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

            "Though modern Physics is striving to master dimensionality itself - to discover where space-time begins and ends, both within Particles, and in the farthest reaches of the Cosmos - the complex root system that sustains Physics also impels it to explore Information as a fundamental component of the Cosmos; and in order to do so, Physics must trace the coils of the Organic, Inorganic, and Sensory-Cognitive systems to that merging point that first bound Bit to It."

            Well said. Couldn't agree more and was an element of the tail end of my submission as well. Nice read.

            Regards,

            John

            Hi John..

            Thanks for your comments on my essay forum. I'll be reading your essay tonight or tomorrow, and will return here with comments.

            All the Best,

            Jonathan

              Hi John,

              So sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I forgot to look at your thread to see if you had responded. I'm unaware of a problem, but here's the link in case that helps:

              http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1910

              I read your essay again for the 3rd time. I must say that in addition to your excellent writing style (you should seriously consider becoming a New York based science writer or editor, or something along those lines . . .) you are squarely focused on what I consider to be the central area we should be direct our efforts toward a better understanding of the cosmos and our place within it. Without question, we need to develop a paradigm "that would enable the various branches of Physics to examine the Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive phenomena of the Cosmos within a single mathematical and empirical framework. This Paradigm will then be developed in detail, based on new assumptions that reveal the Observer and the Cosmos as being involved in a 'gear-mesh' system that establishes their reciprocal interaction . . ."

              I couldn't agree more. Again, I look forward to corresponding with you in the future, if you are so inclined. I think there is the possibility of shared interests in our thinking.

              Best to you,

              Ralph

              Dear John,

              I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

              Regards and good luck in the contest,

              Sreenath BN.

              http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

              Dear John

              Thank you for comment.

              Are you relative with my favorite scientist?

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Selye

              Good luck in contest.

              Yuri

                Yes, Yuri - he was my father. I'm glad he's your favorite scientist - when you've had a chance to read my essay, let me know if I can be number two!

                John

                His book "From Dream to Discovery" on my book shelf right now....

                Russian translation.

                I am read his other books too

                Why your last name no cap letter?

                Also my favorite quote on the entrance Stress institute

                about observability and original approach for scientist....

                  Great Jonathan -

                  Looking forward to hearing from you!

                  John

                  Hi Yuri -

                  The original approach is always the key, isn't it?

                  (No caps ... just a typo, I think.)

                  John