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

John Merryman: on 3/11/18 at 1:31am UTC, wrote Steve, One way to look at it is that the present is relative to the...

Steve Agnew: on 3/10/18 at 20:31pm UTC, wrote You have covered quite a bit of ground in your short essay, but your...

John Merryman: on 2/26/18 at 21:52pm UTC, wrote Peter, Sorry, but I only gave you a 9. It was a couple of days ago and...

Peter Jackson: on 2/26/18 at 13:43pm UTC, wrote John, I hope you're feeling a little more inspired about life now. I'm...

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 2/19/18 at 4:03am UTC, wrote John, We are part of the space, which for Descartes is a matter. No more...

John Merryman: on 2/19/18 at 0:45am UTC, wrote Boris, We are a part of our context. There is no more dualism between the...

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 2/18/18 at 20:22pm UTC, wrote John , The space is called a field if every point has a potential. The...

John Merryman: on 2/18/18 at 17:42pm UTC, wrote Boris, The problem with the concept of God is it assumes a spiritual...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jorma Seppaenen: "Hi Georgina, Yes, CMB map is an observation product, it's very essential..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

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

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 27, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: Space is Basis by John Brodix Merryman [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 19:18 GMT
Essay Abstract

Space doesn't require cause and like zero, it is foundational to conceptual references.

Author Bio

John Merryman is an occasional participant in FQXI contests and forums. He is more interested in the philosophic aspects of science, than the details.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Author John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 01:22 GMT
While I did somewhat circle round the question of what is "foundational," to that what is foundational, it should be noted that foundational is the equilibrium state, where all is in balance. The flatline from which the ups and downs, positives and negatives, arise. Zero.

It is also interesting to note that in the few days since I posted this, the issue of different methods of measuring the Hubble Constant keep yielding different numbers, with the errors bars on both just getting smaller, not converging.

One theory of science was that then observations don't match tests derived from the theory, the theory is presumably falsified, but now it appears that falsification is no longer valid, when it doesn't support favored theories.

Bookmark and Share



Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 04:31 GMT
Hi John,

i enjoyed reading your essay. Your lines of reasoning are easily tracable in a systematic manner, since you define ‘fundamental’ as systematically, deterministically evolving processes of nature.

However, I cannot see why the anthropocentrical demand of knowing as much as possible together with the fact that there could unknowable things beyond our complete reach –...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Stefan Weckbach replied on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 04:43 GMT
Oh, i just realized that i posted my comment above to the wrong author! So, sorry for that, John, since it should have been adressed to Jose P. Koshy... :-) Please excuse this accident - thanks and good look!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John Brodix Merryman replied on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 11:32 GMT
Stefan,

Just to take the time to make that argument anyway, I'm very much not a determinist, which goes to my observation about time. There is no underlaying dimension of time, so it arises from events occurring and it is the occurrence of an event which fully calculates the total input into it. Such as light coming from opposite directions.

The present creates the past. As Alan Watts put it, the boat creates the wake. The wake doesn't steer the boat.

It is the dynamic that is constantly creating the effect of events.

Bookmark and Share


peter cameron replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 11:38 GMT
Stefan (and John) - It could be that the world is deterministic at the fundamental level, say for instance at the level of the unobservable wavefunction, and becomes probabilistic only with the phenomenon of emergence.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 05:38 GMT
Dear John Merryman,

Nice to see you participating again. I think your approach, "more interested in the philosophical aspects of science, than the details", is an appropriate one for FQXi: the forest for the trees.

I would question the idea of 'space' as a 'standalone' physical entity, in the sense of 'empty space'. Einstein eventually concluded "there is no space absent of field", and I concur with that. The self-interacting gravity field exists everywhere "in" space, but what is it "in"? I don't think space is a cosmic container that holds things. It is simply an inescapable aspect of an existing field. Some think that instead of gravity some 'quantum foam' or 'vacuum energy' "fills space", but the idea is the same.

I like your question "is time really a dimension?" In a mathematical sense the answer is almost certainly yes, but in a physical sense as universal simultaneity holds, it is not an extended dimension.

I do very much like your succinct paragraph:

"The conservation of energy means there is no energy left in the past to manifest prior events or coming from a physical future. It is very changing dynamic of this energy that creates the effect of time. Energy is "conserved" because there is only the physical present."

Local systems exchange energy between dynamical modes, and this exchange rate is energy dependent. The measure of the rate or frequency of change is effectively a 'clock', and the idea of 'perfect clocks' measuring a 'time dimension' led to the very non-intuitive idea concerning the relativity of simultaneity. As you know, I view the historical details underlying this thinking; I think it very appropriate for you to sketch the above picture. Thanks

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John Brodix Merryman replied on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 11:27 GMT
Edwin,

I don't know that I would say space is "standalone," as absent any physical properties, it would be like contemplating zero, without the context of numbers. It's just my contention that physics tries to do the opposite, contemplate the extant, without reference to the absolute and the infinite. Both of which would seem to be properties of space as a stage on which those other properties act.

We seem in agreement on a lot of other aspects. Safe to say, I'm used to a lot of negative responses to bringing up these points, given how much institutional effort is invested in the current system.

Given my own personal situation is overly busy, my ability to find time and mental energy is more limited than ever.

Bookmark and Share



Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 17:40 GMT
Dear John Brodix Merryman, I'm curious to know what you think about the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, who is a great philosopher. Visit my essay, if you  interested in New Cartesian Physics and make note  much as it deserves to be a continuation of his work.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 03:24 GMT
Hi John, so glad you have entered your essay. I really enjoy reading and thinking about what you have to say. You cover a lot of ground in a few pages, and don't disappoint with a great many succinct insights.

"A more efficient explanation for time is that change turns future to past, as in tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns" JBM. Familiar from FQXi discussions. I know you...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 03:45 GMT
Correction to my response, last paragraph: 'Have you come across-" It is not the flag that moves, or the wind that moves. It is your mind that moves"?' (My question, not part of the quote as I wrote.) I expect it is familiar, said to be words of The 6th Patriarch of Chinese Zen School, Hui Neng.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John Brodix Merryman replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 11:40 GMT
Georgina,

Good to hear from you again. I'll have to get back from work to give a better reply, but a few quick thoughts;

We are pretty much in agreement, but in issues of style, I seem to go more for bullet points and you cover the issues with a more fine grained style. Your approach is far more academically appropriate, but I've found that since there is enormous institutional inertia toward the 'time is foundational' belief, few are going to`try to think it through, so my commitment has waned over the years. In fact, I really didn't have any intention of submitting an entry, but the bug just got under the saddle and I banged it out. Which shows, from the insufficient editing.

I do think though, that the subject of the topic is overlooked. Everyone keeps trying to peel away the layers and finding deeper layers, rather than considering foundational isn't so much initial cause, but neutral state. Like painting, is foundational trying to understand the the motives of all painters, or is it simply the blank canvas?

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 19:38 GMT
Dear John,

I think FQXi.org might be trying to find out if there could be a Natural fundamental. I am surprised that so many of the contest's entrants do not appear to know what am fundamental to science, or mathematics, or quantum histrionics.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 13:53 GMT
John

Great little essay, a pleasure to read and interesting angles. We agree our rather rudderless physics does need to address the sub-matter 'vacuum' more seriously & rely less on numbers.

You also seem to describe your view of time better than previously, or maybe it's me! You'll have seen from my own essay that the flawed assumptions leading to 'backwards causality' have been...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John Brodix Merryman replied on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 23:01 GMT
Thank you, Peter.

I have to say, the level of concentration I can bring to bear on this contest isn't sufficient. Not only the personal life, but just keeping up with the news is ever more distracting.

If I was to suppose about dark matter and energy, it seems to me mass is an effect of gravity, rather than gravity a property of mass. That gravity is wave collapse, consolidation, synchronization, extending all the way out the radiological scales, to the spectrum of light and what we measure as dark matter is this attraction, contraction, consolidation far beyond what would be considered mass.

As for dark energy, it is to explain why the rate of expansion doesn't decrease, with increasing proximity, at an even rate, but drops off rapidly, then flattens out, as sources get closer, but I look at it from the opposite direction, as an optical effect away from our location, then the need is to explain an effect which starts off gradually and then at an increasing rate, eventually going parabolic. Which would seem to be an optical effect that compounds on itself. So just optics, not another enormous force of nature, to explain a theory too popular to drop.

I'm sure I'll comment on occasion, but my heart is not as into it as some years.

Damn captchas to boot.

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 10:51 GMT
Dear John,

This is an extremely important idea: "Space is Basis". Almost one hundred years ago philosopher Pavel Florensky drew a conclusion that turned out to be extremely important for understanding of the sources of the modern crisis of understanding in fundamental science: "The problem of space in the center of the worldview in all emerging systems of thought predetermines the development of the entire system. We repeat: worldunderstanding - spaceunderstanding / Миропонимание - пространствопонимание." (Unfortunately in the English language there are no complex words that can be translated correctly, so I translated them myself.) The understanding of space is the basic ideality of the fundamental science, is "grasping" of its ontological structure.

I also believe that alternative ideas regarding the nature of time and the "beginning of the Universe" are needed . In fundamental physics there should be a wide competition of ideas.

My high rating of your idea. I invite you to see my essay.

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John Brodix Merryman replied on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 11:34 GMT
Vladimir,

Thank you very much! I will definitely read your essay when I get off work.

Bookmark and Share


Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 07:06 GMT
John and Vladimir,

Understanding the space is understanding the world? At least, Guericke's experiments de vacuo spatio lead to the first industrial revolution and to electricity.

Most likely John Merryman, Edwin Klingman and Max Born are correct (although this means that others were perhaps incorrect): Space is the eternal, ubiquitous and unchanging entity of mutual distances each of which may change.

BTW, I just commented on presentism at 3009.

Regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 11:35 GMT
Eckard,

Not really. The question is; "What is fundamental?" Not; "What is the TOE?"

Since I would equate an equilibrium of the vacuum with absolute, as in absolute zero, then space would be both absolute and infinite, which would be the parameters of the extant. This being the dichotomy of bottom up energy and top down form inhabiting space and reaching to infinity.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 18:43 GMT
Hi John Brodix Merryman

It is important observation “It is also interesting to note that in the few days since I posted this, the issue of different methods of measuring the Hubble Constant keep yielding different numbers, with the errors bars on both just getting smaller, not converging” dear John Brodix Merryman……

……..….. very nice idea…. I highly appreciate your...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 14:04 GMT
Dear John Brodix Merryman

Thank you for reading my essay….

You have nice concept; probably that there is a cyclical relationship between expanding radiation and collapsing mass.

It is nice idea …. I never heard it before… this concept is good… that ‘ That mass is an effect of what we call gravity, rather than gravity a property of mass and this contraction extends to all stages and aspects of frequency contraction, or blueshift.’

We should develop further, lets work out together…. By the way there is no darkmatter in Dynamic Universe Model…….

Best Regards

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 19:54 GMT
John,

Your essay seems as compact as a neutron star since light does escape in the form of word packets with great perspective width. Your ideas are fresh to me and thought provoking. I deal with light and space too but with more convention. Hope you can check out mine. I will need to think about yours.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 17:57 GMT
John,

Seems to be sparse reviewing and rating in this essay contest. I am revisiting those I have reviewed and see if I have scored them before the deadline approaches. I find that I have not scored yours and am doing so today. Thanks for your Olympic-sized comments.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 02:43 GMT
John,

Good to be in another contest with you. I too bashed out an essay on Space just in time to meet the deadline. We both agree it is fundamental.

I could not resist going after a TOE based on a novel concept of a graviton. I go after what the curvature of space-time means. This investigation results in a malleable ether that explains: 1. the curvature of space-time and 2. why the speed of light is independent of an objects motion.

I know this conflicts with a pure void which is aesthetically pleasing.

This is a long shot, but do visit my essay. I like to believe it enhances the beauty of the void and you will like it.

Thanks for your fine essay: "The vacuum might fluctuate, but first you need the vacuum.

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


peter cameron wrote on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 11:18 GMT
Dear John,

Replied to your comment on Flavio and Chiara's 'Demolishing Prejudices' essay, however as i understand our fqxi gui you will not get pinged by that. So pasting the comment in here:

Dear John, Flavio, Chiara,...

love the way dialogs evolve in the fqxi competition/collaboration format.

Came back to 'Demolishing Prejudices' to reply to a different thread and got caught by 'Do NOT spend...'. Being closely related to oppositional defiant disorders, i was immediately in.

takedown of cosmology and inflation is excellent, thank you. That it leads to classifying redshift, accelerating expansion, anomalous radial dependence of galactic rotation,... as 'optical effects' gives a nice little perspective shift. Suggests to me that until we understand how quantum gravity is related to the photon the 'Do NOT spend...' injunction is well advised.

staying with the optical effect for a moment, in particular to have an understanding of what goes on in the near field at the Planck length in photon emission and absorption seems essential in quantum gravity.

I like what is said about time, that it emerges from 'action', or more precisely from inter-actions. Pauli vacuum wavefunction is that of the geometric objects of 3d space - point, line, plane, and volume elements of geometric interpretation of Clifford algebra. No time there.

Interaction of two wavefunctions can be modeled by geometric product of Clifford algebra - sum of inner (dimension lowering) and outer (raising) products. Inter-action generates the 4D Dirac algebra of flat Minkowski spacetime. Time emerges from interactions of the enigmatic unobservable wavefunction.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


peter cameron wrote on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 11:31 GMT
Dear John,

Your view that 'space is basis' seems intuitively perceptive and powerful. In the language of geometric Clifford algebra (the geometric interpretation of the particle physicist's matrix representation is unfortunately lost in the mainstream), the Pauli matrices are the basis vectors of 3D Euclidian space, and the Dirac matrices those of flat 4D Minkowski spacetime.

very much like your view on 'optical effects'. Thank you.

Best regards,

Pete

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John Brodix Merryman replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 11:44 GMT
Peter,

Rushing off to work so reply further later, but just mention I got into physics as a way to better understand society, given the powerful physical forces permeating it.

Here was a FQXi entry of some years ago, addressing the social aspects of it.

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1981

Bookmark and Share



Kamal L Rajpal wrote on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 13:50 GMT
Dear John Merryman

I have read your essay and suggest that you read Dark Matter http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0207v3.pdf

I also invite you to read my essay on wave-particle and electron spin at: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3
.pdf

Kamal Rajpal

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Bashir Yusuf wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 00:54 GMT
Dear John

Nice to meet you again, I think a lot of advancement in science but since you interested from Philosophical aspect of science raher than details I hope you will be entrested my essay

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3143

I will come back to comment yours after reading.

Thank you for sharing knowledge,

Best wishes

Bashir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Laurence Hitterdale wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 19:42 GMT
Dear John,

Thank you for the lengthy and detailed comment you wrote on the page for my essay. I appreciate it.

In response to your essay, I would agree with you that there has been considerable confusion between space as the void, empty of all content, and space as a vacuum, which is perhaps empty of ordinary matter but which can still be characterized in terms of various fields, vacuum energy, and so. I would further agree with you that only the former of these is simple and primitive enough to deserve to be thought of as the basis. Maybe the void is not quite nothing in a metaphysical sense, but it is closer to metaphysical nothing than a vacuum which has various properties. You are correct to point this out.

Laurence Hitterdale

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John Brodix Merryman replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 04:15 GMT
Lawrence,

Thank you for reading, commenting and appreciating the point that while physics is largely based on the vacuum as a field, it goes out of its way to deny that space is the basis of that field, insisting on abstract geometry.

I wouldn't even call it the void, because to paraphrase; "Nature abhors a void." Just that no matter how filled this void is, it is an unbounded equilibrium. The zero, the flatline, around which all fluctuates.

Bookmark and Share



Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 13:21 GMT
Dear John Brodix Merryman,

You wrote a good essay, drawing attention to the fact that the space is fundamental. Your essay would be even better if you were familiar with the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. He says

matter is space and space is matter that moves. Descartes physical space is a matter, in which there are no voids. But if they are formed, then, according to him, close instantly. However, given modern notions that the speed of light is the limit for any real movements in the New Cartesian Physics States that the voids in the space close to the speed of light. For intelligent people from this moment begins the real physics. Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows this principle. Evaluate it according to your fundamental concept and leave your comment there. Then I'll give you a rating. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, which can to be the theory of everything OO.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 17:19 GMT
The consciousness of the people resists the recognition of the identity of space and matter Descartes, because they used to think that I live in an empty space – it is convenient for them. While there was no reason to think otherwise. However, there will come a time when the level of education of the people will depend on their understanding of this identity. This requires the necessity to eliminate the difficulties in science. Fundamental should save our thinking, i.e. to be simple and straightforward. Physical space, which for Descartes is a matter that is the basis for fundamental theories in science.

You might like to look at the sky and it seems to you empty infinite space in which it moves large and small body. However, this impression is deceptive. According to the principle of identity of space and matter Descartes, space is matter that moves. When Copernicus asserted that the Earth revolves around the Sun, it had, according to Descartes, to add that along with the Earth revolves around the Sun, all the solar space. Space is what built the world.

If the believer to ask, where is God? He will answer – in the sky. When you look into infinite space and I think that is the body of God, that needs to be asked, and how it works? The answer is simple, all the changes around and our weight is the result of his actions. In space contains information about changing the world. Time is a synonym of total moving

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John Brodix Merryman replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 17:42 GMT
Boris,

The problem with the concept of God is it assumes a spiritual absolute would be an ideal from which we fell, when it would be an essence from which we rise. More the raw consciousness of the new born child, than the hard won wisdom of the old man. In physics terms, more the field, than the point particle. We think consciousness is an effect of thinking, but it is the other way around. Thinking is how we express consciousness. Consciousness is the medium, thought is the message.

Bookmark and Share


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 20:22 GMT
John ,

The space is called a field if every point has a potential.

The principle of identity of physical space and matter allows us to extend physics to living matter. For this we need to pay attention to the fact that matter within the body is the same as outside it. Our brain creates an image of the outside world not within themselves and in the space around themselves. This image of the outside world has an active nature, as it controls the body.

Sincerely,

Boris

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John Brodix Merryman replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 00:45 GMT
Boris,

We are a part of our context. There is no more dualism between the organism and the ecosystem, than between the mind and the body. It is just that our minds function by freezing moments, then making distinctions and judgements. Information is much more about the differences, than the continuities. Then we focus on the most distinct, so it is any wonder nothing seems to fit together, when we look at it most closely, but it all just flows along, when we are just being there?

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 13:43 GMT
John,

I hope you're feeling a little more inspired about life now. I'm very positive having cracked the great test of the discrete field dynamics we've discussed past essays. Long live 'space'! Scoring yours now for a deserved bump up from 5.8. Hope you'll do mine if not done yet.

Did you ever read last years essays, like mine on how we think? Scientists and all humans alike. US politics looks great fun from over the pond. I suspect we'll all remember this time fondly.

Very best wishes.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John Brodix Merryman replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 21:52 GMT
Peter,

Sorry, but I only gave you a 9. It was a couple of days ago and I'd just scored Ed a 10, since he really is focusing on the issue of time, which has been my pet peeve. Space might be foundational, but that's like a flatline is more fundamental than a heart rhythm. If you want to know who I'm riffing off, give Tom Ray a good score. He deserves it. I really only entered to join the discussion and I think the most interesting one I had was with Christinel Stoica, where he was willing to present a fairly establishment position and still listen to my point of view. As it went on for 22 posts, it did get into detail. If you want to read it, it's on his thread, starting Feb 19.

Good luck and good to see the outsiders doing so well.

Regards,

John

Bookmark and Share



Steve Agnew wrote on Mar. 10, 2018 @ 20:31 GMT
You have covered quite a bit of ground in your short essay, but your instincts are really pretty good. You say that yesterday becomes tomorrow because the earth spins, but you also mention that the present moment coalesces (from yesterday) and then dissolves (into tomorrow). In any event, it would seem like yesterday became the present and the present will become tomorrow because the earth spins.

Will tomorrow become the present? Will the present become yesterday? This seems to logically follow from saying that tomorrow becomes yesterday as the earth turns.

You note that the earth spins in only one direction, which is true, and so that sets the direction of time. However, the earth spin and therefore the period of the day changes measurably over time and so earth's spin points time in all kinds of different directions.

Although entropy and therefore temperature are good at pointing macroscopic time's arrow, is really quantum phase decay that points quantum time's arrow. After all, the universe becomes more ordered with time despite Shannon entropy always means less order, not more order. It is the entanglement entropy of quantum gravity that drives the shrinking universe to more order.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John Brodix Merryman replied on Mar. 11, 2018 @ 01:31 GMT
Steve,

One way to look at it is that the present is relative to the events, such that either it is the present, "flowing' from past to future, is it the events "flowing," past to future.

Which leads to the point about energy being "conserved." Which means it is "moving" from past configurations, to future ones, but always present.

So the question is simply whether there is...

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.