beginning….. about Homogeneity and Isotropy in the universe. That is wrong observationally, Large voids to the tune of 1/3 of observable universe, large scale Galactic structures were observed.
4. You are considering only 40 percent Galaxies (which are red shifted) in the Universe. You should consider the other 60 percent also before finalizing.
And you proposed URM based on General relativity as you mentioned in Prof Dixit’s reply above. Penrose-Hawkins theorem says that there will be a singularity in any expanding universe model based on General Relativity. So your URM is not free of singularities.
Hope you will consider these points and explain
You gave a very nice approach sir… in your own words…. “integrating consciousness into a physical model..... and ....
You have very nicely pointed out problems of expanding universe models based on GR like … “the observed universe behaviour resolving the current paradoxes, singularities, and inconsistencies of the mainstream scientific theories” in the abstract.
For your information…..
1. Dark matter was not detected experimentally.
2. Regarding Dark energy(You mentioned in Page 2 second paragraph end), if you see the Galaxies in the universe as rotating about Dynamically, then all the Blue shifted, Red shifted, Acceleratingly moving Galaxies both Blue and red side are explained…..
3. You mentioned in Page 5 second paragraph beginning….. about Homogeneity and Isotropy in the universe. That is wrong observationally, Large voids to the tune of 1/3 of observable universe, large scale Galactic structures were observed.
4. You are considering only 40 percent Galaxies (which are red shifted) in the Universe. You should consider the other 60 percent also before finalizing.
And you proposed URM based on General relativity as you mentioned in Prof Dixit’s reply above. Penrose-Hawkins theorem says that there will be a singularity in any expanding universe model based on General Relativity. So your URM is not free of singularities.
Hope you will consider these points and explain
I am sorry I was logged out in my earlier post, I dont know i was logged out automatically during the middle....
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
You have very nicely pointed out problems of expanding universe models based on GR like … “the observed universe behaviour resolving the current paradoxes, singularities, and inconsistencies of the mainstream scientific theories” in the abstract.
For your information…..
1. Dark matter was not detected experimentally.
2. Regarding Dark energy(You mentioned in Page 2 second paragraph end), if you see the Galaxies in the universe as rotating about Dynamically, then all the Blue shifted, Red shifted, Acceleratingly moving Galaxies both Blue and red side are explained…..
3. You mentioned in Page 5 second paragraph beginning….. about Homogeneity and Isotropy in the universe. That is wrong observationally, Large voids to the tune of 1/3 of observable universe, large scale Galactic structures were observed.
4. You are considering only 40 percent Galaxies (which are red shifted) in the Universe. You should consider the other 60 percent also before finalizing.
And you proposed URM based on General relativity as you mentioned in Prof Dixit’s reply above. Penrose-Hawkins theorem says that there will be a singularity in any expanding universe model based on General Relativity. So your URM is not free of singularities.
Hope you will consider these points and explain
I am sorry I was logged out in my earlier post, I dont know i was logged out automatically during the middle....
Dear Mr. Gupta Ji:
Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.
Correct - "Dark matter was not detected experimentally.: Dark means unseen and immeasurable.
There is no singularity in the model as I derive a simplified GR model based on spontaneous decay and not use the mainstream GR theory that has singularity.There are no singularities in my model as shown in figure 8 of the attached paper showing details calculations of the model for R ranging from -infinity to +infinity.
Further total mass of the universe in the URM contains all galaxies, no galaxies are neglected.
Best Regards
Avtar Singh
attachments: 1_FOP_Manuscript-Universal_Relativity_based_on_Mass-Energy_Equivalence.pdf
Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.
Correct - "Dark matter was not detected experimentally.: Dark means unseen and immeasurable.
There is no singularity in the model as I derive a simplified GR model based on spontaneous decay and not use the mainstream GR theory that has singularity.There are no singularities in my model as shown in figure 8 of the attached paper showing details calculations of the model for R ranging from -infinity to +infinity.
Further total mass of the universe in the URM contains all galaxies, no galaxies are neglected.
Best Regards
Avtar Singh
attachments: 1_FOP_Manuscript-Universal_Relativity_based_on_Mass-Energy_Equivalence.pdf
Dear AvtarSingh sab,
Good, thank you. for nice explanation. So according to your calculation total universe mass is REDUCING now . Ok best wishes for your essay sir....
By the way...
………………………… I Want you to explore one more model for the Universe, where ……………reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is...
view entire post
Good, thank you. for nice explanation. So according to your calculation total universe mass is REDUCING now . Ok best wishes for your essay sir....
By the way...
………………………… I Want you to explore one more model for the Universe, where ……………reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is...
view entire post
Oh! I am sorry,
I replied your nice comments on my essay.... I forgot...
please ignore my above post...
Best
=snp
report post as inappropriate
I replied your nice comments on my essay.... I forgot...
please ignore my above post...
Best
=snp
Dear Mr. Avtar Singh
In the spatially finite, but time eternal universe (in past and future) there are Galaxies (10^ Sun masses), 8.745 * 10^12 at each time point. This is based on my Theory. To what extent this result meets your findings? Nature does not care how much we are away from each galaxy and red shift dependent on the distance.
BTW, where are from equations (1), and (2).
Regards,
Branko
report post as inappropriate
In the spatially finite, but time eternal universe (in past and future) there are Galaxies (10^ Sun masses), 8.745 * 10^12 at each time point. This is based on my Theory. To what extent this result meets your findings? Nature does not care how much we are away from each galaxy and red shift dependent on the distance.
BTW, where are from equations (1), and (2).
Regards,
Branko
Dear Mr. Branko L. Zivlak:
Thanks for reading my paper and asking great questions.
Please see Figure 5 in my contest paper that gives the number of galaxies vs. redshift Z. The maximum number of galaxies are about 3.5 x 10E12 at lower redshifts and deceasing to about 6 x 10E11 at redshift of 20.
Equations (1) and (2) are derived in the attached paper.
I would appreciate it greatly if you could please rate my paper.
Thanks
Avtar Singh
attachments: OPJ_Manuscript-Universal_Relativity_based_on_Spontaneous_Decay.pdf
Thanks for reading my paper and asking great questions.
Please see Figure 5 in my contest paper that gives the number of galaxies vs. redshift Z. The maximum number of galaxies are about 3.5 x 10E12 at lower redshifts and deceasing to about 6 x 10E11 at redshift of 20.
Equations (1) and (2) are derived in the attached paper.
I would appreciate it greatly if you could please rate my paper.
Thanks
Avtar Singh
attachments: OPJ_Manuscript-Universal_Relativity_based_on_Spontaneous_Decay.pdf
Dear Avtar Singh,
i read your essay and i feel that you thought hardly about the question your son asked you in the first place. I think you derived at the right answer, namely that consciousness should be considered as a fundamental ingredient – one way or the other – in the universe. I especially like your lines of reasoning that self-induced motion (e.g. of photons), birth/decay of...
view entire post
i read your essay and i feel that you thought hardly about the question your son asked you in the first place. I think you derived at the right answer, namely that consciousness should be considered as a fundamental ingredient – one way or the other – in the universe. I especially like your lines of reasoning that self-induced motion (e.g. of photons), birth/decay of...
view entire post
Dear Stefan Weckbach
Thank you very much for reading my paper as well as your kind comments.
I would appreciate it very much if you could please rate my paper.
Best Regards
Avtar
Thank you very much for reading my paper as well as your kind comments.
I would appreciate it very much if you could please rate my paper.
Best Regards
Avtar
Dear Avtar Singh,
your essay is clearly written, not obfuscating. You lay out properly what you mean. I gave you my rating also for the content of your essay, for you came up with an interesting new approach (ZPF) and cited the relevant reference. Thanks for your participation!
report post as inappropriate
your essay is clearly written, not obfuscating. You lay out properly what you mean. I gave you my rating also for the content of your essay, for you came up with an interesting new approach (ZPF) and cited the relevant reference. Thanks for your participation!
Dear Avtar Singh,
Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. I have now read your essay and agree that we see consciousness as inherent in the physical universe rather than an artifact, almost an afterthought, that emerged in unplanned fashion. If this were the case, it could just as easily have been that consciousness never arises at all.
I agree with you that "a common set of physical laws govern the functioning and behavior of matter, mind, consciousness, intentions, aims, and purpose at all scales in the universe." and that "laws are not mindless but the very mind of the universe and goal-oriented behavior is not an accident..."
Your focus is heavily on the cosmological problems of dark matter and dark energy. I have not quantitatively pursued my theory in this direction, so I cannot compare our results. My focus has been on the physical interaction of the field with neural networks of the brain, and of the field with itself.
As Harry Ricker points out elsewhere, physics suffers from "underdetermination", in which case two or more theories fully comply with all the verification evidence. This is exacerbated when the theories do not fully overlap in their applications. The significant thing is that we draw the same conclusion that consciousness is inherent in the universe, not an 'after-the-fact' artifact, nor anything that arose from 'mindless math'.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. I have now read your essay and agree that we see consciousness as inherent in the physical universe rather than an artifact, almost an afterthought, that emerged in unplanned fashion. If this were the case, it could just as easily have been that consciousness never arises at all.
I agree with you that "a common set of physical laws govern the functioning and behavior of matter, mind, consciousness, intentions, aims, and purpose at all scales in the universe." and that "laws are not mindless but the very mind of the universe and goal-oriented behavior is not an accident..."
Your focus is heavily on the cosmological problems of dark matter and dark energy. I have not quantitatively pursued my theory in this direction, so I cannot compare our results. My focus has been on the physical interaction of the field with neural networks of the brain, and of the field with itself.
As Harry Ricker points out elsewhere, physics suffers from "underdetermination", in which case two or more theories fully comply with all the verification evidence. This is exacerbated when the theories do not fully overlap in their applications. The significant thing is that we draw the same conclusion that consciousness is inherent in the universe, not an 'after-the-fact' artifact, nor anything that arose from 'mindless math'.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Avtar,
Essay is personal and well thought out. Your URM acts to connect the human / conscious and the inanimate, along with the whole of the universe into a functioning whole with meaning and goals.
I believe I make the same connections but perhaps with less skill as stated by you: "URM demonstrates that a common set of physical laws govern the functioning and behavior of matter, mind, consciousness, intentions, aims, and purpose at all scales in the universe."
Well done, Avtar.
Jim Hoover
report post as inappropriate
Essay is personal and well thought out. Your URM acts to connect the human / conscious and the inanimate, along with the whole of the universe into a functioning whole with meaning and goals.
I believe I make the same connections but perhaps with less skill as stated by you: "URM demonstrates that a common set of physical laws govern the functioning and behavior of matter, mind, consciousness, intentions, aims, and purpose at all scales in the universe."
Well done, Avtar.
Jim Hoover
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 addresses all the key goals, purposes of human life beyond the ere 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
report post as inappropriate
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 addresses all the key goals, purposes of human life beyond the ere 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
Avtar,
I checked to make sure that I rated yours. Of those I have read so far, I have only rated those I'm sure of the high quality, and yours was one of two. The other was Mr. Klingman.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
I checked to make sure that I rated yours. Of those I have read so far, I have only rated those I'm sure of the high quality, and yours was one of two. The other was Mr. Klingman.
Jim
Jim:
Thank you so much for your kind consideration and valuable feed back on my essay. I appreciate it deeply.
Best Regards
Avtar Singh
Thank you so much for your kind consideration and valuable feed back on my essay. I appreciate it deeply.
Best Regards
Avtar Singh
Avtar,
A very interesting essay and enjoyable read. I also agree, as my essay agrees, with much of the considerable content though not immediately all the new ideas (but that should & will have no effect on scoring).
I di have comments and questions but suspect we may have a far more productive discussion once you've read my essay, which I confess you may find even more packed with important derivations and linked concepts than your own!
Very well done. I normally try to reserve scoring until later but yours deserves a major boost so I'll score it now.
You may also be interested in my published paper on a cyclic sequence for galaxies and the universe which seems in accord with your thoughts - but perhaps to discuss after the contest.
Best regards
Peter
report post as inappropriate
A very interesting essay and enjoyable read. I also agree, as my essay agrees, with much of the considerable content though not immediately all the new ideas (but that should & will have no effect on scoring).
I di have comments and questions but suspect we may have a far more productive discussion once you've read my essay, which I confess you may find even more packed with important derivations and linked concepts than your own!
Very well done. I normally try to reserve scoring until later but yours deserves a major boost so I'll score it now.
You may also be interested in my published paper on a cyclic sequence for galaxies and the universe which seems in accord with your thoughts - but perhaps to discuss after the contest.
Best regards
Peter
Dear Avtar Singh,
I wish you all the best with your in depth analysis of how intentions govern reality. I welcome you to read there are no goals as such in which I propose that consciousness is the fundamental basis of existence and that intent is the only true content of reality. Also that we can quantify consciousness using Riemann sphere and achieve artificial consciousness as per the article Representation of qdits on Riemann Sphere. I see that you are also arriving at study of consciousness in physical systems in your essay. Also please see all the diagrams I have attached in my essay.
Love,
I.
report post as inappropriate
I wish you all the best with your in depth analysis of how intentions govern reality. I welcome you to read there are no goals as such in which I propose that consciousness is the fundamental basis of existence and that intent is the only true content of reality. Also that we can quantify consciousness using Riemann sphere and achieve artificial consciousness as per the article Representation of qdits on Riemann Sphere. I see that you are also arriving at study of consciousness in physical systems in your essay. Also please see all the diagrams I have attached in my essay.
Love,
I.
Dear Sridattadev Kancharla
Thanks for reading my essay and offering thoughtful comments.
Regards
Avtar
Thanks for reading my essay and offering thoughtful comments.
Regards
Avtar
Dear Dr Singh
It is a nice attempt at an overall integration, but I have difficulty with some of it. You say "The physics of the spontaneous decay phenomenon is integrated into a physical model of the universe that allows a system to induce a change to its own mass-energy state without an external agency." So this is quantum physics you are referring to - which is not purposeful, it is random as far as we can tell. "It is hypothesized that such consciousness defined as the self-induced motivation capability inherent in living systems allows them to efficiently organize their simplest components with the intricate aims of survival, reproduction, and other biological ends employing panoply of physical effects to accomplish many conscious or free-willed chosen goals." - well yes but that is now biology not physics. "Such consciousness or spontaneous motion also governs the spontaneous expansion of the universe, spontaneous birth/decay of particles, and functioning of the biological mind that provides spontaneous self-motivation capabilities to biological life forms." Here physics and biology are irretrievably mixed up with each other with no clarity on their relation. "This hypothesis is tested against the observed universe behavior and further testable via proposed future empirical observations." - the quantum and cosmological part of your essay seems quite distinct from the part talking about life - much of which I agree with.
Regards
George Ellis
report post as inappropriate
attachments: 2_FOP_Manuscript-Universal_Relativity_based_on_Mass-Energy_Equivalence.pdf
It is a nice attempt at an overall integration, but I have difficulty with some of it. You say "The physics of the spontaneous decay phenomenon is integrated into a physical model of the universe that allows a system to induce a change to its own mass-energy state without an external agency." So this is quantum physics you are referring to - which is not purposeful, it is random as far as we can tell. "It is hypothesized that such consciousness defined as the self-induced motivation capability inherent in living systems allows them to efficiently organize their simplest components with the intricate aims of survival, reproduction, and other biological ends employing panoply of physical effects to accomplish many conscious or free-willed chosen goals." - well yes but that is now biology not physics. "Such consciousness or spontaneous motion also governs the spontaneous expansion of the universe, spontaneous birth/decay of particles, and functioning of the biological mind that provides spontaneous self-motivation capabilities to biological life forms." Here physics and biology are irretrievably mixed up with each other with no clarity on their relation. "This hypothesis is tested against the observed universe behavior and further testable via proposed future empirical observations." - the quantum and cosmological part of your essay seems quite distinct from the part talking about life - much of which I agree with.
Regards
George Ellis
Dear Dr. Ellis:
Thanks for your time and I deeply appreciate your comments on my paper- FROM LAWS TO AIMS & INTENTIONS - A UNIVERSAL MODEL INTEGRATING MATTER, MIND, CONSCIOUSNESS, AND PURPOSE . Below are my responses to your comments/questions:
1. GE Comment: “You say "The physics of the spontaneous decay phenomenon is integrated into a physical model of the universe that allows a...
view entire post
Thanks for your time and I deeply appreciate your comments on my paper- FROM LAWS TO AIMS & INTENTIONS - A UNIVERSAL MODEL INTEGRATING MATTER, MIND, CONSCIOUSNESS, AND PURPOSE . Below are my responses to your comments/questions:
1. GE Comment: “You say "The physics of the spontaneous decay phenomenon is integrated into a physical model of the universe that allows a...
view entire post
attachments: 2_FOP_Manuscript-Universal_Relativity_based_on_Mass-Energy_Equivalence.pdf
Dear Avtar Singh
I am very Impressed with your article. The main thing for me is that you demand to put the questions clearly and correct (because the correct formulated problems only may give some chances to its solution). I mark also that you well evaluate the whole significance of right methodology in the science. Unfortunately, this elementary key demands are often ignored in present physics in fact (that is why we have what we have now!)
I cannot say that I can fully study your work and correctly evaluate its right now. However, I see some of your approaches and statements of questions and I have already decided that we have many common viewpoints. Let me say just that some of your questions I have solved (in my opinion of course) that you can find in my works in good time for you (particularly, the problem of stability of particles also there is) There are many other interesting things also, (see, in Refs.) So, it is nice to meet and to support you as one truly thinker!
With best wishes
report post as inappropriate
I am very Impressed with your article. The main thing for me is that you demand to put the questions clearly and correct (because the correct formulated problems only may give some chances to its solution). I mark also that you well evaluate the whole significance of right methodology in the science. Unfortunately, this elementary key demands are often ignored in present physics in fact (that is why we have what we have now!)
I cannot say that I can fully study your work and correctly evaluate its right now. However, I see some of your approaches and statements of questions and I have already decided that we have many common viewpoints. Let me say just that some of your questions I have solved (in my opinion of course) that you can find in my works in good time for you (particularly, the problem of stability of particles also there is) There are many other interesting things also, (see, in Refs.) So, it is nice to meet and to support you as one truly thinker!
With best wishes
Hi George:
Thank you very much for reading my paper and providing your kind comments. The mainstream science needs to cultivate a consciousness-integrated rather than Inanimate approach to science to represent a wholesome reality, purpose, and meaning to the universe and life in it.
Again, I am really grateful for your understanding and support of the wholesome approach.
Best Regards
Avtar Singh
Thank you very much for reading my paper and providing your kind comments. The mainstream science needs to cultivate a consciousness-integrated rather than Inanimate approach to science to represent a wholesome reality, purpose, and meaning to the universe and life in it.
Again, I am really grateful for your understanding and support of the wholesome approach.
Best Regards
Avtar Singh
Hello Mr Singh,
It is a relevant general work.I liked how you extrapolated this relativity and time dilations.And how you have considered this cosmological singularity even if I consider a gravitzational aetehr instead of a luminiferous aether.The zero and the singularities show a general deterministic understanding.Thanks for sharing your works and good luck in this contest.
Regards
report post as inappropriate
It is a relevant general work.I liked how you extrapolated this relativity and time dilations.And how you have considered this cosmological singularity even if I consider a gravitzational aetehr instead of a luminiferous aether.The zero and the singularities show a general deterministic understanding.Thanks for sharing your works and good luck in this contest.
Regards
Dear Avtar Singh, 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 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 gravitation 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
If you believed in the principle of identity of space and matter 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 gravitation 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
Dear Avtar Singh
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
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
Avtar, I’m happy to see that someone else shares my appreciation for the significance of spontaneity, for “spontaneous (non-causal) phenomena.” And yours is an excellent effort to answer the contest question, how to “demonstrate how the so-called mindless physical laws lead to the ultimate purpose, aims, and intentions.”
Thank you for introducing me to Freeman Dyson’s views on spontaneity. I’ve just ordered his book “Infinite in All Directions.”
“Dyson states: “….. So the atom seems to have a freedom to choose, that's something which characterizes quantum processes that they seem to just occur spontaneously. We call that spontaneous decay. So it is spontaneous; ……this freedom that the individual atom has to have…. seems to be an indication of some rudimentary form of mind.”
That's very close to what I've written too.
(Incidentally, the common view that “the expansion velocity calculated by the Linear Hubble model (LHM) exceeds the velocity of light C and hence, violates the theory of relativity” is not true, as the radius of the universe R, and diameter D are observer-independent; we cannot observe bodies radiating from The Origin as moving > C, but from the transcendent perspective at the origin, bodies radiate in all directions at C.)
(BTW, your ratings are terribly low. Have you also suffered several anonymous ‘1’ ratings? I’ve given you a nice bounce toward a rating you deserve.)
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for introducing me to Freeman Dyson’s views on spontaneity. I’ve just ordered his book “Infinite in All Directions.”
“Dyson states: “….. So the atom seems to have a freedom to choose, that's something which characterizes quantum processes that they seem to just occur spontaneously. We call that spontaneous decay. So it is spontaneous; ……this freedom that the individual atom has to have…. seems to be an indication of some rudimentary form of mind.”
That's very close to what I've written too.
(Incidentally, the common view that “the expansion velocity calculated by the Linear Hubble model (LHM) exceeds the velocity of light C and hence, violates the theory of relativity” is not true, as the radius of the universe R, and diameter D are observer-independent; we cannot observe bodies radiating from The Origin as moving > C, but from the transcendent perspective at the origin, bodies radiate in all directions at C.)
(BTW, your ratings are terribly low. Have you also suffered several anonymous ‘1’ ratings? I’ve given you a nice bounce toward a rating you deserve.)
Dear James:
Thanks for your thoughtful and kind comments on my paper. I appreciate it very much.
FQXi is a unique forum to address key open issues related to science that impact humanity and life. The mainstream science has treated the universe, laws, and fundamental particles as inanimate entities devoid of life, consciousness, or free will. As a result, the mainstream theories of...
view entire post
Thanks for your thoughtful and kind comments on my paper. I appreciate it very much.
FQXi is a unique forum to address key open issues related to science that impact humanity and life. The mainstream science has treated the universe, laws, and fundamental particles as inanimate entities devoid of life, consciousness, or free will. As a result, the mainstream theories of...
view entire post
Hello Avtar
I just read your kind response to my essay. I agree: our views are complementary.
I would appreciate a rating from you, as those 1's have knocked me out. I've filed a complaint with the administrator about 1's in general, but it's not clear that they will be removed or the perpetrators banned.
report post as inappropriate
I just read your kind response to my essay. I agree: our views are complementary.
I would appreciate a rating from you, as those 1's have knocked me out. I've filed a complaint with the administrator about 1's in general, but it's not clear that they will be removed or the perpetrators banned.
Dear Avtar,
Although your Essay is a bit speculative and provocative, I find it intriguing and enjoyable. In particular, as I am a physicist of gravitation, I find interesting the cosmological part of your work. Thus, despite I do not agree with all your claims, reading this Essay gave me a lot of fun. Hence, I will give you the highest score. Good luck in the Contest.
Cheers, Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Although your Essay is a bit speculative and provocative, I find it intriguing and enjoyable. In particular, as I am a physicist of gravitation, I find interesting the cosmological part of your work. Thus, despite I do not agree with all your claims, reading this Essay gave me a lot of fun. Hence, I will give you the highest score. Good luck in the Contest.
Cheers, Ch.
Login or create account to post reply or comment.