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

      Thanks for the feedback and clarifications - I will be referring to your past essays in August. We are indeed moving towards the same concept by different paths, and I find that closely examining each other's views crystallizes things nicely.

      All the Best,

      John.

      Dear Vladimir,

      What a great sentence:

      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?

      I just think it is beautiful. Look forward to both John's and your essay.

      Don L.

      Hi John,

      Your essay is in the style of good journalism. Informative and easy to read.

      I rate your essay with a high mark.

      Don L.

        Dear John

        I'd like to let you know that I have read your essay. Although I founded well structured and written I must confess that you use an unusual language to express your ideas and I couldn't get the full meaning of what you mean to say. I still don't have clear why you make a distinction between the 3 different realms. It seems to me that you want to express the difference between living entities and non-living entities and between living entities those that have consciousness and those that do not. If such case, your work reminds me the work of Teilhard de Chardin.

        Perhaps, you are having in mind the connection between inert mater and living mater and how brute matter becomes aware of its existence. I think that this would depend on our notions of life, etc. But I believe that current science is not yet well equipped to address these questions at this time. The solution to this problem would take some hundreds or thousands of years more. We all scientists know that science progresses very slowly, one step every 100 or 200 years. Although we have some ideas about the connection between life and matter it appears to me that this is not the moment to address these issues. Most scientists know that there are questions that can be addressed at a given moment of science and there are some others that are so deep that it would take some time to answer them. I'm convinced that this is one of those cases, we are still far away from giving an answer to such questions.

        I found your essay hard to understand because you don't make use of the conventional jargon in either physics, philosophy or chemistry. In this sense, I don't have clear what you mean by General Field, dimensional field and omni-dimensional. The other point is that you think that the cosmos has a curvature and therefore is a vortex. I definitely don't get why you say that the cosmos has a curvature, because according to the current view, the curvature of the universe is flat.

        The other issue that also drew my attention is that you assume in your discussion that the big bang model is correct and therefore that the notion of space-time is correct. As I discuss in my work, I disagree with the conception of space and time of GR. Therefore, as many other renown physicists, I don't believe in the big bang model. This model has so many anomalies that sooner or later will fall, but it is still there only because it is the "best" game in town.

        best regards

        Israel

        Hello Don,

        I'm grateful for your interest - many thanks!

        John

        Hello Israel,

        Thanks for your detailed views. Many of your points are of interest to me.

        Your reference to deChardin is apt (another commentator pointed this out also). But in reference to the relation between matter, life, and mind you say - 'I believe that current science is not yet well equipped to address these questions at this time".

        You go on to say that such a scientific discovery might not come about for many generations - centuries, even. If this is what we believe, then this is what will happen ...

        It is true that science moves much more slowly than common wisdom - I believe all discoveries were previously made (and a long time before) by artists, writers, and people living off the land. The evidence of this is overwhelming - penicillin, the evolution of the earth, genetic, etc. - and is in itself a fascinating phenomenon.

        I'd be honored to be considered a forerunner of this sort. If I am considering something that scientists will address 500 years from now, that's not so bad.

        It is true I don't use the conventional jargon of physics, and it shouldn't be too surprising since I am taking a departure from the mainstream, and I feel it is less confusing to use new terminology - you can't put the new wine in the old bottles, as the man said.

        I have had to condense things quite considerably for the purpose of the essay, but let me explain the terms you mention. The General Field is the field of pure energy from which cosmae arise. Pure energy has no mass: it is un-correlated positive and negative charge. It is an infinite field. Within the course of infinity, charges inevitably become correlated here and there, and once in a while. Once they do, they 'come into existence' - as protons and electrons.

        And the game begins.

        Prior to correlation, the General Field is omni-dimensional - meaning that it cannot be described in any dimensional system - whether quantum or classical.

        Space-time is referred to as a 'dimensional field'. There are others, and no such field is infinite. Space-time, for instance, is a field that is correlated - in the course of evolution - with a given observer, and that merges (almost seamlessly from the viewpoint of that observer) with other dimensional fields that are progressively less measurable (the Intermediary and Primal Zones), relative to the observer.

        As for the supposed flat shape of the universe - this simply refers to the fact that the distances we can consider are far too small for the curvature to be relevant. It does not mean that the universe is actually flat. I must say that it is far from apparent to me that this distinction has any real meaning at all. It's like saying the earth is flat.

        The occurrence of vortices in all aspects of the cosmos is as fundamental as energy-mass itself, and this should be considered very seriously.

        As for the big bang, my view is that it is virtually meaningless - and as I point out in the essay, though the cosmos must have emerged from the General Field at some point, we cannot know when because our space-time parameter system (the Composite Zone) did not emerge till some unknowable length of time later.

        The manner in which the three Principal Vortices of the Inorganic, Organic and Sensory-Cognitive realms continue to interact with the General Field, increasing their correlation and therefore affecting our evolution, is of far greater importance - and more knowable as well.

        If you also question the big bang and space-time, then we might not be so far apart as you seem to think! We might even link up a century or two ahead of schedule ...

        All the best, and thanks again for your input,

        John

          Dear John

          Thanks for your reply. I would like to make clear just some points. Indeed, from your reply I can see that you have a completely different view that radically departs from the conventional wisdom. I have had this kind of discussions with other people who believe that consciousness is the essence of life, etc. and I agree but I think science needs to solve first some other problems before it goes to the consciousness issue.

          You: I feel it is less confusing to use new terminology.

          Well, I don't think so. The transition from one language to another should be smooth and I think you are skipping steps. You should use a jargon that is understandable to everyone otherwise nobody will understand the meaning of what you have in mind. The way you are expressing sounds sort of mystical.

          With respect to the flatness of the universe it is not a matter of distance as you mention. It has been experimentally shown (within the framework of GR) that the universe is flat. But since I don't follow the physical notion of space of GR, for me the concept of "curvature" has no meaning. I have an alternative theory of space.

          You :If you also question the big bang and space-time...

          I do question this, but for some fundamental reasons. For me the vacuum is a continuous material medium in the sense of Descartes, Newton or Maxwell. Since space is a medium it makes no sense to talk about the curvature of this medium or the expansion of the medium as GR and the cosmological model claims. The space expansion was just an explanation to the redshift but the redshift has another interpretation if we conceive space as a medium. Since the redshift has another explanation that means that space is not expanding and that the big bang didn't occur. As far as I can tell, the universe has no beginning.

          Thanks for the wishes, I wish you good luck in the contest too.

          Regards

          Israel

          John,

          A very imaginative essay. Your sentence "Further into the future, it can be expected that we will be able to predict the dissolution and recurrence of facts themselves - given the orbital nature of Vortices and if so, we might well sub-divide humanity into groups that will perceive different facts, and variant systems of reality." caught me a bit off guard. At first this thought was disturbing, but don't we already do this now? We need imaginative writers to probe not only what we don't know but also to question whether we have considered all perspectives. I do have some issues with your use of vortices, and what you mean by that, but I think this may be due to a limit of ideas explored. I have rated your work highly, and many thanks for the review.

          Regards,

          Jeff

            Hi John,

            I found your essay difficult to understand at first, as it has no references to explain the terms it uses, and no sections to divide the flow of narrative. But then I let your images work with me, and it opened up like a work of literature, a kind of stream of consciousness as James Joyce might write. What I initially saw as a deficiency became an asset.

            It occurs to me that the essay is rather like the cosmos itself, a continual Creation Story that tumbles ahead heedless of our comprehension. The cosmos does not explain itself, it just presents itself to us, and that is a good part of its mystery, and its charm. It just is what it is, and enchants us or not. As regards the cosmos, I could argue with it, or accept it, but what do I know? I am only a part of it anyway, after all.

            I realize that the organizers did not ask us to produce a scientific proof of a theory for this essay contest. We were not asked to be right, just to be interesting and on topic. I do not know whether to judge your essay as literature or as science, but in the end I find a lot to admire in this bold and original mirror of the cosmos itself. Perhaps only by looking back after we have a Theory of Everything can we really know its value.

            I think the closest thing I have come across to your ideas are those of Edward Close and Vernon Neppe and their TDVP model. Perhaps their work will be helpful to you.

            And you may enjoy Mark Peterson's article regarding Dante's Divine Comedy. He shows that Dante was describing, in a literary masterpiece, the S3 hypersphere, which may just be the Correlated Vortex System that you describe.

            Hugh

              Jeff,

              I thank-you for your kind comments. It is indeed very important to question our assumptions - to bring 'fresh eyes' to every question and problem. I'm very glad if you think I'm fulfilling this role to some small degree.

              Best regards,

              John

              Thank-you for your beautifully expressed and sincere critique, Hugh. I am very touched ...

              I will definitely check out Close and Neppe - and the essay on Dante sounds very interesting, too. Thanks for these recommendations.

              I wish you the very best of luck in the contest,

              Best regards,

              John.

              Dear John,

              I read your essay with great pleasure. An essay written by a beautiful language and it is easy to read. In your essay deep analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, given new ideas, images, and conclusions. I largely agree with you, and fairly priced essay...

              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

              I have only one question: why the picture of the world of physicists poorer meanings than the picture of the world lyricists? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ho31QhjsY

              I wish you success,

              Vladimir

                Dear Vladimir,

                I'm delighted you enjoyed the essay. It really means a lot to me when any of my color-musical cognitive images affect someone else's essence, as you can well imagine - and therefore, I thank-you, and I will look up Alexander Zenkin.

                I also really liked the video - but you have to understand, we're all involved ... the 'physicist' is simply anyone who interacts with the physical world: someone who makes musical instruments, for instance - or the sound machines, or the cameras and the lights.

                There's more than two people on that stage: ultimately, everyone's involved.

                All the best, my friend -

                John

                Dear John,

                Already have a download of your essay. Was going to invite you to my page anyway. I will certainly be back here after reading.

                Regards,

                Chidi