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
Georgina Woodward: on 8/17/18 at 0:01am UTC, wrote A correctly folded enzyme has catalytic function whereas the unfolded or...
Lorraine Ford: on 8/16/18 at 22:51pm UTC, wrote Previous post was from me.
Anonymous: on 8/16/18 at 22:48pm UTC, wrote Georgina, You implied that an outcome situation could cause a new...
Lorraine Ford: on 8/16/18 at 22:18pm UTC, wrote Dear Joe, I 100% agree that nature, including "insects, fish, animals,...
Georgina Woodward: on 8/16/18 at 22:16pm UTC, wrote Lorraine, your "yes you have in effect "claimed..." is not the same as it...
Lorraine Ford: on 8/16/18 at 22:06pm UTC, wrote Logic is about valid reasoning. Logic is about what can be deduced from...
Joe Fisher: on 8/16/18 at 15:18pm UTC, wrote Dear Stefan Weckbach, The biggest mistake orthodox Jews ever made was...
Joe Fisher: on 8/16/18 at 14:49pm UTC, wrote Dear Lorraine Ford and Georgina Woodward, Not a single invisible finite...
Georgina Woodward: on 8/17/18 at 0:01am UTC, wrote A correctly folded enzyme has catalytic function whereas the unfolded or...
Lorraine Ford: on 8/16/18 at 22:51pm UTC, wrote Previous post was from me.
Anonymous: on 8/16/18 at 22:48pm UTC, wrote Georgina, You implied that an outcome situation could cause a new...
Lorraine Ford: on 8/16/18 at 22:18pm UTC, wrote Dear Joe, I 100% agree that nature, including "insects, fish, animals,...
Georgina Woodward: on 8/16/18 at 22:16pm UTC, wrote Lorraine, your "yes you have in effect "claimed..." is not the same as it...
Lorraine Ford: on 8/16/18 at 22:06pm UTC, wrote Logic is about valid reasoning. Logic is about what can be deduced from...
Joe Fisher: on 8/16/18 at 15:18pm UTC, wrote Dear Stefan Weckbach, The biggest mistake orthodox Jews ever made was...
Joe Fisher: on 8/16/18 at 14:49pm UTC, wrote Dear Lorraine Ford and Georgina Woodward, Not a single invisible finite...
FQXi FORUM
August 17, 2018
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
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
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
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
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.
Login or create account to post reply or comment.