Search FQXi


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.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

Steve Dufourny: on 5/28/20 at 22:14pm UTC, wrote consider if I can, the binar universal system with these 3 main finite...

Sue Lingo: on 5/23/20 at 7:46am UTC, wrote Ref: Author John David Crowell reply to Sue Lingo on May. 15, 2020 @ 14:40...

Vladimir Fedorov: on 5/17/20 at 13:31pm UTC, wrote Dear John David, I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very...

John Crowell: on 5/16/20 at 14:27pm UTC, wrote Steve. The SSC becomes what it creates ..I.e. it creates what it becomes. ...

John Crowell: on 5/16/20 at 13:45pm UTC, wrote Steve The SSC model explains the origination of the original SSCU- the C*s...

Steve Dufourny: on 5/15/20 at 18:46pm UTC, wrote About the multiverse now, I respect the works of Max Tegmark but it is...

Steve Dufourny: on 5/15/20 at 18:42pm UTC, wrote Well, the universe is not probably without space and time, you cannot...

John Crowell: on 5/15/20 at 14:40pm UTC, wrote Sue. The emergence of a Space-Time Energy Information Network from a...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

John Cox: "Dr. Agnew, This might be something you would find interesting, I ran..." in Answering Mermin’s...

Vesuvius Now: "Some proposals have too much philosophy for physicists and too much physics..." in The Nature of Time

Joe Nahhas: "Hacking Physical Reality Real Time Physics With Applications: The..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

John Cox: "Georgi, A principle problem that confronts efforts to model a realistic..." in Answering Mermin’s...

Robert McEachern: "I also "do not share the feeling that consciousness (whatever this means)..." in Understanding...

Carlo Rovelli: "Abstract: I do not share the feeling that consciousness (whatever this..." in Understanding...

Johannes Kleiner: "One classical approach to explaining a complex target phenomenon is to..." in Minimal Phenomenal...

Johannes Kleiner: "Quite recently, an argument has been proposed which aims to show that..." in Unfolding Argument -...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Time to Think
Philosopher Jenann Ismael invokes the thermodynamic arrow of time to explain how human intelligence emerged through culture.

Lockdown Lab Life
Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.

Is Causality Fundamental?
Untangling how the human perception of cause-and-effect might arise from quantum physics, may help us understand the limits and the potential of AI.

Building Agency in the Biology Lab
Physicists are using optogenetics techniques to make a rudimentary agent, from cellular components, which can convert measurements into actions using light.

Think Quantum to Build Better AI
Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.


FQXi FORUM
November 26, 2020

CATEGORY: Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest (2019-2020) [back]
TOPIC: Clarification of Physics: A Derivation of a Complete, Computable, Predictive Model of “Our” Multiverse. by John David Crowell [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author John David Crowell wrote on Mar. 12, 2020 @ 14:48 GMT
Essay Abstract

The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate: 1. There are no “natural” limitations to the development of a complete mathematical description of the visible universe. 2. The “impossibles” expressed by Gödel, Turing and Heisenberg are human impositions. 3. The impossibles and current limitations link back to false assumptions. 4. Elimination of the assumptions, impossibles and limitations enable the derivation of a complete mathematically-consistent model of a multiverse that contains “our” visible universe. Introduction of a complete mathematically-consistent model of “our” multiverse and the changes from current thinking that made it possible are the basis of this essay.

Author Bio

John Crowell is an independent scholar investigating creativity, Self Creation and how they relate to A Theory of Everything: was a New Business and New Product Development Director for the 3M Company, CEO of 3M Chile and Technical Director of the 3M Chemicals Division. Ph.D in Synthetic Organic Chemistry (Florida State University); B.S. in Chemistry and Mathematics (University of Kansas).

Download Essay PDF File
Note: This Essay PDF was replaced on 2020-04-06 22:01:08 UTC.

Bookmark and Share


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 13, 2020 @ 19:19 GMT
Hello,

I say me that a TOE is not possible and the multivers are just a mathematical extrapolations not really foundamental. Could you convice me , maybe I could change my point of vue ?

regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author John David Crowell replied on Mar. 13, 2020 @ 22:03 GMT
Thanks for the question. I believe a Toe is possible but to be considered viable it needs to satisfy 3. criteria: 1. It has to be complete 2. It has to be mathematically consistent. 3. When it is in the range of the visible universe, it needs to correspond to verified measurements. In my investigations the Successful Self Creation theory meets those criteria.

It is true that the theory goes beyond - both on the small and large sides- what we can currently measure. So it is a metaphysical theory. The good side is that it can be used to make predictions that can be tested in the future.

The theory needs to be authenticated by other scientists/mathematicians. I believe the only way to convince people is to have them use the theory in their work and, basically convince themselves. The goal of this essay is to trigger interest so they will try the model. The model has some real advantages. Once the concepts are understood, the mathematics is simpler. you get rid of infinities and zero and the mathematics works.

I am also interested in why you think a TOE is impossible so I can address that topic. John

Bookmark and Share

Martin van Staveren replied on Mar. 21, 2020 @ 13:27 GMT
Correspond to verified measurements.

In solid state physics it is common to apply a unitary transformation in order to obtain a mathematically simpler model. E.g. the Froehlich transformation of a hamiltonian with electron-phonon interaction is changed into a hamiltonian according to which two electrons attract each other, which is of course not true. So what does “correspond” mean? Models are “effective”, in the sense that there may be a correspondente with reality, without being true.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John David Crowell replied on Mar. 23, 2020 @ 22:10 GMT
Martin In this case, I am simply trying to say that my theoretical measurements and the “verified or generally accepted as true” measurements of physics are very close to being the same. For example, my theoretical value of the Planck time is 5.3631702x10^-44 seconds and the generally accepted value is ~5.39x10^-44 thanks for the inquiry. John

Bookmark and Share


David Brown wrote on Mar. 13, 2020 @ 21:35 GMT
"The model can be used by physicists, cosmologists, - all physical disciplines - to explain the entire creation and functioning of our multiverse and its contents." The preceding statement describes the ultimate goal of reductionism — however, let us recall the words of P. W. Anderson: "The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe. ... The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted by the twin difficulties of scale and complexity."

"More is Different" by P. W. Anderson, August 4th 1972, Science

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author John David Crowell wrote on Mar. 14, 2020 @ 08:27 GMT
David. Thanks for the warning. My working career was spent in the development of new products, new processes and new businesses based on the value of their improvements to the user. As you know the pathway to success includes the scale-up of the products, processes, user base, the logistical organizations and the financing “needed” to serve the successful growth. As you noted, as the success progresses, the situation gets progressively larger and more complex.

In my essay, I tried to reconstruct the process from the bottom up to show how the Successful Self Creation process produced its own mathematics and algorithms which I discovered and used to model the process. Perhaps that message did not come across in the essay.

The current situation with the Successful Self Creation theory is that it is a new product/process that in my “trials” worked. It does something no other product does. It needs to be “scaled up”. Other people need to try the product to see if it is useful for them in their situations and, as the trials progress, It may need some adjustments to be more helpful to more people.

The Successful Self Creation theory goes beyond the norms of what is currently being explored in science. My purpose in entering the essay contest was to introduce the concept to the scientific “progressives” working at the edges of “consensus reality” and get their response.

As I mentioned in the essay, the theory goes beyond the physical world. It deals with “all ordered existence” which includes the complexities of chemistry, biology, psychology, social, consciousness, cognition etc.. However, those are not the subject matter in this contest.

Thanks again for your comments and warning. John

Bookmark and Share

Author John David Crowell replied on Mar. 14, 2020 @ 08:51 GMT
David. I thought of something that may be useful to you in understanding the Successful Self Creation process. This is very different from current scientific beliefs, Currently science assumes that the laws and constants of physics have always existed and they are in effect everywhere, all of the time and they never change. In the Successful Self Creation progression, the system starts without any laws/rules, try’s all of the possibilities and selects what works the best - Analogous to Feynman diagrams. The success then encapsulates/incorporates and uses everything that is needed to repeat the processing and self replicate. The laws are not separate from the processing. They are created and incorporated together in the successful processing.

Bookmark and Share


John C Hodge wrote on Mar. 15, 2020 @ 13:13 GMT
The TOE I mention is called the Scalar Theory of Everything. It corresponds to both General Relativity and Quantum mechanics. It has a Universal Equation which has been applied to many astronomical problems observations and to light interference experiments including those that reject wave models. For a list see:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328489883_STOE_


replaces_relativity_and_quantum_mechanics

Faster than light experiments include quantum entanglement, quantum eraser, the measured speed of gravity (van Flandern and others), and the measured speed of the coulomb field.

In your model, what observations that are problems (poorly explained) for current theory that your model explains? I saw no observation/experimental support for your model.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author John David Crowell replied on Mar. 23, 2020 @ 21:28 GMT
John To my knowledge this is the only theory that mathematically connects quantums (C*s) to very small “measurements” of Planck action and to the measurements to the very large universal variables of space, time, mass, etc. So the theory dos not explain the observations. It explains the processing that connects the observations. So the problems it solves are the problems of connecting and unification. My major claims are it overcomes entropy ( it converts chaos to order). it connects the very large to the very small. It unifies quantum mechanics and General Relativity. It generates the mathematics that can be used to explain it. I have attached a note that may help to explain what I am talking about.

attachments: C_to_SSCU_TRANSFORMATIONS.gdoc

Bookmark and Share

Author John David Crowell replied on Mar. 23, 2020 @ 21:45 GMT
John I could not open the attachment. So I am trying to send it in a different way. John Crowell

Bookmark and Share


Author John David Crowell wrote on Mar. 16, 2020 @ 15:55 GMT
John Thank you for your questions/comments. Since I received them, I read your essay more thoroughly, compared it to my essay and have some new thoughts. I really like your paper. I agree with your comments on the current state of physical models, human modeling, the need for more fundamental models, the approach of adjusting the postulates and the need for a paradigm shift in the fundamental...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Christian Corda wrote on Mar. 23, 2020 @ 12:15 GMT
Dear John,

Despite it is a bit speculative, I like your Essay. In particular, I agree with your Einsteinian vision of a deterministic Universe. I have a question: you wrote that also the “impossible” expressed by Heisenberg is a human imposition. But, in this case, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a consequence of a mathematical theorem of Fourier transforms. It is quite difficult to define as “impossible” a mathematical theorem. How do you explain this issue?

In any case, I had fun in reading your Essay. Thus, I will give you a high score. Good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author John David Crowell replied on Mar. 25, 2020 @ 09:37 GMT
Ch. thanks for your comments. The “impossible” that I am talking about is the ability to get a complete accurate description of “natural” reality. If you have an assumption/axiom that is wrong it is impossible to be both complete and accurate. In the case of mathematical theorems, one has a beginning or an ending “statement” and you work forward or backward using (the rules of) logic and reason to prove the theorem. If those rules do not apply then it is “impossible” to get the complete accurate result you want. The fundamental assumption of philosophy is that the rules that govern reason and logic are present everywhere, all of the time and never change. The SSC theory disputes that assumption. If the SSC theory is correct, then it is “impossible” for theories-mathematical or scientific (based on that assumption)to develop a complete/accurate TOE. I will discuss the specific case of the uncertainty principle in my next post.

Bookmark and Share

Author John David Crowell replied on Mar. 25, 2020 @ 10:07 GMT
Ch. The uncertainty principle is a specific case. In the SSC theory, when a SSC progression reaches a stable state, it is a repeating combination of 2sets of equivalent and opposite processes. One set is the self creating processing and the self dissipating processing. The other set is two conversion processes. One converts the end of the self creating process to the beginning of the self dissipating process and the other connects the end of the self dissipating process to the beginning of the self creating processing. The result is an everything is a repeating, equivalently and oppositely connected system. When a human imposes on (perturbs) the system by trying to measure it, the system interacts. If it changes the variable being measured, that change will have an equivalent and opposite affect on its conjugate variable. If one gets more precise the other gets less precise—and that is the observed result. Neither measurement accurately reflects the true state of the unperturbed system. If the system interacts, it is “impossible” to get a complete/accurate description of the unperturbed “natural state.

Bookmark and Share


Author John David Crowell wrote on Mar. 25, 2020 @ 14:51 GMT
Ch. The SSC theory does not present any new “observations”. However, it shows the changes/conversions/connections necessary to get a complete/accurate description of the processing that connects those observations. In my essay, I mention that physicists can use the model as an aide in their work. The basis of this statement is: If you know the overall framework of what is happening, it is much easier to understand and rationalize what is happening in specific situations/conditions/problems. I would like to test that idea on the BH Information Paradox that you and several of your colleagues are addressing in this contest. I would like to post on this thread (in more detail) how my work describes the creation, functioning and role of black holes in the creation of the universe, galaxies/solar systems and how it differs in its basics from current theories. Let you think about how to incorporate it into your work and see if it helps to generate new observations/rationalizations that can solve the paradox. Would you like to try that? John

Bookmark and Share

Christian Corda replied on Mar. 25, 2020 @ 15:15 GMT
Dear John,

Thanks for the clarifications. Again, I wish you good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author John David Crowell wrote on Apr. 6, 2020 @ 22:01 GMT
John Crowell re-uploaded the file Crowell_2272020.707am_Clari.pdf for the essay entitled "Clarification of Physics: A Derivation of a Complete, Computable, Predictive Model of “Our” Multiverse." on 2020-04-06 22:01:08 UTC.

Bookmark and Share
post approved


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Apr. 11, 2020 @ 11:36 GMT
Dear John,

You have presented very interesting radical ideas in the spirit of a deep Cartesian doubt. It is very important that you reject the «Big Bang» hypothesis, which introduces maximum ontological uncertainty into cognition.

You wrote in one of the comments that your model is metaphysical. I don’t understand only the initial ontological structure of your...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 12, 2020 @ 17:47 GMT
Dear John D Crowell,

I certainly agree that many current problems of physics are based on false assumptions. It seems that a good approach is to try to identify these false assumptions and see what’s left of science after they have been removed. My current essay deals with the false assumption of multiple time frames.

I agree with certain aspects of your approach; it is finite, it is based on ‘flexible’ C* units that change while preserving their essence, and it is so structured as to be scalable. Also, as I think you agree, vortices are an essential concept.

On the other hand, I do believe a big-bang-type creation event is reasonable, and I do not subscribe to a multiverse. In my mind the ‘free lunch model’ of a primordial field coming into creation implies that initially nothing else existed — therefore any possible interaction must be self-interaction, as nothing else existed to interact with. This leads me to a self-interaction principle and equation that unfolds to evolve the universe in an essentially self-aware mode that gets us to where we are now. For example, to formulate it in physics form, if ‘d’ is a ‘change operator’ and f is the primordial field, then the basic equation is: df = f*f where * is the interaction operator. You’d be amazed how much falls out of this equation.

One problem with FQXi, almost by definition is that most of the participants have their own models of reality, making it extremely difficult for everyone to agree. Therefore the best that can be expected is for us to converge to common principles and processes. Over the decade of contests this appears to me to be happening, as a number of us are coming to a neo-classical view that rejects the ‘magic’ of many current theories.

I appreciate your reading my essay and agreeing with certain aspects of it. I wish you well in this contest and in the continued development of your theory of reality.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author John David Crowell replied on Apr. 14, 2020 @ 08:14 GMT
Dear Edwin. Thank you for reading my essay and providing comments that give me a chance to discuss my work and its relationships to the work of others. Rereading your essay and it’s comments: I too believe that FQXi is providing a valuable forum for the presentation of “fringe” ideas/theories and a review by peers. Also, I was disappointed by tour comment to Gene Barbee: “ ...there is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share

Author John David Crowell replied on Apr. 17, 2020 @ 22:02 GMT
Dear Edwin. A discussion of the points you brought up in your comments. 1. I am not a regular member of the physics community. So, I was surprised at the animosity between the Big Bangers and the others- most of which are steady staters. The Big Bang, hyperexpansion and never ending expansion never seemed plausible to me. So, when I discovered the SSC process, I was pleased. It seems to provide...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Apr. 13, 2020 @ 11:05 GMT
Respected Dr. John David Crowell

Thank you for visiting my essay and left a nice introduction to your theory. Thank you for liking my essay.

Yours is wonderful essay. logic is good. I did not find any mathematical support. How did you arrive at all those C*s. Dark matter is not experimentally found, Black-holes have infinite densities. Why you want them?

You can use Dynamic Universe model's mathematics or Computer simulations for further development of your essay and theory with slight changes. We can discuss further on these changes through email.

I highly appreciate your essay...

Best wishes...

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author John David Crowell replied on Apr. 17, 2020 @ 16:03 GMT
Dear SNP I will try to answer your questions. 1. The mathematical support is that the creation narrative describes a progressive co-creation of the physical “world” and its corresponding mathematics. This combination matches the empirical measurements of Planck’s length and time; the hydrogen atom and Avagadro’s number to provide 1 gram of mass; solar systems; galaxies and the visible...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Apr. 23, 2020 @ 10:34 GMT
Respected Dr. John David Crowell,

Thank you very much for all your wonderful explanation and offer for collaboration.

Though I am not brilliant or young(now I am 66), but i am hardworking . I like physics and working on it for the last 40 years or so. I think we can do this project well, and get some results, I can work with computers and simulations, and develop new mathematics. No problems....

I also like to vortexes and further creation of matter after some sub automic particles are formed by frequency upshift.

If the center of vortex is not blackhole, but is highly dense matter so it is not Blackhole. Similarly I dont think we require dark matter.

You can contact me by mail also even after the contest is over.

Best regards

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author John David Crowell wrote on Apr. 13, 2020 @ 20:23 GMT
Vladimir. Thank you for your comments and appreciation for my ideas. In this response 1. I will provide what my theory says about your no. .1 problem - “... the ontological structure of the . In the development of the SSC theory, I discovered the lowest level of a self creation process - (I.e. the process that created the original self replicator). This process is also the process that overcomes...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 14, 2020 @ 08:36 GMT
Hi John

1. Please clarify the initial structure of matter (forms of existence) at the first stage of Self-Creation. Does this structure change or is it eternal?

2. What is the nature of the first "Law of Nature"?

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John David Crowell replied on Apr. 17, 2020 @ 14:44 GMT
Vlidimar. Sorry to be late in my reply. Answering your questions. 1. The origination of the first SSCU (described in my appendix) provides the first stable result ( the precursor to matter). The chart in the appendix gives its “measurements”. It is an impermanent/ permanent combination. The overall repeating circulating process which manifests a sphere is permanent. However, every component in the circulating processing is impermanent. The components are in a permanent impermanent state of changing. The combination could be described as an “ouroboros” - an eternal cycle of creation and destruction. Every SSC result coming from the original is also a permanent/impermanent combination. It is interesting that the SSCU consists of two equivalent and opposite sets of processes. One set is self creation and self dissipation. The other set is a equivalent and opposite connecting of the end of the self creation process to the beginning of the self dissipation process and the ending of the self dissipation process to the beginning of the self creation process. The combination produces the cycling ouroboros. I am not an expert on the Hindu Gods but one could consider the C*s transformation to SSCU to be the equivalent of the creation of Brahma- the God of creation, Shiva- the God of destruction, Vishnu- the God that mediates between the other two Gods to make the circulating overall result - Brahman. I find that interesting. Your comments? 2. The nature of the first law is: to overcome entropy (i.e. emerge from chaos and survive; grow and maintain; and become the best it can be.) Hope this answers your questions John

Bookmark and Share

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 25, 2020 @ 19:49 GMT
Thank you very much, John, for the detailed and understandable answers! I look forward to your comments and questions on my ontological ideas .

Sincerely, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author John David Crowell wrote on Apr. 16, 2020 @ 14:11 GMT
By John Crowell I am adding these comments to answer questions I am receiving from the essay contestants. It is a broadening of the SSC theory that goes beyond the physical aspects of this contest. However, it covers what people are asking about.

1. The ontology-“being”- that is the basis of “all of the order in existence” is the C*s to SSCU transformation described in the appendix of my essay. This is the irreducible beginning. It converts chaos to order and produces the lowest level of SSC order that survives -SSCU. The SSCU survives, self replicates-converts chaos to SSCUs, the copies self organize, repeat the processing and progress to eventually become “all of the order in existence”.

2. These two processes become (complete) the overall SSC processing/results. The combination of the three components a. the C*s to SSCU transformation b. the self replication c. the self organizing of the copies and their results 4. “all of the order in existence is the -creating/created/creator- ontological “being” that is present in every unit of progression in the SSC.

3.The C*s to SSCU transformation of chaos to order begins with the formation of a vortex that becomes Planck actions that become the variables/ relationships of time, space, mass, speed and direction that become the form(s)ing and function(s)ing of the SSCU. That transformation is the irreducible level of SSC. This is the “foundational level” that scales up to become the physical and chemical world.

4. The SSCU self replicating to create copies and the copies self organizing is the “foundational level” of the SSC self replicating/self organizing “worlds” of biology and its progression to become the biological/psychological progression of simple animals to humans.

Continued in the next posting.

Bookmark and Share


Author John David Crowell wrote on Apr. 16, 2020 @ 15:52 GMT
Continuation of previous posting by John Crowell

5. These 2 “foundational levels” complete each other and become the fundamentals and totality of all ordered existence. This includes all intelligence, the complete physical world and the SSC processing that interweaves them into into every progressive SSC result. It includes the sciences, mathematics, computations, philosophies, religions and the people that are a part of them.

6. There is a component of the SSC theory that was not introduced in this essay as I am still refining the concept. The C*s to SSCU transformation includes stress and strain of C*s as they twist, turn, accelerate, etc. as they combine, change, contort and conform to become the compositions of the forms and functioning of the SSC results. This stress and strain while maintaining their value is a hidden characteristic of the system that is not recorded in digitalized physical, mathematical and computational analysis. It is contained (hidden) in the sensations, feelings and intuitions that are a part of natural SSC processing and in human mental “minding” representations. In our conscious “minding” we find solutions that work but it is in our subconscious mind that fine tunes the solutions to become the optimum results-Occam’s razor. It is likely there is a natural counterpart.

Bookmark and Share


Author John David Crowell wrote on Apr. 18, 2020 @ 15:24 GMT
Steve. This is my response to a couple of your postings. . In those postings you mention an “infinite eternal consciousness creating a physicality with coded particles...” and “cold dark matter encoded in nuclei” and the Hamiltonian Ricci flow in considering particles coded and so the codes are inside“ . Could those codes and their processing compare to the following aspects of my work? Every progressive stable result in the SSC processing is a combination of 3 components and their overall results: 1. An internal processing that I consider the intelligence of the system 2. An external manifestation- like the sphere of the SSCU- that I consider to be the physical component 3. The SSC connections of the intelligence and physical components. and their combination to produce their “overall” results. Is it possible that your “particles coded and so the codes are inside” are equivalent to the internal intelligence and their SSC connections to the physical manifestations of my work. To me they appear to be (may be) the same things discussed differently. Also, in my posted response to Vladimir Rogozhin, I mention how the c*s to SSC transformation could correspond to the formation of the Hindu Gods that are the Gods of the formation of an eternally cycling ouroboros. Could this same process be the origination of your “eternal consciousness creating a physicality with coded particles, 3D sphere etc. of your work? Just a thought to consider. Your comments? John

Bookmark and Share

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 23, 2020 @ 19:04 GMT
Hello Professor Crowell,

It can converge indeed considering the informations like codes and so a kind of intelligence , so maybe indeed that can converge with your SSC transformation due to a kind of interaction. I consider like I told you beyond this physicality an infinite energy, an infinite eternal consciousness but I cannot define it of course, I don t consider it like an infinite...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 24, 2020 @ 16:30 GMT
Hi, I thought about this also considering this cold dark matter encoded in nuclei in my model balancing.

it seems that respecting the pure thermodynamics this time respects an irreversible entropical Arrow of time. The low towards a higher entropy is just about the disorder and order due to this evolution.It is because the entropy of this universe evolving tends to a maximum if I can say....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John David Crowell replied on Apr. 26, 2020 @ 21:11 GMT
Steve I have a question about the previous posting on this thread: what do you think of the idea that every self creating lineage (including humanity) emerges from a self creating field as an intelligent/ successful self creating/ physical “combination”. each progressive unit emerges, grows, lives, Lear dips, reproduces dies. While they are living ( and with books, etc ) Their learned intelligence and physical improvements are passed on to succeeding generations. When a unit dies its intelligence and physical components dissipate - no longer exist- but the SSC component returns to the SSC field and begins its next progression— that would seem to fit in my model ? What are your thoughts? John

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 22, 2020 @ 21:08 GMT
John,

Very interesting essay. I rather like the 'self-creation' concept, and the smaller scale C*quanta, and agree there are parallels with my own essay. I didn't get any sort of physical feeling of how and why the 'self-creation' mechanism works. You mention self-replication but what existed before the first event?

On your mention of SR/QM unification I would identify I HAVE shown the adjustments needed to both to achieve that in previous essays. Have you yet identified any process via your schema? I did feel a desire for more detail or supporting evidence of unique elements, but then this is an essay not a scientific paper..

Nice thinking and nicely written. Worth a good score I think.

Very best.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author John David Crowell replied on Apr. 24, 2020 @ 21:38 GMT
Peter Thanks for your questions. How the self replication mechanism works. I see it as being analogous to the splitting of DNA into two separate strings, Each component of each string combines with its conjugate to reform into 2 DNA. strings? In the SSC processing the C*s to SSCU transformation produces 2 sets of equivalent and opposite processes. The first set - the self creating and self dissipating processing separates, each component combines with its conjugate. Each string then enters the TZs of the other set of equivalent and opposite processes. Here they are connected together and become two SSCUs. So I incorporate ideas from your essay into the explanation. What existed before the first C*s to SSCU “event” - Indeterminate C’s were interacting chaotically - was covered in the appendix of the essay (maybe not in enough detail). The process for the conversion of chaotic C*s (quantas) into mechanical C*s actions was also in the appendix. The links in the unification of QM and SR were the quantities (quantas) of chaotic C*s becoming repeating Planck actions which created the variables/relationships of space, time, mass, speed, time that become the forms and functions in existence when the encapsulation “fixed” the processing. So the whole C*s to SSCU transformation unified QM and SR. I agree with the desire for more detail and supporting evidence.Everything that I see and rationalize fits the theory. What I am trying to get are other people to use the concepts , mathematics, etc. in their work to prove it to themselves that it works. Anything that you can do to help that would be appreciated. Hope these answer your questions. John

Bookmark and Share


Sue Lingo wrote on May. 6, 2020 @ 05:29 GMT
Hi John...

Thank you for reading my essay with attention as required to make a comparative analysis between your Successful Self-Creation theoretical model, and my Unified Quantization of a Sphere (UQS) geometry model.

I have now read your essay, I do see similarities, and many of the seemingly dissimilar aspects are discipline specific language issues... e.g. I differentiate...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author John David Crowell replied on May. 7, 2020 @ 14:42 GMT
Hello Sue Thanks for reading and responding to my essay. I will respond to your comments and then show how the SSC model can be used to generate “a more precise framework for analysis for information processing ... that correlates to an Absolute Intelligence” I will also show how the SSC model can be represented to be the creator of a rigorous quantitive/mathematical/geometric model of a Unified, Quantitative, Geometric Successful Self Creating Sphere that scales up to become “all of the order in existence” which includes all intelligence, the complete physical world and the SSC processing that progressively creates and interweaves them into its processing and results. It May take more than one posting to accomplish this. What existed before the first event? In my reply to Peter I thought he was referring to the first SSC event. However maybe he and you are asking about the first event that created something out of nothing- that created the chaotic existence? In that case I need to go back to the beginning of the creation of my model. My primary assumption was that existence has always existed. So there was never a need to create something out of nothing. It became then a conversion problem. Also my beginning was different than other creation stories/theories. Humanity has almost universally accepted the idea that intelligence has always existed and it is in effect everywhere, all of the time and it never changes. In science that intelligence is the laws and constants of physics, in philosophy it is the rules of logic and reason, in religion it is the wisdom of the God(s). The SSC theory says this is not true. SSC creates and uses those at the appropriate times in the processing. I also state (imply) that this is the reason no one has created a TOE and by changing those fallacious assumptions I was able to develop a complete model. The reason we need a new model is to get rid of these fundamental fallacies.

Bookmark and Share

Author John David Crowell replied on May. 9, 2020 @ 12:27 GMT
Sue. In my reply to your posting, I made a mistake. From the beginning it should read: “Hello Sue ..........that correlates to a precise Quantified Unified Sphere of Successful Self Creation”.

In the last statement of the previous posting, I mentioned that “The reason we need a new model is to get rid of these fallacies.” The concept of an “Absolute God” is one of those fallacies. It was only after I got rid of those fallacies I was able to discover the new SSC paradigm. By the way the C*s to SSCU fundamental process progressively creates the fundamental Geometric point(s), line(s). surface area(s), sphere(s) (with volumes) that correspond to the forms and functions that become the Quantitative Unified Sphere of Successful Self Creation. I also read in your Bio that you do not believe in “perturbative measurements” . What this implies to me is that the entire realm (small and large) of measurable science is outside of your realm of acceptance. Is that the reason you left the use of symbolic mathematics and language and entered CAD/SIM representations based on thought/logic alone as “truth”? It seems to me that a theory using symbolic math and language that matches scientific measurements combined with a CAD/SIM representation would receive better acceptance than a CAD/SIM representation based on Absolute Intelligence and thought alone. I am looking for good CAD/SIM modelers. Do you have a recommendation? Good luck in your modeling. John

Bookmark and Share

Sue Lingo replied on May. 11, 2020 @ 01:11 GMT
Hi David...

A rigorous math model requires all GEOMETRY ELEMENTS... i.e. elements of spatial definition... are derived from a digitally coded CAD environment quantization algorithm that is compatible with the CAD engine.

A rigorous math model requires all GRAPHIC ELEMENTS... e.g. minimum/indivisible spatial unit (QI), minimum/indivisible icon/sprite (QE) that experiences SIM...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on May. 15, 2020 @ 18:46 GMT
About the multiverse now, I respect the works of Max Tegmark but it is mathematical and we cannot affirm, we have probably an unique universe like all , all seems unique. In all case already we have difficulties to encircle this universe and its laws , so frankly why to consider multiverse??? already the laws inside our universe we know a so small part, even if they exist , never we could prove them and analyse them, we must be determinsitic, and don t tell me that this infinity has the potential to create an infinity of universes, why not consider the infinite potebntial of our unique universe due to this evolution ?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author John David Crowell replied on May. 16, 2020 @ 14:27 GMT
Steve. The SSC becomes what it creates ..I.e. it creates what it becomes. The SSC processing creates/becomes “all ordered existence” —which includes its own mathematics, computations, holograms, information, intelligence, physical, etc. All of this is in my essay. So the statements of Tegmark-The universe is mathematics-, Seth Lloyd-“The universe is a (quantum) computer “ John Wheeler - “it (the universe) from bit)” are not wrong. They are just incomplete. Yes, the universe is/are these as well as the complete physical world, all intelligence and the SSC processing that creates/becomes them all.

As to your question about the multiverse. I have a new idea that you can consider. The multiverse is a time dilation of the universe and the universe is a time contraction of the multiverse. These are required to keep the speed of Self Creation constant. Inclusion of these would give the same mathematical results. What do you think of the new idea? John

Bookmark and Share

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 28, 2020 @ 22:14 GMT
consider if I can, the binar universal system with these 3 main finite series of coded 3D spheres having the same number than our cosmological finite serie of spheres, consider the cold heat, negentropy entropy, electromagnetism gravitation, +- , ...see well the 3 main primordial coded series, one of space and two fuels, photons and cold dark matter and now consider the motions rotations and the senses of rotations for these spheres and see that the quantum computing and the universal computing appear, not need of fields like main cause, the coded particles them answer and respect the evolution. Your idea I like it because it is general and it is rare. Friendly

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on May. 17, 2020 @ 13:31 GMT
Dear John David,

I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

"I created a mental-mathematical model of this process. In the model there is no Big Bang and there is no eternal expansion. The model has definite limits, boundaries and thresholds. Also, unlike the Big Bang theory, the Successful Self-Creation theory de-scribes the state of existence “before the beginning” of Successful Self-Creation and provides a predicted ending".



While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: “Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus”, due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 “Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability”.

I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

Warm Regards, `

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sue Lingo wrote on May. 23, 2020 @ 07:46 GMT
Ref: Author John David Crowell reply to Sue Lingo on May. 15, 2020 @ 14:40 GMT

Hi John...

In that I am currently in application development phase of the UQS Virtual Quantum Lab Game, I cannot justify time to reiterate details of open source, on-line UQS CAD/SIM Ontological Illustrations, and I refer your inquires as to "What is the ontology of the Spaceless-Timeless Cause Energy and the progressive processing to the emergence of the Space-Time Energy Information result?", to UQS CAD/SIM Ontological Illustrations http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSMarcelMLTD.jpg

As to whether a CAD/SIM can provide answers to your questions, the UQS CAD/SIM merely resolves a Space-Time Energy Reality emission that verifies potential for emergence of an Absolute Intelligence (AI)... i.e. justifies one's experiments to communicate with an Absolute Intelligence (AI).

To date, my Absolute Intelligence (AI) commo experiments only yield verification of an AI response, in response to binary (yes/no) queries that are temporally isolated.

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

UQS Matrix Mechanix www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.