Vladimir,

It is a very thoughtful and well written essay. The problem is that I dispute the central premise. An ideal is not an absolute and that is the core of your argument. The absolute is a universal state. Shapes are definition, delineation, form. Absolute zero is not a point, line, circle, sphere, etc. It is the complete absence of energy and thus the interactive connectivity which builds complex reality out of the most elemental energies arising from that absolute state of the formless vacuum. Zero is not a point, but empty space. All of physical nature, even the biggest galaxies and galaxy clusters, are little more than minor fluctuations in the infinite vastness of space. When we measure time, we are only measuring action, while point, location, distance, area and volume are all aspects of space, not the basis for it, as geometry presumptively assumes. Like Roman numerals, geometry doesn't even have a proper zero, because it treats the center point as zero. A real zero would be the absence of any actual mark. Empty space/the blank sheet of paper.

We exist as an effective point in space, so we describe reality from the perspective of the point. Thus space becomes this three dimensional coordinate system, located on the center point, while time is the sequence of events, from past ones to future ones, rather than the underlaying physical dynamic which forms and erases these events, taking them from future potential to past circumstance.

You inductively distill out these ideal forms as being essential, but consider how nature actually creates them. There are much more spheres in nature, than square boxes, even though both are basic ideals. That is because it is much easier for nature to produce a sphere by congregating energy around a point, while a box requires much fairly precise interaction of different energies pushing against each other.

The fact is that if you have nothing, you don't need any laws or forms to govern or define it. No energy, no information. When you start to have the most basic energies, pulling against/pushing against each other, etc, then you start to have the most basic forms/laws defining their actions and interactions. The more complex things get, the more complex the principles arising from them get.

Physics creates math. Not the other way around.

I score you well for clarity, it's just that what you present so clearly is incomplete.

Regards,

John

    Hello Lorraine,

    Thank you for your thorough and detailed commentary, as well as the appreciation of my essay. Good luck in the contest and your research!

    All the best,

    Vladimir

    Dear Basudeba,

    Thank you for your very interesting information!

    Best regards,

    Vladimir

    Vladimir

    You asked me to comment on your essay.

    "And mathematics and physics have one foundation - essential primary structure of Nature"

    This is the key. And physical existence is the physically existent state of whatever comprises it at any given time. It is a sequence of such discrete and definitive states, altering at an extremely high speed, each degree of difference being vanishingly small.

    In trying, through all the quotes, to find your definition of physical existence/reality, I find:

    "Physical reality is formed of all the world's material objects, both substantial and non-substantial (e.g., electromagnetic, gravitational and other fields), as well as all motion processes and internal changes that happen with these objects"

    Now, there are several questions here, which can be boiled down to:

    1 What is an object? When is a dustbin, car, you, etc that object you are referring to? It alters, ie it is different, yet we still label it as being the same thing. Albeit we might say it has changed. But that is contradictory, because a difference is a difference. Physically, it is either one thing, or it is something else. In other words, there are no objects (except in the sense of whatever is the elementary substance(es)). What exists at any given time is the physically existent state of whatever comprises the reality, which is then superseded by the next state.

    2 Then one asks, what is 'non-substantial', 'a process', 'internal changes', in terms of reality. Because for something to be reality, it must have a physical presence. And once one starts defining that, as it occurs, in terms of physical state, then this problem disappears.

    I am not quite sure what your point is re consciousness, etc. However, none of this has anything to do with physical existence. It is independent of the mechanisms whereby it is detected, and existed before it was detected. Obviously, there must be something, so that it can then be detected (forget the detail that what is detected is a physically existent representation of what occurred). In other words, all considerations about measurement/whatever affecting reality are nonsense.

    Paul

      Dear John,

      Thank you very much for the nice comment and your appreciation.

      In my essay FQXI 2012 I gave essential (ontological) justification of the absolute form of existence of matter (absolute states): absolute rest, absolute motion and absolute becoming, as well as supporting such a representation in the form of simple mathematical objects.

      http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1362

      I build on the basis of ontological constracting - "Absolute generating structure." That is a mathematics and physics as the main sign systems am getting a hard ontological foundation. Those thus essentially (ontologically) detailed support two main sign systems - mathematics and physics. I solve this problem essential (ontological) justification of knowledge in general. Do you know what this problem is still not solved. Then I clear the nature of information and the time on the basis of a rigid foundation of the material world. Characters (digits - 0 and 1) - are mathematical representants of two absolute states of matter. At the phenomenological level, they can also be understood as a symbolic representation of the state of "openness" and "closed", "continuity" and "discrete".

      The absolute form of existence of matter (absolute state) reveal the essence of the concept of "space" as a space of absolute (unconditioned) states of matter and give it a new (ontological) understanding. This is the limit of matter and thought. Built tough "general framework structure" of fundamental knowledge, including physics and mathematics as a major sign systems. Thus we have the opportunity for a new way, based on the depth of the ontology and the dialectic of nature, to understand the category of "measure", as well as the concepts of "dimension" to understand ("grab") nature of such important concepts in physics and mathematics as " coordinate system ", see the structure of the" points ". Today in physics are introduced and additional measures introduced earlier without essential (ontological) foundation. «Absolute generating structure» gives a new way to look at the phenomena of generation and emergentation, the nature of the forces at all levels of the being of the world as a whole. The central concept of the new understanding of the world - Ontological (structural, cosmic) memory. Matter - is that from which everything is born (Plato), Ontological memory - this is what gives rise to all. That is the foundation of the physics of nature (Absolute generating structure - a "general framework structure"), which creates all the mathematics, and that is their framework and carcass.

      Best regards,

      Vladimir

      Hello Paul,

      Thank you for your thorough and insightful comment.

      In his last essay FQXi 2102 I uncovered the foundations of my concept.

      http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1362

      It is ontologically constructed and justified with absolute generating structure that represents the first (fundamental) the process of Nature. I assume that "form is the first entity" (Aristotle), and considering the absolute form of existence of matter (absolute state).

      1. The object I have only one - the Universe as a whole, "the self-aware Universe " (V.Nalimov), which includes all the state of the universe.

      2. The existence of all the objects (and subjects) I see in terms of just absolute forms of existence (absolute states): absolute rest (continual state), absolute motion (absolute whirlwind, discrete state) and absolute becoming (absolute wave as the transfer of states).

      3. Consciousness I see only as a "vector of consciousness." Consciousness is a vector quantity. "Vector" on - Latin - "bearing". He "mere/very" and it is "carrying". Its semantics in russian reveals more clearly its dialectical nature.

      Some physicists want to "kill the dragon" - time. But the dragon has three heads. Killing time they try to eliminate the memory (ontological) of the world picture. The world becomes poor meanings. "The meaning there is in what direction ..." (Heidegger).

      Before the "measure" should reveal the essence of the "measure» as «qualitative quantity " (Hegel). Understanding the "measures" lead to the understanding of "dimensions" of the world as a whole, and then the "dimensions" in physics. Therefore, the conclusions I have written about the need to develop a "General theory of measure."

      Best regards,

      Vladimir

      Vlad,

      Keep in mind that ontological and epistemic are a dichotomy, yin and yang, two sides of the same coin. Like energy/information, medium/message, discrete/continuous.

      It's easy to see that at its base, everything is ontological, in order to exist. The problem is picking apart what is epistemic and understanding how the contextuality makes it all possible. Ideals are an effort to distill the ontological back out of the epistemic, to inductively extract that deeper structure and definition, but a circle is not a square. There has to be definition and structure and perspective that is specific to it reality. Like I point out in my essay, if you combine all the colors, you just get one shade. In order to be able to paint a picture, you have to keep them separate, but connected.

      The ontological, the universal state, is purity, but then it lacks complexity.

      Hello Marcoen,

      Thank you very much for your question about «... a single eidos, represented by a simple mathematical object and representing the fundamental physical principles.»

      In my essay FQXI 2012 I gave essential (ontological) justification of the absolute form of existence of matter (absolute states): absolute rest, absolute motion and absolute becoming, as well as supporting such a representation in the form of simple mathematical objects.

      http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1362

      I build on the basis of ontological constracting - "Absolute generating structure." That is a mathematics and physics as the main sign systems, am getting a hard ontological foundation. Those thus essentially (ontologically) detailed support two main sign systems - mathematics and physics. I solve this problem essential (ontological) justification of knowledge in general.

      Three mathematical object (equilateral triangles), I group the invariants that represent three of the absolute state of matter, symmetrically to the center and get another ancient mathematical object called the Enneagram. But I interpret this object is not in the spirit of Gurdjieff, but ontologically as a mathematical representants absolute state of matter. The principle of symmetry of a lower order than the principle of the trinity, which I call Superprinsiple. In the world we observe symmetry and asymmetry, continuity and discontinuity, generation and conservation, the sources and sinks of matter. This object - Eidos-represents the "absolute idea" of Hegel and that mathematical object that wanted to construct Edmund Husserl: "Only to the extent, to which in case of idealization, the general content of spatio-temporal sphere is apodictically taken into account, which is invariant in all imaginable variations, ideal formation may arise, that will be clear in any future for all generations and in such form will be transferable by the tradition and reproducible in identical intersubjective sense "(«Origin of Geometry ").

      As for the formula, the formula may not represent the world as a whole. Formula - it clippings being of the world as a whole. Figuratively speaking, the formula - it is « a knife" by which the intellect "calculate" the world and its parts. The world as a whole can be represented as a character in the form of a simple mathematical object .

      I have already cited the words of Alexander Zenkin from the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics": «The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence. "

      http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

      In the russian version more clearly and distinctly: «The truth should be drawn and should be presented to "an unlimited circle" of spectators".

      This means seeking the truth on the basis of the conceptual - figure synthesis of Kant's whose origins in the method of Plato and his "Platonic Solids".

      Best regards,

      Vladimir

      Dear Valdimir,

      Here is a copy of the comment that I made to you on my forum page that you asked me to also leave on your page.

      Thank you for your agreement. I read your paper, so I can talk with you more intelligently. You have a good concept that understanding basic forms and that of which they are composed are very important steps to being able to understand them and the larger scale objects or forms of which they are members. I propose that you consider that the output of the dimensional structure, which is motion, is the true Delta-Logit or the base form from which all other entities are composed. If we start from the structure of a basic motion, the first thing that is obvious is that it is the generator of the basic increment. This can be observed in its continual incremental change in position. This change in position generates the concept of distance as the variation from one position to another position. Since all motions do not contain the same capability to change position, but one motion can change position faster than another motion which can be observed as one motion creating a larger distance while another simultaneous motion creates a smaller distance variation, the concept of variability of size is created. In order to compare motions that produce different simultaneous sizes of distance to each other the concept of time is created as a comparison of a given generated distance size to a standard distance size that is generated in some continuous cyclical fashion, such as the earth rotating on its axis or the vibrational frequency of some atom, etc. Because a motion travels in a straight line it generates the concept of past, present, and future. Where the motion is currently positioned is its present, where it was is its past, and the position to which it is headed is its future. Since all motions do not travel in the same path the concepts of direction and dimension are generated. Since all motions seem to have absolute limits of zero motion amplitude on one end and the speed of light on the other end, the concept of limit is generated. Since matter particles can be changed into energy photons and energy photons can be changed into simple linear motions, it is evident that everything that exists in the universe that is composed of energy or matter or any combinations of them is ultimately composed of motions. This means that motion is the basic form from which all other forms are created. In addition, motion is the mediator of all interaction between entities that exist in the universe. I hope this will be of help to you.

      As far as your request for me to evaluate your paper is concerned, I generally do not go into great detail doing that because I don't want to take the chance of unduly affecting the outcome of the contest as I am not competing for the prize as most are, but am just providing information for the growth and benefit of man to achieve the next necessary level of development, but since you asked, I will just say that you have some good ideas and insights into the current problems in math and physics, such as the lack of certainty, etc., but I recommend that you spend more time and space in your paper in fleshing out, explaining, and connecting the ideas into a coherent overall easily understood structure and spend less time and space showing the origin of all of them in other's works, etc. It is your original contribution from your viewpoint that will most likely win you the prize. Use the reference section to show the sources of important concepts that shaped any part of your understanding or that back up your presentation, etc. I hope that helps.

      In reading your comments to others it is apparent that you consider matter to be the most basic substance from which all things are constructed. Matter can be broken down into motion, however, so motion is a more basic substance than matter and is the basic substance of which energy photons and matter particles are composed.

      You also have come to the understanding that there must be some intelligence behind the universe that has guided it to produce the very complex structures such as living creatures, etc. that exist in it and the systems that allow for their survival, etc. and this is a very good insight. You seem to be attempting to attribute that intelligence to the universe itself thus the need for ontological memory. The problem with this approach is that the initial creation of the universe in such a way as to allow such intelligence to develop and to exist within it would also need to have been planned, executed, and guided by an intelligence. This intelligence could not have been the universe because it did not yet exist. Neither could an intelligence that was later created by the universe such as man, etc. have created the universe since it would not have existed at that time either. This leaves us with only the existence of a preexistent intelligence (God) who created and guided the development of the universe and all of its complexities to the point that we see it today.

      Again I hope these concepts help you to develop the complete theory of the universe that you are endeavoring to arrive at.

      Sincerely,

      Paul B.

        Vladimir

        1 Whether you refer to one 'object' or many is irrelevant. Reality, ie what is existent at any given time, ie the physically existent state of whatever comprises it. That can be expressed in terms of the entirety of physical existence, or all its component parts, at that time. In other words, how we conceive reality is ontologically incorrect, physically, the objects we refer to do not exist, they only appear to do so because we conceptualise them at a higher level, ie by superficial physical attributes.

        2 What is a "self aware universe"? And how do you know it is "self aware", since we cannot externalise ourselves from it?

        3 Which links to the next point. You write of "absolute". Now, you may not mean absolute, literally. But the point is that we can only be aware of what must be regarded as one possible form of existence, because we are enabled to be aware via certain physical processes (which is supplemented by hypothesis, which is, in effect, virtual sensing). We can never know the absolute. Simply, if A there is always the possibility of not-A. We can only establish the objective, ie what actually occurred, for us.

        4 Whether you see consciousness as a "vector", whatever that means, physically, is irrelevant. Physical existence occurs independently of the systems which enable awareness of it. Indeed, if there is any awareness, then it has, by definition, already occurred. Consciousness, etc, cannot affect physical existence (reality), which is why QM is wrong. Or put the other way around, if all sentient organisms were eliminated, physical existence would continue, there would just be no awareness of it. The extent to which any given output from the awareness process, ie a perception of reality, corresponds with reality, is a different matter.

        5 Time does not have 'three heads', even allegorically. There is no duration in a reality, because it is what is existent at any given time. A difference is a difference, not 'it is still the same but changed a little'. Any degree of difference means it is another reality, which is why I state there are, physically, no such things as what we refer to as objects. There is only one discrete, definitive, physically existent state at a time (which is another reason QM, and relativity, is wrong). It is then succeeded by another, and the former ceases to exist, etc, ie it is existential sequence. Time therefore refers to the rate of change, ie the turnover rate of realities. It is associated with a feature of the difference between realities, not of them. It may be that some elementary components do not alter as quickly as others.

        Paul

        Hello Paul,

        Thank you for your thorough and detailed commentary.

        I looked completely your answer and did not find it the concepts of "structure", "form", "information", "state". Namely, these are the key concepts and provide an opportunity to answer the questions of the current contest FQXi:

        «What IS information? What is its relation to "Reality"?

        How does nature (the universe and the things therein) "store" and "process" information?

        How does understanding information help us understand physics, and vice-versa?»

        I set the task to find the answers to these questions and given his understanding of information, its nature and its "place" in the film world, has introduced new concepts, primarily the "Ontological memory."

        Now for your questions.

        1. Understand the nature of the information is possible only if we consider the world as a whole, ie see the task through the phenomena of nature and justify ontological structure of the world, ie construct a fundamental (essential) the structure of the Universe ("general framework structure"), and to understand why it works, where does the "force", "energy" generated by the new structure? The disintegration of the whole into parts ("objects") does not provide such an opportunity, and it showed the development of physics, which is forced to come to the inclusion of the concept of "information" as a key to the fundamental world view. Russian word "structure" (с-трое-ние) is semantically more specific and succinct. It essentially provides an answer to the fundamental structure of the world, "with-three." That is, based on the main principle of the world (Superprinсiple) - trinity absolute (unconditioned) forms of existence of matter. And I showed and proved in the previous essay FQXi 2012 http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1362

        The problem of understanding the nature of the information that the founding fathers threw absolute rest of matter as a fundamental mode of existence of matter from the picture of the world. Ontological Revolution Planck-Einstein remained unfinished.

        2. "The universe is aware of itself" (Basil Nalimov) - a universe in which our consciousness with you is a necessary element and the purpose of its evolution.

        3. Absolute (absolute) motion since the time of Aristotle - a circular motion. And we know for sure, of course.

        4. Introducing the concept of "vector of consciousness" justified all historical development of philosophy. Intention (from Lat. Intentio), scholastic term philosophy, indicating the intention, purpose, direction of consciousness, thinking on the subject. Thomas Aquinas considered the intention of the concept, derived from the work of intelligence. According to Occam "intention" is universal as the result of an act of comprehension. The intention of the intellect is compared with the "intelligible form" (the idea), since it shows the mind to comprehend the object. I had no problem considering the concept of "consciousness" and "quantum mechanics". The concept of "vector consciousness" provides an opportunity to build graphically the fundamental structure of the world on the basis of Kant's ideas of concept- figure synthesis, whose origins in the "Platonic Solids".

        5. The metaphor of "a dragon with three heads" I used to show that the phenomenon of time (including all three of his modus) has its roots in the category of "ontological memory" - a key category of the fundamental structure of the world ("reality") as a whole over the levels of its being. Modes of time display fundamental structure of the world - "vertical", that is, its hierarchy. The essence of modes time revealed good Augustine of Hippo, "Modes of time: past, present, future." http://www.chronos.msu.ru/quotations/systemquot5.html

        Once again, thank you very much for your comment!

        Best regards,

        Vladimir

        Dear Paul,

        Almost agree with everything except:

        «... So motion is a more basic substance than matter and is the basic substance of which energy photons and matter particles are composed.»

        The movement, the rest and the becoming of the matter is the basic structure of the world and that it gives rise to new structures. A key concept - "matter", then the dialectic of coincidence of opposites (rest and movement) and the becoming of matter, ie, manifestation of its forms in the phenomenon of "energy", "particles", "photons" and their "movement."

        Intelligence in the Universe appears through the action of the Absolute generating structure, which is evident at all levels of existence as an ontological (structural) memory in the phenomenon of information, and at the highest level - the phenomenon of consciousness.

        I'm not talking about who created the Universe, I see only its fundamental (ontological) structure, which is based on the concepts of "matter" and "ontological memory." Matter - is that from which everything is generated (Plato), the ontological memory - this is what creates and maintains all.

        I think the problem now is not to develop a "complete theory", and in the development and justification of "general framework structure", which will be the foundation of knowledge. Version of such a structure I gave last essay of 2012 and developing in this essay.

        Best regards,

        Vladimir

        Hi Vladimir,

        Thank you for your comments on my essay. I left an answer to your question on my blog.

        I read your essay and I think that we agree on a few things, especially the Universe as a whole and the ontological memory.

        I understand why you want to use your delta-logit to store the information (your ontological memory) but I believe there is simpler way if you consider that the Universe is just a growing 3D information sphere and that the 3rd dimension is both space and time. That way, past/present/future information co-exist in the sphere (the Universe as a whole). I don't want to expand on it here, but if you are interested, you can find out more in my 3D Universe Theory.

        Good luck with the contest !

        Cheers,

        Patrick

          Hi Patrick,

          Thank you very much for your valuable comment! I agree that the principle of simplicity, the key to physics. I've already started reading the articles on your site. Thank you very much, very original ideas!

          Good luck with the contest!

          Cheers,

          Vladimir

          Dear Vladimir,

          I enjoyed reading your essay and I appreciated the strong philosophical bias. Your conclusion 6: "Development of Physics of Information requires further development of ..., General Theory of Interactions, ... as fundamental to expanding the scope of fundamental sign systems" put a link to my essay where I introduce "information" as a substantial element of nature.

          Kind regards,

          Antoine.

            Dear Vladimir,

            I noticed that it seems that some or all of the posts that were made on August 1 and maybe some from July 31 have somehow disappeared from at least some peoples contest pages. In order to try to do what I can to reconstruct them I am resending the posts that I made on those dates if I see them missing. The following is the only post that I made during that period on your page.

            When I said that motion is a more basic substance than matter, I was talking about structural order. An energy photon is composed of two basic motions and a matter particle is composed of three basic motions. A matter particle can be changed into an energy photon by transferring one of its motions (its fifth dimensional motion) into its fourth dimensional motion and an energy photon can be changed into a simple motion by transferring its fourth dimensional motion into the lower three dimensions. In this way motion is the more basic substance because it is the substance from which energy photons and matter particles are made. The fourth dimensional motion gives both energy photons and matter particles their frequency, wavelength, and variable mass effects. The fifth dimensional motion causes a photon to take a three dimensional curved path that encloses back upon itself that changes its straight line motion at the speed of light into a cyclical enclosed path motion that we call a matter particle. The angular motion component of this three dimensional curved enclosed path motion generates the matter particle's static mass effect. These things are explained in more detail in my other contest papers and comments on this site. Although the motion within the enclosed path is always moving very fast, the path itself can be at rest, so the matter particle can be at rest. The enclosed path can also be made to move so that the matter particle can be in motion in three dimensional space.

            I used to believe in evolution, but after a thorough evaluation I have concluded that it is mostly a myth, so I have no need to think about absolute or self generating structures, etc. Sub-energy particles can go through interactions that change them into energy photons and the photons can become matter particles via interactions and matter particles can also be changed into energy photons and the energy photons can also be changed into sub-energy particles during interactions, but these are just normal outcomes of interactions and not creation of something from nothing or even creation of new things by some type of duplication or generative process. The total amount of motion is always conserved and remains the same, so nothing really new is generated. It is just a process of conversion from one motion structure to another one. The motions are just moved to different places in the dimensional system. These changes take place according to specific rules of operation and interaction of the particles. This does show intelligence, but it is recorded intelligence that can only operate in the way that it was made or programmed to operate. This is much like a program in a computer that can control processes in a manufacturing plant. It has no ability to do anything that it was not programmed to do. There are many similar types of preprogrammed process structures that exist in the universe and learning about them and learning how to control them has been one of the greatest benefits to man from the use of scientific investigation. These structures do indicate that they were created by an intelligent being, but that being could not be or be a part of the universe because some of these processes were brought into existence much too early in the creation of the universe to allow time for any intelligence to possibly have formed before them and then to have created them. Moreover, if there was such an intelligence in existence powerful enough to generate such processes on a universal scale, it would still be generating new processes and we would be seeing major changes in the way the world operates happening around us, but we don't see such changes in operations or any new types of operations being formed, etc. These preprogrammed processes are generally stored in the structures that they affect. As an example, when two matter particles interact the outcome of the interaction is determined by the rules of interaction that are a part of the structures of the particles and the specific conditions of the internal motions within the particles (the motions' positions and phasing with each other, etc. that are variables that feed the interaction) at the point of interaction.

            I am afraid Plato did not know about fourth and fifth vector structuring concepts, but I don't hold that against him he did well with the limited information that he had at that time. Now in the light of more information it would be more correct to say "motion is that from which everything is generated" except that the motion was also introduced into the universe by the one who made it.

            If you need more detailed information about these things you can read my other contest papers and comments on this site. I hope this is helpful to you.

            Sincerely,

            Paul B.

              Dear Vladimir,

              When I said that motion is a more basic substance than matter, I was talking about structural order. An energy photon is composed of two basic motions and a matter particle is composed of three basic motions. A matter particle can be changed into an energy photon by transferring one of its motions (its fifth dimensional motion) into its fourth dimensional motion and an energy photon can be changed into a simple motion by transferring its fourth dimensional motion into the lower three dimensions. In this way motion is the more basic substance because it is the substance from which energy photons and matter particles are made. The fourth dimensional motion gives both energy photons and matter particles their frequency, wavelength, and variable mass effects. The fifth dimensional motion causes a photon to take a three dimensional curved path that encloses back upon itself that changes its straight line motion at the speed of light into a cyclical enclosed path motion that we call a matter particle. The angular motion component of this three dimensional curved enclosed path motion generates the matter particle's static mass effect. These things are explained in more detail in my other contest papers and comments on this site. Although the motion within the enclosed path is always moving very fast, the path itself can be at rest, so the matter particle can be at rest. The enclosed path can also be made to move so that the matter particle can be in motion in three dimensional space.

              I used to believe in evolution, but after a thorough evaluation I have concluded that it is mostly a myth, so I have no need to think about absolute or self generating structures, etc. Sub-energy particles can go through interactions that change them into energy photons and the photons can become matter particles via interactions and matter particles can also be changed into energy photons and the energy photons can also be changed into sub-energy particles during interactions, but these are just normal outcomes of interactions and not creation of something from nothing or even creation of new things by some type of duplication or generative process. The total amount of motion is always conserved and remains the same, so nothing really new is generated. It is just a process of conversion from one motion structure to another one. The motions are just moved to different places in the dimensional system. These changes take place according to specific rules of operation and interaction of the particles. This does show intelligence, but it is recorded intelligence that can only operate in the way that it was made or programmed to operate. This is much like a program in a computer that can control processes in a manufacturing plant. It has no ability to do anything that it was not programmed to do. There are many similar types of preprogrammed process structures that exist in the universe and learning about them and learning how to control them has been one of the greatest benefits to man from the use of scientific investigation. These structures do indicate that they were created by an intelligent being, but that being could not be or be a part of the universe because some of these processes were brought into existence much too early in the creation of the universe to allow time for any intelligence to possibly have formed before them and then to have created them. Moreover, if there was such an intelligence in existence powerful enough to generate such processes on a universal scale, it would still be generating new processes and we would be seeing major changes in the way the world operates happening around us, but we don't see such changes in operations or any new types of operations being formed, etc. These preprogrammed processes are generally stored in the structures that they affect. As an example, when two matter particles interact the outcome of the interaction is determined by the rules of interaction that are a part of the structures of the particles and the specific conditions of the internal motions within the particles (the motions' positions and phasing with each other, etc. that are variables that feed the interaction) at the point of interaction.

              I am afraid Plato did not know about fourth and fifth vector structuring concepts, but I don't hold that against him he did well with the limited information that he had at that time. Now in the light of more information it would be more correct to say "motion is that from which everything is generated" except that the motion was also introduced into the universe by the one who made it.

              If you need more detailed information about these things you can read my other contest papers and comments on this site. I hope this is helpful to you.

              Sincerely,

              Paul B.

                Dear Antoine,

                Thank you very much for your comment and link. Be sure to read your essay and give your comments. Yes, that's right, "General Theory of Interactions" to deepen further with the new ideas of the century information revolution.

                Best regards,

                Vladimir

                Dear Paul,

                Many thanks for the profound and important for me to comment! You have a very interesting concept and I have to get to know her more deeply. Yes, the way the truth is different, but time will put everything in its place.

                Best regards,

                Vladimir