Nice essay Rowland,

You said in the beginning “since 1965, when Penzias and Wilson discovered the microwave background radiation, most have considered the evidence to be overwhelming. It appears as if the universe began in an explosion (the “Big Bang”) approximately 13.7 billion years ago, and has been expanding ever since”……………….

…………….In your opening ...

view entire post

Nice essay Rowland,

You said in the beginning “since 1965, when Penzias and Wilson discovered the microwave background radiation, most have considered the evidence to be overwhelming. It appears as if the universe began in an explosion (the “Big Bang”) approximately 13.7 billion years ago, and has been expanding ever since”……………….

…………….In your opening sentence ' …microwave background radiation, most have considered the evidence to be overwhelming… ' is not correct, as they have not accounted for the microwave radiation emitted from Galaxies, Globular clusters and stars etc… see the essay on CMB in previous FQXi... There was no provision to eliminate this radiation in the WMAP satellite. See my essay…

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1607

No Bigbang generated CMB detected; You can see Branko’s( another author in this contest) solution here. http://vixra.org/abs/1602.0095

I have another objection, you are considering this whole universe as expanding universe only. You are not considering 60 percent of Galaxies like blue shifted Galaxies and Quasars etc… Do you feel it is correct…

Even though Bigbang is popular, it is failing at experimental evidences….

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

Gavin,

I greatly enjoyed reading your essay. I think you are on exactly the right track. But, I have some suggestions that might be helpful.

You said, "In this essay I explain how existence, in terms of something from nothing, may be the consequence of a dimension of constructiveness. This requires a rethinking of the nature of fundamental dimensions."

I think you are exactly...

view entire post

Gavin,

I greatly enjoyed reading your essay. I think you are on exactly the right track. But, I have some suggestions that might be helpful.

You said, "In this essay I explain how existence, in terms of something from nothing, may be the consequence of a dimension of constructiveness. This requires a rethinking of the nature of fundamental dimensions."

I think you are exactly right and it is in that "rethinking" that I think I can help.

You began by making the tacit assumption that the "universe" is identical with the Big Bang and its consequences. I suggest that you enlarge your scope and consider the universe to be much bigger, and older, and that our visible "universe" that resulted from the BB is only a relatively small part of reality.

You said, "there is no special point from which the [BB-generated] universe originated." Using the familiar balloon-with-dots analogy to explain the anisotropy, this implies a large, extra spatial dimension in order for that balloon to exist. I would also point out in passing, that flatness vs curvature is different in kind from expansion vs contraction.

You are absolutely right when you say that "the universe is very, very large." But there is a huge gap between "very, very large" and being infinite. It seems more reasonable to expect that the size of reality lies somewhere in that huge gap. It seems likely that reality is very, very much larger than our 4D BB-generated space-time continuum, and yet not be infinite.

You said, "Nothingness as a cosmic origin has a certain appeal." Agreed. But even more appealing might be "ultimate simplicity". That would at least allow for some minimal starting point in case nothing really can come from nothing, and ultimate simplicity would be "neat and tidy" too.

You said, "An underlying complexity dimension may be the trigger for the emergence of a very simple substance capable of information processing." Considering complexity as a dimension may be an error. What I would suggest is that the extra dimension(s) is (are) ordinary spatial and temporal dimensions exactly like the ones in which we find our phenomenal existence.

And, here, I will offer my two most important suggestions for you: 1) Read Edwin Abbott's Flatland, or re-read it if you have already read it, and 2) look into the mathematical meaning of manifolds.

1) Abbott's small book is a delight and is easily available for free on the Internet. It is a quick easy read, well worth it simply for the critique of British society, which I think was its real purpose. But what you need to gain from it is an understanding of the psychological problem that people (I suspect this includes you, along with A. Square) have in accepting the possibility of the real existence of extra, large, inaccessible dimensions. You will also get a feeling for the mathematical concept of manifolds, although I don't think he ever uses that term.

2) The term 'manifold' has a very precise meaning in Differential Geometry, which is the study of calculus on manifolds, but I am not suggesting that you take a course in Differential Geometry (although it would be wonderful if you already have). The vernacular use of the term 'manifold' carries many of the important mathematical features, so there are many tangible examples of manifolds to make it easy for us to understand them. Here's the idea: A manifold is a special subspace that is embedded in a space of at least one higher dimension. A couple of characteristics make it special:

The manifold must be smooth and connected. Smooth means that if you zoom in on any point in the manifold, it gets flatter and flatter. Connected means that you could traverse from any point in the manifold to any other point in the manifold without leaving the manifold. So, for example, the inside surface of the intake manifold on your car is like that. A sheet of paper is a 2D manifold embedded in your 3D office.

The most important feature of manifolds for our purposes, is the fact that anything outside the manifold is, in principle, inaccessible to any structures or processes that are in the manifold. (You can't construct a plane figure on a sheet of paper that can reach into the room above the paper.) This is the real reason we can't see the extra dimensions, not because they are tightly curled up. It is what makes the extra dimensions inaccessible.

If we consider that our BB-generated 4D world is an embedded manifold in a 5D, or higher space-time continuum, there is an enormous expansion of the possibilities for structure and function. This would provide plenty of room for that "deeper constructive dimension in psychology" that you are trying to understand. It would also provide a place for that primordial, ultimately simple, origin of reality to take place, and it solves the problems of evolutionary psychology that you noted. Unfortunately, everything outside of our manifold is inaccessible to scientific experimental and observational apparatuses so it gets ruled out of consideration by Popper and most scientists.

You concluded your essay by saying, "I have argued that the universe could not have made a reality such as ours without a fundamental principal of constructiveness, and that this principle is best understood as a fundamental dimension comparable to space and time."

I think you are on the right track. I would suggest that you consider this new fundamental dimension to be exactly comparable to objective space and time: as additional spatial and temporal dimensions outside our 4D manifold.

In my essay, "A Proposal for an Expanded Paradigm", I have followed your lead but have gone ahead and done some speculating on how reality might have come to be in a higher-dimensional picture. I invite you to read it.

Paul Martin

view post as summary

Dear Gavin,

What an excellent essay! I agree with much of it. You say:

"Within living things, there is no threshold of complexity at which consciousness can be said to begin."

That is key! If there were, consciousness would clearly 'emerge'. Also, you note 'learning' and 'decision' are all the way down to the cell, while "within the human brain there are perhaps...

view entire post

Dear Gavin,

What an excellent essay! I agree with much of it. You say:

"Within living things, there is no threshold of complexity at which consciousness can be said to begin."

That is key! If there were, consciousness would clearly 'emerge'. Also, you note 'learning' and 'decision' are all the way down to the cell, while "within the human brain there are perhaps 100 trillion synapses."

So one must explain how, with no threshold of complexity, consciousness is everywhere abundant on earth, each becoming conscious without crossing the threshold. And explain how one hundred trillion synapses are 'integrated', capable of pretty well understanding other similar brains, (or even cat and dog brains!). Quantum entanglement is generally 'monogamous', occurring between two particles [if it occurs at all!] Are all the quantum 'wave packets' conglomerated to produce self-awareness and feelings of happiness, sadness, pride, shame? A field solves all of these problems [and feels right too.] You ask "what endows it with properties of mind? What endows gravity with the property "Come here now!"? You say the consciousness field is ontologically separate from matter. Not so. It is a classical field, with energy, hence E=mc**2 equivalent mass or matter. I think that ideas of "determinism inherent in matter" are confused, but this is beyond the scope of a comment. A classical field is better understood ontologically than an "underlying complexity dimension".

You discuss "value ethics". But the fact that, over millennia, across all religions, "Do unto others…" is what one would expect from a consciousness field, common to all, not from isolated, individual, 'emerged' minds trying to figure things out in a dog-eat-dog Darwinian world. In other words, a universal physical consciousness field that interacts with local biological flows [momentum density: ions in axons, vesicles across synaptic gaps] sensing and 'nudging', solves problems that are otherwise incomprehensible. The details of the physical field are scattered through the comments on my page, but for a taste of the physics involved look at The Nature of Quantum Gravity.

The idealist view that the universe is at base-level "just information" is simply confused, while Spinoza's 'substance' (that which stands beneath, under-standing) is very compatible with a consciousness field that spans the universe, as occasionally sensed directly by vast numbers of people. The primary drawback to the field today lies in misconceptions associated with the Quantum Credo, but this too shall pass.

Thank you for participating in this contest and good luck!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

Gavin,

Nice essay, covering may areas missed by most and with unique insights, well set out and described.

You were straight up high in my scoring regime with your opening; "..many foundational problems would be better approached by starting at the origin of the universe and finding a process that results in our observed reality. As a part of this process, we would need to be...

view entire post

Gavin,

Nice essay, covering may areas missed by most and with unique insights, well set out and described.

You were straight up high in my scoring regime with your opening; "..many foundational problems would be better approached by starting at the origin of the universe and finding a process that results in our observed reality. As a part of this process, we would need to be open to questioning our assumptions.

I'm dismayed so few seem able to genuinely do so, but then 'one man's meat.." so basing fresh views on rigorously deep and sound foundations is crucial and very difficult. I suspect that's why old doctrines cling on regardless! (along with cognitive dissonance of course).

I agree with most points, but as an astronomer I should say you do cite some poorly supported theory. You write; "wherever we may position ourselves – here, or a billion light years away – we would see the same pattern of expansion. It appears as if the universe began everywhere at once" where we've had recent good evidence that was a misunderstanding and flawed analysis. Indeed some excellent dynamic mapping has been done from Planck survey data (updating WMAPS) showing complex asymmetries, the so called 'axis of evil', large scale flows and a helical' background. One model fitting all that well is a version of the 'big bounce' recycling theory. I can give you links if interested.

Have you also considered the 'Higgs process' and so called 'dark energy' in relation to 'from nothingness'? The evidence of 'continuum energy' and it's magnitude is now well accepted and discussed in many branches. I prefer the term 'condensate' as the source of the condensed matter we find from local perturbation. All that may be trivial to and not in conflict with your point but may it help make 'nothingness' usefully less esoteric?

I also like the later sections, and identifying against common assumption that; "Evidence of learning and purposeful decision-making is seen throughout biology, all the way down to the level of single-celled organisms" which many deny, though do you feel we need to find a point where 'higher intelligence' can be defined?

Finally I agree with the 'idealist' view you cite that "all things are in some way mind-dependent". Do you agree the suggested parallels (I use) with subjectiveness and observer dependency?

I hope you may also study my own essay and give your honest views.

Best of luck

Peter

view post as summary

Jim

You are right, there could be a connection between inflation and primordial black holes(PBH's).

The MACHO surveys in the early 1990's looked for massive objects (planets, black holes)that might explain the missing matter. They didn't find nearly enough, but the dark matter could still be loads of mini black holes somewhere between lunar mass and asteroid mass.

The...

view entire post

Jim

You are right, there could be a connection between inflation and primordial black holes(PBH's).

The MACHO surveys in the early 1990's looked for massive objects (planets, black holes)that might explain the missing matter. They didn't find nearly enough, but the dark matter could still be loads of mini black holes somewhere between lunar mass and asteroid mass.

The negative results of underground direct detection attempts and supercolliders suggest that WIMPs are also unlikely.

There is another line of evidence to watch for the PBH argument. The growth of supermassive black holes in the early universe seems to exceed all models that involve standard gas cloud collapse to supernova to black hole to supermassive black hole. The options would therefore seem to be supermassive stars that collapse to form supermassive black holes, or mergers of smaller PBHs. Although no supermassive stars have been seen in the early universe, we do not have strong enough telescopes to rule them out. If they are there they should be detectable within the next 12 months. If not seen, PBHs are the prime candidate.

There is no known mechanism by which PBHs would form, so we may need new physics. Inflation is also not understood, suggesting new physics. Some kind of inflation that expands some chunks of space but not others may result in PBH's

If you scroll up to my comments to Giovanni Prisinzano there are a couple of links. One is to a paper containing my theory on this problem wherein the universe begins with two different types of dark energy that separate from each other. Because like types of dark energy units don't separate, there is potential for the nuclei of PBH's to form during inflation.

Given all this, it will be interesting to see if there is any evidence of supermassive stars in the next 12 months, and also the data coming out in relation to the expansion history of the universe (see the other link I gave Giovanni to the New York Times article).

Cheers

Gavin

view post as summary

Dear Gavin,

Thank you very much for reading my essay and your comment. I have read with interest your deep analytical essay, executed in the Cartesian spirit of doubt. It is this spirit of radical doubt that gives impetus to the search for a way out of the crisis of understanding in fundamental science. Fundamental science, including cosmology, needs today a wide competition of ideas,...

view entire post

Dear Gavin,

Thank you very much for reading my essay and your comment. I have read with interest your deep analytical essay, executed in the Cartesian spirit of doubt. It is this spirit of radical doubt that gives impetus to the search for a way out of the crisis of understanding in fundamental science. Fundamental science, including cosmology, needs today a wide competition of ideas, concepts, theories .

These thoughts and conclusions are very important for overcoming the modern crisis of understanding in fundamental science and global society:

«Plato regarded his “form of the Good” as synonymous to truth, order and virtue. Plato’s Good is an organising principle of the highest order, since it is “what gives existence to things.”»

«…idealists believe that the ultimate measure of ideas is value, and thus decision-making should be motivated by the rightness or wrongness of a decision. idealists believe that the ultimate measure of ideas is value, and thus decision-making should be motivated by the rightness or wrongness of a decision. For idealists, writes W.J .Mander, “Values are certainly as real as other objects and events, arguably more real than them and possibly all that is genuinely real.” And “From Plato onward, idealists have traditionally defended the place of value right in the heart of reality.”»

«“Good, the final end of the world, has bein
g, only while it constantly produces itself.”(Hermann Lotz
e)»

«I have argued that the universe could not have made a
reality such as ours without a fundamental principal of constructiveness, and that this principle is best understood as a fundamental dimension comparable to space and time.»

The modern crisis of understanding in the foundations of knowledge is a deep metaphysical crisis - a comprehensive crisis of ontology, gnosecology, axiology, dialectics. The world picture of physicists, mathematicians, poets and musicians should be united and filled with meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl).

Therefore, in order to overcome the crisis of understanding, it is very important to purposefully support various gnoseological paradigms and to introduce the Ontological standard of substantiation of fundamental theories

Best regards,

Vladimir

view post as summary