CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]
TOPIC:
"Fundamental" could become nonessential for itself by corciovei silviu
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author corciovei silviu wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 21:49 GMT
Essay AbstractLet’s suppose we play a game, named “What is fundamental?” and its main rule is to answer the question. The competitors who find the proper answer are going to win. Who is the most clear win the most
Author BioThe author is interested in hacking the human brain
Download Essay PDF File
Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 21:54 GMT
Dear corciovei silviu,
FQXi.org is clearly seeking to confirm whether Nature is fundamental.
Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.
All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Only the truth can set you free.
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 07:01 GMT
Dear Silviu,
Thank you for the insightful, yet simple and beautiful trip! Here is what I take from it. You start from uncontroversial and mundane facts of life, in the search of a fundamental cause. And by simple inferences, you arrive at the conclusion that each event is caused by multiple causes, this leading to a relativity and an incompleteness. By varying one of the causes the result...
view entire post
Dear Silviu,
Thank you for the insightful, yet simple and beautiful trip! Here is what I take from it. You start from uncontroversial and mundane facts of life, in the search of a fundamental cause. And by simple inferences, you arrive at the conclusion that each event is caused by multiple causes, this leading to a relativity and an incompleteness. By varying one of the causes the result can change dramatically. I think this implicit definition of causation by instability to variations is insightful and captures its essence. And you pointed out rightfully that there are usually more parameters that one can vary and get an unstable dependency on the initial conditions. As a parenthesis, I want to add here that in the discussions about free-will (which you left outside for good reasons, but I just want to apply the idea to this subject since it seems to be of interest for many), the idea is simplified as if free-will should be something that depends on the individual alone, but since there are both internal and external causes, I think a better definition of free-will should include in a more relevant way both the being and the environment, but this of course will lead to something different than what our intuition says. Now back to your essay, as you said, this instability under the variation of multiple causes leads us to the following choice: either quit using the term with reference to a single cause as fundamental, or embrace more than one, and ultimately all of them, as being fundamental (in which case what is "fundamental" if everything is?). Our usual habit to identify a single cause makes us overlook other aspects, and even have completely different views. Who's right, or are we all, what is fundamental being relative in this sense, or it is just incomplete to consider a single cause? Also, I like how you apply the same reasoning to cosmology, in a simple, straightforward way. I realized that at a second reading I find more in your brief essay, so surely there is more to say about you wrote than what I saw. Well done, this little gem deserves more attention! Success in the contest!
Best wishes,
Cristi
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 06:30 GMT
Dear Corciovei Silviu, you said briefly and clearly. Your essay is the first among those who are looking for what is fundamental? My essay is among those who respond, which is fundamental. The physical space, which according to Descartes is matter, is the foundation for fundamental theories. Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed...
view entire post
Dear Corciovei Silviu, you said briefly and clearly. Your essay is the first among those who are looking for what is fundamental? My essay is among those who respond, which is fundamental. The physical space, which according to Descartes is matter, is the foundation for fundamental theories. 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 the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. Evaluate and leave your comment there. I highly value your essay, however, I'll give you a rating as the bearer of Descartes' idea. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, which is end of some questions.
Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author corciovei silviu replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 10:05 GMT
Greetings Mr. Boris
I appreciate your effort to read the essay, but i don't believe that i fully understand your question "Your essay is the first among those who are looking for what is fundamental?" what do you mean by that? because what i wrote here is quite simple and therefor it cannot have the attribute of "the first...", but i suppose that you didn't want to say that, that's why i...
view entire post
Greetings Mr. Boris
I appreciate your effort to read the essay, but i don't believe that i fully understand your question "Your essay is the first among those who are looking for what is fundamental?" what do you mean by that? because what i wrote here is quite simple and therefor it cannot have the attribute of "the first...", but i suppose that you didn't want to say that, that's why i say that i do not fully understand what you wanna ask.
Otherwise i am quite new in this field of scientists and i try to learn the convention between them, with the intention to become one, if it suits me. with that said the next misunderstanding will be on "rating an essay". you said "I highly value your essay, however, I'll give you a rating as the bearer of Descartes' idea" and i am truly honored by your words but have you rate it already? or should i be the first(among us) who rates and after that i will get rated as well?
As you can see, i am a little confused so please don't take my words as malicious or hostile but as an effort to get out of this confusion. In each case i will read and rate your piece of work.
view post as summary
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 16:42 GMT
Greetings Mr.corciovei silviu
I read a lot of essays. Some say that such a fundamental, and others, which is the foundation for the fundamental. Your essay is short, but capacious among the first. “fundamental” becomesmore of an idea, a point of view, a perspective, and this perspective will not befundamental in the search of “what is fundamental”. Of the second, I think the best is...
view entire post
Greetings Mr.corciovei silviu
I read a lot of essays. Some say that such a fundamental, and others, which is the foundation for the fundamental. Your essay is short, but capacious among the first. “fundamental” becomesmore of an idea, a point of view, a perspective, and this perspective will not befundamental in the search of “what is fundamental”. Of the second, I think the best is my essay, in which physical space is called the foundation for fundamental theories. The space contains information about changing the world.
You have responded to my invitation to get acquainted with neokartezianskoy physics, i.e. at least in your memory this name remains, for this and for your essay I put you 10
If the believer ask, where is God? He will answer - in heaven. Matter is space, and space is the body of God. The infinite space, which according to Descartes is matter, becomes common to matter and spirit.
I wish you success! Boris
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 18:26 GMT
Dear Silviu,
Below are some thoughts I had when reading your essay:
1. It was at times difficult for me to parse the meaning of your sentences, probably because English is not your native language. However, I laud your effort.
2. The way you go about addressing the contest question is by starting with an axiom "every living needs an environment to exist" which is obviously...
view entire post
Dear Silviu,
Below are some thoughts I had when reading your essay:
1. It was at times difficult for me to parse the meaning of your sentences, probably because English is not your native language. However, I laud your effort.
2. The way you go about addressing the contest question is by starting with an axiom "every living needs an environment to exist" which is obviously very biocentric. The axiom seems to become inapplicable when there is no life, such as billions of years ago (probably), but since the universe was still around, the limitations of the axiom become at once obvious. Why not just say that everything that physically exists needs a location to exist in? This is more general, and it will also bring you toward special relativity because there are objects, namely those associated with lightspeed motion, which are not associated with any definite location.
3. You then seem to bring in physics as a conception in the human mind. Again, that seems like a very anthropocentric approach which can't seem to work at times before humans existed.
4. I did not follow the connection you drew between putting energy into a system and increasing the distance of the universe. Frankly, I think you will need a good deal more in the form of evidence and argument to make a believable case.
I have the impression that you are just starting your journey in physics, if so, please continue your studies while you work on your ideas, you will find that as you learn more, you also learn to think differently, and possibly more flexibly, about your ideas.
Best of luck,
Armin Nikkhah Shirazi
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author corciovei silviu replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 02:24 GMT
Thank you for everything! and especially for the great advices! So let me, please, put it into different words so that I start my lateral thinking as you suggested:
1. First you react like a shy teacher who wants to tell (with nice words) a student, that he's effort is appreciated but the essence of the effort is not so appreciated. Or like a Zen master with a dummy student. Personally I...
view entire post
Thank you for everything! and especially for the great advices! So let me, please, put it into different words so that I start my lateral thinking as you suggested:
1. First you react like a shy teacher who wants to tell (with nice words) a student, that he's effort is appreciated but the essence of the effort is not so appreciated. Or like a Zen master with a dummy student. Personally I prefer the second one, it has a little bit of learning in it (for me).
2. next you say that it is obvious that I start from a "biocentric" point of view, but the question will be "why do you need to point it out if it's obvious?" the irrelevance rises once we ask "who is trying to ask for what is fundamental?" At this point may I remind the we are in a real contest with real biologic beings trying to ask and respond to a question. Then you add that before any form of life the axiom would be inapplicable, which again points at some obvious fact that seem to be irrelevant, because at that time we wouldn’t be participating in this contest. So this real contest exists only from a biologic perspective. Not to say that you almost build a certainty upon a probability "inapplicable when there is no life, such as billions of years ago (probably)"). then you say "Why not just say that everything that physically exists needs a location to exist in?" which is beautifully said and I fully embrace it (more to say is that you gave me some good insights with this more general and apriori approach).But your point at something analogus with moveing in to a new flat and after a year you decide to write down the history of the apartment from the first brick until the present moment (well, not exactly “the present moment”). Would you or would you not include you in the history?
3."You then seem to bring in physics as a conception in the human mind. Again, that seems like a very anthropocentric approach which can't seem to work at times before humans existed". That, because "Physics" as a concept is an anthropocentric approach, obvious, right? What lies inside this concept should not be dependent of humans, or at least that's what we all want, I suppose. But let me ask what the purpose of a non- anthropocentric approach is? Because the purpose of this contest is to answer a human question, and I tried that from a human perspective (not very well done as far as I can see). When you say “Again, that seems like a very anthropocentric approach…” are you aware of the fact that the terms that you propose like being at least similar are opposing each other in some other frame of reference?
Then in the end you already have impressions of me, as a person, presuming a starting journey in physics, and you already give me advices (again like a Zen teacher :) ), which as you can see I do my best to follow them (maybe some other certainty based upon a probability/uncertainty?) . Very nice of you but you’re on the wrong track (as far as know about myself). Although if you presumed that I am a novice in physics you are absolute right, but as far as I know I am at a contest called “what is fundamental”, and not “what is fundamental in physics”.
“…if so, please continue your studies while you work on your ideas, you will find that as you learn more, you also learn to think differently, and possibly more flexibly, about your ideas” so do you think that thinking differently and more flexibly is a emergent phenomenon from 1. learning more diving in deeply into the fundamentality of the field; or 2. learn more than one field of interest?
. I hope to have spoken on your meaning this time, if not I declare myself incapable of a genuine expression of what is obvious (and I do tend to behave in this sense sometimes)
Anyhow I do respect your work in terms of the same reasoning that wrote this message and I evaluated with an 8. If you consider it an offense I sincerely apologies (I could be wrong) but I am just learning, as you already guessed.
Respectfully, Silviu
view post as summary
Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 00:45 GMT
In general, the adaptation of a "living being" to the environment is not a result of the intelligence of that "being", but of the several physical, chemical, and biological interactions.
The distinction between mathematical language and "verbal language" is not one of "causing a pleasant adaptation" vs not; the distinction is on precision, rigor,... and other properties that differentiate a...
view entire post
In general, the adaptation of a "living being" to the environment is not a result of the intelligence of that "being", but of the several physical, chemical, and biological interactions.
The distinction between mathematical language and "verbal language" is not one of "causing a pleasant adaptation" vs not; the distinction is on precision, rigor,... and other properties that differentiate a formal language from a natural language.
There is no problem with having two "essential aspects" in the same formal system. Fundamental is not a synonym for "one". We can have two, six, or more postulates in a formal system and the term fundamental doesn't "becomes invalid".
"This put the human in a sensitive situation of observing a phenomenon in nature, trying to translate it in verbal values and then equate these
values with others from the language of physics". This is not how scientists work. When observing a phenomenon the rules of the scientific method are applied and the phenomenon recorded and described in a formal language ready for analysis and communication with other scientists.
"Observing the universe, the neutral human intelligence described it in terms of
physical laws. He conceived symbols for describing the universe and used them to adapt and live better". This sounds as an utilitarian vision of science. Applied science can be used to live better, but the main goal of fundamental science is just to create knowledge.
I don't have any reason to think that the energy of the universe is not a constant.
The solution to the final question is neither 1 nor 2, but 3: maintaining the concept of fundamental as it is used today.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author corciovei silviu replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 03:17 GMT
Ma friend,
Out of which planet are you? You seem to have read parts of the essay, but you didn’t paid enough attention (because of the surrounding noise) therefore misunderstandings "got in" and it created a state of mind that states: “it is my misunderstanding or is he wrong?” let’s suppose you randomly chose “he is wrong”. Then your intelligence comes into the game and creates...
view entire post
Ma friend,
Out of which planet are you? You seem to have read parts of the essay, but you didn’t paid enough attention (because of the surrounding noise) therefore misunderstandings "got in" and it created a state of mind that states: “it is my misunderstanding or is he wrong?” let’s suppose you randomly chose “he is wrong”. Then your intelligence comes into the game and creates some argumentation for “why he is wrong” but in essence you are just confirming the essay with other words ( but did you understood it?)
Maybe I am right (in interpretation) or maybe I am not (most probably, if not certainly, i am wrong), but the fact is that in either way the essence is the same: you say that i am wrong by confirming me
In the end you are totally right and I was wrong (by omitting the third option): there are 3 choices and you may choose one and only one of them (the good thing is that you can recall it any time)
P.S. a hint: biological=bio+logic.
view post as summary
Domenico Oricchio wrote on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 12:35 GMT
Thank for reading my essay
I think that genetic evolution (in long time) and intelligence (in short time) permit an optimal adaption in the real world: it is possible that part of our reasoning is innate, so that genetic modify our reasoning, in the deeper levels.
It is a good essay, but the answer is missing for me, changing the question to a too particular case: I think that there...
view entire post
Thank for reading my essay
I think that genetic evolution (in long time) and intelligence (in short time) permit an optimal adaption in the real world: it is possible that part of our reasoning is innate, so that genetic modify our reasoning, in the deeper levels.
It is a good essay, but the answer is missing for me, changing the question to a too particular case: I think that there was the possibility, and the ability, for a deeper answer.
I have decided to give only high votes, so that I don’t downgrade your essay with a low vote that you do not deserve.
Regards
Domenico
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author corciovei silviu wrote on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 20:26 GMT
you say it'a good essay which gives you no answer, but why do you say it's a good essay, then? what makes it good for you.
however, I did proposed a solution which is a choice, an individual one. if I would have given you "an answer" in the essay it would be "change you're way of thinking, and accept different perspectives like being one (which is a big change in the way we think now) I...
view entire post
you say it'a good essay which gives you no answer, but why do you say it's a good essay, then? what makes it good for you.
however, I did proposed a solution which is a choice, an individual one. if I would have given you "an answer" in the essay it would be "change you're way of thinking, and accept different perspectives like being one (which is a big change in the way we think now) I can't even do it for myself constantly, so how can I say that "this is the answer!"? it will be stupid (and I am stupid right now as you can see:)) ).
More than that, it's not that I have the true answer of something, it's just an interpretation of a question which is "what is fundamental" and "a relative answer" (if you like it that way) would be a binary choice between:
1. keeping the same way of thinking about fundamental which is "one essential thing"
2. seeing that "one essential thing" as we see an electron (if you permit me a analogy) as wave and particle in the same time
Strangely i have the impression (maybe a wrong one) that you cannot not understand what I wrote in the essay, due to what i have read in your essay.
Thank you for reading.
Respectfully, Silviu
view post as summary
Author corciovei silviu replied on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 09:25 GMT
Or you may regard it as a pre-answer
Man 1: What is fundamental?
Man 2: Before answering, we should know that "Fundamental" could become nonessential for itself
Domenico Oricchio replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 18:26 GMT
Excuse me, I did not answer, not checking all my comments in the various blogs.
It is a good essay because it is well written (it reminded me Conrad), and the first part make a good analysis of languages, and reading I thought of different conclusions, linked to the representation of reality in the human brain.
The baseball-Universe dynamics seem a particular case of fundamental...
view entire post
Excuse me, I did not answer, not checking all my comments in the various blogs.
It is a good essay because it is well written (it reminded me Conrad), and the first part make a good analysis of languages, and reading I thought of different conclusions, linked to the representation of reality in the human brain.
The baseball-Universe dynamics seem a particular case of fundamental dynamics (restricted to the final state), that does not give - maybe just to me - an answer.
Your vote is high, so that others have thought otherwise, so do not worry about my opinion that is a minority.
Regards
Domenico
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 23:37 GMT
Dear Prof corciovei silviu
Wonderful analysis..."Let’s suppose we play a game, named “What is fundamental?” and its main rule is to answer the question. The competitors who find the proper answer are going to win. Who is the most clear win the most" Nice hacking....
I hope you will not mind that I am not following main stream physics...
By the way…Here in my essay...
view entire post
Dear Prof corciovei silviu
Wonderful analysis..."Let’s suppose we play a game, named “What is fundamental?” and its main rule is to answer the question. The competitors who find the proper answer are going to win. Who is the most clear win the most" Nice hacking....
I hope you will not mind that I am not following main stream physics...
By the way…Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed...……..….. yours is very nice essay best wishes …. I highly appreciate hope your essay ….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 repliedBest
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author corciovei silviu replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 14:34 GMT
MR. SNP Gupta,
Thank you for the nice and overwhelming words, but they make me smile as I am far for being a "Prof." If you would like a social appellative, then i could say about myself that I gained the title of "rock climbing national champion" a high one. I hope you do have the sense of humor, as humor is a universal language
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 14:07 GMT
Very Nice Essay corciovei silviu,
I gave you 10, previously it was 6.5 now it is 7.2
best wishes
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri wrote on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 22:46 GMT
Dear Silviu:
You are a gifted writer.
Even though my essay writing is not as good as yours; I believe I have presented some substance.
In fact, I think your essay should be read first, before people read mine. Then they will better appreciate why the concept "Fundamental" for the human species must keep evolving.
May be we could collaborate. Then you do not have to...
view entire post
Dear Silviu:
You are a gifted writer.
Even though my essay writing is not as good as yours; I believe I have presented some substance.
In fact, I think your essay should be read first, before people read mine. Then they will better appreciate why the concept "Fundamental" for the human species must keep evolving.
May be we could collaborate. Then you do not have to hack my brain without my knowing: Chandra.Roychoudhuri@uconn.edu
Chandra.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 10:12 GMT
Silviu,
Great game, and excellent way to look at the issue. Well done.
My essay title 'Ridiculous Simplicity' suggests a solution which is ...simply;
"Nothing can exist without motion".
I show that has rich universal meaning across all physics at all scales. Motion is a relative concept. I't motion that 'creates' fermion pairs from the vacuum, and it's rotational...
view entire post
Silviu,
Great game, and excellent way to look at the issue. Well done.
My essay title 'Ridiculous Simplicity' suggests a solution which is ...simply;
"Nothing can exist without motion".
I show that has rich universal meaning across all physics at all scales. Motion is a relative concept. I't motion that 'creates' fermion pairs from the vacuum, and it's rotational motion that IS all matter, or with ever more complex coupling of rotations. Then just add relative 'linear' translation and we can make an entire universe.
“what is fundamental for the final state of the universe?” Re-ionization in the greatest rotation that exists. At smaller scales 'Supermassive black holes' (AGN's) do the same but to a galaxy) The ejected matter forms the next universe in the cycle! Full (well evidenced!) picture here;
https://www.academia.edu/6655261/A_CYCLIC_MODEL_OF_GALAXY_EV
OLUTION_WITH_BARS Relative motion 'IS' 'Relativity' - but rationalised (see prev finalist essays from 2011) and mine this year shows it also provides, shockingly, a classical derivation of QM!
I hope you can read and enjoy it. It's the future (In 2010 I suggested it may be 2020 but perhaps optimistically?)
very best
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 13:56 GMT
Silviu,
I try to read as many as poss before rating at the end. As it's nigh I've done yours now for a bit of a boost. I hope it doesn't also get hit with 1's as mine has!
Very best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 11:08 GMT
Dear Corciovei
I was glad that there are people interested in hacking the human brain. The consistency/complexity of the human brain is a reason that consciousness can make use of it (can reside in). So I am not saying that the complexity is the CAUSE of consciousness, no because that would be the same as “looking for the announcer inside the radio”. What I myself try to do is hack consciousness...
Some remarks:
“the environment provides clues to survival and to existence”. The human agency is part of the emergent phenomenon called “reality”. Reality is the total environment of the agent, including emerging space and time. “Survival” is a consequence of the emergent time phenomenon. Each “living creature” is eating other living creatures.
“We notice that the intelligence has the propriety to be aware of itself, “ I think that this is a not yet proved assumption. Artificial intelligence is not yet “aware” (conscious) because it is just working with algorithms. Maybe when quantum devices are being used for creating “intelligence” then ARTIFICIAL CONSCIOUSNESS may arise.
Language: mathematical and verbal. Communication is a process that involves time, Communication is also one of the tools to survive in time. Maybe there are more “languages” possible to communicate...
“With the discovery of some few immutable laws of the universe, the human being found more “essential conditions”. I think that humanity at each discovery of a so-called “immutable” law, find new essential conditions that are only valid for a new short time.
I wonder what you are thinking of
my attribution “Foundational Quantum Reality Loops” where I am not only trying to try to reach out to the foundational HOW but also to the WHY. So maybe you can spare some time to read, comment and eventually rate it.
Best regards
Wilhelmus de Wilde
report post as inappropriate
Author corciovei silviu wrote on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 18:10 GMT
Mr. de Wilde,
Thank you for your time.
Regarding your four remarks:
1. I totally agree with your words “…“Survival” is a consequence of the emergent time phenomenon. Each “living creature” is eating other living creatures …” indeed “survival” looks like something emergent, if looked from some outer human perspective. From the inner human perspective, as...
view entire post
Mr. de Wilde,
Thank you for your time.
Regarding your four remarks:
1. I totally agree with your words “…“Survival” is a consequence of the emergent time phenomenon. Each “living creature” is eating other living creatures …” indeed “survival” looks like something emergent, if looked from some outer human perspective. From the inner human perspective, as you said (“each living creatures is eating other living creatures), we can agree on that we need to “do something” in order to survive. The expression “the environment provides clues to survival and to existence” tries to include both perspectives mentioned above. Beg your pardon if I couldn’t make myself more clear from the beginning.
2. Artificial Intelligence is a construct of Human intelligence. Do you need a self-aware robot to confirm your self-awareness?
3. For the present essay I used just the needed languages. I never said that there couldn’t exist other types of language (as a matter of fact, I thing we agree that there are a lot more
4. You are correct again when you say that “…humanity at each discovery of a so-called “immutable” law, find new essential conditions “, but why are they valid just before discovering the next one? If you would find, this year, in nature/reality one “immutable law”, and next year you would find another one which has no direct relation with the first one ( but nature/reality couldn’t exist without one of them). Next year you find nothing. In the fourth year you find a third “immutable law”. And so on goes one’s life... The question is: “Does the finding of a third “immutable law” makes the first one less immutable?” As far as they respect the condition of independency (no direct relationship between them) it seems that they are on equal positions (like nominal variables, if you like a statistical term).
Silviu
view post as summary
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 10:45 GMT
Dear Corciovei Silviu
Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay and also for answering my points regarding yours.
I will begin with the points you ask on your essay :
1.I think we both agree here. It is quite clear to me what you mean.
2.Yes. But here it is important to make the difference between intelligence and awareness/consciousness. As you say we are...
view entire post
Dear Corciovei Silviu
Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay and also for answering my points regarding yours.
I will begin with the points you ask on your essay :
1.I think we both agree here. It is quite clear to me what you mean.
2.Yes. But here it is important to make the difference between intelligence and awareness/consciousness. As you say we are constructing artificial intelligence. Intelligence is just data/information, the algorithms of software can compare data to resolve the mathematics, and give solutions to questions. Awareness is not achieved, sometimes “it looks like” awareness because of the complexity of the software, but it will stay only a “yes or no” phenomenon.
3.Indeed there are ways of communication that we will perhaps never be aware of because we have only five senses.
4.In the middle ages the immutable law was that the sun was turning around the earth, and really there were used such complex calculations that it really “seemed” to be true. The later immutable law was that it was the other way around. So the first one is no longer valuable. Humanity is only existing one second...Our “intelligence is also existing only one second and we think that we know already a lot (not me). We are indeed creating artificial intelligence but not artificial Consciousness, the new quantum devices (working with qubits) that can not only “choose” between yes or no, maybe the new evolution towards Artificial Consciousness (AC). AC will have then the “I” and the “will” to stay “alive”, without the need to “eat” other AC’s. The only “eating” will be the sharing of intelligence (information).
On your question on my essay: What is consciousness? I partly gave already the answer above under 4. But I will try to answer this (ultimate difficult) question very short by asking you: “What is the “I” (yourself, ego) inside you? That is the part of you that is aware of its emergent entity. It TRIES to UNDERSTAND the signals from emerging reality around YOU. It TRIES to UNDERSTAND the foundational HOW and also WHY. This consciousness is not the result of a complexity called brains, but it is the origin of the complexity. (You will not find the announcer inside the radio).
I hope that this answers your questions. I rated you an 8 today.
Wilhelmus de Wilde
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 06:44 GMT
Dear Corciovei
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 Corciovei
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
report post as inappropriate
Giovanni Prisinzano wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 07:58 GMT
Dear Silviu,
your essay is dense and original. I especially liked the example of baseball with which you illustrate the fundamental "equivalence" between an “inner” and an “outer” perspective on the evolution of the universe, despite their opposition. An important difference between the two perspectives is however undeniable: an outer perspective can never have a scientific validity, because it refers to some hypothetical reality or external agent (the “player”) on which we can only speculate. Instead, an inner perspective is in principle within the reach of science, even if we do not know if we can ever be complete and definitive.
A question: You say:
"Confined to a logic and rational thinking, we could suppose the adaptation is a result of intelligence."
This seems to mean that intelligence is innate. So how do you explain the adaptability of beings that, from our point of view, are not intelligent? The opposite point of view can also be argued, namely that intelligence is the result, not the cause, of adaptation. I do not know which of the two is the correct perspective.
All the best,
Giovanni
report post as inappropriate
George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 10:28 GMT
Dear Silviu,
I am very grateful that you paid attention to my work. It is critical work, that is way it is difficult to find many supporters. I'm glad that you are one of them. You says //In one way or another, the mathematical language will have to be “translated” in a verbal one, more permissive then inductive.// I am saying that math is a small part of common logical analytical system, which must be serve as a must fundamental tool of natural science. So, math cannot "work" himself and separately that can brought to some of certain valuable results.
I thing you are well realized this reality and the inevitability of serious revision in the methodology of present theoretical physics.
Thus, I wish you successes in this contest and I will support you!
Best regards.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 17:09 GMT
Silviu,
Short and seemingly simple explanation but quite impressive in its ability to expound. I particularly like going from the simple example of kicking the ball and the energy applied, then expanding it to dark energy and the expansion of the universe. I like the verbal subjective combined with the mathematical precision. Your narrative helps to simplify the fundamentals of the universe.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Jack Hamilton James wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 21:23 GMT
Thankyou Silviu for your kind comments on my essay.
I think this kind of metaphysics (as you display here) which tries to place physics correctly in terms of linguistics and meaning and other complications, is particularly important in advancing our knowledge. Well done indeed.
Best,
Jack
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 04:20 GMT
Dear Corciovei,
(copy to yours and mine)
Many thanks for the kind words about my work and for mutual understanding. The understanding and appreciation are highly valued.
I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand.
I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.
I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.
Vladimir Fedorov
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080
report post as inappropriate
Aditya Dwarkesh wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 16:49 GMT
Dear Silviu,
The way in which you eliminated the potential ontology on fundamental is, I believe, the correct method of analysis; I suppose you must have seen something of that in my own essay. Your write up is short and sweet, enjoyable with just the right amount of brevity.
Regards, Aditya
report post as inappropriate
Gary Valentine Hansen wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 18:52 GMT
Hello Corciovel,
Your conclusion is both thoughtful and useful.
One only needs to identify what is fundamental when one needs to identify what is fundamental. Utility is what drives such needs. If something is potentially useful, then use it.
Notwithstanding the above statement, your ‘game’: “What is Fundamental” does demand a singular answer. Perhaps your reference to ‘being aware of yourself’ is as good an answer as any. In the absence of consciousness, anything and everything is of no importance. A stone is just a stone!
I agree that “fundamental” is an idea; so, the FQXi question either remains open and unanswered, or our attention is redirected to the word “What”, to ask ‘What is “What”?’, or simply to respond to the original question “What is Fundamental” with the answer “Yes”.
I shall look forward to reading more about your ‘fundamental’ thoughts in future FQXi essay contests.
Cheers,
Gary.
report post as inappropriate
Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 04:08 GMT
Silviu
Great essay. I liked it a lot. Nice try by the way "re-stating the rules of the game so that your essay wins". I wish I had thought to do this. I wonder if you have convinced the judges :)
I've dont so much reading these past few days. Thanks for only filling three pages. I could happily have read more, but was also glad for short and sweet.
Its good that you recognize the influence our language tools have over the way we form our ideas. You see the importance of understanding ourselves, as part of the challenge of ourselves understanding the universe.
I know you have a good sense of humor. Perhaps you will inject more of it into next years essay. I might think about doing the same.
I think I'm had enough computer time this last month to last the rest of the year. I'm going surfing to clear my head. Let us talk again
Thank you & best regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 06:16 GMT
corciovei,
I think the system malfunctioned. I don't see my comment from before on 2/23/18 when I rated your great essay.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Member Marc Séguin wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 22:47 GMT
Dear Silviu,
I've read your essay. It's only 3 pages long, put it packs in a lot of ideas! I found some of them really interesting, and similar in some aspects to the ones I presented in my essay, which explains why you liked it a lot.
I agree with what you say at the top of page 2: there can be more than one "essential condition" (fundamental) to the same system, so fundamentality can be multiple. I especially like it when you write:
"It’s like looking in a mirror and asking “what is fundamental for such a state?”, and the answer would dash, “me and the mirror, in the same way”, or neither I, nor the mirror"
This reminds me of the hypothesis of "co-emergence" that I defended in my essay for last year's FQXi contest.
You go on to write that "the word “fundamental” is a creation of the human intelligence in the attempt of describing an observed phenomenon. That “single thing” can be seen from at least two perspectives, an inner and an outer perspective." I agree that there are two ways to approach the issue of fundamentality, what I call ontological and epistemological fundamentality in my essay.
Thank you for contributing your ideas to this contest, and good luck!
Best wishes,
Marc
report post as inappropriate
Gordon Watson wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 04:29 GMT
Dear Silviu,
By way of saying 'thank you' for your enjoyable essay, I’d like to play your supposed game:
"Named 'What is fundamental?' and its main rule is to answer the question. The competitors who find the proper answer are going to win."My entry = my answer =
existence.PS: It's good for me to see you having clean fun with good questions. So here's a friendly one from me; prefaced on the I hope that a gift (to a keen student, by way of encouragement: for entering, not necessarily for winning) might be presented by you:
How about a question or comment on my essay?[nb: rest assured that your otherwise busyness will in no way offend.]
PPS: My friend Judith just now tells me that her answer is:
preexistence! [Which is OK; for she (also a keen student: and sending her regards) would be equally happy to just read the above-mentioned gift.]
With best regards, and wishing you every success in harmlessly hacking the human brain;
Gordon Watson
More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.