Ms Xu,

Very much enjoyed your writing style, clarity and flow or discussions. In that light, I'd like to address specific ideas you wrote about.

First, I would say that Duhem's hypothesis muddies the waters and is built on inconsistent criteria .. moving us no closer to shared consensus understandings, but away from that goal.

Your next approach .. presuming 'comparative...

view entire post

Ms Xu,

Very much enjoyed your writing style, clarity and flow or discussions. In that light, I'd like to address specific ideas you wrote about.

First, I would say that Duhem's hypothesis muddies the waters and is built on inconsistent criteria .. moving us no closer to shared consensus understandings, but away from that goal.

Your next approach .. presuming 'comparative fundamental qualities', or number of components as a measure of precedence (simplicity being better - ?), led you to stating the current dilemma: classical mechanics and statistical mechanics have no immediately apparent connection ... unless we apply vague properties of 'emergence'. I am not so sure that closed gas behaviors do generate the statistical models, except by untested presumptions. Especially because entropy is assumed statistical from the outset, and has not been keyed to prior classical states. I would be interested in further discussion from you about 'entropy'. I have a concern that as useful as current mathematics of entropy have been applied and produce useful results, that we do not yet really understand what is 'fundamental' in current entropy models. I question if statistical parameters are really 'fundamental', since the acknowledgment is that we have probabilities to weigh, and not hard fixed measures for all parameters.

I would like you thoughts on that.

Otherwise, I like your Sec 3 identification that "wide applicability" is a candidate for 'fundamentality'. I thoroughly agree. But, I fell into disappointment when you got overwhelmed by presuming that data content and storage were a parameter or criteria for "wide applicability'. If there are underscoring shared 'principles of activity', those can be simple, and the number of principles small, regardless of mechanisms and examples of presence.

So, I would ask you to consider if 'wide applicability' is truly, as you write, "a lost cause'.

Sec 4. is interesting, because multiple frames of reference do not dis-allow underlying shared performance relations, just because there are alternative description models. That is simply a cybernetic situation .. conversion of descriptors. Not changes in anything functionally intrinsic involved. Does that make sense to you? And falling back in Duhem's unproved hypothesis is rather weak, I would suggest. I do not think his hypothesis will prove out.

In Sec 6. you raise the 'ogre's head' (as I do in my contest essay as well), of the disconnect between statistical mechanics and classical mechanics. Do you have any ideas for overcoming that dysjunction? Comparing respective 'complexity' is interesting, but I am not sure gets us closer to unification.

Here is an image for you to consider .. one person juggles a ball: another person - far away in some shared defined space - is not close enough to be involved. So the far person comes closer, where the juggler can throw the ball and the people can have a game of 'catch' (just another version of 'juggling').

The spatial distribution possibles of the ball increases (its relative entropy increases). In contrast, the distribution (entropic locations) if the people gets closer, more localized .. smaller distribution .. lower relative entropy from their spread apart distribution. decrease ball 'complexity' ; increased agents/people complexity.

The 'total entropy' of the people/ball system is of no importance. But the fact that complexity can be increased and negentropy naturally produced by ... simple ongoing communication, IS of extreme importance. So the question is now - how to synchronize the activity using both the classical and the statistical way of describing things. :-)

Hope to read you thoughts, impressions, reply.

James Rose

"Physical Fundamentals, Math Fundamentals, Idea Fundamentals – Have We Spotted Them All? "

view post as summary

"For example, once the classical mechanics model of what happens in a gas in a box is determined, all the aspects of the statistical mechanical model are determined as well". This is not true at all. Statistical mechanics is based in postulates which are not derived from classical mechanics. Precisely the main problem with non-equilibrium statistical mechanics (NESM) is that the postulates of the...

view entire post

"For example, once the classical mechanics model of what happens in a gas in a box is determined, all the aspects of the statistical mechanical model are determined as well". This is not true at all. Statistical mechanics is based in postulates which are not derived from classical mechanics. Precisely the main problem with non-equilibrium statistical mechanics (NESM) is that the postulates of the equilibrium theory are not valid outside equilibrium and classical mechanics do not provide any hint to find the needed postulates for NESM.

Concepts as elegance are subjective; even economy could be also considered a subjective term.

I am not convinced that complexity can be identified with "the amount of information needed to describe everything 'interesting' about the system".

The Boltzmann and Shanon (Gibbs) expressions for entropy are only equivalent when p = 1/Omega and when ignore additive terms.

The example of the glass containing both coffee and milk has its counterexample in the glass containing two inmiscible liquids. We begin with a homogenenous mixture and as time passes, there is a layer of one of the liquids on the bottom, then a layer of the other liquid on top. Has the second law been violated? Of course no. This counterexample just shows that the ordinary attempts to equate entropy with some antrophomorphic concept of "disorder" are flawed.

I do not see how the concept of "apparent complexity" can be defined by H(f(x)). In the first place Boltzmann and Shanon expressions are not fundamental [1], so they cannot be used to give a fundamental definition of complexity. In the second place, what we mean by measure here?

Why would we take atomic theory and add to it theories "for light and for other phenomena that atomic theory can't explain but the Standard Model can" before comparing the Standard Model and atomic theory? I do not find any reason for that. I can just start from the Standard Model and see if I can derive atomic theory from it. If I can derive atomic theory by imposing constraints and/or approximations on the Standard Model, then the Standard Model is a covering theory and, therefore, more complex than atomic theory.

[1] Curiosuly there are two viewpoints about this. That school of thinking that claims that Botzmann expression applies outside of equilibrium, whereas Gibbs-Shanon does not. And the school that thinks the contrary.

view post as summary

Dear Michelle Xu

Very nicely you said about Complexity......" the amount of information it takes to describe something "interesting" about a system. I posit that the definition of fundamentality is equivalent to a lack of complexity....... We discuss both the technical attempts at quantifying complexity and the adjustments we need to make for our case. Ultimately, we see that...

view entire post

Dear Michelle Xu

Very nicely you said about Complexity......" the amount of information it takes to describe something "interesting" about a system. I posit that the definition of fundamentality is equivalent to a lack of complexity....... We discuss both the technical attempts at quantifying complexity and the adjustments we need to make for our case. Ultimately, we see that fundamentality is simply our attempt to understand the world's patterns, and that task is much more easily accomplished with a lack of complexity...... " wonderful analysis....

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 Michelle

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 Michelle

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