Dear Kevin,

I truly liked your essay (don't look for my mark, I'll rate all essays at the end, I just say this not to be confounded with some other voter).

In particular, I liked the distinction between contingent and determined laws, a matter to which I also dedicated quite some thought, only to arrive at the same impression as you: that the division between them is not truly sharp....

view entire post

Dear Kevin,

I truly liked your essay (don't look for my mark, I'll rate all essays at the end, I just say this not to be confounded with some other voter).

In particular, I liked the distinction between contingent and determined laws, a matter to which I also dedicated quite some thought, only to arrive at the same impression as you: that the division between them is not truly sharp. One could claim that determined laws are fixed by the requirement of consistency. Yet, consistency implies that no two realities, one the opposite of the other, can be derived from the theory. Yet, the notion of ‘opposite’ is not always clear. We are used to thinking that any statement has its opposite, that is the case in the formal logical systems we usually employ in mathematics. But what is the opposite of a physical reality? What should be the two things that cannot simultaneously happen in the universe? If we could answer this question, we might be able to deduce which should be the determined laws. In fact, the more we know about the world (going up to truly high speeds, or to really tiny or huge scales) the more it seems that weird things can happen, things that in earlier times would have been though of impossible, almost, of inconsistent. We now know that the notion of simultaneity is observer-dependent, in earlier times that would have been considered illogical, perhaps even inconsistent. We also know that in the quantum realm, what happens or does not happen depends on the observer, and that unobserved variables have no defined values. Again, a fact that in earlier times would have seemed inconsistent.

In my essay, I propose a parallelism between mathematical and physical theories, a parallelism that tries to separate contingent from determined laws. I claim that only when the separation is evident we have a conceptual theory. Yet, I agree with you that there is no guarantee that the distinction can be made on sharp theoretical grounds. Nothing ensures we can make the distinction in the universe we know, and nothing guarantees that it can be done in any other possible universe. If the separation between the two types of laws cannot be done, the universe in question will still exist, but we will not be able to say we have a conceptual theory about it. The whole point is, of course, is to define what a possible universe is. But that is a tricky question. We only live once, and we only gather evidence once. But no theory can be constructed gathering data in a single trial. So we must parse our evidence into ‘similar trials’, and from our single experience, construct ensambles that can be used to construct and test theories. Such a construction is only legitimate if we have some prior knowledge of what is similar and what is not. That notion will allow us to group our experience into multiple trials of one single situation. So it would seem that the distinction between what is determined and contingent depends on our priors...

Ok, this message got long. Sorry if the message is not too clear, I'm thinking as I write. Not a very clever stategy, but hey, I'll send it anyway, just to say I liked your thoughts a lot, and that they triggered quite a bit of thinking from my side. But I'm still circling in them, I fear...

Thanks for that!

Inés.

view post as summary

Nice thinking about gravity Dr Kevin H Knuth

You are asking Very important questions...."The laws of physics distinguish the probable from the improbable, and separate the possible from the impossible. But is this law-based description of the universe too anthropomorphic? Are we really to believe that when we release a rock from our hand that it is somehow compelled by this decree and thus...

view entire post

Nice thinking about gravity Dr Kevin H Knuth

You are asking Very important questions...."The laws of physics distinguish the probable from the improbable, and separate the possible from the impossible. But is this law-based description of the universe too anthropomorphic? Are we really to believe that when we release a rock from our hand that it is somehow compelled by this decree and thus obliged to fall to the ground? Or are there deeper reasons why the rock does what it does every time it is released?....."

Hope you will have a look at another Gravity based essay also...

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

Dear Kevin

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 Kevin

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

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

The assumption that laws of nature are permanent isn't a dogma. It has been confirmed by any experiment made. Obviously laws could be changing so slow that cannot be measured, but then the claim they are really changing is a metaphysical claim and we will continue assuming that they don't change.

There is no logical reason to invoke a Creator, even less when the Universe is defined as an...

view entire post

The assumption that laws of nature are permanent isn't a dogma. It has been confirmed by any experiment made. Obviously laws could be changing so slow that cannot be measured, but then the claim they are really changing is a metaphysical claim and we will continue assuming that they don't change.

There is no logical reason to invoke a Creator, even less when the Universe is defined as an isolated system.

I see no reason supporting the idea that the design of the universe couldn't be other. So questions as "why is the universe the way it is and not something completely different?" don't make any sense to me.

An algebra of kind 2x2 = 22 is relatively easy to imagine.

Masses aren't "initial conditions"; the state space is (p,q). Masses are parameters. Also in one sense initial conditions aren't accidental, because they are final conditions for previous trajectory.

I don't find anything surprising on Newtonian laws describing the motions of planets orbiting the Sun, but not the number of the resulting planets, and their respective orbits. Newtonian laws don't describe the number of particles neither their mass or energy.

I always find interesting to see some physicists considering the possibility of multiverses, which is a non-physical hypothesis. Discussions about multiverses would be better left to philosophers.

Information Physics is a buzzword. There is no central role of information in physics, and the work of people as Jaynes has simply added confusion and nonsense to physics. I recall here Balescu criticism of the thermononsense school: "Jaynes' and coworkers theory is based on a non-transitive evolution law that produces ambiguous results. Although some difficulties of the theory can be cured, the theory "lacks a solid foundation" and "has not led to any new concrete result"".

Knuth' work is another rehash of older and debunked ideas introduced in the early times of quantum theory about "observers playing a central role" in Nature, and taken to its extreme by Wheeler's nonsensical "it from bit".

view post as summary

Professor Knuth,

Thank you for an excellent overview of the curious role that patterns of numbers have played in the history of mathematics and science, with an emphasis on questioning the depth to which these patterns are fixed within what we observe.

I will readily confess to being both a bit of a tolerant pragmatist regarding most such patterns. I am both a pragmatist in the...

view entire post

Professor Knuth,

Thank you for an excellent overview of the curious role that patterns of numbers have played in the history of mathematics and science, with an emphasis on questioning the depth to which these patterns are fixed within what we observe.

I will readily confess to being both a bit of a tolerant pragmatist regarding most such patterns. I am both a pragmatist in the skeptic that the more broadly a pattern is found in diverse types of data, the more likely it is to be attached deeply within the infrastructure behind that data. Thus words in Europe lead back “only” back to Proto-Indo-European, while the spectral element signatures of elements on the other side of the visible universe lead all the way back to the shared particle and space physics of our universe. In many ways, what we really seem to be doing there is (as you note) not so much looking for “laws” as we are looking for points of shared origins in space and time of such patterns.

I am a skeptic in the sense that it’s exceedingly unwise both in everyday life and in data analysis to assume that just because you see a pattern that it’s necessarily meaningful or even real. We humans are particularly prone to seeing exactly what we want to see, a phenomenon that itself is a pattern that emerges from our need to make fast, efficient use of relatively slow and limited-capacity neural circuitry. Our brains take a lot of shortcuts.

The delicacy of the fine-structure constant is just the tip of the anthropic tuning mystery. Lee Smolin estimates that when you take the product of all of the tunings needed create a life-as-we-know-it tolerant universe, the odds fall to 1 in 10²²⁹. For some perspective, that is almost as low as the odds of our President saying just the right words in a multicultural sensitivity training session.

I was not aware of the Koide pattern. Since I am currently working on a paper with strong geometric implications for fermions when represented in the right space, such a vaguely geometric pattern might well prove relevant (or not!) So, my thanks for alerting me to it.

Cheers,

Terry

Fundamental as Fewer Bits by Terry Bollinger (Essay 3099)

Essayist’s Rating Pledge by Terry Bollinger

view post as summary