Dear Dipak Kumar Bhunia,

Thank you for your gracious comment. I have read your paper and believe we overlap as follows: you support that nature is not (or cannot be proven to be) analog, and consider observers (us) to be digital: "then nature that perceives through such digits or quantum must appear as a digital." [and] "the digital observers (like us) have a natural limit to detect the nature non-digitally, even if it would be non-digital anywhere in its deeper levels beyond that digital limit. "

This is a well-thought-out proposition, and the locus of our agreement seems to be here. I tend to believe that the deeper levels are non-digital, but, as you may recall, I view the transfer of information as energy transfer, that does, or does not cross a threshold. This is the digitization you refer to. If the threshold is crossed, then the digit is '1', else '0'. This sets the digital limit of observation. The details of the observed world are so rich that we cannot expect any two essays in this contest to agree upon all of them, but the basic mechanism seems to be in agreement.

Thanks again for reading and commenting.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

5 days later

Dear Edwin,

I thought your essay was very original approach, but simultaneously it is very logical and nothing is in there I disagree with. Physics does require many constants to make certain areas work, so the elephant example was an excellent illustration.

Suggesting gravity is self aware as the only true field makes sense if we ever want to unify the four forces, and I suspect that Einstein was correct when he suggested that certain configurations of space-time incorporate the effects of electromagnetism. An area of particular interest to me.

I've opted for an approach that thinks about how information can pass between Observer & the Observed within curved space-time. Hope you get time to read it.

Best wishes for the contest - great essay!

Antony

    Dear Antony,

    Thanks for your very gracious comment.

    Fermi, who claimed "with five parameters I can fit an elephant", probably never dreamed that our main theory of particles would have more parameters than particles!

    I too am interested in how electromagnetism arises. I have a 'mechanism' in my theory that explains this, but it is probably the weakest part of my theory. On the other hand, I can show how the nonlinear gravito-magnetic field confines quarks, which is about the only thing that the 'strong' force does. The theory also both produces and transforms particles which is what the 'weak' force does. So if my electromagnetic 'mechanism' is correct, the forces are unified.

    It's hard to keep up with the number of essayists this year, but I will read yours and comment on your page.

    Thanks again, and good luck in the contest.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Hi Dr. Klingman,

    Your essay is very fascinating, and I really enjoyed how you explored the deeper connections between physics and mathematics, and the art of physical theory itself. Also your use of the references was great - in particular your application of Smolin is very enlightening. I'm inspired to read your other works (such as your PhD thesis), and also probably will pick up Smolin's Time Reborn.

    Thanks again,

    Steve Sax

      Dear Steven,

      Thank you for your comments. I am very pleased that you enjoyed my essay, because, as I remarked on your page, "I found your essay the most careful and complete study of the nature of information [the topic of this contest] of the hundred I've read." In particular, you do not mix Shannon's information entropy and thermodynamic entropy carelessly, as is often done. And, as I noted, "You present a more convincing argument for an info/area relation than most I've seen." These brief comments do not exhaust the topics in your essay, which I recommend to my other readers.

      So thanks for reading my essay and commenting. And thanks for writing yours.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Hi Eugene,

      I enjoyed your lively style and use of entertaining and explicative graphics! :)

      I enjoy and agree with your statement: "...Wheeler's "absence of a clear definition of the term 'bit' as elementary unit in establishment of meaning" imply awareness, since there is no meaning absent awareness. He believed in a Participatory Universe..." It does seem to me that the "it from bit" concept breaks down without some sort of reciprocal relationship between the measurer and the measured.

      I am fairly new to the argument that gravity is "anti-entropic" although I also encountered the concept recently in the book "Time Reborn" by Smolin.I'm still thinking about how I relate to/interpret this approach. Have you read much Ilya Prigogine or much of Barbour's works on the principle of maximal variety?

      "From Oppenheimer's deep interest in Zen, to Cristi's Tao essay, physicists are fascinated by the idea that unity underlies an apparent surface division of the world into related and correlated entities. Yet Zen koans remind us how terribly difficult it is for brains that have mastered the skill of partitioning and relating systems to reach mindful awareness of undivided Nature: the 'Not two' aspect of reality" -- Indeed!!! Bit logic isn't able to convey koans. I definitely feel a comradery in your appeal to zen. My use of the phrase, "Is Bit It?" came about as a sort of koan--is bit "it" (made from the stuff of the universe), or is bit "it" (all there is at all). ^_^ The "superposition of states" (I am using this non-literally) experienced by a human mind processing a couple ways of interpreting a koan or a haiku may represent something fundamental about the nature of the universe.

      Cheers, and thanks again for putting forward intriguing and fun ideas and for sharing ideas on my thread,

      Jennifer Nielsen

        Hi Jennifer,

        I'm really glad that you enjoyed the essay, and that you understood the point about koans and the problem of 'un-learning' how to discriminate and correlate, which we begin learning at least as soon as we emerge from the womb. And you are correct that "bit logic isn't able to convey koans."

        The idea of gravity as "anti-entropic" does bear thinking about. Smolin states it as the case, and I have intuited this in other places, but I don't think the idea is rigorously defined. I haven't read Prigogine recently, but have done so extensively in the past. I also am aware of many of Barbour's ideas, but not as sold on them.

        On your blog you comment that it's exciting to be part of FQXi. It truly is exciting to find 175 ten-page essays dealing with such an important and current topic. I always derive a number of new and significant ideas from these contests. As I indicated on your page, and will repeat here for other readers, I think some key ideas are to be found in, for example: Wang Xiong's treatment of information as symmetry breaking, Mark Feeley's treatment of probability in QM, McHarris' essay on non-linearity, Janzen's treatment of time and relativity, Gordon Watson's analysis of Bell's inequality and Vishwakarma's essay on the stress-energy tensor. These are examples of why FQXi is a great place! There are many, many more.

        Best,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        P.S. Are you familiar with the idea of Roger Penrose that gravity and mass is what causes decoherence? Was wondering how you would interpret his ideas.

        Thanks,

        Jennifer

          Jennifer,

          Penrose is a brilliant man, but I don't buy his idea of gravity and QM nor his and Hameroff's idea of consciousness as the QM of microtubules. I think most attempts to base consciousness on quantum mechanics are founded on the logic that "one thing we don't understand" must be (related to) "another thing we don't understand". Detailed pictures of microtubules are pretty, but they are a small part of any cell. If you want to get really blown away, work through Bruce Alberts "Molecular Biology of the Cell".

          For an understanding of my ideas about decoherence, see my previous essay, The Nature of the Wave Function. It produces the supposedly impossible correlation -a.b when Bob and Alice choose independent settings, upon which Bell's statistics is based.

          Thanks for your questions and your interest. With your attitude, you should go far.

          Best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Hi Edwin,

          Of the things I understood in your essay, I find nothing to disagree with worth disagreeing with, but that leaves many references, your math and hence most of your essay opaque to my understanding. I leave it up to you to see elements of agreement or disagreement in the following observations, none of which are meant as criticism.

          When philosophers considered space and time as continuous and independent of each other, the notion demanded everything in space be recreated from moment to moment. And while that was tenable for a time, it could not stand in a large complex universe. Most things are obviously discrete (granular) and some things continuous (smooth), but debate about what was divisible and indivisible was heading in one direction only because discrete was winning at every observation. Those who could extrapolate, extrapolated a discrete universe made from dimensionless points, and those who stopped short of extrapolating to infinity and beyond saw the universe as being comprised of very small granularities. But that led to a conflict between philosophy and dogma. For the complexity of a large continuous universe full of very small things to be recreated from moment to moment required a God infinitely more powerful than anything previously imagined, i.e. God*, that is, God to the power of infinity.

          Einstein united continuous space and continuous time, i.e. space-time, and what he got for his troubles was a block-universe, and when infinitely small slices of time accommodate a universe of small things frozen relative to each other, no argument could explain how observations could be made from within this frozen universe. Observation must then be the purview of something or someone beyond space-time. The product of Small-Things* and Small-Slices* equates to a God**, otherwise slices containing incomprehensible complexity can not be created one after the other; and not just this, but this time God must be removed from space and time. And while this did not upset dogma, it is not a reasonable proposition. You can not unite space and time via math without continuous time; time is up, the gig is up as they say. The reason physics persists with things continuous is because mathematics doesn't work well in a universe of discrete entities. And the math falls over completely the moment time is not continuous, the best mathematicians can do is a symbol for an increment in time which can be infinitely small (but never zero because that exposes the error in reasoning). To move forward I choose explanations where derivatives are transparent, I choose a granular universe where everything which exists has extension in three dimensions. I say it's time philosophers took philosophy back from scientists, and in that effort I propose that "Law from no Law" be rephrased "Law from things Predictable".

          When I think of space itself as comprised of discrete elements, i.e. granular (pbit), and time as a function of not just the elements of space, but the fabric of space made possible by the self organization of predictable elements, I am compelled to explain why elements and fabric exist in a symbiotic way, and for that I must explain purpose. For those who say gravity must be explained also, I say the elements of space are the elements of gravity, and the purpose of space, time and gravity are all concerned with appreciating the persistent material of the universe. In other words granularity need not be recreated from moment to moment, only appreciated, and appreciation requires observation, and observation is a complimentary measurement; that is, observation is a concurrent measurement of one thing by another and visa-versa, and that means both things must be changed by each others "structured measurement" if the instantiation of a momentary "observer" is to be actual.

          I hope this helps, and await your opinion as to the relevance of my observations.

          Best Regards.

          Zoran.

            Hi Zoran,

            I appreciate your description of the problem as you see it. There appear to be several issues:

            Space and time independent versus 'block time'

            Continuous versus discrete

            Existence versus re-creation

            First, space and time. I don't view space as 'a container'. I view the existence of the primordial field as "defining space". No field, no space. Second, you rightly remark that what Einstein got for his troubles was a [frozen] block-universe. This is what Ken Wharton writes of. But a key problem is that there is no 'now' in a block universe. On your page we discussed Daryl Janzen's essay[s]. Daryl analyzes time in detail that I cannot even touch in a comment, so I will simply refer you to him for the detailed answer. I conceive of a 3-D universe existing right now in time. I also agree with Daryl that relativists for a century have confused relativity of synchronicity [which is true] for relativity of simultaneity [which is false].

            The next issue is continuous or discrete. There are at least three reasons that I opt for the continuum. The first, and most important, is that I can understand continuity, and I cannot conceive of a discrete universe. I've written elsewhere about topological awareness, which we are born with [but most forget] versus metric awareness, where we learned to overlay "distances" on our perceptions, so that we quickly pick the apple from the tree but do not waste much time trying to pick the moon from the sky, even though they appear visually to be about the same size. Topological, universal connectedness is real to me. The metric map which 'dis'-connects one from far places is a utilitarian overlay. The second reason is simplicity. While you say continuity is mathematically simple and "math doesn't work well in a universe of discrete entities", I've had mathematicians tell me continuity is far more complicated. But I'm a physicist, and physical continuity is simpler than discreteness. It does not bother me that the application of language to reality runs into problems. Language is required for "thinking" (a.k.a., "talking to oneself") but it is not required for awareness. In short, mathematical difficulties in dealing with reality do not concern me. Math emerges from physical reality, physical reality does not emerge from math. If it did one would expect no mathematical difficulties. Lest you conclude that I think math is irrelevant, my third reason is that my master equation for the one self-interacting field is scale-invariant (before symmetry breaks). This means that the solution can be multiplied by an arbitrary scale factor, and it is still a solution. But this means that there is no "smallest distance" as is required by discrete models.

            There are probably other reasons for the continuum, but these three satisfy me.

            By the way, the Master equation evolves such that terms on the left-hand side of the equation (interpretable as linear flow) are equal to terms on the right-hand side (physically interpretable as circular motion) only if they both equal a constant value, which has dimensions of action. Thus action is quantized or discrete, not space or time.

            The final issue is something I don't understand, which is your insistence on re-creation versus existence. You insist that it's necessary for God to "re-create" a large universe of small things from moment to moment. For a continuum existing continuously in time, I don't see this at all. So you have framed things in a way that is inconsistent with the way I experience the world, and in a way I frankly cannot conceive physically. Yet you say that "elements of space are elements of gravity" which is how I began this comment, and how I formulated the Master equation. And you conclude that "the purpose of space, time, and gravity are all concerned with appreciating the persistent material of the universe [which] need not be re-created from moment to moment" which is my position. So we seem to agree on the big picture, but differ in details, which, as I've noted, is true of every essayist here. No two essays agree on all details. In other words we both appear to be realists and 'presentists' and view gravity as the key substance of the universe, with space implied by gravity and time passing right now. That puts us in closer agreement than some in this contest.

            I quote Korzybski to the effect that "the map is not the territory". I believe the territory is physically real. Languages are used to draw maps. Philosophers use natural language, physicists use mathematical language. When physicists stick to real, measurable things, they have an advantage over philosophers. When physicists make up unrealistic things willy-nilly, as has been the case for about half a century, they get crazy things that don't match reality. I can see why this would upset philosophers. It upsets some physicists.

            Thanks for the comment above. I hope my response satisfies you.

            Best regards,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Edwin,

            From your comments it seems that we are in accord in most basic principles, and I think closer than you believe, let me clear up the "final issue" you mention, and I quote:

            "The final issue is something I don't understand, which is your insistence on re-creation versus existence. You insist that it's necessary for God to "re-create" a large universe of small things from moment to moment. For a continuum existing continuously in time, I don't see this at all. So you have framed things in a way that is inconsistent with the way I experience the world, and in a way I frankly cannot conceive physically. Yet you say that "elements of space are elements of gravity" which is how I began this comment, and how I formulated the Master equation. And you conclude that "the purpose of space, time, and gravity are all concerned with appreciating the persistent material of the universe [which] need not be re-created from moment to moment" which is my position."

            In response to your interpretation I can say that I do not subscribe to continuous time in any way shape or form, and so I can speak of space and gravity as granular and time as a function of the elements of space/gravity, and I can speak of (now) in the same way as you do. But I appreciate other positions also, ideas held now and in the past. In Einstein's space-time continuum persistence (now) must be shared with an infinity of past and present instances, which you can not avoid if you insist on time being continuous and something in and of itself, i.e. the fourth dimension. But in the past, in the old philosophy, when time is divorced from space entirely, recreation is the only option; I do not believe or insist on it myself, I was just pointing out an idea which was at one point considered and a history of ideas on the nature of time and its relation to space. Presentists of all persuasions have a hard time coping with time when it's continuous, and feel they must pander to a block-universe in one shape or form, and this because they have no other choice. All I am trying to do is offer an alternative consistent with the ideals of Presentism and without the complication of time being something in and of itself.

            Great discussion, thank you.

            Zoran.

            Dear Edwin,

            I think poor Fermi would feel it was a nightmare. I'm very keen to hear more about your unification theory, as mine has its strongest part in the electromagnetism and mass, followed by weak and finally strong.

            Thanks for your kind comments on my page and for writing an excellent essay!

            Best wishes,

            Antony

            Dear Dr. Klingman,

            Your essay was recommended to me by Ralph Waldo Walker III. I'm glad I read it - I found it fascinating, and very well written. It also has much in common with my work.

            You open your argument by showing that physics builds its models from its own assumptions, so that we shouldn't be too impressed that the data obtained seems to bear these out. This does indeed remind us to be adventuresome, and to question the prevailing view.

            As you point out, it has become unfashionable to consider the Cosmos in simple physical terms, even though that's how it all began - back when the mind first wandered from the pages of the Bible, and began to see space and time for what they truly are.

            My take on physical reality, however, diverges from yours in the matter of there being other Universes. Our system is the result of self-interaction, as you say, but to claim that such self-interaction can only have occurred once is an assumption that is harder to justify than its opposite - that a General Field of cosmic systems is perpetually forming.

            This is an important point, because these cosmic systems must have certain effects upon each other, and in my essay I show that some of these can be deduced.

            The fear that prevents serious thinkers from venturing in this direction is that they might end up simply fudging vexing questions - or still worse, might find themselves in the company of mystics and other strange birds. We are frail, and we usually don't want to appear ridiculous; but if it makes sense, we should go with it.

            Therefore, I describe a General Field of Cosmae along perfectly logical lines, and refer to it only in the context of its likely effects upon our Cosmos. These effects include the evolution of Organic and Sensory-Cognitive Vortices, once an Inorganic Vortex has come into being along the lines that you describe.

            I was struck by your brilliant expression of gravito-magnetism in mathematical terms. A gravitational-magnetic force that underlies both Inorganic and Organic evolution is central to my paradigm also, and yields a structure of physical reality that involves the Human Observer, and even the Mind.

            These Organic and Sensory-Cognitive Vortices are shown to be correlated with each other and with the Inorganic Vortex, as a result of their simultaneous and similar interaction with the Gravitational-Magnetic Field: They remain distinct from one another - that is, they do not interact directly - so that borders are formed between them that delineate certain Zones, within which our parameter systems (including mathematics) are most effective.

            These borders are not fixed, but are rather in continuous flux - as a result of the perpetual evolutionary effect of the Gravitational-Magnetic Force.

            This in turn means that the It and Bit must be correlated, and indeed must be continually altering their relationship (as we have experienced since diverging from other animals). In other words, information must 'shape itself', as do Inorganic and Organic phenomena.

            Though it is undoubtedly true that 'without the physical reality there can be no information', we have obviously defined this physical reality by continuously interacting with it over the course of our evolution; thus what we know as information is a distinctly Human variation of it that ultimately emerges from, and is directly affected by, the Gravitational-Magnetic Field.

            Though mine is a common sense and axiomatic paradigm, I believe your mathematical insights could be applied to the physical reality it describes. You'll also appreciate that this three-field structure very usefully formalizes the concept of a participatory universe.

            In this spirit, I hope you'll have a look and let me know what you think.

            Congratulations on this very significant work,

            All the best,

            John.

              Hello John,

              Thank you for your kind words. I'll respond to your comment here, and try to comment on your page.

              We do agree on the desirability of simplicity. Recall that Einstein said "as simple as possible, but no simpler." As you note, we diverge on there being other universes. This, of course, cannot (currently) be proved one way or the other, so we're both safe in our assumptions. Your argument for it sounds very reasonable, and, if the effects you propose are seen, that will certainly be strong support for your view. I do not understand your various different vortices, so I'll have to read your paper more closely. Vortices are very important in my model, but they are all of the same type.

              I did notice that you focus on the gravito-magnetic field, but did not discern whether this refers to the "magnetic" aspect of gravity, or whether you are combining gravity with the magnetic field of electromagnetism. I've made a few incorrect assumptions about what others mean by similar terminology, so I'm being more careful now. It seems like the vortices are of different types in your theory, however you do assume that they are involved with evolution of the field through self interaction. Reading your comment more closely I see that your three fields remain distinct from each other, which differs from my model, although the electromagnetic field does emerge in my theory after the original symmetry breaks. In other words we seem to overlap in some important areas but diverge in others. Part of the beauty of FQXi is the stimulation this provides, enabling us to potentially improve our theories based on what we learn here.

              Thanks again for your comment. I'll re-read your essay to understand it better.

              Best Regards,

              Edwin Eugene Klingman

              Hello Edwin,

              I see you talk above on your preference for a continuous nature of reality... What do you think of the Planck length? Does it have any physical significance?

              But main reason I am here is that I posted the below on Armin Shirazi's blog and said I would be copying you in view your huge gravitational investments.

              -------------------------------------------

              Dear Armin,

              You ask me a couple of head scratching questions over at my blog, let me "retaliate". Talking of backgrounds, about which you know so much, particularly section 4 of essay:

              1. When a celestial body curves the space around it according to GR, is this curved space carried along with the orbiting body's motion?

              Or

              2. Does the body leave this space behind, thereby uncurving it, while curving the previously uncurved space in its new orbital location?

              Or

              3. Is there a third consideration?

              If you answer positively to 1), would this not be important to experiments like the M-M expt?

              If it is 2) you answer positively to, will such a space capable of being curved and uncurved, not be a substantival background? Taking note, that with the action-reaction principle, something can only be said capable of being acted upon IF it can also react. Then as you ask me will this reaction be instantaneous?

              One head-scratching turn deserves another!

              Regards,

              Akinbo

              CC: Peter Jackson, Edwin Klingman

              ------------------------------------------------

              Best regards,

              Akinbo

                Dear Dr. Klingman,

                I am looking forward to hearing from you after you've had a chance to read my essay in detail - not only do we seem to overlap, but I suspect there are no contradictions.

                Thanks for getting back to me - I should mention that I did rate your essay very highly, and would like to consider its mathematical aspects more carefully later on.

                Yours Truly,

                John.

                Hi Akinbo,

                Thanks for commenting on the comments. You tend to ask very good questions. I'll give you my current views on these issues.

                First; the Planck length. I view this as an operational limit. The de Broglie wavelength grows shorter with increased energy and Kauffmann [referenced in my essay] has shown that the self-gravitation of extremely high energy density leads to a 'horizon' or limiting condition, that occurs at the Planck length. This does not say that shorter lengths do not exist, only that they are not susceptible to measurement. I do not subscribe to the belief that if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist. Measurement entails an interference that changes the nature of the unmeasured reality.

                Second; 'curved space'. Recall that "there is no space absent field". Also, that I view the gravitational field, with its energy and mass, as material 'substance'. In this regard I tend to view 'curved space' as 'variable density field', and the measurable effects on light as similar to those of varying index of refraction. The effects on both length and speed of light should mimic 'curvature'. I recall discussions of this on Omar Perez's page last year. I've not worked out the mathematics to confirm this approach but I believe others have. Thus, in this picture the 'curvature' is "carried with" the momentum density. Note that I am effectively replacing "curvature of space" with "density of field" and this affects the sense of the choices you present.

                Third, the M-M experiment. As a consequence of the above views, the 'aether' is the local gravity field. Since the local gravity on earth, where M-M performed their experiment, is effectively "static" ('carried with the earth') then one would predict a null result.

                I began by saying that "field" is a more apt concept than "space" and that the field is, in your words, "a substantival background". The general belief, and I think implicit in GR, is that changes in the field propagate at the speed of light. Jonathan Dickau, on another FQXi blog, discusses some current opinions that gravity has a higher speed, but he has not provided any references.

                I'm not sure of what action-reaction example you have in mind, but much of my current focus is on self-interaction of gravity, typically driven by an 'external' source of energy.

                I hope the above addresses your questions.

                Edwin Eugene Klingman

                Although the above is still my opinion, I note that Phys Rev Letters yesterday published Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 021302 (12 July 2013) "Effective Field Theory Approach to Gravitationally Induced Decoherence", to the effect that: "Adopting the viewpoint that the standard perturbative quantization of general relativity provides an effective description of quantum gravity that is valid at ordinary energies, we show that gravity as an environment induces the rapid decoherence of stationary matter superposition states when the energy differences in the superposition exceed the Planck energy scale."

                Those interested in this topic might wish to check this paper out.

                Dear Edwin,

                I had penned a long reply to your stuff, which disappeared into a puff of nothing, which I assert violates the law of conservation of energy. So would like an instantaneous return of my thoughts... O well. So here I begin again. But I am first writing offline so that I can control things better.

                You wrote on my blog...:

                Einstein said,"There is no space absent of field." In other words, the gravitational field fills space completely. Although you may or may not think of this field as a 'substance', it is considered to have energy (Maxwell taught us fields have energy) and hence mass (Einstein taught us energy has mass equivalence) and a number of writers of books on gravitation consider it a substance (as do I). Your question implies that you think of space as 'empty' ,but it is entirely possible that the primordial gravity field gave rise to space. Your second question, about what qualities would make it the source of all else is the topic of my essay

                You are correct in that I used to imagine space to be "empty", but when I read Berkeley, I adopted his view, which critiqued Newton's notion of a God-created world-machine, which in turn caused our perceptions of itself.

                With Berkeley's view I now see space, not as a container in which "things" reside, but as a mental and perceptual x, y, z, t coordinate system by which we keep track of where and when we are, for ourselves in the world and to coordinate with other perceivers. B saw the world-machine as an unhelpful intruder because it could never itself be observed (except by the perceptions themselves, which begs the question of its existence), so that we could never empirically know it to be there, nor be able to compare it with our perceptions to make sure we were perceiving correctly. Knowledge of the machine would be entirely metaphysical, not empirical. So it would have to be a logical conclusion, not an empirical one. So he cut out the "middleman" and went directly to God as the cause and the coordinator of the cosmos for us inhabitants. Occam's razor with a vengeance. God is by nature a metaphysical entity, not physical, and this requires the cosmological argument (or something similar) to justify belief in Him.

                So I am very interested in your attempt to understand gravity as the source of all things. I have always understood gravity to be an attraction between objects with mass. But I could easily imagine a space entirely empty. So I am not sure what to think of Einstein's notion above. I suspect that he was the victim, as many others, of the collapse of real causality (a personal God), and so had to find substitutes within the cosmos itself.

                In any event, B's view, if true, changes the whole discussion on the meaning of space at all, and the sense in which physical matter can be the cause of anything. We no longer have things of a Newtonian sort bumping around, we rather have perceptions which are related to each other by laws of behavior - what I called "bundles of behavior" in my essay.

                In either case, there has to be an adequate "objective unifier of apperception" to tie together the disparate events, experiments, etc., that we want to think are part of the "same" world, and under the "same" laws. How gravity might be a better candidate than God for doing that I wait to see.Dear Edwin,

                I had penned a long reply to your stuff, which disappeared into a puff of nothing, which I assert violates the law of conservation of energy. So would like an instantaneous return of my thoughts... O well. So here I begin again. But I am writing offline so that I can control things better.

                You wrote on my blog...:

                Einstein said,"There is no space absent of field." In other words, the gravitational field fills space completely. Although you may or may not think of this field as a 'substance', it is considered to have energy (Maxwell taught us fields have energy) and hence mass (Einstein taught us energy has mass equivalence) and a number of writers of books on gravitation consider it a substance (as do I). Your question implies that you think of space as 'empty' ,but it is entirely possible that the primordial gravity field gave rise to space. Your second question, about what qualities would make it the source of all else is the topic of my essay

                You are correct in that I used to imagine space to be "empty", but when I read Berkeley, I adopted his view, which critiqued Newton's notion of a God-created world-machine, which in turn caused our perceptions of itself.

                With Berkeley's view I now see space, not as a container in which "things" reside, but as a mental and perceptual x, y, z, t coordinate system by which we keep track of where and when we are, for ourselves in the world and to coordinate with other perceivers. B saw the world-machine as an unhelpful intruder because it could never itself be observed (except by the perceptions themselves, which begs the question of its existence), so that we could never empirically know it to be there, nor be able to compare it with our perceptions to make sure we were perceiving correctly. Knowledge of the machine would be entirely metaphysical, not empirical. So it would have to be a logical conclusion, not an empirical one. So he cut out the "middleman" and went directly to God as the cause and the coordinator of the cosmos for us inhabitants. Occam's razor with a vengeance. God is by nature a metaphysical entity, not physical, and this requires the cosmological argument (or something similar) to justify belief in Him.

                So I am very interested in your attempt to understand gravity as the source of all things. I have always understood gravity to be an attraction between objects with mass. But I could easily imagine a space entirely empty. So I am not sure what to think of Einstein's notion above. I suspect that he was the victim, as many others, of the collapse of real causality (a personal God), and so had to find substitutes within the cosmos itself.

                In any event, B's view, if true, changes the whole discussion on the meaning of space at all, and the sense in which physical matter can be the cause of anything. We no longer have things of a Newtonian sort bumping around, we rather have perceptions which are related to each other by laws of behavior - what I called "bundles of behavior" in my essay.

                In either case, there has to be an adequate "objective unifier of apperception" to tie together the disparate events, experiments, etc., that we want to think are part of the "same" world, and under the "same" laws. How gravity might be a better candidate than God for doing that I wait to see.

                Dear Edwin,

                I had penned a long reply to your stuff, which disappeared into a puff of nothing, which I assert violates the law of conservation of energy. So would like an instantaneous return of my thoughts... O well. So here I begin again. But I am writing offline so that I can control things better.

                You wrote on my blog...:

                Einstein said,"There is no space absent of field." In other words, the gravitational field fills space completely. Although you may or may not think of this field as a 'substance', it is considered to have energy (Maxwell taught us fields have energy) and hence mass (Einstein taught us energy has mass equivalence) and a number of writers of books on gravitation consider it a substance (as do I). Your question implies that you think of space as 'empty' ,but it is entirely possible that the primordial gravity field gave rise to space. Your second question, about what qualities would make it the source of all else is the topic of my essay

                You are correct in that I used to imagine space to be at least potentially "empty", but when I read Berkeley, I adopted his view, which critiqued Newton's notion of a God-created world-machine, which in turn caused our perceptions of itself.

                With Berkeley's view I now see space, not as a container in which "things" reside, but as a mental and perceptual x, y, z, t coordinate system by which we keep track of where and when we are, for ourselves in the world and to coordinate with other perceivers. B saw the world-machine as an unhelpful intruder because it could never itself be observed (except through the perceptions themselves, which begs the question of its existence), so that we could never empirically know it to be there, nor be able to compare it with our perceptions to make sure we were perceiving correctly. Knowledge of the machine would be entirely metaphysical, not empirical. It would have to be a logical conclusion, not an empirical one. So he cut out the "middleman" and went directly to God as the cause and the coordinator of the cosmos for us inhabitants. Occam's razor with a vengeance. God is by nature a metaphysical entity, not physical, and this requires the cosmological argument (or something similar) to justify belief in Him (the subject of my doctoral thesis).

                So I am very interested in your attempt to understand gravity as the source of all things. I have always understood gravity to be an attraction between objects with mass. But I could easily imagine a space entirely empty of objects. So I am not sure what to think of Einstein's notion above. I suspect that he was the victim, as many others, of the collapse of real causality (a personal God), and so had to find substitutes within the cosmos itself.

                In any event, B's view, if true, changes the whole discussion on the meaning of space at all, and the sense in which physical matter can be the cause of anything. We no longer have things of a Newtonian sort bumping around, we rather have perceptions which are related to each other by laws of behavior - what I called "bundles of behavior" in my essay.

                In either case, there has to be an adequate "objective unifier of apperception" to tie together the disparate events, experiments, etc., that we want to think are part of the "same" world, and under the "same" laws. How gravity might be a better candidate than God for doing that I wait to see.

                (You were right, we need more space than nine pages to present our case....)