Search FQXi


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.

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 5/29/18 at 16:19pm UTC, wrote Sue, I was thinking about your simulation program. The substance and...

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 5/28/18 at 14:51pm UTC, wrote Sue, I was away in the woods... :-) Thank you for the long...

Sue Lingo: on 5/26/18 at 17:57pm UTC, wrote Hi Marcel... Please note: My post have been truncated by the FQXi system...

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 5/15/18 at 2:34am UTC, wrote Congratulations to all the winners. Their essays cover the subject matter...

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 5/5/18 at 22:36pm UTC, wrote Sue, Thanks for sharing and for the reference website. All the bests (and...

Sue Lingo: on 5/5/18 at 18:53pm UTC, wrote Hi Marcel... Your FQXi Topic:1928 post of Aug. 30, 2017 @ 00:19 GMT caught...

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 4/23/18 at 3:04am UTC, wrote The point made in my essay is simple. We can always ask “why?” some...

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 2/26/18 at 23:23pm UTC, wrote Note to the reader. In my essay I claim that space as a static dimension...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jim Snowdon: "Of course, the stars would, very slowly, move across the sky as the Earth..." in The Nature of Time

Georgina Woodward: ""The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Jim Snowdon: "On the permanently dark side of the Earth, the stars would appear to stay..." in The Nature of Time

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Jorma, some thoughts; You mention mutual EM connection. I think you..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...


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 26, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: The Logical State of What Underlies our Reality by Marcel-Marie LeBel [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jan. 9, 2018 @ 20:52 GMT
Essay Abstract

The “fundamental” aspect of something often means its simpler constituents that are not evident or even hidden and that support the more complex emerging part that is readily accessible. With observers and instruments, physics studies our experience of the universe. The universe, on the other hand, is not made of “experience”. The universe is made of some “stuff” that exists and constitutes the domain that underlies our reality. In this paper, we will first make the case for the existence and importance of this domain. Then, we will argue that this underlying domain constitutes a knowledge domain by showing that it is “knowable”, in the sense that it can be logically deduced from the strict necessary conditions required for something to be created from nothingness, and for a logical system made of “stuff” to be operational. Some preliminary insights into such a logical system are obtained by examining the logical creation and logical operation of such existing elements.

Author Bio

BSc. Biology, University of Montreal 1979, retired RCMP Forensic Specialist – Counterfeits, Amateur Seismologist, Scout Leader.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Hans van Leunen wrote on Jan. 10, 2018 @ 09:34 GMT
Dear Marcel-Marie,

Once you discover that reality has structure and that this structure has a fairly simple foundation. then you want to discover and explore that foundation. This is what the Hilbert Book Model project does.

See: The Incredible Story About the Reality; http://vixra.org/abs/1801.0033

Hans, retired physicist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Scott S Gordon wrote on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 03:17 GMT
Marcel-Marie LeBel,

After reading your essay - I think you may be interested in reading mine...

The Day after the nightmare scenario - Scott S Gordon

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 16:26 GMT
Hans,

I checked the Hilbert Book Project... Interesting layering...

Scott,

Interesting model. “Energy” is a dimension of knowing. The universe is about this energy changing hands, i.e., the power or the rate of something happening.

Best of luck to both of you.

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share



Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 04:58 GMT
Note to the reader;

We can’t understand what lies under our reality unless we accept what it really is. Only then may we have access to the fundamentals from which reality emerges in our senses and mind.

Don’t be scared, and go past that necessary part. Read in full and make your own discoveries.

My self rating: 2 Advils!

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 12:08 GMT
Dear Marcel-Marie,

I read your essay with great interest. A very important conclusion:

"Many arguments presented above require further demonstration. A formalized logical system will have to be developed, with mathematics, logic, and the “how” side of physics helping us stay in line."

I believe that this requires constructive dialectical logic (in the spirit of Nicholas of Cusa - "coincidence of opposites", "coincidence of the minimum and maximum") and a deeper constructive dialectical ontology.

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 03:04 GMT
Some further reflections ..

A “maximum speed of logic in a substantial system”... I like that! It is like saying the speed of light represents the maximum speed of logic in the substantial dynamic system. Since the dynamic process/substance makes everything, every event or process is thereby linked to c.



Spontaneity comes from the logical operation of the rule of non-contradiction in a substantial context.

A spontaneous event is the resolution in progress of an illogical state of affair.

Non-instantaneity due to the maximum speed of substantial logic allows for a dynamic existence from nothingness.

So, what is Time in all this?

Time would be the local maximum pace of the spontaneous logical evolution of the dynamic process that makes everything. In short,

Time is the pace of substantial existence by happening.

Time is the pace of substantial logic.

Time is the pace of evolution of our illogical state of affair.

Time is the pace of the continual explosion we live in.

Take your pick..

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share


Heinrich Luediger replied on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 10:06 GMT
Dear Marcel-Marie,

maybe no pick is needed when time is regarded as deviation from expectation and hence as a measure of entropy.

There is a low-contact micro-culture of Amazon-Indians having no concept of time whatsoever. They cannot make sense of the concept, because they are very close to what we call ‘one with nature’. Living since many generations in their tiny territory,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 14:40 GMT
Everything we find weird in SR, GR and QM are in fact clues about this underlying reality that we are afraid to consider.

We must cross this barrier in order to move into a better future..

Marcel-Marie LeBel

Bookmark and Share


Alan M. Kadin replied on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 20:46 GMT
Dear Marcel,

Interesting comment:

“Everything we find weird in SR, GR and QM are in fact clues about this underlying reality that we are afraid to consider.”

I would disagree, and suggest that this weirdness is telling us that there is something very wrong with the orthodox theories and their interpretations.

In my own essay, “Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics”. I argue that unity and simplicity are most fundamental, although the unity of physics was broken in the early decades of the 20th century. I review the historical basis for this rupture, and go on to present the outlines of a neoclassical synthesis that should restore this unity.

Briefly, quantization of spin in real waves such as the electron (there are no point particles) provides the scale of discreteness in what is otherwise a universe of classical continuous fields. There is no need for Hilbert space, indeterminacy, or entanglement. The same waves provide a real embodiment of time, space, and relativity; there is no need for an abstract spacetime.

I also noticed the following line in your essay:

“As far as we know, the Planck quantum has the same value throughout the universe.”

I agree -- In my own analysis, most “constants” are in fact variable: c, m, G, e. There is only one true fundamental constant: Planck’s constant h, which answers the question “how much” for the entire universe.

Best Wishes,

Alan Kadin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jan. 15, 2018 @ 03:25 GMT
Alan,

I would keep the soliton structure for the photon. This provides both the wave nature and the finite “particle like” nature all in one.... Therefore, no wave –particle duality problem.

I agree with no point particles existence.. For me, the process of pair creation explains it. Particles are a waves looping around. When they annihilate each other, they open up their loop and change from rotating waves to translating waves... So, yes, all waves, all dynamics..

As for my essay, it is way way too profound for the casual look..

Your essay is now downloaded on my computer.

Thanks for the comments,

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 15, 2018 @ 21:03 GMT
Dear Marcel-Marie Lebel,

It's great to see you back in the contest. I've always felt that your 2009 essay "Physics stops were natural metaphysics starts" is one of the best of the hundreds of FQXi essays over the last decade. Your definition of truth as absence of choice, and use of this definition to develop logic is simply superb. Then, as now, you argue that one 'substance'...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jan. 16, 2018 @ 03:17 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Deconstructing previous theories is pretty hard work. Reconstruction is just as hard.

My essay was about constructing or revealing a totally new vision, as much as possible free of the concepts that are either not well defined or obviously the result of our own perception.

So, I traveled into a new domain, obviously ignored, trying to lay out the foundations of its principle concepts and basic rules of logic. This domain is about understanding logically what things are made of and what cause is behind spontaneous evolution, i.e, what the universe is and does.

The rest of it, the metric part, is on a “need to know only” basis, for us sentient beings to be able to DO something with elements of our reality.

So, this domain is about explaining logically what is and happens in every point ... before we consider all these points and events grouped together as our reality, and ask pretty much the same questions...

All the bests,

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 13:43 GMT
Dear Marcel-Marie,

Thanks for your post on mine, though I wonder if you gleaned it's meaning & implications as you didn't critically comment. I'll try to do so on yours. I found it a lovely piece of writing with mainly well conceived and argued fundamentals, the two main ones which I also entirely agree with, and agree their import.

For me though it all rather seemed to fall down and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 06:49 GMT
Hi Marcel,

I liked your essay, you made some important points. I've heard some scientists that asking "why" is meaningless for science, and we should ask instead "how". But you proved the value of asking "why".

Best regards,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Marcel-Marie LeBel replied on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 14:28 GMT
Cristi,

Yes, the question of the logical "why" calls for a single possible answer.

Now, whether or not this single simple answer will help depends on how we integrate it and use it in our present knowledge ...

Thanks,

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share



Giovanni Prisinzano wrote on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 10:58 GMT
Marcel,

your essay is dense and stimulating. Not only Aristotle, but also Spinoza would have liked it! Very interesting is the attempt to reconcile the (mainly empirical) explanation of "how" with that one (mainly logical and philosophical) of "why". Science cannot do without either of them. It remains to be established how "two different approaches that are mutually exclusive, but complementary" can be integrated.

All the best,

Giovanni

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Marcel-Marie LeBel replied on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 14:48 GMT
Giovanni,

Thanks for making it through the essay... I can`t say I`m seeing all the angles of this right now. On the one hand, we have things that are as they exist in every point, and we have our integrated perception of all those points making our knowing of it all. Our perception and consciousness produces a universe of knowing while the universe is just about existing, happening. This underlying reality should answer the questions that observation cannot. But, we have to know and understand the question first before we can invite the answer..

All the bests,

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share



DIOGENES AYBAR wrote on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 13:35 GMT
Hello Marcel-Marie;

You have presented a very beautiful logical framework for the study of the ontological origins of the observed reality. I agree with your observation that “This “ontological” gap in our knowledge of the universe consists in not knowing what type of “substance” constitutes its existence and what type of “cause” is behind its spontaneous evolution”.

One of the main pitfalls of the present approach of physical sciences is that it is trapped in underlying traditional conceptions that are not applicable for the study of reality at the submicroscopic level, and in mathematical formalism based on ill defined concepts. As you put it: “the present fundamental ontological consideration must put aside all of our reality and start with the essential logical requirements for some substance to exist”

On the other hand, when you say: “A “substance” is some stuff that exists by itself. When the observer (we) interacts with the substance, it creates in us an “experience””; although I agree with that definition of substance, I think that there is a long road between the Fundamental Substance and the possibility of interaction and observation. In the following schemes I summarize what I mean by this.





Finally, it would have been very good if you had used the same logical frame you developed to discover and understand “Substance and Causality” to establish a set of rule to determine what is and what is not Fundamental.

With admiration and respect;

Diogenes

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Marcel-Marie LeBel replied on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 15:33 GMT
Diogenes,

Thanks for reading and commenting. I think that your “following schemes” are missing ... unless, nothingness was the point . What is fundamental is what the universe IS and DOES before we even look or think about it. This reduces the scope to the basic logical existence of each point. Any bigger picture requires integration, memory etc .that we supply. And any bigger picture is on a “need to know only” basis for us curious sentient beings..

All the bests,

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 13:27 GMT
Hi Marcel-Marie LeBel

“The universe, on the other hand, is not made of “experience”. The universe is made of some “stuff” that exists and constitutes the domain that underlies our reality.” Is the way for the real search for Reality My dear Marcel-Marie LeBel………..….. very nice idea…. I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reading my essay also.

Hence I...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 22:56 GMT
Satyavarapu,

First, this is not a discussion on what is fundamental in physics or elsewhere. Secondly, I am not qualified to comment on the content of the essay.

This said, you have come a long way from the steel mill, with a theory, books and presentations. In my opinion, the photon is a soliton like wavelet. The h Planck content is locked into a specific delivery time, the period. All photons have the same Planck content. The only difference is in the delivery time. In other words, the photon is “Power”. It makes sense to see it this way because in a universe with a running time background, "how quickly" something happens is what is important.

Best of luck,

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 16:02 GMT
Respected Marcel,

Thank you very much for your kind words and for reading my essay. Yes Bhilai steel plant gave me time, food, house and medicines to me and my family, you are exactly correct. You people like FQXi heard me, allowed me…. I am not rich man, I used to carry my wife on my bicycle on the back carrier for the first three years in my job in steel plant. Getting books in physics and Mathematics was one of the very expensive and difficult things for me before availability of internet, they are not available in steel plant library…

By the way, Photons are energy only. They are not locked in any specific time period I think…

More photons means a brighter beam. power (Energy/sec) is proportional to the number of photons/sec.

Photons with shorter wavelengths and higher frequencies have more energy. That is a bluer beam has more power.

So P=nhν P=nhν where n is the number of photons/sec.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/165757/relation-
between-number-of-photons-and-energy

Lets further discuss…

Best regards

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 16:23 GMT
Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 22:11 GMT
Ken Wharton, in his excellent essay, shows that the boundary conditions are what is fundamental. In this, he supports my definition of what a truth is. “A truth is an absence of choice for everyone”. The strongest absence of choice is an impossibility and this, in the most universal sense, is failing the rule of non-contradiction (RNC). All truths are bound by the rule of non-contradiction. In other words, respecting the rule of non-contradiction de-fines, or makes finite and real a truth. The RNC is the basis of maths, logic, and pretty much everything else. The biggest gap in all this was, I believe, not having a clear definition of a truth...

Neither Ken or I may lay claim to this. This was Aristotle’s claim all along. “The rule of non-contradiction is the most important rule in the universe... “

Right now Aristotle is spinning in his grave shouting..

“ I told you SOOOOOOooooooooooooooo........!!!!!

Thanks Ken,

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share


Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 10:56 GMT
Hi Marcel,

i also hear him shouting... but only a few are listening…

Now I had the time to deeper explore your essay. I enjoyed reading yours, but had to re-read it several times, especially for the questions-and-answer part. But finally I grasped what you intended to say.

Also for me, reality is deeply rational – in the sense of reasonable. Although every human being is equipped with logic, only a few beings are rational enough to aks the questions you did in your essay. This sheds a pessimistic light for me on some assumptions that purport humanity to be in an evolving state of knowledge and self-knowledge. But anyways, your statement

“If “something” does not make any difference whether it is there or not, then it does not exist.”

is brilliant. In this sense, every human being makes a difference, be it to the good or to the worse. In my own essay, I tried to exclude such moral questions, but I nonetheless think that they are very important.

I would go so far as to say that existence really originated from ‘nothing’, but with the small print that it is only our physical existence and that the one that has power over ‘nothing’ must be some creator. Since this creator should have some free will – otherwise it would be just a *mechanism* - and he guaranteed his creatures some free will too, one can explain the ‘emergence’ of our phyiscal world as a conscious decision of those creatures to be separated from their creator.

But leaving these teleological aspects aside, your essay is one of few that head over heels jump into the fundamental questions and come up with a fundamental explanation that seems to be fundamentally necessary to at all make some scientific sense out of it all. Since your appproach is in my opinion drastically underrated, I try to help putting it where I at least I think it belongs amongst the other contributions.

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 16:11 GMT
Stefan,

Thank you for laboring through my writing. We first write for ourselves in order to crystallize ideas on paper. Then, we must re-write, re-write, re-write for others to be able to access those ideas... ( Tell me where the hurdles are .... This was my 14th version!)

There absolutely was no moral intent in this writing. It was essentially an ontological statement. Something, stuff ... must make a difference by existing or else, it does not exist.



But you did introduce the “creator”... Everything we consider as life and universe is the result/product of a conscious experience. If this creator gave us consciousness, He has in effect, in that sense, created for us the universe...?

So, it seems that everything that exists and happens does so according (bounded) to the rule of non-contradiction... Maybe, not everything. I think that consciousness, somehow, represents one step further, the exploration of a system outside or partially free of the rule of non-contradiction?

All the bests,

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share



Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 16:26 GMT
More .....

To exist consists in making a difference. Suppose we have a dynamic background... some object in it will be said to exist by creating a boundary within the dynamic of this background process, i.e. an obstacle, a difference.

The Casimir experiment is somehow the testing of this boundary effect created by “existence”.

Just thinking...

Marcel

Bookmark and Share


Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 16:38 GMT
Dear Marcel,

„I think that consciousness, somehow, represents one step further, the exploration of a system outside or partially free of the rule of non-contradiction?”

Exactly. But not in the sense of a logical contradiction, but in the sense of emotional contradictions. I assume the rule of non-contradiction as valid in all realms. An emotional contradiction would be to act towards another being in a way that you wouldn’t want for yourself. That’s an emotional contradiction and contradicts an emotional law.

Since I doubt that everything is facilitated by formal systems and accompanying laws of physical causes and effects, I take such non-physical laws seriously (if one can at all speak of ‘laws’ as something made of ‘stuff’, of physicality).

“The Casimir experiment is somehow the testing of this boundary effect created by “existence” “.

Yes, every existent thing makes a difference. But I think there are also some causa finalis in the Aristotelian sense that exist and make some difference. Explaining how such a causa finalis interacts with some physical ‘stuff’ is the hard problem, unless one does not re-interpret such causi finalis as ‘emergent’ properties of some physical stuff.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 23:35 GMT
Dear Stefan,

I did not go into “emotional laws”, yet. Brain and consciousness make up a different universe with its own rules. In a way, consciousness is the processing of information flowing from a universe generating much information into our own empty mind universe; a sort of entropic flow.

Consciousness being a dynamic process, it is an illogical state of affair. But illogical by what rule?

As for a causa finalis, such a cause requires someone to attribute this cause as part of a plan. I don’t see it. At best, I can see the breaking of the emotional laws as a way to insure the survival of our animal carrier within an ecology of other animals...

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share


Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 04:43 GMT
Dear Marcel,

thanks again for your reply.

Consciousness only seems to be illogical, relative to the assumption that all there is must be exclusively only formal systems.

Causa finali' do exist, otherwise you had to admit that you necessarily had to write your essay due to some physical determinism and change it 14 times. I am sure that very few contestants here believe this,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 18:17 GMT
Hi,

testing posting system.

Hard return were replaced by letter "n" in Neil Bates forum

test

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share



Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 15:25 GMT
To the reader,

The first part of the essay of Vladimir Rogozhin is a good introduction to the problem that my essay addresses.

Thanks,

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share



Gary Valentine Hansen wrote on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 18:00 GMT
Marcel,

Thanks for your positive thoughts.

The universe exists as a temporal space extending to infinity. Allusions to the ‘evolution of the universe for the past 13.8 billion years’ refer to conditions where a local bubble (commonly referred to by physicists as the universe) explodes within the limitless universe.

‘Stuff’ is merely contents. The assumption that ‘something (can) be created from nothing’ is unreasonable, unjustifiable and unnecessary. Extension of the realms of energy and matter to infinity (though miniscule in volume proportionate to the whole universe) is equally plausible. Energy and matter simply change forms from one to the other from time to time under favourable circumstances and will continue to do so into the infinite future.

The man-made so-called Rule of Non-Contradiction (RNC) is at variance with our perception that all natural phenomena have opposing counterparts; as up is to down, hot is to cold, etc.

‘Rules’ are man-made for the purpose of simplifying our perceptions of complexity.

Indeed I question whether the universe has any ‘rules’ at all since rules are absolute and demand strict compliance. A more fitting term would be ‘principles’ that enable flexibility either side of the norms, necessary to resolve mutual effects arising from the impact of unequal forces.

Indeed contradictions appear to be the mechanism by which the universe stabilizes its otherwise-chaotic behaviour.

Thanks again Marcel. As I am sure you know well; participating in a process (like climbing a mountain) is much more significant than achieving a goal. Good luck.

Gary

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 19:12 GMT
Gary,

Thank you for reading and commenting.

If absolutely anything was possible ... the universe would be just a big mess. But we have regularities as described in physics. Therefore, there must be at least one thing that is impossible, and this is a contradiction. We did not invent it; we found it in our experience of the universe. It should be called the LAW of non-contradiction instead of “rule” or “principle”.

An impossibility is the necessary boundary for defining (making finite) a truth system. So, the universe is a truth system with the law of non-contradiction at the very top of everything, including other truth systems in it, like our own physics, maths, logic, etc. This law of impossibility is what makes everything else possible. Without it, no universe.

".. achieving the goal". Dragging our feet "a la philosopher" is a luxury we may not have, anymore..

All the bests,

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share



John Brodix Merryman wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 04:35 GMT
Marcel,

This is a very straight forward question. May I propose a simple thought experiment?

What if reality could be explained in terms of a dichotomy between energy and form(information)?

Consider that after a few billion years of evolution, we have a central nervous system to process information and the digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems to process...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 04:42 GMT
Lousy editing.

Your essay is a good question, not that I'm asking one.

galaxies would seem to be cosmic convection cycles

as civil, cultural, economic forms push in, giving structure and stability

Rereading this, I should be going to bed. Sorry for the streaming consciousness.

(Consciousness past to future. Thoughts future to past.)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


corciovei silviu wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 11:18 GMT
Mr. LeBel,

Indeed a very nice logical journey, and I think further words are useless

Read and rate it accordingly

If you would have the pleasure for a (very) related essay, I will appreciate your time.

Silviu

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christian Corda wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 18:19 GMT
Dear Marcel-Marie,

It is nice meeting you here in FQXi again.

Thank you for your elegant and inspiring essay. It deserves highest estimation.

Maybe you could be interested in my Essay, where I discuss on fundamental issues with... Albert Einstein!

Good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 23:23 GMT
Note to the reader.

In my essay I claim that space as a static dimension does not exist. This comes from the following reasoning. Say we use the standard meter. If we send a beam of light from one end to the other end, it will take some time. It will take half that time to reach the half of the meter. There is no faster way in the universe. So, because it takes time to reach the end of the meter, the end of the meter is not at the same time as the beginning of the meter. As a matter of fact, no two points of this meter are at the same moment. This means that the meter is not an actual object residing all at once in the same moment (other than a moment of perception). Therefore, “space” does not exist for the universe. It exists only for us.

Our perception is contemplative and allows for a concept of “space”, as conceiving separated points as being all at the same moment, when they are not. The final judge is the universe in its operation, and it has no place or use for the concept of space. The problem is that physics tries to understand the operational aspect of the universe by studying our contemplative experience of the universe.

The concept of space is Extremely useful in physics and everyday life, but it has no existence or role in the working of the universe. In other words, we need space in order to describe and know things but the universe has no need for space in order to do anything.

One may use the concept of “spacetime” as long as he takes in consideration the above fact.

(Similarly, from a previous essay, our natural satellite is but an aggregate of matter across time that becomes the Moon, “an object all at once in the same moment of perception”.)

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share



Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Apr. 23, 2018 @ 03:04 GMT
The point made in my essay is simple. We can always ask “why?” some event happens. But the moment we look, measure etc. it becomes a point of view, a description. As such, a description is essentially a “how” answer. This is always “How” things work, no “why”.

If we really want to know “why” something like gravity works, we have to work hard at answering “why” it logically works. I mean we have to look for a logical answer. For this, we have to admit that something does exist out there. For example, in physics, an electron is not made of any kind of stuff. An electron is the sum of our knowledge of it. Its mass, spin etc. As long as we will think that the universe is only the sum of our experiences, we will not grow out of the observer’s status, i.e., the physics or our relationship to it.

No amount of “how” questions answered will ever replace the logical question “why”. They are mutually exclusive questions, but complementary aspects necessary for a complete knowledge.

Bookmark and Share



Sue Lingo wrote on May. 5, 2018 @ 18:53 GMT
Hi Marcel...

Your FQXi Topic:1928 post of Aug. 30, 2017 @ 00:19 GMT caught my attention, and I actually composed a 4 page reply to that post... but it has not been edited yet.

I have now read your essay, and will get back to you with commentary... but I wear all hats on the UQS project and am now in a code phase... i.e. absolute focus mandatory to progress.

In the interim, I will reference you to UQS Consciousness Investigation Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSConInv.php

Therein, I think you might identify parallels in our motivation... i.e. "A formalized logical system will have to be developed, with mathematics, logic, and the “how” side of physics helping us stay in line."... if not our resolve.

Thanks for sharing your insights and providing opportunity for our exchange.

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

WWW.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on May. 5, 2018 @ 22:36 GMT
Sue,

Thanks for sharing and for the reference website.

All the bests (and stay focused)

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share


Sue Lingo replied on May. 26, 2018 @ 17:57 GMT
Hi Marcel...

Please note: My post have been truncated by the FQXi system without option to "view entire post"?... but I log all UQS Social Media and Forum commo online.

REF:UQS Social Media and Forum Log http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSSMF.php

INTRO:

Being precise in one's application of language and decisive in directives, can indeed polarize a poll and diminish an...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Marcel-Marie LeBel replied on May. 28, 2018 @ 14:51 GMT
Sue,

I was away in the woods... :-)

Thank you for the long discussion-reflection. It will take some time...

But quickly...

The discussion may be clarified by stating the system used. If we talk about physics, we use space, energy etc. If using the ontological system, there is no space, no energy,etc. Just substance and cause.

With the proper conversion we may move concepts of physics into ontology into ontology or back. The difference in demonstration is that the physical system requires a test in our reality on the test bench.

On the other hand, ontology is evaluated on the logic test bench.

For example, "energy" is a concept on paper; it is about knowing a potential for action. But if one considers this "energy" as existing, one has to specify the volume containing this energy... and its release time-duration.

Take a few mega joules of energy for example. It could be released for eons by a dripping faucet... in which case you get a hole in your sink. Release the same amount of energy in a pico-second ... and the whole house is gone! In terms of action and results, the concept of energy is just knowledge on paper until you know the actual delivery time.

In that sense, all photons carry the same amount of "energy" or quantum of action Planck. The only difference in the effect or result, for example between UV and IR, is the delivery time (period) of the photon. ... The UV delivers its Planck much faster than the IR photon ... which result we describe as "energy". The price for placing a snapshot description on paper is the loss of the time background. We describe the event "done" and miss on the event "happening". "Causality" may be understood within the event "Happening", not in the event "done".

More reading.... More comment to come...

Thanks,

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share



Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on May. 15, 2018 @ 02:34 GMT
Congratulations to all the winners. Their essays cover the subject matter in one form or another, are well written, argued and documented, i.e., “publication ready”.

But, if FQXI is, like I think, a sort of disguised global think tank, their knowledge mining will reveal the power of asking the “logical why?” question for the purpose of true understanding, as explained in my essay.

Asking the “logical why?” question is the only way to introduce “substance and cause”, both required for removing the observer from the equations. So much more we could do if we knew what it is that we are really doing!

See you all next year!

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share



Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on May. 29, 2018 @ 16:19 GMT
Sue,

I was thinking about your simulation program. The substance and cause, from a dynamic spontaneous process, are ontologically characterized by one variable (the local rate of evolution) and one property (the finite Planck size). Rates influences other rates close by. An automaton could do that. The rate of time could be simulated by equation of pressure with range as the inverse...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.