Dear Lorraine,

It strikes me as significant that a "former computer analyst and programmer" describes the Universe in terms related to this former vocation. Perhaps this explains the essay's compositional strengths: clear and well-organized. Is this not what brings it to life!?

A few things in the essay and comment section give me the impression that you may be interested in studying...

view entire post

Dear Lorraine,

It strikes me as significant that a "former computer analyst and programmer" describes the Universe in terms related to this former vocation. Perhaps this explains the essay's compositional strengths: clear and well-organized. Is this not what brings it to life!?

A few things in the essay and comment section give me the impression that you may be interested in studying Figure 6 (on page 8) in my essay, Rethinking the Universe. I call the figure a "Cosmic Everything Chart" and argue that the name is justified by its manifest connection to physical reality and the surrounding text.

One of the key things to notice in the Chart is the hierarchy of densities (rules?). Humans are located nearly in the middle of the whole as well as in the middle of the prominent stretch of objects of atomic/molecular density (where living things reside). The Chart indicates a relatively sharp turn at the Chandrasekhar Limit Mass (rule?), where gravity kicks prominently in. The upper right end of the chart is highly problematic for General Relativity (an inadequately tested system of rules?).

Note also that the Planck Mass is patently NOT on the chart. Lines are drawn to indicate the intersection where this (non-rule?) would lie. It is not on the Chart because it is not something ever to be found in the actual Universe.

Finally, as though to draw a distinction between an abstract set of rules and the PHYSICAL Universe, you state that "there is no behind-the-scenes electric power to run the system... In the actual Universe there is seemingly nothing forcing change in the system." You suggest that TIME arises by "the generation of new one-off local rules." Whereas, I would argue that gravity is what "runs the system" and embodies time. This is not how it is in the standard, hopelessly static "block Universe," of course. But it is how it is if accelerometers tell the truth about their state of motion.

Best of all, we can FIND OUT whether this latter view is valid or not by conducting the simple (and feasible) experiment proposed by Galileo in 1632.

Cheers,

Richard Benish

view post as summary

Nice essay Ms Ford,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg…

1. The universe is not merely an open or a closed system, and not merely a thermodynamic system: the universe is all there is - an isolated system [1] that necessarily generates all its own rules.

2. So it is not illogical to hypothesise that the universe itself must in some sense know, must in some sense...

view entire post

Nice essay Ms Ford,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg…

1. The universe is not merely an open or a closed system, and not merely a thermodynamic system: the universe is all there is - an isolated system [1] that necessarily generates all its own rules.

2. So it is not illogical to hypothesise that the universe itself must in some sense know, must in some sense be aware of, the rules it generates.

etc...

A Good idea, I fully agree with you, in fact I am also proposing the same…………

………………… At this point 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…in my 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 Universe is generating its own rules and has its consciousness.

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

show all replies (3 not shown)

hide replies

show all replies (2 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Lorraine,

It is a pity that I could not see your email earlier, since post Apr 7, my reviews, and comments, do not elicit responses. Below, your statements are quoted in double quotes.

Your opening lines, "unlike a model system that we might set up, where we impose the system rules from the outside, there is nothing and no one outside the universe to generate rules", appeared...

view entire post

Dear Lorraine,

It is a pity that I could not see your email earlier, since post Apr 7, my reviews, and comments, do not elicit responses. Below, your statements are quoted in double quotes.

Your opening lines, "unlike a model system that we might set up, where we impose the system rules from the outside, there is nothing and no one outside the universe to generate rules", appeared remarkably on the spot. I do hold similar views too. But a few statements later, one encounters, "So it is not illogical to hypothesise that the universe itself must in some sense know, must in some sense be aware of, the rules it generates", I began to feel uncomfortable with the use of the terms, 'know' and 'aware'. But, "Contrary to Rovelli’s hypothesis, it is rules that are 'meaningful information'", gave a different picture altogether. Only difference I would like to add is that the rules are not meaningful information, but the reality of information is based on the natural causality of the rules.

There may be a small problem with, "But the single outcomes of quantum randomness also have the status of 'necessity' if you hypothesise that a one-off local rule for each outcome has been generated by the universe, a rule that can be represented by an equation that resets the numeric value for the 'uncertain' system variable." I am not sure, if one is to gather that this generation of rule is arbitrary, or does it also have a rule, since if it is arbitrary, then it must be random, otherwise determinism comes back in terms of having a rule for rule generation. Secondly, one measurement of a system must be related to another to maintain certain probability distribution? I mean the processes could be stochastic, but the generation of photon from a coherent source, and their arrival at a screen past a double slit must have a pre-determined distribution.

Aims and intentions are reflections of an element of desirability, why does any one context appear more desirable than another? Secondly, if such a sense of desirability is part of all elemental systems as well, then of course one should see violations of second law of thermodynamics everywhere if elements exhibited any degree of commonality of desirability. In contrast, if there is no centralized sense of desirability for a being / entity then it would be difficult for elements to set their courses of desirability such that they serve the purpose of the unified whole system. Later on, I do notice that you have offered resolution of this, "Paradoxically, it’s seemingly the restriction of possibilities for lower-level entities (like particles, atoms and molecules) via structural constraints and rules, that leads to the potential for building higher-level entity structure (like single- and multi-cell living things), and the progressive refinement of information categories that might be used by the entity".

"computers do not actually process information – they process representations of information; computer programs do not actually generate rules – they can only generate representations of rules." In my view, information processing takes place at all interactions, where semantics of experiencing also emerges in the same process. The computers are not yet programmed to achieve this level of emergence.

"Despite the ubiquity of emergent behaviour there remains no deep understanding of emergence". What if one lays down the specific process of the emergence of higher level semantics from lower level primitives? This is what I have attempted. I do not attribute sense of knowledge, awareness, and desirability to all physical entities. But I work out how information processing via specifically organized interactions may give rise to high level complex and abstract semantics. It is very well possible !

Rajiv

view post as summary