Your essay is an interesting reading. It segues in part with physics because of quantum mechanics that, as you illustrate with contextuality, does not conform to a purely objective perspective on the universe. We are then in a funny situation with respect to the measurement or phenomenology of quantum mechanics an inability to completely divorce the observer from the subject of observation....

view entire post

Your essay is an interesting reading. It segues in part with physics because of quantum mechanics that, as you illustrate with contextuality, does not conform to a purely objective perspective on the universe. We are then in a funny situation with respect to the measurement or phenomenology of quantum mechanics an inability to completely divorce the observer from the subject of observation. Various quantum interpretations are set up to work around this problem, from "shut up and calculate," which amounts to don't worry about this, to ψ-epistemic interpretations that render the wave function unreal to ψ-ontoc interpretations that confer reality to the wave function by in effect fragmenting the observer. The Copenhagen interpretation is ψ-epistemic and the many world or Everettian interpretation is ψ-ontic. Personally I think quantum mechanics is not any of these.

The Wheeler cycle or strange loop is in effect a form of Godel's theorem applied to physics. We could think of a quantum measurement as a case where quantum states encode some quantum states. This loop can never be complete which is one reason maybe that quantum measurement is not understood by any physics. By corollary we have no clear understanding of how the classical world emerges from the quantum world. We can say it does emerge, which would be more ψ-epsitemic, or that it is a complete illusion and manifested in an observer, which would be more ψ-ontic. The apparent self-referential nature of this would lead to an inability to know which type of interpretation holds, and far less which interpretation holds.

Since this is physical we may think more according to Turing machines, which may be thought of as computing existing symbol strings. In this way was have a physical system prior to the computational incompleteness of any putative universal Turing machine. With pure mathematics what is prior or subsequent to what is not important. With physics we have more of this sense with respect to time. Of course this now takes us into deep questions on what we mean by the nature of time. My essay in part touches on this with issues of quantum state entanglements building up spacetime.

It is then my sense that whether matter or mind is primary is not fundamentally decidable. I remember years ago reading Isaac Asimov quip about this:

Matter over mind doesn't matter

Mind over matter, never mind.

This question leads us into a contact region between physics and metaphysics. Metaphysics is something we usually prefer to have a minimum of in physics. However, we seem unable to completely eliminate metaphysics.

Cheers LC

view post as summary

show all replies (3 not shown)

hide replies

Respected Prof Markus P Mueller

Nice philosophical thinking sir...... Here I propose that we should consider a similar reversal in our understanding of the relation between the “mind” and the “world”, and take the idea seriously that some notion of the former is more fundamental than the latter. I argue that such a view, if properly analyzed, leads to a surprising kind of “strange...

view entire post

Respected Prof Markus P Mueller

Nice philosophical thinking sir...... Here I propose that we should consider a similar reversal in our understanding of the relation between the “mind” and the “world”, and take the idea seriously that some notion of the former is more fundamental than the latter. I argue that such a view, if properly analyzed, leads to a surprising kind of “strange loop”: even though it is ultimately more fundamental, the mind can still consistently be regarded as causally supervening on the world....... It will definitely a helping point sir....

Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed...……..….. yours is very nice essay best wishes …. I highly appreciate hope 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

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Markus

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to...

view entire post

Dear Markus

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.

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 and my essay 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. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn’t then 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 attempt of 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 a 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 formation 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 chemistry processes arose.

By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. 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 explain 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

"Philosophers have long been arguing about how to best define the scientific method", how if they had some idea about it. ;-)

"The question of consciousness is deliberately ignored". Consciousness has been matter of scientific study since decades.

"the idea that "consciousness collapses the wave function" or the proliferation of the anthropic principle" aren't simply...

view entire post

"Philosophers have long been arguing about how to best define the scientific method", how if they had some idea about it. ;-)

"The question of consciousness is deliberately ignored". Consciousness has been matter of scientific study since decades.

"the idea that "consciousness collapses the wave function" or the proliferation of the anthropic principle" aren't simply "pseudo-scientific" or at least "highly questionable", but the first is plain wrong and the second is fully unscientific.

Noncommutative space cannot represent "the sort of "quantum spacetime" that one expects to find in physics in the realm of quantum gravity." Space and time are different in quantum theory, so they cannot be unified on a "quantum spacetime". Moreover the geometrical model of gravity introduced by GR is only approximate; so the idea that quantum gravity requires a "quantum spacetime" is also incorrect. It is understandable that decades of work on this kind of ideas have proven to be useless.

Eternal inflation is like epicycles or the flying spaghetti monster. And Boltzman apparently never understood statistical mechanics or the second law of thermodynamics.

What is so special about the scientist running different simulations of brains in different computers? One could replace brains by molecules and one could still be asking probabilistic questions about the simulations. There is nothing of relevance here. Nothing questioning the "essence of physics".

Quantum mechanics is an ensemble theory, and the idea that it refutes a realistic picture of the world has been debunked since the very beginning of quantum theory. Stuff as Bell's theorem is often invoked as prohibiting realism; However, not only the theorem doesn't say what some pretend, but Bell himself was supporter of realism. Only people adhering to the old Copenhagen interpretation that still pretends that QM is about "what we see" instead about "what there is".

Bricmont reproduces some of the comedy behind the so-called "ortodox view" of quantum mechanics and the historical distortions

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00294.pdf

So the subsequence reasoning about inverting the arrow and placing "first-person perspective" as fundamental and the physical world as "emergent" isn't valid. Not only this kind reasoning is based in incorrect quantum epistemologies/ontologies, but it is also ridiculous to believe that physical world "emerges" only when there are persons acting as observers. It is so ridiculous like when creationists insist that the fossil evidence was planted by Satan to deceive us. Wheeler's ideas about reality being created by observers are pure nonsense.

Postulate 1 seems to fail when x is a stationary state.

view post as summary