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

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

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

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

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

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

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 replied

Best

=snp

view post as summary

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

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

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

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