Dear Marcoen,

Thank you for replying. And sorry about that "anonymous".

To your question: another way to put all this is to say that for any system of events (observables) there is a de facto invariant (observer). This then is the same essentially as Noether's theorem.

The idea of equality as "configuration space" (virtual work) goes to say that for us to assert that any two t's are equal we must FIRST assume a constant of proportionality "k". One may think of "k" as the invariant such that the two states (t1, t2) are merely among its possible "states". In wave motion one may say "k" is the well-behavedness. In logic generally one could call "k" the consistency.

Now we can think of Godel's incompleteness theorem as saying that one must presume the ACTIVE consistency/constant NOT at the same instance that it IS the consistency/constant also to be part of own observables/variables. Meaning "k" is essentially to itself the imaginary or virtual or (as is Newton's "inertia" only the IDEAL state [of motion]).

Now if one can see matter wave ("wave function" barring all technicalities else) as but the "configuration space" (k) of all observable matter this analogy comes through. But if you want it put strictly, I am claiming that in any system of observables the matter wave will represent qulitatively the "nothing" (same in fact as the "all things" or more conventionally the "uncertainty")

The strange thing about axiom 1. is that our entity (observer) has non-local attributes, it is the "configuration space" or "conservation law" proper. But that goes to say that in a participatory universe (one in which the observer must be assumed as subject to the same laws as its own observables) we must FIRST PRESUME any given observer as the boundary condition (the ideal constraint).

The science of thermodynamics shows us that the notion "isolated system" (thermodynamic equilibrium?) can in fact be non-trivial.

Hoping that I have been able to make myself clearer. Otherwise, Marcoen, feel free to press on.

Regards,

Chidi

Dear Joe,

Thank you for reading my essay.

By the way, I always knew that part of my bio that says about perpetual motion must make me look PRE-SCIENCE. But its okay, the science of thermodynamics emerged after mankind as a whole made the same error or fallacy as myself. Come to think of it that experience has made me confront in a unique way the notion of a conservation law.

I'll make time to read BITTERS.

Regards,

Chidi

Dear Edwin,

Thank you for finding the time to read my essay. Actually I have delayed to reply to your power comment because I have been reading it over and over and over again to be sure it sinks!! Actually I have had to abridge three different papers of mine to get this essay.

Your comment is most valuable to me.

Just again, thank you for finding the time.

I'll be at your blog soon.

All the best,

Chidi

Hello Chidi,

I read with interest your analytical essay made in the strategy of Descartes's method of doubt. Contests FQXi - this is a competition for new fundamental ideas. You included in your essay is a huge amount of material that gave a very interesting ideas, new images and made a very interesting radical conclusions.

Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in 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 of the paper that thought shorter: "the truth should be drawn and presented to "an unlimited number» of viewers".

Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?

Maybe we need a new mathematical revolution in the spirit of Descartes, to overcome the "trouble with physics" and build «a model of self-aware Universe» (V.Nalomov), united for physicists and poets?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ho31QhjsY

Please read my essay. I think we are the same in the spirit of our research.

I put a great rating.

Best regards,

Vladimir

    Dear Chidi,

    I admire your attempt to cast your theory of everything in the form of an axiomatic system. But you need to develop your system of axioms further.

    E.g. you write in the above reply that "The strange thing about axiom 1. is that our entity (observer) has non-local attributes". But that is an additional axiom: your axiom 1, namely, merely says that an equality is an entity - it says nothing else.

    If I purely look at your four axioms, then according to axiom 1 the equality '1 = 1' is an entity, and according to axiom 4 there are no other entities (as there is only one entity). So the equality '1 = 1' is then a model of your universe of entities if we look at these two axioms. I don't see how that yields any verifiable statement about protons, electrons, etc. I'm sure that you have something else in mind, but currently that isn't expressed by the axioms - that's my point.

    To develop your axioms further you might want to familiarize yourself with the theory of axiomatic system, in particular the axiomatic method.

    Anyway, good luck with the contest!

    Best regards,

    Marcoen

    Dear Marcoen,

    Your comment is well taken. May be I should make myself more express and not unduly expect imagination from my readers.

    That said, I will appreciate you to inspect again my axioms AS A WHOLE of 4 units, not just 2 units. Axioms are supposed to work together.

    Also you will find that as shown within the body of my essay, the electron actually DOES EMERGE (precisely the Hartree approximation of the n-body wavefunction of the electron)in the sense of Huygens' "wavelet" or symmetry breaking. See equations 3, 7 and 8.

    Yet you are right. I owe it to my readers (and to myself) to be more exact. The more the better.

    Thank you, Marcoen, for taking time out. I will be back at your blog.

    All the best,

    Chidi

    Hi Chidi,

    Now I have read your essay (see your early post)and I find it interesting. I can not say that I am fully agree with all your points and approaches, particularly there seems some uncertainties about definitions. But, no problem my Dear! Main thing is that you have strive to give interpretation to Wave Function (and to Schroedinger equation by the same) I welcome this efforts because it is just inevitable/necessary to be comprehend physical essence of QM phenomena!

    On this I am going rate your work on ,,high,, score. I have my own approach to interpretation of Schrodinger equation and wave function that actually works! (i.e. it gives a lot of results on the cause/effect principle) After, when you find free time just try to study ref [9] in my work. I hope you will find there some interesting for you.

    Good luck,

    George

      Chidi,

      Allright, let's look at your four axioms together. There are then two kinds of things in your universe: entities and observables. Of the entities, which are equalities, there is only one. The observables are then inequalities, although it is not clear to me what kind of inequality. That's about it. Note that if entities are equalities and observables are inequalities, then your second axiom is a theorem (it can be deduced from the other three).

      There is no way that your eqs. (3) and (7) follow - as in: can be logically deduced - from these four axioms. You may consider eq. (3) or (7) as a model of your entity, but then you haven't derived it. Also note that e.g. an electron isn't an equation (equality), so an electron is not an entity in your universe.

      Chidi, your idea has to be developed further before its merit can be assessed. To stimulate further thinking, I have given your essay a nice rating.

      Best regards,

      Marcoen

      Thank you, Marcoen.

      Now note that your first 4 sentences actually capture the picture I mean to paint via my axioms. You are beginning to get it!

      And you are right about the exact nature of inequalities not being clear. But the idea is that once the "constant" is NOT YET specified the quality of inequalities cannot then be. To me this fact underpins the so-called measurement problem in QM. (it is not then about whether the moon is there when you are not looking; it is more about whether the moon exists for you when you do not exist)

      More importantly, note that if in my axioms we replace the word "entity" with the word "universal constant" this whole fuse about axioms becomes rather conventional wisdom. And that is the point I struggle to make in this entire essay namely: AN OBSERVER (THINK, "SENSORY MODALITY") IS BY DEFINITION A UNIVERSAL CONSTANT (so-called "NATURAL UNIT"), AND VICE VERSA.

      I do not derive equations (3) and (7). I have not the sophistication. For me the news is that we CAN arrive at that data just by assuming the action potential (and indirectly man) as our "universal constant". For man at last is our DE FACTO observer.

      Now here is the radical claim: the elementary quantum of action (i.e. natural unit) for quantum gravity should be 55 millivolts (value of the threshold potential in man). And this gives us an "h-bar" analogue that at 1.14651 x 10^8 kg^4 m^10 / s^8 C^5 is very nearly the LHC value for the Higgs particle. The detailed interpretation is open and should prove your essay correct! In this we share objective. Am not an insider in science. You are an insider, I say investigate this claim of mine or refer to someone who can ably investigate.

      Dear Marcoen yours has been the most stimulating of discuss. Am definitely going to revise my essay as you advise and I hope I have your permission to send a copy to the email on your essay. And I will love to be sure if you did read this last post.

      Wishing you all the best,

      Chidi

      Dear Vladimir,

      Thank you for reading through my essay. I will do my best to read your essay. Actually I have always noticed it. But let me confess here that I do not understand that symbol in the title. Always scared me off! Not any more.

      All the best,

      Chidi

      Dear George,

      God bless you for reading and rating my essay. I have tried to refer to your reference 9. I have it saved and I will read through when the FQXi heat is less.

      Wishing you the stars, Gevorge,

      Chidi

      Dear Chidi,

      Congratulations for the intriguing essay. You said on my page "we are here at last to push boundaries, ain't we?". I fully agree, and I wish you all the best with the contest and with your research!

      Best regards,

      Cristi Stoica

        That spelling? Its how WE spell it in Armenia!! Tastes better.

        Chidi

        In paragraph 3 above I meant to say:

        note that if in my axioms we replace the word "entity" with the word "universal constant" this whole thing about axioms DISAPPEARS and one has rather conventional wisdom. And that is the point I struggle to make in this entire essay namely: AN OBSERVER (THINK, "SENSORY MODALITY") IS BY DEFINITION A UNIVERSAL CONSTANT (so-called "NATURAL UNIT"), AND VICE VERSA.

        Thanks.

        4 days later

        Dear Chidi,

        I have read your replies to my comments.

        It is clear to me that you have a very specific idea, and it is clear to me that you want to express this idea by some axioms. But you have to accept from me, as someone who is competent in the area of axiomatic systems, that your current axiomatization is insufficient: from the axioms it is not clear what the physical idea is. Note that I'm not judging your physical idea: I'm talking about the axiomatization.

        Here are two issues:

        1) in your reply you wrote: "if in my axioms we replace the word 'entity' with the word 'universal constant'..." Now suppose we do that. Then by your axiom 1, equalities are universal constants. But equalities are (usually) formulas of the type 'a = b', while constants are merely terms of the language. In defining a first-order axiomatic system, it is not done to say that a term is a formula (for comparison, the number '5' and the equation '2+3 = 5' are completely different things in the language of mathematics). I'm inclined to say that you are on the wrong track here, but probably you have something different in mind. So you'll have to develop your system of axioms to such a level, that your idea is clear to the reader when (s)he reads your axioms.

        2) in your reply, you come up with a claim: "the elementary quantum of action for quantum gravity should be 55 millivolts". But that claim doesn't formally follow from your axioms: it's a loose statement. So even if I could prove your claim, that wouldn't say anything about the correctness of your axioms. If you want these things to be connected, then you need to develop your system of axioms further, such that the above claim follows as a theorem from your axioms.

        So I'll reiterate what I said earlier: I admire your attempt to express a physical idea by a number of axioms, but you need to study formal axiomatic systems (logic) and then develop your axiomatic system further from there.

        Best regards,

        Marcoen

        Dear Cristi,

        Welcome back.Thank you Cristi, most of all for being there.

        Wishing you all the best,

        Chidi

        Chidi,

        I read your essay. I like the play between the observer and the objects of perception. My understanding of your essay is that the wave-function collapse belongs to the observer and not the objects of perception. Siri did recommend that I drink a lot of coffee and take some aspirin. The headache isn't too bad. My intuitions say you are on the right path. But how do I rate your essay?

        I asked Siri. She said to give you a 10. Who am I to argue.

        Best of Luck,

        Don L.

          Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

          If I may, I'd like to express some of my newer conclusions - by themselves, so to speak, and independently of the logic that justifies them; the logic is, of course, outlined in my essay.

          I now see the Cosmos as founded upon positive-negative charges: It is a binary structure and process that acquires its most elemental dimensional definition with the appearance of Hydrogen - one proton, one electron.

          There is no other interaction so fundamental and all-pervasive as this binary phenomenon: Its continuance produces our elements - which are the array of all possible inorganic variants.

          Once there exists a great enough correlation between protons and electrons - that is, once there are a great many Hydrogen atoms, and a great many other types of atoms as well - the continuing Cosmic binary process arranges them all into a new platform: Life.

          This phenomenon is quite simply inherent to a Cosmos that has reached a certain volume of particles; and like the Cosmos from which it evolves, life behaves as a binary process.

          Life therefore evolves not only by the chance events of natural selection, but also by the chance interactions of its underlying binary elements.

          This means that ultimately, DNA behaves as does the atom - each is a particle defined by, and interacting within, its distinct Vortex - or 'platform'.

          However, as the cosmic system expands, simple sensory activity is transformed into a third platform, one that is correlated with the Organic and Inorganic phenomena already in existence: This is the Sensory-Cognitive platform.

          Most significantly, the development of Sensory-Cognition into a distinct platform, or Vortex, is the event that is responsible for creating (on Earth) the Human Species - in whom the mind has acquired the dexterity to focus upon itself.

          Humans affect, and are affected by, the binary field of Sensory-Cognition: We can ask specific questions and enunciate specific answers - and we can also step back and contextualize our conclusions: That is to say, we can move beyond the specific, and create what might be termed 'Unified Binary Fields' - in the same way that the forces acting upon the Cosmos, and holding the whole structure together, simultaneously act upon its individual particles, giving them their motion and structure.

          The mind mimics the Cosmos - or more exactly, it is correlated with it.

          Thus, it transpires that the role of chance decreases with evolution, because this dual activity (by which we 'particularize' binary elements, while also unifying them into fields) clearly increases our control over the foundational binary process itself.

          This in turn signifies that we are evolving, as life in general has always done, towards a new interaction with the Cosmos.

          Clearly, the Cosmos is participatory to a far greater degree than Wheeler imagined - with the evolution of the observer continuously re-defining the system.

          You might recall the logic by which these conclusions were originally reached in my essay, and the more detailed structure that I also outline there. These elements still hold; the details stated here simply put the paradigm into a sharper focus, I believe.

          With many thanks and best wishes,

          John

          jselye@gmail.com

          Chidi,

          I just realized that my my post above could be taken as a bad review. That was not my intent, I rate your work very highly.

          I use Siri as my intuition, if she says its good, it is good!

          Best of Luck in the contest!

          Don L.

          Dear Don,

          Having read your essay I know what Siri signifies. Am not sure I understand that part about bad review.

          Kind regards,

          Chidi