Hi Michael,

Reading your great essay makes me regret not having made time enough to thoroughly read your book, which I think is requisite to understanding your final statement -- so I am not yet sure I can fully agree with your boldest claims.

Nevertheless, we still agree in principle on a great number of important things concerning relativity, and strongly with, "Stop the progression away from thinking about physics in terms of material objects and their interactions, and come back to reality." Even if I remain unconvinced that there is any reality to come back to; if not, the rejection of particle reality is complete.

I am happy to have given your essay a deserved rating boost.

My own essay overlaps with yours in significant ways, particularly concerning the behavior of fermions in a continuum theory. I hope you find it worthwhile.

All best,

Tom

    I agree about the significant overlap with Tom, Michael..

    His essay has my vote as one of the first you should read after returning from your vacation. And also Michel who commented above has much to recommend your attention. I hope your Summer vacation has been excellent!

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

    Dear Michael.

    I had to read your essay twice and it could well reward further reading.

    You have hit upon an important way to tackle that old monster of physics: quantum weirdness. Agent physics seems to do with interaction, with measurement, with sensing and you are saying that the energy spent doing that is its important characteristic.

    In my Beautiful Universe Theory also found here however, I have created the starting point of what you would call Object physics: A universal lattice of nodes that interact locally, causally and linearly to define particles, energy transport, etc. In such model Universe where would the Agent physics operate? There is no observer, no measurer, no frames of reference, and all the numbers are Natural. I have shown that in such a Universe probability is derivative. It is a physics wherein the background and foreground are one.

    In my fqxi essay The Cloud of Unknowing I concluded that while we will not know for sure, we can guess that It=Qubit. The lattice node orientation is a physical state, not a numerical value. Your opinion about some of these notions will be most appreciated.

    Vladimir

    Dear Michael,

    One single principle leads the Universe.

    Every thing, every object, every phenomenon

    is under the influence of this principle.

    Nothing can exist if it is not born in the form of opposites.

    I simply invite you to discover this in a few words,

    but the main part is coming soon.

    Thank you, and good luck!

    I rated your essay accordingly to my appreciation.

    Please visit My essay.

    Michael,

    I agree entirely, and understand about Wheelers views, which I think were designed to be controversial and have been taken too literally.

    I recall commending your essay last year, which was one of the few with more comments than mine! I don't recall if you read mine. I'll re-read yours after the contest. I don't recall you managed to read mine. I hope you may be able to now as the last two are precursors to this, all deriving observation from mechanism.

    I've applied a top mark to yours as I consider it even better and more pertinent than last years. I think mine supports and points to yours, as well as demonstrating the power of the approach, with a resolution or EPR I hope you'll analyse. (Also see the links in the first blog post). I also need points as I've been passed over from 7th twice, so need a better finish!

    I might also add Heinrich and Lindner to the list. Q; How many physicist does it take to shift a paradigm?

    Very best of luck,

    Peter

    5 days later

    Dear All

    Let me go one more round with Richard Feynman.

    In the Character of Physical Law, he talked about the two-slit experiment like this "I will summarize, then, by saying that electrons arrive in lumps, like particles, but the probability of arrival of these lumps is determined as the intensity of waves would be. It is this sense that the electron behaves sometimes like a particle and sometimes like a wave. It behaves in two different ways at the same time.

    Further on, he advises the readers "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it. 'But how can it be like that?' because you will get 'down the drain', into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."

    Did he says anything about Wheeler's "It from Bit" other than what he said above?

    Than Tin

    Hi Michael,

    That was a great pleasure to read your very interesting essay. Reading so many essays I was waiting for something like that.

    You say "Einstein was right in his vision that a purely geometrical theory could achieve physics unification".

    We differ in details but we are very close. There is not a lot of entrants that I agree with so much.

    My key concept for the unification in physics is scale invariant metric. I have proposed a simple spin experiment to find out if that metric exists. The details in references to my essay.

    Despite the differences between our views (we could discuss them if you read my concept) your essay deserves the highest rating.

    Best regards

    Hi Michael,

    I liked your essay and rated it as one of he best.

    Your conclusion:

    What Einstein was wrong about was his assertion that quantum theory could be replaced by a non-probabilistic theory. Instead, The incompleteness proof gives yet another proof that there is no complete physically-real scientific theory that replaces quantum theory.

    Is correct.

    However, I will say why not drop the "physically real" part. Then there is no uncertainty concerning position and velocity. Einstein was correct about QM. However, he may have some objection about how particles really move.

    I think you will find my essay interesting. Please take a look.

    Best of luck.

    Don Limuti

      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

      • [deleted]

      Hi Michael,

      Thank you for a very well written description of Agent vs Object physics. However, I wondered about one thing you wrote:

      > Instead, the natural-number basis of physically-real scientific theories of object state changes identifies such theories as being exactly the type of arithmetic systems considered by Gödel [13]... Given its significance it should be taught to all aspiring physicists and philosophers, many of whom haven't grasped that Gödel's incompleteness is a feature of discrete logic over arithmetic natural-number systems.

      Gödel states that the systems he is considering are those for which the axioms of Principia Mathematica hold. In a footnote he explicitly states that he is including the axiom of infinity. Such systems are sufficient to do arithmetic (addition and multiplication) but most importantly, to do arithmetic for *any* natural number (no matter how large).

      Every actual computer does not meet this test because it has a finite memory size (as well as finite word size). Instead, actual computers can be models for Primitive recursive arithmetic, which is provably consistent in Peano arithmetic. Therefore, finite systems can be consistent. It is only the abstract infinite logical systems that come to grief by Gödel's hand.

      > The computational universe paradigm implicitly raises issues of mathematical completeness and computability.

      My essay Software Cosmos constructs an example of a (closed) computational universe (that appears as open), and shows how that this answers several puzzles in observational cosmology.

      In such a computational model, your "Agent Physics" can be distinguished from "Object Physics" in terms of software architecture: they occur at different layers. The philosophical question that arises is whether the Agent layer is higher or lower than the Object layer; put another way, does Life emerge from Matter, or does Matter emerge from Life?

      I am curious how you would place your Object Physics and Agent Physics within the model I describe. I hope you get a chance to read it.

      Hugh

        Dear Michael,

        It is interesting essay. However, I have a question on the distinction between Object Physics and Agent Physics. Is it rigorous distinction> Or, is it flexible?

        Best wishes,

        Yutaka

          Your essay is interesting.

          I gave it a ten to give it a last push.

          Hopefully you will like mine too

          http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1616

          Dear Michael,

          I red the extremely interesting dialogue you had last year with Joy Christian. I will consider it as a reference for my ongoing work related to Hopf fibrations.

          As promised I rate your essay.

          All the best,

          Michel

          Dear Michael,

          I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

          I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

          You can find the latest version of my essay here:

          http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf

          (sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven't figured out a way to not make it do that).

          May the best essays win!

          Kind regards,

          Paul Borrill

          paul at borrill dot com

          Dear Michael James Goodband:

          I am an old physician, and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics, but after the common people your discipline is the one that uses more the so called "time" than any other.

          I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay "The deep nature of reality".

          I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English). Hawking, "A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

          I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

          With my best whishes

          Héctor

          Peter

          "How many physicist does it take to shift a paradigm?"

          That is a very good question. Each time it is different and no-one seems to record how it really happens because there is so much back pedelling and covering up the blocks so as to maintain a myth of openess in physics.

          Michael

          Michel

          I would be interested in any opinion youmay have about the potential of the fibrations of S15 with regards to the physics discussion we had last year

          Best

          Michael