If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC
Jason Wolfe: on 11/22/19 at 1:03am UTC, wrote Science is motivated to sever the connection with Deity. They use fluff,...
Anonymous: on 6/24/19 at 3:11am UTC, wrote The idea that brains are somehow involved in limb regeneration is not the...
Steve Dufourny: on 2/7/19 at 12:36pm UTC, wrote Symplectic varieties and the spheres…..Phases and periodic hamiltonians...
Steve Dufourny: on 2/7/19 at 11:26am UTC, wrote The spherisation of this universal sphere seems a logic conclusion,the...
Dr. Narayan Bhadra: on 2/6/19 at 16:31pm UTC, wrote FOR DETAILS PLEASE READ IN THE LINK BELOW ...
Dr. Narayan Bhadra: on 2/6/19 at 16:26pm UTC, wrote We study with a new conception beyond the standard model physics and about...
Alex: on 11/21/18 at 3:28am UTC, wrote Another variant ...
Joe Fisher: on 9/30/18 at 14:21pm UTC, wrote September 21, 2018 Closer to Truth Facebook page contained this codswallop...
Jason Wolfe: on 11/22/19 at 1:03am UTC, wrote Science is motivated to sever the connection with Deity. They use fluff,...
Anonymous: on 6/24/19 at 3:11am UTC, wrote The idea that brains are somehow involved in limb regeneration is not the...
Steve Dufourny: on 2/7/19 at 12:36pm UTC, wrote Symplectic varieties and the spheres…..Phases and periodic hamiltonians...
Steve Dufourny: on 2/7/19 at 11:26am UTC, wrote The spherisation of this universal sphere seems a logic conclusion,the...
Dr. Narayan Bhadra: on 2/6/19 at 16:31pm UTC, wrote FOR DETAILS PLEASE READ IN THE LINK BELOW ...
Dr. Narayan Bhadra: on 2/6/19 at 16:26pm UTC, wrote We study with a new conception beyond the standard model physics and about...
Alex: on 11/21/18 at 3:28am UTC, wrote Another variant ...
Joe Fisher: on 9/30/18 at 14:21pm UTC, wrote September 21, 2018 Closer to Truth Facebook page contained this codswallop...
FQXi FORUM
January 27, 2020
While I wish them luck in their research, it always amazes me how physicists seem like they're totally qualified to contribute to basic ideas in biology like consciousness, evolution, etc., but when biologists, or others, try to contribute to basic areas in physics, or at least the philosophy of physics, they call us crackpots and deride us. This is even more ironic when many physicists and mathematicians hold faith-based, evidence-free ideas like that mathematical constructs and physical laws actually exist in a Platonic realm that nobody can see, touch, measure or experiment on. While this rant is partly sour grapes on my part, I think these grapes have a basis in reality.
report post as inappropriate
Reality am not theoretical. The real visible earth had a real visible surface for millions of years before Sara Imari Walker ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing her senseless guesswork about mythological “sophisticated” observers being able to cope with speculative aspects of abstract physical laws.
Obviously, Nature must have produced the only real visible physical construct of the real Universe allowable. There has only ever been one visible unified infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. This real natural visible construct satisfies the needs of all observers, real and imagined, sophisticated or uncultured.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Obviously, Nature must have produced the only real visible physical construct of the real Universe allowable. There has only ever been one visible unified infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. This real natural visible construct satisfies the needs of all observers, real and imagined, sophisticated or uncultured.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Roger:
I agree. It has yet to dawn on the physics community, that reality (the things that actual occur) is much more a result of initial conditions, rather than the laws of physics. The extremely limited information content of the laws, ensures that they can only ever describe what is impossible. But what is possible and thus observable, is dictated, almost entirely, by the enormous information content of the initial conditions.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
I agree. It has yet to dawn on the physics community, that reality (the things that actual occur) is much more a result of initial conditions, rather than the laws of physics. The extremely limited information content of the laws, ensures that they can only ever describe what is impossible. But what is possible and thus observable, is dictated, almost entirely, by the enormous information content of the initial conditions.
Rob McEachern
Dear Robert H McEachern,
Had you bothered to read my posts, you would not have admitted that you do not want to know the truth about natural visible reality. There am no such a thing as a “physics community.”
Irrefutable fact: The earth had a real visible surface for millions of years before any physicist ever published his or her senseless guesswork about finite invisible atoms, or the supposed finite duration of space/time.
Only Nature could have devised the only real visible physical construction allowable. There has only ever been one visible unified infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Had you bothered to read my posts, you would not have admitted that you do not want to know the truth about natural visible reality. There am no such a thing as a “physics community.”
Irrefutable fact: The earth had a real visible surface for millions of years before any physicist ever published his or her senseless guesswork about finite invisible atoms, or the supposed finite duration of space/time.
Only Nature could have devised the only real visible physical construction allowable. There has only ever been one visible unified infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Rob,
Thanks! And figuring out how those initial conditions came to be and what they are is a question everyone has an equal chance at answering. Academics are more about describing systems like the universe as they already are and not about how those systems came into being in the first place, so they have no advantage on the second topic. What irritates me is when they pontificate about this second topic (e.g., Why is there something rather than nothing?) and other topics outside their area while at the same time deriding amateurs for their ideas on these same topics.
Also, physical laws describe physical things, interactions and changes in the universe. They're not fundamental like the initial conditions and what brought those initial conditions into being. As you say, the initial conditions and how those initial conditions came into being dictate the game.
But, given that, I agree with them that anyone's ideas on these topics should match reality, be testable and be able to make testable predictions.
Roger
report post as inappropriate
Thanks! And figuring out how those initial conditions came to be and what they are is a question everyone has an equal chance at answering. Academics are more about describing systems like the universe as they already are and not about how those systems came into being in the first place, so they have no advantage on the second topic. What irritates me is when they pontificate about this second topic (e.g., Why is there something rather than nothing?) and other topics outside their area while at the same time deriding amateurs for their ideas on these same topics.
Also, physical laws describe physical things, interactions and changes in the universe. They're not fundamental like the initial conditions and what brought those initial conditions into being. As you say, the initial conditions and how those initial conditions came into being dictate the game.
But, given that, I agree with them that anyone's ideas on these topics should match reality, be testable and be able to make testable predictions.
Roger
Dear Roger Granet,
Natural visible reality am eternal. You cannot handle the truth.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Natural visible reality am eternal. You cannot handle the truth.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Nature and nurture, an idea from biology, might be applied to physics. Eg. The nature of a particle being what it is, and its behaviour due to its 'initial condition, i.e. its behavior when emitted from a substance or device, is affected by the environmental exposure it incurs, between emission and result. Such as an electron passing through the magnetic field of a Stern Gerlach apparatus. The outcome spin up or spin down state is a product of the interaction of particle and field not merely the behaviour and nature of the particle unchallenged.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Georgina Woodward,
Invisible finite particles cannot have a finite nature. Nature designed a single VISIBLE unified infinite surface that would eternally occur in one infinite dimension always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Invisible finite particles cannot have a finite nature. Nature designed a single VISIBLE unified infinite surface that would eternally occur in one infinite dimension always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Hi all,
Contructing a theory of life, a toe at my humble opinion must consider the spherical volumes and sphères and their motions and oscillations.We can unify G c h with objectivity. The main aim being to explain also this quantum weakest force the quantum gravitation. Several works are relevant about the geometrical algebras (Clifford, Lie,...) these works with quanternions, octonions are relevant considering the quasicrystals and the corrélations ith our space time .These works consider an external cause , primordial for the shapes, geometries, topologies like the strings and a 1D primordial field.My model of spherisation with quantum and cosmological sphères Inside an universal sphere in optimisation consider an intrinsic cause in the finite primordial series implying also shpapes, geometries, topologies.The relevance is that this can converge and we can reach this quantum gravitation.It does not seem to be an emergent electromagnetic force but needs an other logic non baryonic.The problem also about our consciousness can be analysed also considering the finite primordial series.The body mind soul problem can be also solved in this road considering the singularities and main primordial codes.
Spherically yours dear thinkers.
report post as inappropriate
Contructing a theory of life, a toe at my humble opinion must consider the spherical volumes and sphères and their motions and oscillations.We can unify G c h with objectivity. The main aim being to explain also this quantum weakest force the quantum gravitation. Several works are relevant about the geometrical algebras (Clifford, Lie,...) these works with quanternions, octonions are relevant considering the quasicrystals and the corrélations ith our space time .These works consider an external cause , primordial for the shapes, geometries, topologies like the strings and a 1D primordial field.My model of spherisation with quantum and cosmological sphères Inside an universal sphere in optimisation consider an intrinsic cause in the finite primordial series implying also shpapes, geometries, topologies.The relevance is that this can converge and we can reach this quantum gravitation.It does not seem to be an emergent electromagnetic force but needs an other logic non baryonic.The problem also about our consciousness can be analysed also considering the finite primordial series.The body mind soul problem can be also solved in this road considering the singularities and main primordial codes.
Spherically yours dear thinkers.
The real big question is about what are this aether, this vaccuum.Must we consider that aether is luminiferous ? I Don't think , I beleive that this aether is gravitational , it is intuitive of course but we need to superimpose new parameters non baryonic to this standard model.I am doubting that this infinite Eternal consciousness has created only photons like primordial essence of all things. This DM is intriguing also if it exists and that we are not obliged to modify our newtonian mechanics.
If the quantum gravitation is emergent due to our coupling and gauges of our standard model, so I will accept, but that seems odd and imply that we need to insert this matter non baryonic, in the cold probably, lambda of our cosmological model seems relevant, thjis zero absolute intrigues me a lot. Our scales quant and cosm need this matter to balance many things, to solve several problems that we have
report post as inappropriate
If the quantum gravitation is emergent due to our coupling and gauges of our standard model, so I will accept, but that seems odd and imply that we need to insert this matter non baryonic, in the cold probably, lambda of our cosmological model seems relevant, thjis zero absolute intrigues me a lot. Our scales quant and cosm need this matter to balance many things, to solve several problems that we have
Dear Steve,
Do you have a visible surface? Does the room you are in have a visible surface? Does the earth have a visible surface? There has only ever been one unified visible infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher. Realist
report post as inappropriate
Do you have a visible surface? Does the room you are in have a visible surface? Does the earth have a visible surface? There has only ever been one unified visible infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher. Realist
How to prove my equation E=m(b)c²+m(nb)l² ,this matter non baryonic intrigues a lot.If this matter exists, like the photons they are encoded in nuclei and can give us even a road for this quantum gravitation.A cold dark matter seems important and we can encircle this standard model.If my equation is correct, it is intuitive and general considering the matter and Energy.It will be a big rvolution for our sciences and technologies if we check this quantum gravitation and this matter non baryonic non relativistic .
report post as inappropriate
Luboš Motl was right to use sarcasm:
“Some of the most experienced readers already know that a kettle may heat water. Fortunately, the authors allow us to formulate even such statements in a more "natural" and more "profound" way: For instance, a kettle with a power supply can serve as a constructor that can perform the task of heating water. LOL, it's a constructor. Who would have thought? One would think that a kettle isn't constructing anything…”
“Constructor theory: Deutsch and Marletto are just vacuously bullsiting”, Luboš Motl, 27 May 2014, https://motls.blogspot.com/2014/05/constructor-theory-deutsc
h-and-marletto.html
report post as inappropriate
“Some of the most experienced readers already know that a kettle may heat water. Fortunately, the authors allow us to formulate even such statements in a more "natural" and more "profound" way: For instance, a kettle with a power supply can serve as a constructor that can perform the task of heating water. LOL, it's a constructor. Who would have thought? One would think that a kettle isn't constructing anything…”
“Constructor theory: Deutsch and Marletto are just vacuously bullsiting”, Luboš Motl, 27 May 2014, https://motls.blogspot.com/2014/05/constructor-theory-deutsc
h-and-marletto.html
I don't see any harm in clearly differentiating objects that have a more profound effect on a system than more passive background objects. The outcome with the kettle working is going to be very different from the kettle switched off.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Lorraine Ford,
Nature must have designed the only visible construct of the real Universe allowable. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. Any humanly devised senseless guesswork about supposedly finite physical construction am totally unnatural.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Nature must have designed the only visible construct of the real Universe allowable. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. Any humanly devised senseless guesswork about supposedly finite physical construction am totally unnatural.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dear Georgina Woodward,
No visible “objects” can be differentiated. All VISIBLE objects have a VISIBLE surface. The only natural way that could be would be if there was only one unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
No visible “objects” can be differentiated. All VISIBLE objects have a VISIBLE surface. The only natural way that could be would be if there was only one unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dissect a human brain. seeking q source or mechanism of thought. It never appears. Reductionism fails for emergent phenomena. Unlike intrinsic properties (e.g, the optical spectrum of water), extrinsic properties (chirality) are not "in" there" below a characteristic emergence scale. Self-awareness is not even localized.
Turbulence, spin glasses. Good luck with synthetic local deterministic processes efficiently predicting real world global emergence.
The problem is not explaining why some people are crazy. The problem is explaining why most people are not crazy, since no two brains are small scale identical (even for identical twins).
report post as inappropriate
Turbulence, spin glasses. Good luck with synthetic local deterministic processes efficiently predicting real world global emergence.
The problem is not explaining why some people are crazy. The problem is explaining why most people are not crazy, since no two brains are small scale identical (even for identical twins).
@Uncle Al, I don't even think there are any "emergent phenomena". We see something at one scale that we didn't, or couldn't, at another scale - but nothing actually emerged except a concept. "Emergence" is just a fashionable sort of hand-waving.
report post as inappropriate
Jim,
Yes we see things at larger scales that couldn't exist at the smaller scale , able to do things that couldn't happen at just the smaller scale. Like the forming of a bird's egg. It is a concept, it is fashionable. Sometimes hand waving aids comprehension.
report post as inappropriate
Yes we see things at larger scales that couldn't exist at the smaller scale , able to do things that couldn't happen at just the smaller scale. Like the forming of a bird's egg. It is a concept, it is fashionable. Sometimes hand waving aids comprehension.
Uncle Al,
Every brain has a visible surface. Every part of anyone’s anatomy also has a visible surface. The only logical reason for this would be if only one unified visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light has ever existed.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Every brain has a visible surface. Every part of anyone’s anatomy also has a visible surface. The only logical reason for this would be if only one unified visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light has ever existed.
Joe Fisher, Realist
I have re-posted this from the "Agency in the Physical World – FQXi’s Next Research Program" Blog, because it is also relevant to the "Constructing a Theory of Life" Forum:
What is information:
Information = knowledge = subjective experience of one or more relationships between categories, whereby every “higher” category is ultimately related to the most fundamental-level categories like energy and momentum. Every information category, even the most fundamental ones, can be defined as a relationship between other categories. So that information/knowledge is always contextual (i.e. related and categorised): information does not objectively exist without context (i.e. i.e. without relationship and categorisation), as if it were a binary digit in a vacuum.
How do we represent information:
The physical universe exists because of information relationships. But the relationships are not to be equated to the mathematical symbols we human beings use to represent them. We represent relationships symbolically as: (law of nature) equations, algorithms (these mainly exist in living things), and initial-value number assignments (where every measured number can ultimately be traced to simpler relationships between categories in which the “numerator” and “denominator” categories cancel out, leaving a number, which is a thing without a category).
What knows information and what creates information:
The universe itself creates and knows all the types of relationships (represented by human beings as equations, algorithms, numbers). More precisely, parts of the universe create and know relationships: i.e. agent-observers create and know relationships, where agent-observers are “information-integrated”: particles, atoms, molecules, and living things. This “creation” and “knowledge” are otherwise known as “free will” and “consciousness”.
report post as inappropriate
What is information:
Information = knowledge = subjective experience of one or more relationships between categories, whereby every “higher” category is ultimately related to the most fundamental-level categories like energy and momentum. Every information category, even the most fundamental ones, can be defined as a relationship between other categories. So that information/knowledge is always contextual (i.e. related and categorised): information does not objectively exist without context (i.e. i.e. without relationship and categorisation), as if it were a binary digit in a vacuum.
How do we represent information:
The physical universe exists because of information relationships. But the relationships are not to be equated to the mathematical symbols we human beings use to represent them. We represent relationships symbolically as: (law of nature) equations, algorithms (these mainly exist in living things), and initial-value number assignments (where every measured number can ultimately be traced to simpler relationships between categories in which the “numerator” and “denominator” categories cancel out, leaving a number, which is a thing without a category).
What knows information and what creates information:
The universe itself creates and knows all the types of relationships (represented by human beings as equations, algorithms, numbers). More precisely, parts of the universe create and know relationships: i.e. agent-observers create and know relationships, where agent-observers are “information-integrated”: particles, atoms, molecules, and living things. This “creation” and “knowledge” are otherwise known as “free will” and “consciousness”.
I think you should have made clear that you are quoting yourself; re-posting what you have written on the other page.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward.
I use the word "surface" because only one unified VISIBLE infinite surface has ever existed. You use the finite word "thing" because you refuse to believe that every real thing has the same surface.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
I use the word "surface" because only one unified VISIBLE infinite surface has ever existed. You use the finite word "thing" because you refuse to believe that every real thing has the same surface.
Joe Fisher, Realist
What is Joe Fisher? Why do you persist in differentiating it as if it is a separate thing?
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford.
The earth had a visible surface for millions of years before any humanly contrived senseless supposedly finite information was ever published. You have a complete visible surface. At this moment, part of your visible surface could be resting on the visible surface of the seat of a chair. The only real way this could happen would be if only one unified visible infinite surface occurring eternally in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light has ever existed.
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
The earth had a visible surface for millions of years before any humanly contrived senseless supposedly finite information was ever published. You have a complete visible surface. At this moment, part of your visible surface could be resting on the visible surface of the seat of a chair. The only real way this could happen would be if only one unified visible infinite surface occurring eternally in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light has ever existed.
Joe Fisher, Realist
As expected, David Deutsch and Chiara Marletto fail to clearly distinguish information from the symbolic representation of information [1].
For example, they say: “Information can … be moved from one type of medium to another…” But they should have said: “Symbolic representations of information can … be moved from one type of medium to another…”.
So it is not surprising that they are never able to say what information itself is. Instead they 1) try to describe the “character” and “properties” of this thing they can’t define (i.e. information); and 2) make assumptions about this thing they can’t define (i.e. information):
“we are concerned with the nature and properties of information”; “information has a counter-factual character”; “information is a qualitatively different sort of entity”; “information does resemble some entities”; “information is not abstract”; “the intuitive concept of information is associated with that of copying”; “This will allow us to express information in terms of computation”; “our search for a deeper theory of information”; “An information variable is a clonable computation variable”; “we assume that unlimited resources are available for conversion into information storage devices”; “we assume that unlimited resources are available for information processing too.”
1. Constructor Theory of Information, David Deutsch, Chiara Marletto, https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5563v2
report post as inappropriate
For example, they say: “Information can … be moved from one type of medium to another…” But they should have said: “Symbolic representations of information can … be moved from one type of medium to another…”.
So it is not surprising that they are never able to say what information itself is. Instead they 1) try to describe the “character” and “properties” of this thing they can’t define (i.e. information); and 2) make assumptions about this thing they can’t define (i.e. information):
“we are concerned with the nature and properties of information”; “information has a counter-factual character”; “information is a qualitatively different sort of entity”; “information does resemble some entities”; “information is not abstract”; “the intuitive concept of information is associated with that of copying”; “This will allow us to express information in terms of computation”; “our search for a deeper theory of information”; “An information variable is a clonable computation variable”; “we assume that unlimited resources are available for conversion into information storage devices”; “we assume that unlimited resources are available for information processing too.”
1. Constructor Theory of Information, David Deutsch, Chiara Marletto, https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5563v2
Lorraine Ford.
Why do you find truth objectionable? The earth had a visible surface for millions of years before any humanly contrived senseless supposedly finite information was ever published. You have a complete visible surface. At this moment, part of your visible surface could be resting on the visible surface of the seat of a chair. The only real way this could happen would be if only one unified visible infinite surface occurring eternally in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light has ever existed.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Why do you find truth objectionable? The earth had a visible surface for millions of years before any humanly contrived senseless supposedly finite information was ever published. You have a complete visible surface. At this moment, part of your visible surface could be resting on the visible surface of the seat of a chair. The only real way this could happen would be if only one unified visible infinite surface occurring eternally in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light has ever existed.
Joe Fisher, Realist
As with some other words - like 'physical', and 'consciousness' - one way to deal with the inability to even describe or define what they really mean is to just ignore that fact, roll ahead, and construct elaborate theories about empty concepts.
report post as inappropriate
Many atheists, including the high priest of materialism, R. Dawkins, deny the reality of free will.
"If free will could be shown to be an integral part of how nature works, rather than a social invention, that would definitely be a boost for human dignity."
The author is perhaps making the same error as Dawkins, etc. in thinking that a scientific explanation is an anti-religious argument.
If free will could be shown to be an integral part of how nature works it means that a) the atheistic evolutionists are wrong about the nature of free will (as they are on many other matters) and b) you can argue, scientifically, that God made free will an essential part of His creation, otherwise how can we be judged if we have no free will?
Atheists might not thank you if your research reinforces holy scripture!
report post as inappropriate
"If free will could be shown to be an integral part of how nature works, rather than a social invention, that would definitely be a boost for human dignity."
The author is perhaps making the same error as Dawkins, etc. in thinking that a scientific explanation is an anti-religious argument.
If free will could be shown to be an integral part of how nature works it means that a) the atheistic evolutionists are wrong about the nature of free will (as they are on many other matters) and b) you can argue, scientifically, that God made free will an essential part of His creation, otherwise how can we be judged if we have no free will?
Atheists might not thank you if your research reinforces holy scripture!
Stewart Cowan,
The earth had a visible surface for millions of years BEFORE any religious or atheist folk ever appeared on that surface and began publishing their senseless guesswork about an unnatural invisible God or unnatural human determination.
It logically follows that Nature could have devised the only visible construct of the Universe allowable. Reality consists of one unified visible infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
The earth had a visible surface for millions of years BEFORE any religious or atheist folk ever appeared on that surface and began publishing their senseless guesswork about an unnatural invisible God or unnatural human determination.
It logically follows that Nature could have devised the only visible construct of the Universe allowable. Reality consists of one unified visible infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
The universe is ordered. All higher phenomena, like planets and living things, are based on underlying laws of nature and quantum events.
These laws of nature and quantum events are representable, by us humans, as equations, algorithms and numbers:
1. Laws of nature are representable as mathematical equations, i.e. relationships between categories, and incorporate an algorithmic step which derives a “time”/ “number-change” category.
2. Quantum events are representable as the creation of a new algorithmic step which specifies a new mathematical equation, e.g. a new number assignment equation.
The point that I’m getting to is this: physics assumes that the universe knows these equations, algorithms and numbers. But physics is either too cowardly to admit to these assumptions, or too stupid to notice that it has made these assumptions in the first place.
I repeat: Physics assumes that a knowledge aspect exists in the universe right from the start.
An environment in which physics fails to notice their assumptions, leads to nonsensical questions like: “how did consciousness evolve?” [1], and nonsensical notions that consciousness is an “emergent property” [1].
1. Constructing a Theory of Life, Miriam Frankel, 31 July 2018, https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/230
report post as inappropriate
These laws of nature and quantum events are representable, by us humans, as equations, algorithms and numbers:
1. Laws of nature are representable as mathematical equations, i.e. relationships between categories, and incorporate an algorithmic step which derives a “time”/ “number-change” category.
2. Quantum events are representable as the creation of a new algorithmic step which specifies a new mathematical equation, e.g. a new number assignment equation.
The point that I’m getting to is this: physics assumes that the universe knows these equations, algorithms and numbers. But physics is either too cowardly to admit to these assumptions, or too stupid to notice that it has made these assumptions in the first place.
I repeat: Physics assumes that a knowledge aspect exists in the universe right from the start.
An environment in which physics fails to notice their assumptions, leads to nonsensical questions like: “how did consciousness evolve?” [1], and nonsensical notions that consciousness is an “emergent property” [1].
1. Constructing a Theory of Life, Miriam Frankel, 31 July 2018, https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/230
Dear Lorraine Ford,
The real VISIBLE Universe am not ordered. Let us try this one more time. The earth had a VISIBLE surface for millions of years BEFORE any mathematician ever published any of his or her senseless guesswork about performing abstract finite calculation. Nature devised one VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There am no such a thing as any finite “higher phenomena.” All planets, and living things and grains of sand and flecks of soot have a real VISIBLE surface. All real VISIBLE phenomena has a real VISIBLE surface. It has to be the same VISIBLE surface.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
The real VISIBLE Universe am not ordered. Let us try this one more time. The earth had a VISIBLE surface for millions of years BEFORE any mathematician ever published any of his or her senseless guesswork about performing abstract finite calculation. Nature devised one VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There am no such a thing as any finite “higher phenomena.” All planets, and living things and grains of sand and flecks of soot have a real VISIBLE surface. All real VISIBLE phenomena has a real VISIBLE surface. It has to be the same VISIBLE surface.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Re emergent phenomena I have to disagree with "a gas has a temperature, based on the average motion of its particles: the faster they move, the hotter the gas. But the concept of temperature is meaningless if you try to apply it to any one of those gas particles individually".... I disagree because the temperature of the individual particle is the same as the temperature of an assembly of particles whose average motion is the same as the actual motion of the individual particle.
Also... this article repeats the common unjustified assumption that it is "observation" that collapses quantum states when it could well be, and is much more likely to be, just a certain level of interaction.
There are other similar problems throughout
report post as inappropriate
Also... this article repeats the common unjustified assumption that it is "observation" that collapses quantum states when it could well be, and is much more likely to be, just a certain level of interaction.
There are other similar problems throughout
What about enzymes? They are able to exhibit catalytic function because of their particular shape. Shape resulting from folding of the sequence of amino acids. the individual amino acids or ions they are contain do not have the necessary shape to function as the whole enzyme does. So the function is only present at the scale of the whole enzyme. Making catalytic function of the enzyme an emergent property.
report post as inappropriate
OK (re enzymes) but that is just using a word - emergence - to cover effects that are a net result of several combined interactions. I am not sure using such a word takes us any further forward in understanding.
report post as inappropriate
I agree with Andrew.
As AI researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky said in The Futility of Emergence (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/8QzZKw9WHRxjR4948/the-futil
ity-of-emergence):
"The phrase "emerges from" is acceptable, just like "arises from" or "is caused by" are acceptable, if the phrase precedes some specific model to be judged on its own merits.
However, this is not the way "emergence" is commonly used. "Emergence" is commonly used as an explanation in its own right...
[A] fun exercise is to replace the word "emergent" with the old word, the explanation that people had to use before emergence was invented:
Before: Life is an emergent phenomenon.
After: Life is a magical phenomenon.
Before: Human intelligence is an emergent product of neurons firing.
After: Human intelligence is a magical product of neurons firing.
..."Emergence" has become very popular, just as saying "magic" used to be very popular. "
Georgina, when you you the word "emergent", are you suggesting that magic has occurred?
report post as inappropriate
As AI researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky said in The Futility of Emergence (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/8QzZKw9WHRxjR4948/the-futil
ity-of-emergence):
"The phrase "emerges from" is acceptable, just like "arises from" or "is caused by" are acceptable, if the phrase precedes some specific model to be judged on its own merits.
However, this is not the way "emergence" is commonly used. "Emergence" is commonly used as an explanation in its own right...
[A] fun exercise is to replace the word "emergent" with the old word, the explanation that people had to use before emergence was invented:
Before: Life is an emergent phenomenon.
After: Life is a magical phenomenon.
Before: Human intelligence is an emergent product of neurons firing.
After: Human intelligence is a magical product of neurons firing.
..."Emergence" has become very popular, just as saying "magic" used to be very popular. "
Georgina, when you you the word "emergent", are you suggesting that magic has occurred?
The view that a state of affairs can exist in the universe (e.g. that (what we represent as) law of nature relationships, number relationships, and algorithmic relationships can exist in the universe), without the universe knowing about it, can’t be supported. The existence of these relationships and the knowledge of these relationships are 2 sides of the same coin. [1]
Fundamental-level knowledge is of e.g. momentum relationship, energy relationship, and time/change derived from an algorithmic relationship (delta represents an algorithmic relationship).
But fundamental-level knowledge is different to the higher-level algorithmically-acquired knowledge of living things. Living things have no direct experience of fundamental-level knowledge. And conversely, particles atoms and molecules have no experience of higher-level knowledge.
And without physics, human beings would have no idea of the fundamental-level information relationships that inform the universe.
But physics has failed to notice that the existence of relationship and the knowledge of relationship are 2 sides of the same coin. So we keep getting nonsensical questions like: “how did consciousness evolve?” [2], and nonsensical notions that consciousness is an “emergent property” [2].
…………………………..
1. More precisely, the universe is not an entity: it’s the parts of the universe that have this knowledge, where the parts of the universe are particles, atoms molecules and living things.
2. Constructing a Theory of Life, Miriam Frankel, 31 July 2018, https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/230
report post as inappropriate
Fundamental-level knowledge is of e.g. momentum relationship, energy relationship, and time/change derived from an algorithmic relationship (delta represents an algorithmic relationship).
But fundamental-level knowledge is different to the higher-level algorithmically-acquired knowledge of living things. Living things have no direct experience of fundamental-level knowledge. And conversely, particles atoms and molecules have no experience of higher-level knowledge.
And without physics, human beings would have no idea of the fundamental-level information relationships that inform the universe.
But physics has failed to notice that the existence of relationship and the knowledge of relationship are 2 sides of the same coin. So we keep getting nonsensical questions like: “how did consciousness evolve?” [2], and nonsensical notions that consciousness is an “emergent property” [2].
…………………………..
1. More precisely, the universe is not an entity: it’s the parts of the universe that have this knowledge, where the parts of the universe are particles, atoms molecules and living things.
2. Constructing a Theory of Life, Miriam Frankel, 31 July 2018, https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/230
Quantum mechanics theory gives no real mechanism for going from probable to actual and concentrates on the effects of measurement but seems to neglect size limits for superposition.
The efficiency of photosynthesis in converting light energy into chemical energy tends to make me skeptical of the intelligent observer transformation concept’s age-old wisdom. It seems that there are a lot of micro-macro interactions in light energy being absorbed by pigment molecules in leaves and then making 2 molecules, ATP & NADPH, to produce chemical energy, seemingly at a superposition efficiency -- this w/o observation.
I would tend to favor the gravitational decoherence idea of growing assembled quantum systems and the introduction of temperature and spectral density to their environment as additional causes of decoherence.
I always look with interest for new explanations of this process.
report post as inappropriate
The efficiency of photosynthesis in converting light energy into chemical energy tends to make me skeptical of the intelligent observer transformation concept’s age-old wisdom. It seems that there are a lot of micro-macro interactions in light energy being absorbed by pigment molecules in leaves and then making 2 molecules, ATP & NADPH, to produce chemical energy, seemingly at a superposition efficiency -- this w/o observation.
I would tend to favor the gravitational decoherence idea of growing assembled quantum systems and the introduction of temperature and spectral density to their environment as additional causes of decoherence.
I always look with interest for new explanations of this process.
In the universe, there is no relationship between things (like particles) as such (except maybe coherence): there is only relationship between information categories, where the relationship is itself an information category. Examples of information categories are energy, momentum, relative distance, and time. We represent these information relationships as equations, number assignments and algorithms.
In the universe, these known relationships between information categories have the status of law because they determine the outcome numbers. The reverse situation is not true: sets of outcome numbers do not determine relationships; relationships do not emerge from an objectively observed set of outcome numbers, even if the set of outcome numbers is given a label of “attractor”. And relationships do not emerge from situations, where a situation is a subjective point of view on the outcome numbers.
In the universe, all information has context, there is no information without context: any new category of information is necessarily a new relationship built out of existing information categories. So when it comes to living things, it becomes more apparent than ever that we need to understand what it is that builds/creates/constructs information relationships, and what knows these information relationships. The only candidate is things: particles, atoms, molecules and living things.
report post as inappropriate
In the universe, these known relationships between information categories have the status of law because they determine the outcome numbers. The reverse situation is not true: sets of outcome numbers do not determine relationships; relationships do not emerge from an objectively observed set of outcome numbers, even if the set of outcome numbers is given a label of “attractor”. And relationships do not emerge from situations, where a situation is a subjective point of view on the outcome numbers.
In the universe, all information has context, there is no information without context: any new category of information is necessarily a new relationship built out of existing information categories. So when it comes to living things, it becomes more apparent than ever that we need to understand what it is that builds/creates/constructs information relationships, and what knows these information relationships. The only candidate is things: particles, atoms, molecules and living things.
Dear Lorraine Ford
There may be no finite relationship discernible in the humanly contrived pretentious senseless informational “universe” you stubbornly keep on referencing, however, the real VISIBLE physical Universe was provided by Nature.
There am only one unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
There may be no finite relationship discernible in the humanly contrived pretentious senseless informational “universe” you stubbornly keep on referencing, however, the real VISIBLE physical Universe was provided by Nature.
There am only one unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dear Lorraine Ford
Invisible finite quantum particles that could be in multiple invisible places at the same time have never existed. There was never an invisible void. There was never an invisible big bang commencement of the universe. No invisible black hole has ever existed. These are just mindless human concepts. Nature devised the one real VISIBLE Universe allowable.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Invisible finite quantum particles that could be in multiple invisible places at the same time have never existed. There was never an invisible void. There was never an invisible big bang commencement of the universe. No invisible black hole has ever existed. These are just mindless human concepts. Nature devised the one real VISIBLE Universe allowable.
Joe Fisher, Realist
“Gravitational waves are the disturbance in the fabric of spacetime generated by accelerated masses and propagate as waves outward from their source at the speed of light.” Wikipedia
All real VISIBLE fabric has a real VISIBLE undisturbed surface. This am because Nature devised the only real VISIBLE physical structure of the real VISIBLE Universe allowable. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Although scientists have nong proclaimed that the so-called “laws of physics” mandates that physical structure must be consistent throughout the universe, instead of observing the VISIBLE structure of themselves and their immediate surroundings, they wallow in the tedious senselessness of assuming invisible finite influence.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
All real VISIBLE fabric has a real VISIBLE undisturbed surface. This am because Nature devised the only real VISIBLE physical structure of the real VISIBLE Universe allowable. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Although scientists have nong proclaimed that the so-called “laws of physics” mandates that physical structure must be consistent throughout the universe, instead of observing the VISIBLE structure of themselves and their immediate surroundings, they wallow in the tedious senselessness of assuming invisible finite influence.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Why do theoretical physicists believe that there am finite amounts of matter immersed in empty curved space? Why do theoretical physicists publish preposterous claims such as this one posted anonymously on the GOOGLE Search that states: "Whilst it is correct that the accelerating expansion of space will mean that distant galaxies will disappear over the cosmic horizon, it is currently the case that the observable universe is smaller than this horizon. Thus there are at present no galaxies that we could once see that have 'gone over the horizon'.”
Only surface am observable. There has only ever been one naturally formed VISIBLE unified infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
There am no empty "expanding" space.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Only surface am observable. There has only ever been one naturally formed VISIBLE unified infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
There am no empty "expanding" space.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Lot's of conditional qualifications, but that would seem necessary if we are to consider knowledge and information as having a real, existential physical property. And why not? Two millennia elapsed between the abstract identification of the orthogonal relationship and the experimental observation of it having a physical form in the electromagnetic dynamic. That argues well for information being physical rather than being an artifact of analysis.
report post as inappropriate
You wrote "a physical form in the electromagnetic dynamic"
Only if time is considered as something existent in/over which forms can be distributed. But not if time is only the singular extant configuration of the universe, each configuration being a different time. So there is no orthogonal time dimension in external reality as opposed to the model.
I think that processes happen but, for the most part excluding life and computers, without adhering to a separate plan or set of rules. That rules can be found that apply to repetitive processes or similar circumstances does not mean they were causal. Which is different from, for example, following a kitting pattern or running the algorithm of a cellular automaton. In such cases the information controlling the change is separate from the process and the material reality being transformed by it.
report post as inappropriate
Only if time is considered as something existent in/over which forms can be distributed. But not if time is only the singular extant configuration of the universe, each configuration being a different time. So there is no orthogonal time dimension in external reality as opposed to the model.
I think that processes happen but, for the most part excluding life and computers, without adhering to a separate plan or set of rules. That rules can be found that apply to repetitive processes or similar circumstances does not mean they were causal. Which is different from, for example, following a kitting pattern or running the algorithm of a cellular automaton. In such cases the information controlling the change is separate from the process and the material reality being transformed by it.
Anonymous, I think I may have misinterpreted your post. I don't know whether you are talking of the orthogonal relationship of the time dimension to space or the orthogonal relationship of magnetic and electric components of electromagnetic radiation. Not sure I follow your argument. Are you saying that because the abstract notion was considered prior to the development of the physics, the abstract is in some way producing the actualized form in nature?
report post as inappropriate
Dear Anonymous and Georgina Woodward,
All real “physical” forms have a real VISIBLE surface. This am because Nature designed the only real physical structure of the Universe allowable. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Did it ever occur to you that finite stubbornness might not be an attribute of a person supposedly having a dispassionate scientist’s mind?
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
All real “physical” forms have a real VISIBLE surface. This am because Nature designed the only real physical structure of the Universe allowable. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Did it ever occur to you that finite stubbornness might not be an attribute of a person supposedly having a dispassionate scientist’s mind?
Joe Fisher, Realist
G. Woodward,
I decline to create a fqxi account, the site seems to have technical problems which do not get adequate attention as would be expected of an enterprise associated with the level of expertise available through Perimeter Institute. I'm skeptical therefore of security safeguards, though I think there is some good as a public outreach and some value in serious dialogue presented here. So I occasionally browse, but a brief comment then requires use of the public box.
So without getting into a discourse, I would say your observations and questions do address the argument of what is meant by information being existential. The point of the abstraction in antiquity of orthogonality becoming observed experimentally in modernity goes to the original abstraction being an idealization of form in a comparatively primitive world. That abstraction derived from study and argument of relationships between simple ratios independent of scale, and for that matter independent of time or reference to space. Purely the ideal of ratios giving rise to geometric form, and thus implying space.
The Pythagoreans invented an abstract that then informed all manner of advancements in architecture, engineering, art, philosophy and even the formalization arithmetic and the equi-partition of the number line. So can we then argue that that evolution which led to the experimental observation of the right angle rule of electromotive force, is itself of existential origin discovered in the abstractions of idealizing thought in a earlier more primitive time? I think its would be worth arguing so as a line of inquiry.
report post as inappropriate
I decline to create a fqxi account, the site seems to have technical problems which do not get adequate attention as would be expected of an enterprise associated with the level of expertise available through Perimeter Institute. I'm skeptical therefore of security safeguards, though I think there is some good as a public outreach and some value in serious dialogue presented here. So I occasionally browse, but a brief comment then requires use of the public box.
So without getting into a discourse, I would say your observations and questions do address the argument of what is meant by information being existential. The point of the abstraction in antiquity of orthogonality becoming observed experimentally in modernity goes to the original abstraction being an idealization of form in a comparatively primitive world. That abstraction derived from study and argument of relationships between simple ratios independent of scale, and for that matter independent of time or reference to space. Purely the ideal of ratios giving rise to geometric form, and thus implying space.
The Pythagoreans invented an abstract that then informed all manner of advancements in architecture, engineering, art, philosophy and even the formalization arithmetic and the equi-partition of the number line. So can we then argue that that evolution which led to the experimental observation of the right angle rule of electromotive force, is itself of existential origin discovered in the abstractions of idealizing thought in a earlier more primitive time? I think its would be worth arguing so as a line of inquiry.
Hi, the site does get a lot of spam. It might look like the site isn't working properly as the posts listed as recent can't all be accessed. However it is set up so spam posts, which are mostly advertising, can be reported as inappropriate and disappear while awaiting moderation.
report post as inappropriate
I think the definition of existence that is used will either allow or disallow immaterial relation to be included. I would exclude them, reserving physical existence for substantial things and their relations. Brain activity in a material brain can easily be considered as something physical happening. A diagram on paper is a material representation, also something physical. But the immaterial concept without concurrent means of being known, through thought or visualization can be true/correct while not having a physical existence of itself -I think : )
report post as inappropriate
This forum, in terms of web presentation, is pretty bad. After a few posts it becomes very difficult to find the new ones and I usually give up. It doesn't help that many posts are repetitious to the point of obsession.
There'd be a lot more discussion here, at a higher level, if the forum software was replaced with something more up-to-date.
report post as inappropriate
There'd be a lot more discussion here, at a higher level, if the forum software was replaced with something more up-to-date.
In quantum events, energy is not always conserved: i.e. the numbers, for variables like energy, don’t add up. In other words, in quantum events, new information [1] is added to the universe-system.
The interactions of a cyclone with trees, buildings and people can be understood in terms of lower-level, law of nature information interactions, where no new information has been added to the universe-system.
But the interactions of particles, atoms, molecules, and living things, have to be understood in terms of at least some new information having been added to the universe-system.
“Constructing a Theory of Life” is about constructing a theory of where this new information is coming from:
A) Does new information just emerge for no logical [2] reason (like Georgina, and other illogical people, claim); OR
B) Do certain forms of matter themselves create this new information?
I think it is becoming clear that matter itself is not the numb, dumb nothingness it has always been assumed to be.
…………….
1. Information in the universe, i.e. what the universe knows about, is representable as equations, algorithms, and number assignments.
2. Logic: “Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity”, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/logic
report post as inappropriate
The interactions of a cyclone with trees, buildings and people can be understood in terms of lower-level, law of nature information interactions, where no new information has been added to the universe-system.
But the interactions of particles, atoms, molecules, and living things, have to be understood in terms of at least some new information having been added to the universe-system.
“Constructing a Theory of Life” is about constructing a theory of where this new information is coming from:
A) Does new information just emerge for no logical [2] reason (like Georgina, and other illogical people, claim); OR
B) Do certain forms of matter themselves create this new information?
I think it is becoming clear that matter itself is not the numb, dumb nothingness it has always been assumed to be.
…………….
1. Information in the universe, i.e. what the universe knows about, is representable as equations, algorithms, and number assignments.
2. Logic: “Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity”, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/logic
Lorraine, I have not claimed that new information just emerges for no logical reason. Putting words into other people's mouths and insults add nothing of value to your argument. They don't belong in a well reasoned discussion about physics.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina,
yes you have in effect "claimed that new information just emerges for no logical reason".
Logic is “reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity” (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/logic).
report post as inappropriate
yes you have in effect "claimed that new information just emerges for no logical reason".
Logic is “reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity” (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/logic).
Dear Lorraine Ford and Georgina Woodward,
Not a single invisible finite “quantum event” has ever taken place. Please accept the fact that NATURE devised the only VISIBLE structure of the UNIVERSE allowable. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring ETERNALLY in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light. All supposedly finite information can only be written by folk who have a surface and publish their finite written rubbish on a surface that can only be read by other people who have a surface. All other insects, fish, animals, birds and bacteria have surfaces and deal with reality much more effectively than stupid men do, because they are not deceived by supposedly finite SCIENTIFIC codswallop information.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Not a single invisible finite “quantum event” has ever taken place. Please accept the fact that NATURE devised the only VISIBLE structure of the UNIVERSE allowable. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring ETERNALLY in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light. All supposedly finite information can only be written by folk who have a surface and publish their finite written rubbish on a surface that can only be read by other people who have a surface. All other insects, fish, animals, birds and bacteria have surfaces and deal with reality much more effectively than stupid men do, because they are not deceived by supposedly finite SCIENTIFIC codswallop information.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Concerning the big questions, in the end, we know NOTHING. Except perhaps that Joe Fisher's dictum of "reality isn't a theory" must somewhat be true.
I stick to Stewart Cowan's comment and opinion that holy scripture is relevant for explaining the big questions. The bible is a prophetic book and many of its prophecies have been already fullfilled in the past. One has to carfully study them and there are good books out there that list these fullfilled prophecies together with biblical archeology (the findings of bible scriptures that can be accurately dated). Even the exact day Jesus rode on the donkey into Jerusalem (10. Nisan 32 AD) was prophecied in the old testament. Many people do not know these things due to a lack of personal serious investigations. Nonetheless these investigations could have huge merrits for one's understanding of the big how's and why's.
report post as inappropriate
I stick to Stewart Cowan's comment and opinion that holy scripture is relevant for explaining the big questions. The bible is a prophetic book and many of its prophecies have been already fullfilled in the past. One has to carfully study them and there are good books out there that list these fullfilled prophecies together with biblical archeology (the findings of bible scriptures that can be accurately dated). Even the exact day Jesus rode on the donkey into Jerusalem (10. Nisan 32 AD) was prophecied in the old testament. Many people do not know these things due to a lack of personal serious investigations. Nonetheless these investigations could have huge merrits for one's understanding of the big how's and why's.
Dear Stefan Weckbach,
The biggest mistake orthodox Jews ever made was allowing English scholars in the early 17th century to translate their rabbinical writing into the supposedly definitive English language. The English scholars that did the translation published the greatest book of fiction ever written. Please read Thomas Paine’s fine pamphlet, The Age of Reason for the full details.
Reality am not a theory am not “close” to being the truth. Please accept the fact that NATURE devised the only VISIBLE structure of the UNIVERSE allowable. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring ETERNALLY in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
The biggest mistake orthodox Jews ever made was allowing English scholars in the early 17th century to translate their rabbinical writing into the supposedly definitive English language. The English scholars that did the translation published the greatest book of fiction ever written. Please read Thomas Paine’s fine pamphlet, The Age of Reason for the full details.
Reality am not a theory am not “close” to being the truth. Please accept the fact that NATURE devised the only VISIBLE structure of the UNIVERSE allowable. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring ETERNALLY in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dear Joe Fisher,
Thomas Paine’s book is highly outdated and cannot contribute anything to enlighten the historical truth about the genesis of the holy scriptures and their truthful contents. Paine’s book was published in 1807, years before Robert Anderson published his results concerning the prophecy of Daniel 9 ff. in 1888. Nontheless I think Paine was true about the clerical system of the roman-catholic curch, since the latter’s hierarchies were built according to the hierarchies of the roman empire.
Since then, biblical archeology has advanced rapidly, early copies of complete Jesaja and other parts of the holy scriptures were found in Qumran and could be dated accurately. The abrahamitian beliefs and also the christian beliefs are about a creator of all of nature. Nature itself is the creation of God, not God itself. See for example the Gospel of John, Chapter 1, 1-12 were it has been made clear that Christ has been the creator behind all of nature as we know it. All of this has nothing to do with your musings about some “non-surface light” (until you accept that your “non-surface light” is a spiritual light, it is Christ, the light of the world).
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Paine’s book is highly outdated and cannot contribute anything to enlighten the historical truth about the genesis of the holy scriptures and their truthful contents. Paine’s book was published in 1807, years before Robert Anderson published his results concerning the prophecy of Daniel 9 ff. in 1888. Nontheless I think Paine was true about the clerical system of the roman-catholic curch, since the latter’s hierarchies were built according to the hierarchies of the roman empire.
Since then, biblical archeology has advanced rapidly, early copies of complete Jesaja and other parts of the holy scriptures were found in Qumran and could be dated accurately. The abrahamitian beliefs and also the christian beliefs are about a creator of all of nature. Nature itself is the creation of God, not God itself. See for example the Gospel of John, Chapter 1, 1-12 were it has been made clear that Christ has been the creator behind all of nature as we know it. All of this has nothing to do with your musings about some “non-surface light” (until you accept that your “non-surface light” is a spiritual light, it is Christ, the light of the world).
Hi Stefan,
the fulfilling of a prophesy such as riding on a donkey into Jerusalem is not like a double blind test as used in medical research. The participants in the fulfillment knew of the prophesies, and may have decided to fulfill them in order to add authority or gain popular support for their 'movement'. Jesus was acquainted with the temple and holy writings from an early age. As indicated by the story of him getting 'lost' and being found preaching in the temple. No doubt he continued to study the writings as he grew. It would have been more amazing if the prophesies were only revealed after fulfillment.
report post as inappropriate
the fulfilling of a prophesy such as riding on a donkey into Jerusalem is not like a double blind test as used in medical research. The participants in the fulfillment knew of the prophesies, and may have decided to fulfill them in order to add authority or gain popular support for their 'movement'. Jesus was acquainted with the temple and holy writings from an early age. As indicated by the story of him getting 'lost' and being found preaching in the temple. No doubt he continued to study the writings as he grew. It would have been more amazing if the prophesies were only revealed after fulfillment.
Logic is about valid reasoning. Logic is about what can be deduced from existing propositions and rules.
Logic does not create these propositions or rules: no propositions or rules “emerge” from logic. The source of the propositions and rules is outside the scope of logic.
And so in our universe-system, the source of the rules [1] cannot be logically deduced.
What can be deduced, is whether an outcome is a logical consequence of existing rules, or whether the outcome is due to a new rule [1] having been “input” to the universe-system. Some outcomes of quantum events can only be seen as a new rule (e.g. a new number assigned to an existing variable) having been “input” to the universe-system.
Logic does not create the rules. In our universe, the only candidate that could create and know about these rules, is matter itself: particles, atoms, molecules and living things. It is reasonable to conclude that matter is not the numb, dumb nothingness it has always been assumed to be.
............
1. Where rules can be represented as equations, algorithms and/or number assignments.
report post as inappropriate
Logic does not create these propositions or rules: no propositions or rules “emerge” from logic. The source of the propositions and rules is outside the scope of logic.
And so in our universe-system, the source of the rules [1] cannot be logically deduced.
What can be deduced, is whether an outcome is a logical consequence of existing rules, or whether the outcome is due to a new rule [1] having been “input” to the universe-system. Some outcomes of quantum events can only be seen as a new rule (e.g. a new number assigned to an existing variable) having been “input” to the universe-system.
Logic does not create the rules. In our universe, the only candidate that could create and know about these rules, is matter itself: particles, atoms, molecules and living things. It is reasonable to conclude that matter is not the numb, dumb nothingness it has always been assumed to be.
............
1. Where rules can be represented as equations, algorithms and/or number assignments.
Dear Lorraine Ford,
I have notified over two hundred PhD certificate holders including Professor Max Tegart, that Nature must have devised the only physical structure of the real Universe allowable. That natural singular physical structure must be amenable to all life forms for here on earth, all sorts of life forms presently prevail. There must only have ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Not one of these over two hundred PhD certificate holders including Professor Max Tegart, has offered one word of rebuttal to my assertion. They dare not. Although they boast about their search for truth, riches, and Nobel Prizes only accrue to those theoretical physicists who fabricate fantasies about invisible quantum particles that can easily appear in multiple invisible places at the same finite point in time.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
I have notified over two hundred PhD certificate holders including Professor Max Tegart, that Nature must have devised the only physical structure of the real Universe allowable. That natural singular physical structure must be amenable to all life forms for here on earth, all sorts of life forms presently prevail. There must only have ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Not one of these over two hundred PhD certificate holders including Professor Max Tegart, has offered one word of rebuttal to my assertion. They dare not. Although they boast about their search for truth, riches, and Nobel Prizes only accrue to those theoretical physicists who fabricate fantasies about invisible quantum particles that can easily appear in multiple invisible places at the same finite point in time.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Correction:
The correct name am Professor Max Tegmark.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
The correct name am Professor Max Tegmark.
Joe Fisher, Realist
This utterly preposterous codswallop has been published online at the Closer to Truth Facebook Page website.
“Scientists at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, "have found evidence that the faintest satellite galaxies orbiting our own Milky Way galaxy are amongst the very first galaxies to form in our Universe.”
The earth had a real visible surface for millions of years before Professor Carlos Frank, and Dr. Sownak Bose, and Dr. Alis Deason ever appeared on that visible surface and published their asinine assumption that “When the Universe was about 380,000 years old, the very first (invisible finite) atoms formed. These were (assumed to be invisible finite) hydrogen atoms, the simplest (supposed) element in the (humanly contrived abstracted finite ) periodic table. These (invisible finite) atoms collected into (invisible finite) clouds and began to cool gradually and settle into the small (invisible) clumps or "halos" of (invisible) dark matter that (finitely) emerged from the (silent invisible) Big Bang.” And well before unnatural humanly devised computer simulation had replaced humanly contrived common sense.
Obviously, Nature must have devised the only real visible physical construct of the real Universe allowable. There has only ever been one visible unified infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Every real star and every real planet and every real asteroid and every real comet and every real meteor and every real speck of interstellar dust in every real galaxy has always had a real visible surface. Every real observer has had a real visible surface. Only surface is visible no matter in which direction any observer might look. There could only ever be one infinite surface. No part of infinite surface could possibly be finitely “older” or finitely “younger” than any other part of infinite surface was.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
“Scientists at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, "have found evidence that the faintest satellite galaxies orbiting our own Milky Way galaxy are amongst the very first galaxies to form in our Universe.”
The earth had a real visible surface for millions of years before Professor Carlos Frank, and Dr. Sownak Bose, and Dr. Alis Deason ever appeared on that visible surface and published their asinine assumption that “When the Universe was about 380,000 years old, the very first (invisible finite) atoms formed. These were (assumed to be invisible finite) hydrogen atoms, the simplest (supposed) element in the (humanly contrived abstracted finite ) periodic table. These (invisible finite) atoms collected into (invisible finite) clouds and began to cool gradually and settle into the small (invisible) clumps or "halos" of (invisible) dark matter that (finitely) emerged from the (silent invisible) Big Bang.” And well before unnatural humanly devised computer simulation had replaced humanly contrived common sense.
Obviously, Nature must have devised the only real visible physical construct of the real Universe allowable. There has only ever been one visible unified infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Every real star and every real planet and every real asteroid and every real comet and every real meteor and every real speck of interstellar dust in every real galaxy has always had a real visible surface. Every real observer has had a real visible surface. Only surface is visible no matter in which direction any observer might look. There could only ever be one infinite surface. No part of infinite surface could possibly be finitely “older” or finitely “younger” than any other part of infinite surface was.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Re Georgina Woodward’s claims that “It is a physical process not a rule "running the show'.”, and that “Rules and laws tell us how, the way in which, something is happening. They are not telling it to happen” [1]:
Logic is about valid reasoning and deductions based on pre-existing propositions and/or rules. Without pre-existing propositions and/or rules, nothing can be deduced.
And without the assumption that the universe has an actual logical basis (i.e. actual rule-relationships exist), then no logical deductions about the universe can be made, by physicists or anybody else. [2]
Denying that the universe is based on actual rule-relationships, then Georgina has no basis for logical deductions about the universe.
Denying that the universe is based on actual rule-relationships, Georgina is free to make claims that have no logical basis.
1. Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 17, 2018 @ 21:49 GMT , Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 18, 2018 @ 02:14 GMT .
2. The source of the rule-relationships is a different issue.
report post as inappropriate
Logic is about valid reasoning and deductions based on pre-existing propositions and/or rules. Without pre-existing propositions and/or rules, nothing can be deduced.
And without the assumption that the universe has an actual logical basis (i.e. actual rule-relationships exist), then no logical deductions about the universe can be made, by physicists or anybody else. [2]
Denying that the universe is based on actual rule-relationships, then Georgina has no basis for logical deductions about the universe.
Denying that the universe is based on actual rule-relationships, Georgina is free to make claims that have no logical basis.
1. Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 17, 2018 @ 21:49 GMT , Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 18, 2018 @ 02:14 GMT .
2. The source of the rule-relationships is a different issue.
Re Georgina Woodward’s claims of “emergence”:
Physical interactions in the universe always occur in the context of their environments. While the same fundamental variables (like energy, momentum, relative position, time) and the same fundamental law of nature relationships/rules are always there, a different environmental situation is representable as a different set of numbers for the variables in the equations/rules.
So the claim of “emergence” caused by an environmental situation is the claim that a set of numbers causes the “emergence” of something new. In a logical, rule-based system, this is clearly preposterous.
Emergentists always seem to be reluctant to, or unable to, specify exactly what it is that is supposed to emerge.
But in a logical, rule-based system you’ve got 2 choices: 1. (what we would represent as) a new number assignment (i.e. a new initial-value rule); and 2. (what we would represent as) a new rule, where a new rule is a new category of information (i.e. a new variable). Rules can be represented as equations, algorithms or number assignments.
In a logical rule-based system, the rules do not emerge as an output from the system: the rules are input to the system.
The rules are the basis for the universe-system’s logical functioning. But where the rules come from, the source of the rules, is a different issue.
report post as inappropriate
Physical interactions in the universe always occur in the context of their environments. While the same fundamental variables (like energy, momentum, relative position, time) and the same fundamental law of nature relationships/rules are always there, a different environmental situation is representable as a different set of numbers for the variables in the equations/rules.
So the claim of “emergence” caused by an environmental situation is the claim that a set of numbers causes the “emergence” of something new. In a logical, rule-based system, this is clearly preposterous.
Emergentists always seem to be reluctant to, or unable to, specify exactly what it is that is supposed to emerge.
But in a logical, rule-based system you’ve got 2 choices: 1. (what we would represent as) a new number assignment (i.e. a new initial-value rule); and 2. (what we would represent as) a new rule, where a new rule is a new category of information (i.e. a new variable). Rules can be represented as equations, algorithms or number assignments.
In a logical rule-based system, the rules do not emerge as an output from the system: the rules are input to the system.
The rules are the basis for the universe-system’s logical functioning. But where the rules come from, the source of the rules, is a different issue.
Dear Lorraine Ford,
As I have explained in a previous comment: I have notified over two hundred PhD certificate holders including Professor Max Tegmark, that Nature must have devised the only physical structure of the real Universe allowable. That natural singular physical structure must be amenable to all life forms for here on earth, all sorts of life forms presently prevail. There must only have ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Not one of these over two hundred PhD certificate holders including Professor Max Tegmark, has offered one word of rebuttal to my assertion. They dare not. Although they boast about their search for truth, riches, and Nobel Prizes only accrue to those theoretical physicists who fabricate fantasies about invisible quantum particles that can easily appear in multiple invisible places at the same finite point in time.
I expect nothing from the scientific community. However, I did not expect that you would be so ignorant that you would assume that this Community would be more interested in following your meaningless catty dispute with Georgina Woodward than they would be in considering my revolutionary ideas about the real Universe.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
As I have explained in a previous comment: I have notified over two hundred PhD certificate holders including Professor Max Tegmark, that Nature must have devised the only physical structure of the real Universe allowable. That natural singular physical structure must be amenable to all life forms for here on earth, all sorts of life forms presently prevail. There must only have ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Not one of these over two hundred PhD certificate holders including Professor Max Tegmark, has offered one word of rebuttal to my assertion. They dare not. Although they boast about their search for truth, riches, and Nobel Prizes only accrue to those theoretical physicists who fabricate fantasies about invisible quantum particles that can easily appear in multiple invisible places at the same finite point in time.
I expect nothing from the scientific community. However, I did not expect that you would be so ignorant that you would assume that this Community would be more interested in following your meaningless catty dispute with Georgina Woodward than they would be in considering my revolutionary ideas about the real Universe.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Stefan,
Slaveholding societies break up even family units and scatter them to the far reaches to prevent cultural cohesion necessary for revolt. So how could Mosses have gathered the great mass of people from twelve whole tribes to the center of the most productive area of the Egyptian Empire to foment an escape in the first place? As Moses successor, David forged the world's first known mobile, self sustaining military expeditionary force and led a genocidal campaign leaving massive amounts of archaeological and anthropological evidence in its wake. He is studied by War Colleges in every nation large enough to have one. He was a ruthless, despotic ruler who broke every one of the Ten Commandments, murdering a man to take his wife even. Exodus is the word of David, a self serving can-do rationalization to provide a narrative as the raison d'etre of cultural survival. And Exodus is one of many pantheologically. Myth begets prophesy, blind faith perpetuates it.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Slaveholding societies break up even family units and scatter them to the far reaches to prevent cultural cohesion necessary for revolt. So how could Mosses have gathered the great mass of people from twelve whole tribes to the center of the most productive area of the Egyptian Empire to foment an escape in the first place? As Moses successor, David forged the world's first known mobile, self sustaining military expeditionary force and led a genocidal campaign leaving massive amounts of archaeological and anthropological evidence in its wake. He is studied by War Colleges in every nation large enough to have one. He was a ruthless, despotic ruler who broke every one of the Ten Commandments, murdering a man to take his wife even. Exodus is the word of David, a self serving can-do rationalization to provide a narrative as the raison d'etre of cultural survival. And Exodus is one of many pantheologically. Myth begets prophesy, blind faith perpetuates it.
Dear Anonymus,
your comment makes an extended reply necessary. But before dipping into moral arguments for musings that Exodus and the like are just myths, one has to calculate the historical dates of these events with the help of the numbers given in the bible. Since i want to argue scientifically and not emotionally in the first place, this is necessary. Only after such an investigation...
view entire post
your comment makes an extended reply necessary. But before dipping into moral arguments for musings that Exodus and the like are just myths, one has to calculate the historical dates of these events with the help of the numbers given in the bible. Since i want to argue scientifically and not emotionally in the first place, this is necessary. Only after such an investigation...
view entire post
Dear Anonymous and Stefan,
The Periodic Table am a work of fiction. Invisible finite atoms have never existed. The English translation of the Bible am fiction. No invisible empty void has ever preceded one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
The Periodic Table am a work of fiction. Invisible finite atoms have never existed. The English translation of the Bible am fiction. No invisible empty void has ever preceded one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Joe, you only provide an explanation for appearance. Appearance can not provide an explanation for how things happen, such as chemistry (i.e. the way in which it is enabled, to happen as it does). The theory of atomic elements and their characteristic properties goes a long way in explaining chemistry. I think the value of an idea is enhanced if it has explanatory power.
report post as inappropriate
Re "Constructing a Theory of Life":
Physicists seem obsessed with irrelevant nonsense about multiverses and black holes, but isn't it time that physicists considered something a bit more relevant?:
Do life and living things make new information contributions to the universe or don't they?
Seemingly they do, which means that physics has been barking up the wrong tree all along, when it comes to the nature of reality.
post approved
Physicists seem obsessed with irrelevant nonsense about multiverses and black holes, but isn't it time that physicists considered something a bit more relevant?:
Do life and living things make new information contributions to the universe or don't they?
Seemingly they do, which means that physics has been barking up the wrong tree all along, when it comes to the nature of reality.
Re "Constructing a Theory of Life":
Physicists seem obsessed with irrelevant nonsense about multiverses and black holes, but isn't it time that physicists considered something a bit more relevant?:
Do life and living things make new information contributions to the universe or don't they?
Seemingly they do, which means that physics has been barking up the wrong tree all along, when it comes to the nature of reality.
post approved
Physicists seem obsessed with irrelevant nonsense about multiverses and black holes, but isn't it time that physicists considered something a bit more relevant?:
Do life and living things make new information contributions to the universe or don't they?
Seemingly they do, which means that physics has been barking up the wrong tree all along, when it comes to the nature of reality.
Re above post:
I tried twice, but that last line was automatically added to my post!!!
I didn't put it there!!!
I suppose the same will happen to this post!!
report post as inappropriate
I tried twice, but that last line was automatically added to my post!!!
I didn't put it there!!!
I suppose the same will happen to this post!!
Re "Constructing a Theory of Life":
Physicists seem obsessed with irrelevant nonsense about multiverses and black holes, but isn't it time that physicists considered something a bit more relevant?:
Do life and living things make new information contributions to the universe or don't they?
Seemingly they do, which means that physics has been barking up the wrong tree all along, when it comes to the nature of reality.
report post as inappropriate
Physicists seem obsessed with irrelevant nonsense about multiverses and black holes, but isn't it time that physicists considered something a bit more relevant?:
Do life and living things make new information contributions to the universe or don't they?
Seemingly they do, which means that physics has been barking up the wrong tree all along, when it comes to the nature of reality.
Re the previous post:
I've tried 3 times, but that last line keeps getting added to my post!!
I didn't put it there!!
report post as inappropriate
I've tried 3 times, but that last line keeps getting added to my post!!
I didn't put it there!!
Dear Lorraine Ford,
Natural Visible Reality am not finitely theoretical. Natural Visible Reality am not finitely informational. Natural Visible Reality am not finitely mathematical. Please try to understand that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for MILLIONS of years before any human theoretical finite misinformation spreaders ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface. This logically means that it was Nature that designed the only single structure of the real VISIBLE Universe allowable. There must have only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Natural Visible Reality am not finitely theoretical. Natural Visible Reality am not finitely informational. Natural Visible Reality am not finitely mathematical. Please try to understand that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for MILLIONS of years before any human theoretical finite misinformation spreaders ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface. This logically means that it was Nature that designed the only single structure of the real VISIBLE Universe allowable. There must have only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Ms. Ford,
I would recommend you seek professional help. That "addline" is obviously from a library type assembler which probably cut and pasted some post of yours to format it into their own website page. Open source compilers that require no sort of credentialed qualification are full of worms bred by bad actors, and the naive whom mistake them as bonefide professional venues often fall prey to exploitation themselves and become a point affliction of contageon without knowing their own system has been corrupted. Such open source compiliers exist not for genuine purpose but are only a means of generating 'hits' to accumulate a quantity of metadata that is then put into play as an intangible asset to float some sort of psuedo stock option. The current crash of cryptocurrencies is typical of such 'intangibles markets', and governance is lagging way behind technology. You may have picked up some sort of bug that is playing back your files to some physhing databank through some neophytes use of an open source publishing or other generic field compiler. There is a cyber war going on.
report post as inappropriate
I would recommend you seek professional help. That "addline" is obviously from a library type assembler which probably cut and pasted some post of yours to format it into their own website page. Open source compilers that require no sort of credentialed qualification are full of worms bred by bad actors, and the naive whom mistake them as bonefide professional venues often fall prey to exploitation themselves and become a point affliction of contageon without knowing their own system has been corrupted. Such open source compiliers exist not for genuine purpose but are only a means of generating 'hits' to accumulate a quantity of metadata that is then put into play as an intangible asset to float some sort of psuedo stock option. The current crash of cryptocurrencies is typical of such 'intangibles markets', and governance is lagging way behind technology. You may have picked up some sort of bug that is playing back your files to some physhing databank through some neophytes use of an open source publishing or other generic field compiler. There is a cyber war going on.
This seems to be the "bug" that has been added to the FQXi script (I've removed bits so it can be seen). It's up to FQXi to clean up their act:
a href="https://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', 'http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3244#post_148428', 'In a comment on 'Constructing a Theory of Life', Lorraine Ford writes 'Re " constructing="" a="" theory="" of="" life": br="">Physicists seem obsessed...'')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"> img src="https://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border:0" width="125" height="16"> a>"
script type="text/javascript" src="https://s7.addthis.com/js/250/addthis_widget.js?pub=xa-
4a2d86f24c5ca30a"> /script
report post as inappropriate
a href="https://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', 'http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3244#post_148428', 'In a comment on 'Constructing a Theory of Life', Lorraine Ford writes 'Re " constructing="" a="" theory="" of="" life": br="">Physicists seem obsessed...'')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"> img src="https://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border:0" width="125" height="16"> a>"
script type="text/javascript" src="https://s7.addthis.com/js/250/addthis_widget.js?pub=xa-
4a2d86f24c5ca30a"> /script
A person named "Anonymous" is a coward.
post approved
Today, the Closer to Truth Facebook page featured yet another article about how researchers are experimentally seeking to disprove theories that could replace quantum theory.
Reality am not a theory.
I immediately posted this sublime comment:
The earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Einstein ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his preposterous guesswork about how invisible quantum particles behaved.
This logically means that it was Nature that designed the only single structure of the real VISIBLE Universe allowable. There must have only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
No part of VISIBLE infinite surface am mysterious. No part of VISIBLE infinite surface am entangled.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Reality am not a theory.
I immediately posted this sublime comment:
The earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Einstein ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his preposterous guesswork about how invisible quantum particles behaved.
This logically means that it was Nature that designed the only single structure of the real VISIBLE Universe allowable. There must have only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
No part of VISIBLE infinite surface am mysterious. No part of VISIBLE infinite surface am entangled.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Today’s Closer to Truth Facebook page recommends visitors read an article, Theoretical Physics Is Pointless without Experimental Tests, published in Scientific American written by Abraham Loeb.
The article contains this absurd paragraph:
“Given our academic reward system of grades, promotions and prizes, we sometimes forget that physics is a learning experience about nature rather than an arena for demonstrating our intellectual power. As students of experience, we should be allowed to make mistakes and correct our prejudices.”
Nature does not have to be learned by humans. The real earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before any theoretical physicists ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing their senseless guesswork about finite invisible abstractions.
This logically means that it was Nature that designed the only single structure of the real VISIBLE Universe allowable. There must have only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. No part of VISIBLE infinite surface could ever be temporarily finitely experimental.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
The article contains this absurd paragraph:
“Given our academic reward system of grades, promotions and prizes, we sometimes forget that physics is a learning experience about nature rather than an arena for demonstrating our intellectual power. As students of experience, we should be allowed to make mistakes and correct our prejudices.”
Nature does not have to be learned by humans. The real earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before any theoretical physicists ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing their senseless guesswork about finite invisible abstractions.
This logically means that it was Nature that designed the only single structure of the real VISIBLE Universe allowable. There must have only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. No part of VISIBLE infinite surface could ever be temporarily finitely experimental.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Yesterday’s Closer to Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar statement: “Scientific American has published another great piece by Harvard University astronomer and Closer to Truth contributor, Avi Loeb! This one discusses "experimental oddities that inspire a fresh perspective on nature."
Real VISIBLE Nature does not have any unnatural humanly contrived codswallop perspectives.
Real VISIBLE Nature has never had need of unnatural experimental “perspectives.” The real earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before any Professor Loeb ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural pretentious guesswork about finite invisible abstractions.
This logically means that it was Nature that designed the only single structure of the real VISIBLE Universe allowable. There must have only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. No part of VISIBLE infinite surface could ever be unnatural humanly devised temporarily finitely experimental.
I emailed Professor loeb and asked him to explain to me how I could be wrong about Natural VISIBLE reality. I have emailed about 60 Physics Professors and 140 Physics PhD Dr’s information about Natural VISIBLE Reality and not a one of them has ever replied.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Real VISIBLE Nature does not have any unnatural humanly contrived codswallop perspectives.
Real VISIBLE Nature has never had need of unnatural experimental “perspectives.” The real earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before any Professor Loeb ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural pretentious guesswork about finite invisible abstractions.
This logically means that it was Nature that designed the only single structure of the real VISIBLE Universe allowable. There must have only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. No part of VISIBLE infinite surface could ever be unnatural humanly devised temporarily finitely experimental.
I emailed Professor loeb and asked him to explain to me how I could be wrong about Natural VISIBLE reality. I have emailed about 60 Physics Professors and 140 Physics PhD Dr’s information about Natural VISIBLE Reality and not a one of them has ever replied.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Humanly contrived guesswork about whether some professors could be more capable of guessing what human knowledge might be than human dustmen are, has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
Indisputable fact: The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Professor Andy Clark ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural pretentious guesswork concerning abstract human knowledge that am rationed out to humans through invisible individual consciousness.
Logically, NATURE must have devised the only real physical structure of the real Universe obtainable. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light .
NATURE provided the only reality that could easily be handled by every insect , fish, fowl, and every animal except man. Man has only provided scientific, religious, philosophical, political codswallop.
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
Indisputable fact: The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Professor Andy Clark ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural pretentious guesswork concerning abstract human knowledge that am rationed out to humans through invisible individual consciousness.
Logically, NATURE must have devised the only real physical structure of the real Universe obtainable. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light .
NATURE provided the only reality that could easily be handled by every insect , fish, fowl, and every animal except man. Man has only provided scientific, religious, philosophical, political codswallop.
Joe Fisher, Realist
September 21, 2018 Closer to Truth Facebook page contained this codswallop assertion:
“Is it possible to believe that information is the ultimate reality when one believes in God? Don Page is a quantum physicist who believes in God. In this interview, he discusses his belief that God is the ultimate source of reality. He mentions that our conscious perceptions are more important than information, but information is a useful way of talking about the universe.”
Fortunately, for sensible folk’s sake, I left this comment at the website:
Humanly contrived finite information has absolutely nothing to do with reality. There are many levels of information about many invisible Gods, there has to be only one provable reality. Indisputable fact: The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Don Page ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural inane guesswork concerning an invisible God’s effect on a finite imaginary universe.
Obviously, NATURE must have devised the only real physical structure of the Universe allowable. There must only ever have been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
In your interview with Page, he admitted that he would give up his belief in an invisible God if a simple explanation for the physical state of the real Universe could be provided.
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
“Is it possible to believe that information is the ultimate reality when one believes in God? Don Page is a quantum physicist who believes in God. In this interview, he discusses his belief that God is the ultimate source of reality. He mentions that our conscious perceptions are more important than information, but information is a useful way of talking about the universe.”
Fortunately, for sensible folk’s sake, I left this comment at the website:
Humanly contrived finite information has absolutely nothing to do with reality. There are many levels of information about many invisible Gods, there has to be only one provable reality. Indisputable fact: The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Don Page ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural inane guesswork concerning an invisible God’s effect on a finite imaginary universe.
Obviously, NATURE must have devised the only real physical structure of the Universe allowable. There must only ever have been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
In your interview with Page, he admitted that he would give up his belief in an invisible God if a simple explanation for the physical state of the real Universe could be provided.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Another variant
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Pape
rs/View/7238
report post as inappropriate
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Pape
rs/View/7238
We study with a new conception beyond the standard model physics and about the formation of biological molecules/atoms. Our physical universe appeared by a continuous symmetry breaking of the new energy sources from ‘Big Rip’ Singularity[i.e. when space-time(here we consider the square of the Einstein’s real space & time of the physical unfolded universe i.e., -R2)is infinity in another phase] to the “Super Unified Gaussian Energy Group SU(11)”(that means considering the Revised Standard Model of Physics) then GUT the “Unified Gaussian Energy Group SU(5)”[i.e., the present Standard Model of Physics], i.e. in a “Particular Physical Universe” (called a narrower universe) [there may be created several type of particular “ Physical Universe” in the ocean(filled with new energy sources explained details in my previous articles) of the wider universe which infinitely largest].These class of symmetry group starting from Big-Rip singularity where energy pressure and density exists[it was shown in my article “The Complex Quantum and Classical Pseudo-Tachyonic Universe”, IOSR Journal of Mathematics (IOSR-JM) e-ISSN: 2278-5728,p-ISSN: 2319-765X, Volume 8, Issue 3 (Sep. - Oct. 2013), PP 15-32 www.iosrjournals.org)] and can be expressed mathematically(by using lie-algebra) as SU(5) SU (3) SU( 2) U(1); SU(11) SU (5) SU( 6) U(1); SU (23) SU (12) SU (11) U (1); SU (47) SU(24) SU (23) U (1); ...........so on.
report post as inappropriate
FOR DETAILS PLEASE READ IN THE LINK BELOW
http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/pages/v11(1)Series
-1.html
report post as inappropriate
http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/pages/v11(1)Series
-1.html
The spherisation of this universal sphere seems a logic conclusion,the quantum sphères are also logic like the real cosmological sphères.We are Inside a beautiful sphere in optimisation.In all Humility Feynman said this "One day we shall see allthe Truth and we shall say Oh My God but how is it possible that we have not seen a thing so simple before" They turn so they are these sphères at all scales….
report post as inappropriate
Symplectic varieties and the spheres…..Phases and periodic hamiltonians …..Lagrange helps us :)
report post as inappropriate
The idea that brains are somehow involved in limb regeneration is not the accepted theory. All of regenerative medicine and embryology is based on the idea that these processes are self-controlled by internal mechanisms.
report post as inappropriate
Science is motivated to sever the connection with Deity. They use fluff, cover up important details like fine tuning. They use literally zero evidence to explain the amazing miracles. What is amazing is that they collect a paycheck for the harm that they do.
report post as inappropriate
Login or create account to post reply or comment.