Dear George Gantz,

You titled your essay “Faith is Fundamental.” That Old Time Religion practitioners, and all modern physicists have provided us with the most grotesque lies ever perpetrated about the universe. They insist that the universe had a finite commencement.

Nature produced one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single dimension that am...

view entire post

Dear George Gantz,

You titled your essay “Faith is Fundamental.” That Old Time Religion practitioners, and all modern physicists have provided us with the most grotesque lies ever perpetrated about the universe. They insist that the universe had a finite commencement.

Nature produced one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single dimension that am always illuminated by mostly finite non-surface light millions of years before humanly contrived finite mathematical and Christian misinformation ever became evident on earth.

Joe Fisher, Realist.

view post as summary

Dear George Gantz,

I very much enjoyed your essay, and appreciate your perspective, which you summarize nicely: "the unexamined faith is not worth believing." You discuss the articles of faith underlying current physics after first discussing a series of problematic findings. I believe the obvious success of quantum mechanics is compatible with a new (improved) interpretation of...

view entire post

Dear George Gantz,

I very much enjoyed your essay, and appreciate your perspective, which you summarize nicely: "the unexamined faith is not worth believing." You discuss the articles of faith underlying current physics after first discussing a series of problematic findings. I believe the obvious success of quantum mechanics is compatible with a new (improved) interpretation of QM, but that is for another time. You begin with the first problem of space and time, noting that time and space came to be visualized as a four-dimensional topological manifold. After briefly discussing other aspects of the problem you ask:

"But what should we believe? That our everyday experience of the flow of time is a fraud?"

Something is a fraud, and my essay reviews the historical development of the above in a way you might find interesting. I hope you will read and enjoy my essay and grace me with a comment.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

Dear George Gantz, you wrote a great essay worthy of a winner.

If the believer to ask: "where is your God". He will answer: "In Heaven" so I say that space is the body of God.

He ascended into heaven - this means it went into his body.

The fundamental should be very simple and straightforward. The idea of God is simple and straightforward. The world is one because God is one....

view entire post

Dear George Gantz, you wrote a great essay worthy of a winner.

If the believer to ask: "where is your God". He will answer: "In Heaven" so I say that space is the body of God.

He ascended into heaven - this means it went into his body.

The fundamental should be very simple and straightforward. The idea of God is simple and straightforward. The world is one because God is one. This eliminates the theory of Multi Universe.

Visit my essay, which I have some examples of trying to convince others of the fruitfulness of the principle of Descartes's identity of space and matter.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

view post as summary

I have thoroughly enjoyed this Essay George and not sure why it had the rating of 3 to begin with, possibly due to this defiant use of the word FAITH in it's title.

Thank you for sharing these well organized thoughts.

At some level of the regress you escape rational analysis and the turtles exist outside rational thoughts, we call it magic. http://churchof.space chapter one....

view entire post

I have thoroughly enjoyed this Essay George and not sure why it had the rating of 3 to begin with, possibly due to this defiant use of the word FAITH in it's title.

Thank you for sharing these well organized thoughts.

At some level of the regress you escape rational analysis and the turtles exist outside rational thoughts, we call it magic. http://churchof.space chapter one.

Determinism as in your point 2 page 7/ does not represent a dead end. Any feedback loop on a otherwise deterministic system will lead to loss of determinism as in sensitivity to initial conditions as we know from chaos theory and non-linear systems http://chaosbook.org

I hope you will read my essay submission for you may find much echo to your points. Specifically the standing waves of the fabric of space, the memory of the aether, seems to resonate with interesting forms guiding QM and existing outside of carbon or indeed atoms, in the vacuum itself. This memory foam, as visualized in the walkers ontology (and described in my essay, SR-Aether), seems to couple back to the particle and guide it in a dynamic that mimics quantum mechanics via the chaos theory formalism. In there the superposition principle emerges as the notion of chaotic intermittence or the dynamic shapeshifting of non-linear (self coupled) systems etc as expounded in the more tongue in cheek CoS texts.

view post as summary

This one speaks to me above all others. Thank you for writing it. I could easily write a 20 pg response to this 10 pg essay. This is not to say I agree with everything you wrote. I simply choose to believe otherwise, but that is beside the point. The point is that ultimately, the truth involves what we choose to believe. Note that this is a self-referential statement. If it is taken as fact, then...

view entire post

This one speaks to me above all others. Thank you for writing it. I could easily write a 20 pg response to this 10 pg essay. This is not to say I agree with everything you wrote. I simply choose to believe otherwise, but that is beside the point. The point is that ultimately, the truth involves what we choose to believe. Note that this is a self-referential statement. If it is taken as fact, then it is self-contradictory. The self-referential paradox is central to the problem of the human condition. Instead we reject this and navigate around it with whatever cognitive tools we can find. There must be ultimate facts. We only believe in things that are real. The ultimate truth must be logical. The proof is out there, we’re not looking hard enough. Ultimately, reality must be some sort of unique unidirectional hierarchy, or objective dualism with an equals = sign in between. Maybe we can choose to believe anything. (Another self-referential statement). How about; “Only falsifiable proposals qualify as fact” (Not a falsifiable statement). In my essay, I frame the problem in terms of realism and idealism. As far as I can tell, this approach hasn’t garnered much attention. The belief in the uni-truth is pervasive. To not believe in the uni-truth, is a self-referential paradox. Consider the following multiple choice question: All reality A) originates from random behavior, B) is determined by the laws of physics, C) Is consistent and logical, D) A set of (incompatible) schools of thought, E) All of the above. I make the self-contradictory selection E). I can’t prove or disprove anything about this question. This question addresses the ultimate nature by asking about “all” reality. I choose to believe that when I ask such an ultimate question, I find myself in a philosophical tailspin. I don’t “understand” it in the usual sense. I simply recognize and accept it. Ideas such as free, determined, logical, and relativism, (ABC and D) are useful in particular applications, but when I ask ultimate questions i.e. “what is fundamental?” I can pretty much argue from any place on the map. BTW this is a version of Russell’s paradox where choosing the whole menu is paradoxical. Typically, we posit F) none of the above, and navigate around the problem with choices we claim as fact. You quoted Hawkins; “There is no theory- or theory independent concept of reality”. This is a self-referential statement. (because it is Hawkins conception). “…model dependent realism” is an oxymoron. But I believe he is right. If you have not done so, look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma

and realize the whole thing is a self-referential proposal. I can fool myself into thinking I’ve found the unequivocal answer here, but then I’ve just contradicted myself. I’ve trapped myself in the self-referential belief: Overall reality is a contradiction. If this statement is true, then then it must be a contradiction. Round and round I go. I can’t expect anyone to agree. It’s not logical. The only way out is to use the F word. And I don’t mean facts. I avoid using the F word in my essay. Instead I use words like choice, interpretation, belief, assumption, acceptance, etc.… The word faith conjures the fraudulent and infantile religious beliefs abhorred by the prevailing materialism. We should expect to be thrown overboard. This precludes you from winning and this can only be a testament to your goodness. To find examples of the philosophical tailspin at the ultimate edge of understanding, we need look no further than cosmology; Ex-nihilo violation of conservation, time beginning at a point prior to which was not, space “in and of itself” inflating within a void of non-space, and other self-subsistent paradox. At the opposite edge of the observable Universe we have the paradoxes of QM. None of this makes sense, but I’m OK with that because I (choose) don’t expect it to. This attitude is called humility. Other examples of the philosophical tailspin are freewill and determinism, spontaneous emergence of order vs intention (teleology), hidden variables, contingent Universe, measurement problem, and so on. The reproducible feature of the physically observable is what determines the laws. Using causality, we turn this around and suppose the laws determine the behavior. But what about things that only happen once? i.e. big bang? We can thank Gödel for formalizing the unavoidability of the self-referential problem. To what extent can we extrapolate predictive science to the unobservable? String and multiverse theories have the empiricists on suicide watch. For me these essays are an exposition of the human condition. A bit of introspection and humility goes a long way here. To have faith in nothing is worthless. I choose to believe my eyes that see a marvelous and intentional endeavor willing to sacrifice Himself for our blessings. I am a thinker and one day I found these thoughts do not really belong to me. What is fundamental? You nailed it. Usack@optonline.net.

view post as summary

George,

Great essay with a lot to digest. I cannot help thinking of looking at our galaxy from the inside and the flaws in perception we experience -- BICEPs 2 for example, when reading "By analogy, we exist as conscious observers inside a box. Some of what we are trying to learn could only be observed from outside the box." More generally, we are looking at our universe from the inside...

view entire post

George,

Great essay with a lot to digest. I cannot help thinking of looking at our galaxy from the inside and the flaws in perception we experience -- BICEPs 2 for example, when reading "By analogy, we exist as conscious observers inside a box. Some of what we are trying to learn could only be observed from outside the box." More generally, we are looking at our universe from the inside rather than from the outside.

These words are also true: "One of the consequences of a more open and honest discussion of our belief framework would be, I believe, an increase in our shared humility" I also try to emphasize that we may be too wedded to established thinking like "the Big Bang" and must keep our eyes and options open: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3035.

So far, I think your essay is one of the best.

Jim Hoover

view post as summary

George,

I assume that your statement ‘that faith may be interfering with physics’ alludes to the perceived irreconcilable relationship between faith and reason, by which I am interpreting your interpretation of ‘faith’ as being religious convictions.

But the term ‘faith’ has much wider, generally applicable meanings; that of conviction, trust, reliance, assurance, belief,...

view entire post

George,

I assume that your statement ‘that faith may be interfering with physics’ alludes to the perceived irreconcilable relationship between faith and reason, by which I am interpreting your interpretation of ‘faith’ as being religious convictions.

But the term ‘faith’ has much wider, generally applicable meanings; that of conviction, trust, reliance, assurance, belief, devotion, loyalty, etc. that are often applicable to scientific theories that have not been established and endorsed as ‘true’. Indeed what scientific knowledge is unequivocally certain and correct for all time? Your point is well taken when you state ‘There are some conundrums in mathematics, however, that will never be solved’; not withstanding our understanding that ‘never’ is a long, long time. As you have further stated; ‘the incompleteness findings apply to every branch of mathematics.’ From a practical point of view we need not seek perfection in terms of the absolute truth but rather proceed until we have achieved tentative conclusions that have utility values.

Concerning your question ‘How does intelligence emerge from unintelligent components?’; your answer preceded your question; i.e. that ‘all interesting structures’ ... ‘exhibit increases in order, structure and variety quite at odds with the Second Law’ ‘All’ is a dangerous word to use but I get the gist of your point – that evolution compounds complexity.

The notion that ‘... anomalies are all explainable within the laws of nature’ is more succinctly posited if we substitute the word ‘principles’ for ‘laws’. Strict laws are absolute while principles accommodate deviations within limits.

To state that there are ‘no’ non-physical causes the ‘no’ cannot be confirmed (much like ‘never’ and ‘all’ referred to above). These terms should not be used if we are trying to convey the truth as we know it. If there is a God he (she or it) may well call you to account unless he elects to expose himself physically.

The issue of a single universe vs. the multiverse theory is not going away soon. I think that you are correct in suggesting that ‘the choice boils down to an ideological one – what are you comfortable in believing?’

Your conclusion is exquisitely stated.

Thank you.

Gary.

view post as summary

Hi George Gantz

Very good flow of writing … “our perception and investigation of this physical reality through science rests on guiding principles constructed on faith” is correctly said Best wishes to the essay , hope this also will go better than …”Tip of the spear” dear George Gantz

……..….. very nice idea…. I highly appreciate your essay and hope for...

view entire post

Hi George Gantz

Very good flow of writing … “our perception and investigation of this physical reality through science rests on guiding principles constructed on faith” is correctly said Best wishes to the essay , hope this also will go better than …”Tip of the spear” dear George Gantz

……..….. very nice idea…. I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity…. You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

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.

- 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

Best

=snp

view post as summary

Dear George

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?

Beyond my essay’s introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure...

view entire post

Dear George

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?

Beyond my essay’s introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity’s effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me in questioning this circumstance?

My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a “narrow range of sensitivity” that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. for if they didn’t then nebula gas accumulation wouldn’t be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn’t we consider this possibility?

For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we “life” are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

My essay is an attempt at something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up an energy potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists, and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond forming activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemical process arose.

By identifying process whereby atomic forces draw a potential from space, we have identified means for their perpetual action, and their ability to deliver perpetual work. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might apply for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

To steal a phrase from my essay “A world product of evolved optimization”.

Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

Kind regards

Steven Andresen

Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

view post as summary