Hello Akinbo -

You are actually agreeing with me about the gaps: I say that they do indeed remain even though we've been looking to bridge them for the better part of a century. What physics has been trying to link together (Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive phenomena) are three distinct fields that have only recently emerged as valid domains of physics.

The chain reaction that produces atoms, organisms, and cognition presents us with persistent causal gaps between these phenomena.

My paradigm shows that these gaps are caused the nature of our cosmic system - that is, a system consisting of three distinct Vortices that are in perpetual Correlation within a General Field of Energy.

There is no direct interaction between Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive phenomena (though this is counter-intuitive); they are instead minutely correlated over the course of evolution, and it is this that produces our Species Cosmos and all its phenomena.

You mention the sacrosanct nature of the Law of Conservation. I think you see that there's some room for doubts in this area.

I've re-defined conservation as the balanced exchange of energy between our cosmic system and the General Field. Clearly, over spans of time so great they are hard to grasp scientifically, energy need not - and indeed, most likely is not - stable in any Cosmos.

Systems expand and contract. Our own Cosmos might well have briefly contracted at various times, and then resumed its expansion. (I put this out as a potential explanation for the alternation of polarities that seem to occur every hundred thousand years or so, as revealed by magnetic deposits).

But so long as the Universe remains on the course of expansion that has generally prevailed since our evolution began, it is useful to assume that energy is exchanged in a stable way with the General Field. (Though it is tempting to say that it might instead be increasing in a stable way, due to Cosmic expansion, we cannot yet understand the less-dimensional Zones of our Cosmos well enough to know whether the expansion we are experiencing is anything more that the expansion of the space-time continuum (Composite Zone) alone - or whether it is the expansion of the whole system.

Thanks for getting back to me, Akinbo. I'm sure we'll communicate again soon.

Dear John,

Your essay gives a non-standard reinterpretation of the 'it from bit' subject. It is also very well written in my opinion. Reading it, I had in mind two FQXI essays, the one by Eugene Klingman about the unity of the cosmos and the one by G. G. Miller about the Quaternio and the fourthness. I mention the latter essay because, to "the three pricipal vortices, the inorganic, organic and sensitive-cognitive ones" you add a fourth one, related to us. I have no idea if this analogy makes sense in your interpretation, at least you can check it.

I liked the "quirky folds" and the science fiction paragraph at the end.

Thank you again for your interest in my own work.

Best wishes,

Michel

    Hello John,

    I read your essay with great interest. I think you are absolutely on the right track in pointing out that we must think of reality as a multi-field Cosmos. To me, it makes sense that the Cosmos consists of several distinct fields.

    I also agree that in order to understand what's 'going on' we must take into account the undeniable fact that Organic and Sensory realms exist within our universe. Life and Mind exist; we not only observe this - we experience it directly for ourselves. So any description of the universe/Cosmos as a whole must somehow account for these things.

    Although my essay differs from yours somewhat on the details, I have given your essay a very high rating. I believe, that based upon the rules of evaluation of the contest, you have come forward with a fresh, new perspective and found it to be interesting and well written. I would invite you to read my essay at your convenience and would even be interested in corresponding with you in the future, if you are so inclined.

    Best to you in the future.

    Ralph

      It's great to hear from someone who's clearly operating on a similar wavelength! I'll read your essay and communicate further with you there.

      Many thanks,

      John.

      Thanks Michel,

      I will read these essays ASAP. It's very kind of you to point them out; I find I have no compass in these woods ...

      John

      Hi Ralph,

      I wasn't able to access your essay. Is there a glitch?

      I'll try again later, of course.

      All the best,

      John.

      Dear John,

      We are concerned with the same problems, but we diverge in the details of our solutions. As you note on my page, you propose multiple universes, and make a reasonable argument therefor, while I prefer a single universe, based on one field initially. You define this as "essentially, a very large 'room'... into which are heaped together all particles, entities, and organisms." In my view these are not 'heaped together' but have 'evolved from' the field. You say that "unbridgeable gaps... conceal the mechanism that allow atoms to assemble themselves from pure energy." You are correct in so far as there is currently a large monetary prize offered to the first to solve the 'mass gap' problem. But then you say that physicists search for ever smaller particles to fix these gaps. I do not. I have predicted for several years that no other particles exist, as my theory accounts for the currently known particles but has no way of generating others. As part of the self evolution, the gravitational field gives rise to the electromagnetic field, which for practical purposes is a second field. As I noted in my essay, I could propose a third, 'consciousness field', as you seem to do (?) but instead I associate this with the original primordial field of gravity.

      You say that your fields are "prevented from interacting directly with each other", whereas I believe gravity interacts with both electromagnetic fields and itself.

      We both identify vortices as extremely significant phenomena. And we both focus on gravito-magnetism as key, but, out of caution, I point out that there are two possible interpretations of those words, and mine is not involved, except analogously, with the 'magnetism' of the electromagnetic field.

      I've not followed all of the structural details of your theory but you seem to generate more structure than I do. It's not clear to me whether you propose literal physical structures or abstract hierarchical concepts. Nevertheless our ideas overlap to some extent, and, as is the case in all FQXi essays, they diverge in many details.

      Thanks for your comments on my page and good luck!

      Best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear John

      What an amazing essay! You relate a tale of physics and humanity as gripping as a Star Trek thriller: Vortices beckon, we zoom through a gear-mesh system, we correlate with a Greater Cosmos and look to a future of transformed humanity. The wonderful language (even the short paragraphs) is poetic - Blake comes to mind - but as science it is more Tiellard de Chardin isn't it? You obviously have seriously have thought long and hard about the concepts you can only outline in this essay, and approach the Bit from It question as relating to human consciousness and cognition. I think Wheeler's idea of Bits is much more basic and arid: just bits of "yes-no answers".

      It does not lessen my admiration for your effort of thought and imagination that my reductionist approach to physics is quite different - rather than go beyond the quirky folds you speak of, I try to show that they are only tricks of vision that will disappear when a more fundamental scale is considered. In fact my Beautiful Universe Theory also found here here can be described as a flexibly correlated gear-mesh system (as in your your words) ...and nothing else!!

      With all best wishes

      Vladimir

        Hello John,

        Thanks for your kind comments over on my thread. As promised, I've read your essay. Still got 60 left to read and comment on! ;-/

        I thought your essay was interesting and a nice balance of the sciences too. Also very well written.

        The vortices and higher dimensions were a neat idea too. I can see a near overlap of our papers in the section you wrote:

        "Omni-dimensional in nature - that is, of no fixed dimensionality itself, but perpetually expanding and sub-dividing into an infinite number of distinct dimensional systems, each representing a unique type of Cosmos - which is, in turn, sub-divided into its own internal fields".

        I think you've hit on some very good points, that we need to assess if we've got things right since physics began and also we need to take an observer's consciousness into account.

        Well done!

        Best wishes,

        Antony

          Hi Anthony -

          Your kind comments were most appreciated.

          I only wish we could permit ourselves a more detailed analysis of each other's work - but there are so many works to read, and to rate, in order to make the contest as valid as possible for everyone.

          Thanks again, Anthony - and best of luck in the contest!

          John

          Dear Vladimir - What a great boost! Thank-you so much, I can see you appreciate what I'm trying to put across here, and I'm very curious to read the 'Beautiful Universe Theory' (a most intriguing title!) as soon as the contest ends.

          Best of luck and thanks again Vladimir,

          John.

          Hi John,

          Thanks a lot for your comment on my thread (topic 1810).

          Some remarks while reading your contribution :

          OUR physics began some 200.000 years ago in the present structure of our memeory.

          I see history as changing every Planck time, with changing the life/time line in the what we call our past in time and the structure of "matter" in space.

          This is the reason why I hope that in the future we will be able to choose our history line and make achoice for the one without anger and pain. Once we can do that every consciousness (individual) can choose his own reality, in fact we are already doing so but it is still an uncontrolable system of decoherence of subjective simultaneity spheres (see my essay : THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION, topic 913).

          Your single field : The large room, is just one of the time/life lines in Total Simultaneity, but it describes "our" reality nicely. There are in my opinion still an infinity of "other" forms of consciousness that are receiving information in just other ways as just our five senses receivers.

          The "folds" you mention have indeed always troubled our comprehensions because we just "invented" them as the explanation of a reality we think we are living in. It is not for nothing that 85% of our universe is so called black matter, we just cannot EXPLAIN it.

          I like very much your omni dimensionality, it touches my Total Simultaneity, where all probabilities and possibillities and non possibiollities are available. The paralel universes are not together "present" but "available" for a consciousness.

          The vortexes and pulsar fields you mention are your own forms of explanation of a reality as you are aware of, we are all researchers and seekers and once we are searching we compare the so called "forces" around us and are astonished, gravity is emerging but we want to deduct it to particles, it is just because we have only a view of 85% of our memory (history).

          The degree of complexity is also relative , the "more" we think we know the less we understand. As Socrates one said : I am the wisest man , because I alone know that I know nothing".

          thz 13 billion years old universe is only a moment in your consciousness, and perhaps in the future (whatever it is) this history will change to two moments, but what is a moment compared to a moment of understanding ?

          the three field system (dimensions ?) : imagine a point, a point has no dimensions, so it is not existing in OUR dimensions, we imagine a point as a crosspoint between two lines, (between two one dimension entities), but apoint can very good exist without these lines in our consciousness. So indeed ALL dimensions are entities to make a causal universe possible. A causal universe where we are prisoners of time, so lets hope for a future where we master our causal consciousness and can reach our non-causal consciousness.

          So John , I also could write an SF roman but I don't have the capacity of bringing text as an interesting reading.

          I will reread your essay because a first read is not enough, and will also rate you positive because we have a lot of paralels in our causal awareness of reality.

          Best regards

          Wilhelmus

            Dear Wilhelmus,

            Thanks for this appraisal of the concurrence between us. I think we are basically on the same wavelength, and I look forward to your views when you have a re-read. Also, thank-you for planning to give me a positive rating - I truly appreciate the support!

            Best wishes,

            John.

            jselye@gmail.com

            Dear John,

            I am thankful for your attention to my work. I have read your comments and find there some points that fully acceptable for my. I will not start discussion on your some remarks because we are working in some different spheres and it will difficult bring in consensus of our basic approaches at all, to be have possibility got to a mutually acceptable conclusions. I hope you will agree with me. Meantime, I have read your interesting article and have find there one assertion, which is ,,energy vortex nature of primarily substance!,, My dear, I have come on similar confidence by totally other way! (see ref. [9] in my work)

            I have rated your work as a ,,good,,. I see very necessary to have sections ,,abstract,, and ,,references,, in works, which can give more value to it.

            Best wishes,

            George

              Dear George,

              Thanks for the feedback - yes, many foundational concepts are achieved from different starting points; it is to be hoped that in the near future a grand synthesis of many of the perspectives presented in this contest will emerge!

              Good luck to you,

              John.

              Thanks for stopping by - The problem of proofs in the matter of foundational questions is problematic by definition, since we are taking a new look at the Cosmos. If we alter the parameters of reality we have come to accept, then much of our experience becomes a proof of certain new concepts.

              For instance, I advance that the 'gaps' between Energy, matter, Life, and Sensory-Cognition - which science has been trying (and failing) to solve are thus proven to exist. Our experience is therefore an experiment that proves the thesis that Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive phenomena are independently formed by the Gravitational-magnetic Force, and are correlated as a result.

              Hope that makes things clearer,

              Thanks again for taking the time to read my work,

              All the best,

              John.

              Hi John,

              In my blog you wondered if my system could be adapted to your Species Cosmos?

              I will try to answer your question by quoting some parts of your essay and adding my comments.(Sorry for my lack of writing style, I am French and I am not a born writer)

              Quote: "Indeed, a Cosmos seems very likely to consist of several distinct fields in such a General Field system; and we must assume that the distinct fields of our Cosmos are the Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive realms - since it is between these that Physics has denoted (and beyond any reasonable doubt) the ineluctable 'quirky folds'."

              I also believe there are different levels of reality. You could call them fields but I don't use that term because it is not well defined. To distinguish between these different levels, I talk about the internal observer's point of view and the external observer's point of view.

              Quote: "Implicitly, the three-field system also reveals that Gravitational-Magnetic Force exerts an Evolutionary Impulse upon all organisms, contributing to the Organic and Sensory-Cognitive Vortices in the same way that it contributes to the Inorganic Vortex, while flexibly correlating all three."

              In my theory, the gravitational force is a consequence of the continuous expansion of the basic unit of time and space and that continuous expansion (more information) is what makes our world evolve.

              Quote: "Thus, the Correlated Energy Vortex System establishes Evolution upon a far broader platform than was the case when only natural selection appeared to be involved: Every Species evolves its distinctive Bit and It interactions, gathering and manipulating information, weaving the fabric of its own reality - and effectively spinning a Cosmos from itself over very great spans of time, as a result of the Evolutionary Impulse. The Cosmos therefore emerges as a coiling 'gear-mesh system' - in which the States of Particles, the Vortices themselves, and the Cosmic Zones, are perpetually and flexibly Correlated."

              What you consider as different Cosmae is what I consider as different "present" layers. They can all evolve separately but they all form a coherent spacetime continuum. The "sum" of all these "present" layers form the underlying "coherence" of our universe . From an external observer's point of view, these layers evolve in a different timeframe, they can then become more and more "efficient" with universe time. If you read the rest of my theory (especially the part where I talk about the coherent spacetime continuum, you will understand what I mean).

              In my blog, you have written the following:

              "I am interested by the way your system accounts for the observer in the configuration of perceived reality; I do the same, but my approach is less technical and considers the observer as an evolving creature - one who makes decisions at every moment, and over a very long period of time, during which his relation to the physical world - his own biological configuration, if you will - is continuously altered."

              If I understand you correctly, I believe that what you are talking about is similar to the "entity" or the "soul" that I am describing at the end of my theory in the quick overview paragraph (no 8: spiritial aspect)

              So to answer your initial question, yes, I think we could adapt my theory to your species cosmos but with some modifications.

              I enjoyed reading your essay. Best of luck with the contest.

              Patrick

                • [deleted]

                • Post #34

                John,

                An excellent essay. You asked about the EPR solution but you've closed right in on something far more important and fundamental. You've surrounded it and only missed nailing it by a whisker! I've found it's that giant step out of the multi billion year mire you describe, across the 'unbridgeable gap'. But it's MORE, and even more 'real' than where you're looking. The discrete field model (DFM) underlying my essay gives not just several 'metaphysical' spaces but infinitely many hierarchically nested spaces, all REAL, and defined by the 'rest frame' of the local vortices.

                Lets consider afresh your; "coiling 'gear-mesh system' in which the States of Particles, the Vortices themselves, and the Cosmic Zones, are perpetually and flexibly Correlated."

                What are 'gears' for? In simplest terms they exist to change motion from one rate ('speed') to another. But we're now cleverer than that.

                In an auto gearbox we have a 'torque converter' to do that job. It consists of particles (think fermion vortices) at rest in one state of motion one side and another state the other, with MHD turbulence between. At all scales from a single particle to a universe, this is nature, and it forms the boundaries between the 'spaces' or discrete fields. All EM waves are than absorbed and re-scattered to the NEW LOCAL c of each inertial system (of matter).

                The pairs are condensed and annihilated instantaneously in each frame to do that job 'linearly' (up to lower wavelength limit gamma). We know it as the LT. This mechanism implements the SR postulates direct from the quantum mechanism, unifying all physics and knocking down paradoxes and anomalies like ducks in a shooting gallery. You need to look over my last 3 essays for a fuller picture.

                But are we really; "now ready to tread new ground:"? I hope so. But my last 3 essays have finished 7th and still been ignored by the judges. And this is supposed to be a top site for deep thinking! If you'd like to explore the model a few of the papers are here; Academia.edu The Jackson-Minkowski papers (DFM).

                You'll find much resonance with too many of your points to mention. (I agree you'll the EPR resolution consistent, but just one of scores, including a recycling cosmology - meaning some of your brain cells may even have considered some of this before!). I hope we can discuss in far more detail. I've even thought much about an SF book to circumvent MS inertia!

                Very well done and thank you, certainly worth a top score and more. Best wishes.

                Peter

                  Thanks Patrick,

                  Your comments do show a similarity in our fundamental views; I've made a note to read your theory in detail after the contest.

                  Best of luck to you, too,

                  John