Hi Jack...

I am unable to concisely differentiate what may be critical sematic distinctions within the essay... e.g. rational/cognitive/consciousness... but I applaud your symbolic compression format, and if I have correctly interpreted the content, we seem to be meandering toward the same conclusions... i.e. there is requirement of, and potential for, evolved individual...

view entire post

Hi Jack...

I am unable to concisely differentiate what may be critical sematic distinctions within the essay... e.g. rational/cognitive/consciousness... but I applaud your symbolic compression format, and if I have correctly interpreted the content, we seem to be meandering toward the same conclusions... i.e. there is requirement of, and potential for, evolved individual rational/cognitive/consciousness.

I agree that cognitive abilities are emergent, but I also have observed cognitive emergence can be individualized rather than speciel.

That is to say that utilization of Pi*R sq. is not indicative of the cognitive ability to derive Pi*R sq., nor is deriving Pi*R sq. indicative of the cognitive ability to discern the initial requirement for Pi*R sq.

Hmmm??... is it possible that ET's could be Metaphysical Energy enhanced humans... i.e. humans that have achieved a structural change in consciousness, and utilizing empiricism of an "evolved cognition", have installed the Star Trek Replicator app on their mental desktop?

If one acknowledges other than Physical Energy phenomena/processes, ENERGY PROCESSES become hieratically fundamental to PHYSICAL and METAPHYSICAL in the Knowledge Base (KB) directory tree... i.e. Energy mechanix are no longer constrained to a PHYSICAL/ENERGY Knowledge Base (KB) directory configuration.

Physical limits on empirical analysis of Energy have and will continue to necessitate reliance on rational/cognitive abilities in order to develop a priori to revised KB codec/translator... i.e. a Physically unverifiable minimum unit of Energy (QE) must be conceptually/mathematically defined in terms of a Physically unverifiable minimum unit of Space (QI).

That is to say that a solution to a Unified Unit Quantization of a Spherical Singularity geometry must be resolved.

Utilizing rational/cognitive clues... i.e. the codec/translator geometry solution must support mathematics for a continuous pulsed Emission and Distribution of minimum quanta of Energy (QE) equal in all Spatial directions from a single point source... a Unified Unit Quantization of a Spherical Singularity geometry has been resolved, and it yields minimum units of Space/Energy/Time as CAD/SIM Information.

REF: UQS Origin Singularity Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php

Utilizing resolved Singularity geometry to quantize a CAD/SIM environment, as a codec/translator, virtual empirical analysis is now being conducted on Metaphysical Energy choreography mechanix.

Utilization of virtual empirical analysis, in which minimum units of Space (QI) and minimum units of Time (QT) reveal Energy choreography Information... i.e. a Space/Energy/Time/Information digital model... has verified a fundamental Energy principle underlying both Physical and Metaphysical phenomena, facilitating Energy process application upgrades to both empirical and rational/cognitive analysis.

Thanks Jack, for sharing your insights and thus making an opportunity for comment... I would read with attention your comments on my essay entry Title: Knowledge Base (KB) Access as Fundamental to Info Processor Intelligence.

Will be back to rate when I get a chance to read as many as I can before deadline.

S. Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

view post as summary

Hi Jack H. James

How to Empirically Confirm a theory based on pure reasoning without experiential input…. ? It is very tough, I am also struggling with ‘Dynamic Universe Model’ on similar grounds started about 35 years back. But at last many experimental verifications came slowly….. Some more predictions exist still now…………….

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe...

view entire post

Hi Jack H. James

How to Empirically Confirm a theory based on pure reasoning without experiential input…. ? It is very tough, I am also struggling with ‘Dynamic Universe Model’ on similar grounds started about 35 years back. But at last many experimental verifications came slowly….. Some more predictions exist still now…………….

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true….Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.h
tml

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information……..

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from “http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ ”

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-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 GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton’s Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

Best

=snp

view post as summary

WOW -- you do say a lot in a few pages, and the way you do your "idea flow charts" is brilliant. Your essay strikes deeply into the current metaphysical doldrums we have in modern physics and maths. Basically there is no room for the "beyond physics" since science (with maths) claims "everything" as its vantage point with no room for anything else even the "mind" (just about almost). And yes it is...

view entire post

WOW -- you do say a lot in a few pages, and the way you do your "idea flow charts" is brilliant. Your essay strikes deeply into the current metaphysical doldrums we have in modern physics and maths. Basically there is no room for the "beyond physics" since science (with maths) claims "everything" as its vantage point with no room for anything else even the "mind" (just about almost). And yes it is all about how B and C are handled -- are we free to "see" what is there or are we "slaves" to our "evolved cognition". Are there really only a prior "self evident truths" just sitting in our "minds" just waiting to be discovered in the way we relate to the "world out there" as in D. And why is falsification of inductive observations the key for us to understand nature. And then why do we feel deduction is "better" than "induction" since it is induction that gets us the "ideas" to do maths and science in the first place. There is something very odd about how we do things and your flowcharts, which assumes a temporal sequence of deductive inferences can be thought of as a "whole story" -- seems to have only inductive inferences supporting D. Maybe I'm looking at it too literally. A,B,C,D then we do some analysis and we get odd inference patterns in A*,B,C*,*-D where * means "nature" made us change our ideas and the minus sign means "our logic made us take it away" -- is that it! Can we take that step away --- what fills the void. Yes QM just might be "beyond" our cognitive skills and we will always have a "quantum of "this makes no sense"" in our science, since it is that "quantum" that makes us US. Maybe is what you are saying using other words (my take on your work at least). Why do we need to interrogate nature for our answers, is it because we think "nature" is totally free of the "mind" or the "inductive" so an inductive hypothesis can be turned into a deductive subject all based on axioms and maths reasoning. It is hard to know how to answer the child who says "How do we know that nature is honest in the first place when we ask it questions about its behaviour" there could be censorship from pillar to post, self-imposed by the mind's evolved cognition systems.

One thing that doesn't change is B our "cognition" but that is supposedly a result of an evolving process which we are still part of, (you kind of assume a fixed reference nexus for B static) in the changing landscape of "what is fundamental". One definition for fundamental is "that which doesn't change", our minds' eye in the flow chart, does change over time, maybe a feedback loop for B, might make point that point clearer -- why B doesn't change.

Is the mind hypothesis based on "induction" or "deduction" inferences. Are the world's fundamental concepts -- a set of inductions or a set of deductions -- very interesting essay. If it was 9 pages long my mind would be too full with ideas.

I have marked you highly (extra credit for being a philosopher we need more in science now to shake it up a bit LOL). Well done on showing us all how to do a short but very powerful essay. Cheers Harri. If you have time I have an essay in the competition as well. What is fundamental is the area of the imaginary unit" where I do a bit of exploring of new outlandish ideas and see how I can put them into one story. The story is what is the "fundamental quanta" which I guess is "the area of the imaginary unit", it is very speculative in scope and reach (maybe too far in places) but it's fun to write an "almost" story sometimes for this competition. Mr H.

view post as summary