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

      Hi Chidi,

      You have presented a very interesting set of ideas, along with an insightful perspective. I want to pick up on one in particular:

      > Put differently, in your present context as the participant observer per se, you cannot possibly differentiate between Higgs fields for it is something you may only BE, it is not a situation you may observe. Our idea here of Higgs field is as the observer proper or "phase-space" or wave speed h0 i.e. as the conservation law or simply conserved current of Noether's theorem vis-à-vis observables as the continuous symmetry. Our idea of Higgs particle is as the wave front h0, so then the wavelets (Eh) emerge from its dynamics.

      In my essay Software Cosmos I make a distinction between "explicate" space (that observers can measure) and "implicate" space (that they cannot). Yet it is within implicate space that dynamics occurs.

      I would be most curious what you think of my construction for implicate space, and whether you find similarities with your own thinking.

      Hugh

        Dear Chidi

        (Google translate)

        I understood the essence of your essay. You want to simplify access to the wave functions. You indicated that the formula 4 which is important to me also. Maybe it's a connection between our approaches. As a meteorologist I know very little about the wave functions. But it is certain that Qbit opposite of the Bit. If you look Taijitu symbol, we can write inside /Bit, it, Qbit and light/ I guess. What do you think?

        You said:

        The singular and simplest claim (or prediction) one can make based on the data indicated by equation (1) is that man h0 is to be the effective Planck constant,

        (or Newtonian constant, or Einsteins etc indeed the effective universal constant or

        I think that it can not be Newtonian constant, or Einsteins.

        Your thesis if you realise them can be anather half of reality.

        My half is matter.

        I alredy rate you on 21. Jul

        Nice your essay by the way!

        Best wishes,

        Branko

          Dear Marcoen,

          I want to thank you very much. I do need to be more literal and leave no gap to imaginations. That is full rigor.

          Like I said am going to get back to you on this in due course via some other address.

          Wishing you all the best,

          Chidi

          Dear Hugh,

          Thank you for reading my essay. I can immediately see a general similarity from what you have just said. I will read you essay and get back to you at your blog.

          Regards,

          Chidi

          Dear Branko,

          Thank you for reading my essay ahead of my inquiry, I forgot it has a life of its own now. I will be at your blog.

          Regards,

          Chidi

          Dear Chidi:

          I was trying to understand your axioms but somehow I am missing the point. There seem to be too many notions that remain undefined.

          All the best in the contest.

          Cheers

          Olaf